Spunlogic is going green! We’ve formed a team that will be responsible for helping to make the company more environmentally responsible. Our “Green Team” will be working on energy conservation, waste reduction, reuse and recycling, emissions reduction and water conservation.

Do you want to get more info on the Green Movement and/or how you can help on a personal level? Check out some of the following sites and blogs.

Green Web Sites:

• Green.Yahoo!
• Greenedia
• The Daily Green
• Be Green Now
• Lime.com
• Environmental Defense
• Conservation.org
• The Carbon Neutral Company

Green Blogs:

• Triple Pundit
• World Changing
• Treehugger
• Inhabitat
• Next Billion
• Grist.org
• Technorati’s List of Environmental Blogs

So in January I wrote a blog entitled The E-Race to the Whitehouse. In that blog I outlined the interactive marketing tactics that Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain were using at the on-start of their campaigns. Since then, I’ve received 50+ emails, all personally addressed to me, from the Senators, their friends, their family, and their staff. I’ve also seen webcasts, blogs, and accounts on Flickr, Facebook, and MySpace. But, what caused me to write this update 4 months later? This:

In this YouTube video, Senator Clinton talks about a recent campaign where she requested that users help pick her campaign song. The unique thing about this new video is that it’s funny! After watching it, I thought, “Wow, maybe social networking really can both help a candidate’s (or company’s) image AND help them reach a younger audience!”

We at Spunlogic are deeply saddened by the events that unfolded at Virginia Tech on Monday. Now, days later, we have all had time to reflect on the events that shook our nation, and how new media has changed the landscape of tragedy.

Minutes after the mass murder, my coworkers and I were alerted to the breaking news. One coworker was sent an alert on his PDA, while it was sent to another coworker via RSS. I came across the story after opening a new browser to find the headline on my Yahoo! homepage. As each piece of information was released, we verbally shared the updates along with our distress. Despite the horrific details, we were comforted by the information – with each update, we were less in the dark.

Later in the day, Amy, a fellow Project Manager, received a call of relief from a friend in a student exchange program at Virginia Tech. He was going down his cell phone’s address book letting friends and family know he was not hurt. Amy was surprised to find out that her friend, Martin, had actually been outside the classroom building when the SWAT team arrived. Originally thinking he was witnessing some type of drill, Martin caught the following 15 minutes on film from an adjacent building. His call to Amy was short, but she soon got the full story when he wrote a blog post about his experience. Martin’s video and story would later become international news, even being broadcasted on CNN.

News spread quickly as a result of new and interactive media. Television networks and newspapers scurried to use search engine marketing to secure Google, Yahoo!, and MSN keywords related to the killings. Meanwhile, students and their loved ones traded phone calls, text messages, instant messages, emails, and social networking posts. An “I’m ok at VT” group was established on the social networking site Facebook to allow students to communicate their safety to friends. In turn, the site quickly became a bulletin board for students to find out the whereabouts of their friends. Social networking sites soon became the source for breaking, but unsubstantiated, stories, as well as a resource for reporters looking for details on the victims.

As in most cases, when things are done faster, they typically lose quality. As reported by InfoWorld, bloggers wrote of the presumed identity of the killer, linking to the Facebook profile of a Virginia Tech student who was pictured with an extensive gun collection. Many claimed the student even posted a blog implying he was the shooter. The rumors were, for the most part, silenced when the student made a post claiming he couldn’t be the shooter, as the real shooter committed suicide.  On Wednesday the world became intimately acquainted with the actual killer, Cho Seung-Hui, as NBC News aired video and pictures that Cho mailed to their studios.

Misinformation is not the only negative impact new media will play in this and future adversities. The amount of detailed information (and users’ exposure to it) may prove to be a dangerous byproduct of the times. On Wednesday’s edition of Anderson Cooper 360, Anderson interviewed former FBI profiler, Gregg McCrary, who warned of the potential for copy cats due to the extensive coverage of the tragedy.  McCrary explained that “[his] concern is by repeatedly playing these videos and showing these photos over and over again, we’re energizing some other killer out there, somebody who is on the edge, who is on the verge, and sees this as a way to go. Just as [the Virginia Tech killer] identified with the Columbine shooters, somebody’s going to identify with this guy. [McCrary believes] the responsible thing to do is to back off on showing these videos and these pictures. [The news] can certainly report the story and that needs to be done, but [McCrary believes] the danger here is that we’re energizing some other killer and that we may have some other events that follow in the wake of this.”

Our inquisitive and impatient nature has led to the success of social networking, instant messaging, and other Web 2.0 staples; but what are the costs? Will the camera phone recordings, streaming video diaries, victims’ blogs, etc. help the nation heal, fuel copycats, desensitize America’s youth, or all of the above? In the future, perhaps we will use interactive media, such as SMS, to alert those in danger faster.

For years, America has been at the mercy of media gatekeepers, newspaper editors and television producers, but in the user-generated world, it is our responsibility to self-edit. I am the first person to claim my right to any information available to me, but I also feel I am mature enough to make wise decisions about the content I consume. Nevertheless, in the world where anyone can become an internet celebrity, I can’t help but be concerned that the Virginia Tech killer has laid a path for others seeking his twisted yet endless fame. In the end, I do not bless nor condemn the role new media has played in this horrific event; I only question if the world can change as fast as new media.

Well the race to the White House has truly begun with frontrunners from each party announcing their exploratory committees, a crucial first step in announcing proposed candidacy and allowing a candidate to collect contributions. Republican John McCain and Democrat Hillary Clinton are both “in” officially, as you can see by their gleaming new websites www.exploremccain.com and www.hillaryclinton.com.

Now without getting too into the marketing messages, such as how interesting it is that Senator McCain has branded himself as “McCAIN” in a site that is completely black & white while Senator Clinton branded herself as “Hillary” in a site reminiscent of an inviting home, I would like to look at the interactive marketing tactics their teams are using.

So let’s look at Senator McCain’s site. Senator McCain’s site begins in a very simple postcard style with a dominant image that rotates upon refreshing or reentry into the site. There is no left or right navigation, just “calls to action” along the bottom and right of the image. Users are prompted to “Donate,” “Join Our Team,” “Take Action” and learn “About John McCain,” and are given the ability to read and watch an assortment of speeches. Choosing any of these options brings the user into the microsite with the same options now located in tabs (which are actually simply horizontal navigation styled as tabs). A few features of note are the email marketing and e-commerce on the site.

The site allows you to sign up for email, make donations from the site, and even establish a profile as a “team member” (with login) thus creating a user’s version of the site to share with friends and family. Mine will be at www.patrickm.exploremccain.com once it’s reviewed and approved. Senator McCain hits all the high points of a campaign site, with a page discussing his story, the abilities to get emails and be a team member, and a place pass on some cash to help support the race. I’m not politically savvy enough to comment on McCain’s base, but I’d venture to guess the needs of many potential voters would be satiated by the offerings.

Now let’s look at Senator Clinton’s site. Senator Clinton does not have a microsite by any stretch of the word. It’s a fully functioning machine. As an interactive marketer, I can say that Senator Clinton’s team has gulped down the kool-aid. The site is chock-full of interactive goodies including a video message, upcoming webcasts, a blog, email marketing (that look as if they will be geo-coded, altered based on the users location/zip code, to be more relevant to the user), user profiles (including narrowing what issues are important to the user…which could lead to even more user-specific emails), an event planner and search, a customizable “send to a friend” email tool, a send a “message of support” tool, a video library, a 5 page “About Hillary” section with video clips from supporters, a newsroom, and of course a section to “Contribute”. I mean wow. That’s a lot of functionality and yet is surprisingly easy to navigate.

In the video introduction, Senator Clinton says “with a little help from modern technology” she’ll “start a conversation with America”. I’d say that it is a definite possibility. The site takes a “web 2.0” approach in a possible effort to draw in the user s that will use the medium as their key source of information. Again I fall back on not being politically savvy enough to make great base-related commentary, but I will say that I think Senator Clinton has used the medium very effectively in the onset of her campaign.

So there you have it, two different styles for two different user groups. I see both as having potential to be effective. However, in the end, a well-played e-race won’t win anything. Like a great email for a bad product, the real proof will be in the pudding.