Daily Archives: May 4, 2017

It began with a video. Founded in 2005, YouTube is the grandfather of user-generated content, serving as the first channel to give consumers the keys to branded content marketing. Consumers today watch 1 billion hours of YouTube per day. By uploading product reviews, how-to content and playful product placement, consumers are given unprecedented access to a brands reputation, allowing everyday shoppers to serve as a powerful new breed of brand ambassadors.

Beyond YouTube, consumers now have control over branded content across all social spaces, with influence typically spanning in one of three ways: 1. pure, organic content with no reward for posting; 2. content that is incentivized with some return for engagement such as sweepstakes, drawings entries or loyalty points; 3. and influencer marketing. To forge meaningful relationships, marketers must continue inviting consumers to experience their brand and share experiences socially, paying mind to the associated risks and opportunities.

Brands looking to embrace UGC need to first determine their target audience and the best way to elicit engagement. Marketers who select a celebrity influencer to share their brands voice must consider who would be the most relevant for their target audience. If a brand decides to host a UGC-powered sweepstakes or share a branded hashtag, devise strong calls-to-action that drive meaningful, on-brand submissions. For example, marketers should avoid oversaturated, generic hashtags like #selfie or #makeup and instead create unique, branded hashtags to increase the relevancy of submissions.

No matter how much forethought goes into a UGC campaign, the Internet is still the Wild West and marketers dont have much control of the content thats published. Some brands have welcomed testing these boundaries leveraging branded filters on SnapChat. As such, brands must always have a contingency plan in case something goes wrong, identifying a dedicated team that can respond to any incidents and share insights on any required measures to keep in mind. If any questionable UGC is shared, these individuals can act as a SWAT team and address concerns in real-time.

One of the most common incidents is when a branded hashtag is misrepresented. Sometimes this stems from genuine confusion; other times, the timing or application of a campaign isnt properly thought out, giving internet trolls an opportunity to take advantage. McDonalds learned this the during its #McDStories campaign, which was quickly taken over by users sharing less-than-flattering anecdotes, garnering negative publicity. Whether or not a campaign is launching, marketers must engage in active social listening to see whats being shared and how those submissions can affect brand perception. Active monitoring gives marketers the ability to address timely consumer concerns and get in front of any potential fires after all, content where a hashtag is used incorrectly or ironically can go viral quickly.

Partnering with a celebrity influencer can also come with risks; last year, Scott Disick of Keeping Up With the Kardashians made headlines for accidentally including his Instagram advertising directions in his sponsored post. To avoid a potential mishap, brands should be careful about who they choose as advocates. Any missteps can cause an endorsed post to lose authenticity.

To reduce some of the risk associated with user-generated content, brands should consider moderating submissions within the social networks that enable this. A hashtag gallery within a brand site, for example, allows teams to vet through submissions and eliminate anything offensive before consolidating content into a gallery displayed on a brands site. An added bonus? Hashtag galleries are especially effective in highly visual industries like fashion, where UGC allows shoppers to see how particular styles look across all ages, skin tones and hair colors, allowing customers to shop with confidence. However, while hashtag galleries serve as a nice line of defense for publishing approved content, all the actual submissions will remain public across Twitter, Instagram and other social platforms, where moderation is not allowed.

While the benefits of UGC campaigns are great, equally important is adherence to specific legal requirements. All UGC contests must be hashtagged with #sweepstakes and users who are paid to promote a product are legally required to disclose their business relationship within sponsored posts. While many social influencers meet this requirement by adding #ad, #sp or #sponsored to their post, these forms of disclosure arent always enough. Brands should encourage influencers to include language surrounding their partnership within captions. As long as a brand is straightforward about the terms of their relationships, consumers dont mind identifying with someone who is being paid.

Sometimes, marketers encounter a piece of UGC that is so on-brand that theyre eager to repurpose it. Brands are allowed to share UGC as long as theyre not monetizing it. Theyre free to like or retweet posts, but if they aspire to do anything more whether featuring on a website, in-store advertising or even making it a sponsored tweet they must acquire the users explicit permission.

As brands seek meaningful ways to engage their audiences, user-generated content will continue to play a crucial role in marketing strategy. By planning ahead and keeping these potential risks and solutions in mind, brands can successfully tap into content and forge deeper relationships with consumers across channels.

Russell Zack is SVP ofr Products & Solutions for HelloWorld

Read this article:

Risks and Considerations for Branded UGC Campaigns - Multichannel Merchant (blog)

LAFAYETTE The creative fever behind the 17 short films to be featured at theLamorinda ShortDocs Film Fest might stir a budding filmmaker to bloom.

Someone like Jack Nixon, a 12-year-old Orinda Intermediate School student who won last years Elementary School division award for Public Art is Everywhere. Returning for a second year, his The Culture of Skateboarding Revealed shows Nixon stepping up his game

This year, I used a Canon FX 530, an aerial DJI drone with a mounted HD camera, and iPhone clips I shot, he said. The Canon is a good beginner camera because its easy to operate no detachable lenses but offers high quality.

Nixon taught myself to use Final Cut ProX for editing. I just go for it and click around, or if there are short YouTube tutorials on a specific thing I want to know about, I use them. For people just starting out, Nixon said simpler, free editing programs are ok, but if a person has the funds to invest, he recommends jumping to Final Cut.

Meredith Friedman, managing director of festival producer Lamorinda Arts Council, said the second annual festival largely followed last years format. Categories for the under-six-minute documentaries include elementary, middle and high school divisions, along with an adult division. Two to five films in each category are selected to be screened at the festival. The judges and peoples choice award winners receive trophies and $100 Amazon gift cards.

The four judges who determine the films selected for screening and the awards have professional filmmaking or film production backgrounds. They use a professional site called Film Freeway as a rubric.

Each judge gets assigned two categories of films, explained Friedman. At least two judges watch each film and give it a rating.If two films are very close in number rating, Ill typically ask the judges to either have a discussion about it, or bring in a third judge to view it.

Friedman said films are accepted from Lafayette, Orinda, Moraga and Walnut Creek residents. There are no age restrictions, but all films must be G-rated. This year, one film about a young boys expulsion from school was disqualified after the judges determined its content would be inappropriate for young audience members. Friedman said the judges were also concerned the films central character a student who lives in the community might be negatively impacted. We let the filmmaker know, extended the deadline a few days, and allowed him to enter an alternate film, Friedman said.

This years cinematographers made good use of drones, and favored upbeat films about animals and performing artists.

With a mission to celebrate local culture and elevate artistic expression to high standards, filmmakers enter their documentaries using the same online platform that the judges use for viewing. Instead of simply uploading to a public YouTube channel, the process teaches professional skills. Once the film is uploaded to Film Freeway, they can submit it to other festivals at the touch of a button, Friedman said. Its great exposure to the entire film industry.

Nixon says his learning curve is like the Moraga skate park, where he shot most of this years submission steeply sloped and exciting. The interviews he conducted taught him to change his mind.

I used to think skateboarders got better by themselves. I realized we get better as a group because people are always pushing each other to get better. As a cinematographer, he pushed himself. Slicker transitions, wider variety of music, action synced with sound and other improvements he says make this film more of a personal statement. I wanted this to be meaningful. A lot of people misinterpret skateboarders. They think were punks and up to no good and doing drugs. But 90 percent of skateboarders are really good people who just like skateboarding.

And 100 percent of people who like locally produced films, the audience at the festival, will probably like what Nixon likes getting high on films and freewheeling creativity.

WHEN: May 7th, Live Screening Event from approx. 3 to 5

WHERE: Lafayette Library Community Hall,3491 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Lafayette

TICKETS: $10 in advance on-line; $15 at the door

INFO: http://www.lamorindaarts.org/shortdocs

See the original post:

Young Lamorinda filmmakers inspired, educated by 'ShortDocs' - East Bay Times

Souvid Datta admits that he cloned the subject (center) of one of Mary Ellen Mark's photographs into his own workSouvid Datta

Souvid Datta, an award-winning photojournalist, admits it: he doctored images and infringed on the work of other photographers.

Until this week, Datta was an example of stand-out early success in his field. He had won a Getty Images Editorial Grant , an Alexia Foundation award and the Visura Photojournalism Grant , highlights in a career that began about three years ago, when Datta was in Kolkata, India, producing a photographic project on violence in the citys sex industry. Now, however, he finds himself at the center of the latest photo-manipulation scandal to have ensnared the photojournalism community a sorry trend that has also touched Paolo Pellegrin, Steve McCurry , Narciso Contreras and Giovanni Troilo, among others.

As was first revealed by PetaPixel on Wednesday, it was during the course of that project, as he followed a girl in one of the towns brothels, that Datta turned to Photoshop. When the girl's mentor asked not to be photographed, he cloned out a subject from a photograph by the legendary Mary Ellen Mark and pasted it in his own photograph. When he uploaded the image to his blog, there was no indication that the work was not entirely his own. That moment was, he now reflects, "the damning mistake."

But that manipulation wasn't the only one. He now confesses that there are other images from that project that were also altered using post-production techniques, and he says he also "appropriated photos" from colleagues like Daniele Volpe , Hazel Thompson and Raul Irani, and lied in order to conceal those actions.

Datta granted TIME his first interview since the scandal broke.

TIME: What happened?

Souvid Datta: The first thing I want to do is take responsibility. In 2013-15, [when I was] aged 22-24, I foolishly doctored images, inexcusably lied about others work being my own and then buried these wrongdoings in the years that followed. Now these images are resurfacing, they threaten to undermine any work I have legitimately pursued since and, crucially, all the trust that the people in my photos, my collaborators and supporting institutions placed in me. I am so profusely sorry for this. I hope to begin making amends.

But how exactly did an image by Mary Ellen Mark from 1978 end up in one of your photographs from 2014?

In late 2013, I was 22 and still at University; I used to volunteer at a few NGOs that had a presence in the red-light district of Sonagachi in Kolkata. Around this time I also won my first digital camera and began exploring photography as a hobby. I didn't know anything of photographic ethics, about the existence of a serious photojournalism industry or how best to investigate topics as a journalist. But I did come from a background of visual arts and I felt compelled to make images of my experiences in Kolkata, having been especially moved by the stories of the girls I met in Sonagachi.

One girl in particular, Radhika, 17, was working in a brothel where the NGO helped young mothers. We spoke for some time over the course of the few days I spent there. She told me of her past, of her current problems, and also of her mentor: an older woman named Asma, who I met in passing. I photographed Radhika going about her daily activities, but Asma did not want her own photo taken. There was an instance in her room one afternoon, where the two were getting ready together, along with a friend. This moment spoke to their relationship as Radhika had described, but I did not take the image. I waited till after Asma left and shot a few frames of Radhika and her friend alone.

Weeks later, back in London and at University, while trying to learn post-production techniques on YouTube and starting my first photo blog, I came across the work of Mary Ellen Mark. Spotting the similarities in subject but without much further thought, I considered combining one of her images with my own as an experiment. I spotted a character in her work that particularly resembled Asma and for my own curiosity, in trying to recreate the picture I couldn't make in reality, I tried placing her into the image next to Radhika. The damning mistake came in uploading that image onto my blog. I did this without accreditation or acknowledgment that it had been tampered with and that it included elements of [Mark's] image. I wrote the caption as if Asma herself was in this image, not a woman from someone elses work. In effect, I lied.

Why did you do it?

My intention was not to profit from the inclusion of Mary Ellen Marks work, but rather to see what it might have looked like had I somehow managed to persuade Asma to participate. I was frustrated that I hadnt. In part, I was also discovering the technology of Photoshop for the first time (as is clear in the result) and the creation of something new excited me. It felt like a very basic artistic achievement. There are other images from my initial shoots in Kolkata, not intended as journalistic work, which have also been altered using post-production techniques.

Crucially, this was all done without the consideration of factual accuracy, ethical representation and journalistic responsibility that I came to learn of properly in the years to come. I didnt understand what a photojournalist was for a long time, let alone the weight of trying to assume that title.

Why did you then go on to publish that photograph?

Validation and exposure are things I continue to struggle with today as a freelancer, but earlier I did seek after them more actively. I loved photography but initially the images on my blog had no coherent theme or narrative and were shot with little deliberate use in mind. So when a publication contacted me interested in using them, I felt overwhelmed and it seemed a tempting surprise. I rashly accepted the opportunity. I did not grasp immediately that this level of thoughtlessness was grossly selfish and deeply disrespectful to Ellen Marks imagery and, above all, to the people I had photographed.

During this same period, there were other lapses of judgment where I used imagery without acknowledgment, including that of Hazel Thompson and Raul Iranis work. Two of their images, along with those which I altered, were also included in my submissions for early photography competitions in 2014, though not published commercially anywhere.

I cannot begin to say how much I regret having acted in this abhorrent, short-sighted and irresponsible manner. A few months after those images were published, I began to realize how reckless I had been, but by this point it felt too late to turn back. To think that mistakes like these would ever go unnoticed is a harsh lesson I am learning the dire truth of now.

When you realized what you had done, why didnt you try to own up to that action before today?

As I learned more about being a photojournalist, I grew ashamed of what I had done during more desperate moments of my life. And as my embarrassment deepened, I suppressed it in the foolish hope that those mistakes would fade away from memory deleting appropriated photos [ from photographer Daniele Volpe] from early trips to Guatemala for instance, but not coming clean publicly. I will be the first to admit that it is terribly sad that it has taken this kind of exposure for me to step forward.

Are there any other instances where youve manipulated a scene, either during a shoot or in post-production?

Several of my earliest photos from India between 2013-14 include elements of stitching and cloning, sometimes rehashing components from multiple frames.

In my very first journalistic endeavor in China, my editors warned me of going too far with certain post-production techniques, of over-saturating and vignetting; they eventually guided me through organizing my archives and proper captioning practices. Through 2014-15 onward, I learned to shoot in line with technical and ethical guidelines of my publisher and I am now diligent and up-front in case I ever decide to deviate by using non-traditional techniques such as double exposures or participatory photography. There is a world of difference in the projects I shoot now compared to those of a few years ago - both in conceptual approach, journalist rigor and style. I stay clear of manipulation, unless the client requests it for commercial intent.

In the last two years, youve spent a lot of time producing deeply researched documentary work on human trafficking. Can we still trust that work?

Taking the seed of an idea I had interacting with girls in Sonagachi as a student, I spent a large part of the following three years developing an investigation into child sex trafficking across West Bengal; I covered human interest stories in the U.K. and in post-conflict zones across Afghanistan and Iraq; I followed the refugee influx across Europe in 2015 as sentiments around migration rose. From here on, I do not know what will happen to me or the stories I have followed. I fear above all that they may remain untold. My credibility has been fundamentally challenged, and I understand the serious implications of that in an industry where credibility counts for everything.

I will say that for the work I have done as a serious photojournalist, and most of all for this project investigating women trafficking in India, I have given my utmost to uphold principles of respect, journalistic insight, compassion, perspective and perseverance. On top of this, multiple editorial teams have now vetted the project from research to fact checking, to examining unedited files (images and video) to involving legal counsel and using a dedicated writer.

Do you understand why your colleagues might be angry at you?

The anger I face is entirely deserved. This incident has broken at a time when faith in committed reporters and accurate news is challenged more than ever. I truly dread contributing to any distrust that people have toward genuinely important news and imagery, and I deeply regret having compromised the faith, support and time that my friends, editors, institutions and publishers have offered me. Second chances arent always deserved and I know its up to me to earn mine and fight to regain any credibility, within or outside of this field. I let a lot of people down by hiding these past mistakes, and parts of me betrayed the trust of those closest and most supportive of me. I am sorry for this, truly.

As a freelance photographer, do you feel pressure from media organizations to attain a certain perfection that might tempt some to find shortcuts?

Being a freelance photojournalist today is to live in an uncertain world of fierce competition not only regarding photographic skill, but also of networking, self-promotion, business acumen, sincerity and flair. I certainly wont speak for others, but I have been affected by these industry pressures more than I would have ever liked to admit; resorting to extreme, foolhardy measures in the insecure hope of standing out. Perhaps one feels the need to cover a dangerous conflict zone, perhaps one succumbs to cloning out a distracting element in an image: these are unfortunately more common concerns than our industry wants to openly admit. On some level I hope this can be a prime lesson for others in exactly what not to do.

At the end of the day, no one has forced me to act in a certain way. The burden of responsibility for all these mistakes lies with no one other than myself. I failed terribly and only I can make things right.

Have you spoken to the subjects of your reportage since this came to light? Are you planning to?

Yes, I am currently in the process of reaching out to the people involved in my stories. Many are friends and I owe each person I have ever shot a debt for having shared their time, their testimonies and parts of their lives with me. I must now be clear about my wrongdoings and the potential damage to their testimonies that these mistakes will cause. For those whose stories remain to be published, I stand deeply committed to getting these seen as promised however that may be possible in the future and I will be working hard to ensure that they receive the attention they deserve.

This interview has been edited for clarity.

Olivier Laurent is the editor of TIME LightBox. Follow him on Twitter and Instagram @olivierclaurent

Follow TIME LightBox on Facebook , Twitter and Instagram .

Read more:

Souvid Datta: 'I Foolishly Doctored Images' - TIME

Facebook is adding 3,000 extra moderators to its community operations team in order to combat the increased prevalence of extreme and sometimes illegal content on the platform.

The social network has been hit by a spate of unpalatable incidents in recent months in which users have broadcast their own violent crimes. Last week, a Thai man used Facebook to livestream the murder of his 11 month-old daughter, later taking his own life. Only a few days earlier, the killing of a Cleveland man was uploaded by his killer to the network.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

In the case of the Thailand murder, Wuttisan Wongtalay's videos were viewed 370,000 times and remained online for 24 hours before being removed.

Governments and users have criticised Facebook for not removing such content fast enough. In response, its founder Mark Zuckerberg has announced that the company's community operations team will almost double in size.

"Over the last few weeks, we've seen people hurting themselves and others on Facebook either live or in video posted later. It's heartbreaking, and I've been reflecting on how we can do better for our community," said Zuckerberg in a post on his Facebook profile.

Getty Images

"Over the next year, we'll be adding 3,000 people to our community operations team around the world on top of the 4,500 we have today to review the millions of reports we get every week, and improve the process for doing it quickly."

Facebook has almost two billion users, uploading enormous volumes of content daily. At the moment inappropriate content must be flagged by users, and then viewed by human moderators in order to be removed.

"If we're going to build a safe community, we need to respond quickly," Zuckerberg added. "We're working to make these videos easier to report so we can take the right action sooner whether that's responding quickly when someone needs help, or taking a post down."

Facebook has also indicated that it may experiment with more automated means of filtering content.

In the meantime, the human moderators have the unenviable job of sifting through the worst Facebook has to offer, which as it stands includes rapes, murders, and an assortment of other criminal activity.

Some have voiced concern at the potential psychological damage this job could cause moderators.

"People can be highly affected and desensitized. It's not clear that Facebook is even aware of the long-term outcomes, never mind tracking the mental health of the workers," said Sarah T Roberts, an information studies professor from UCLA to The Guardian.

But until automated processes can take the place of human interventions, it looks like Facebook is stuck between two potential harms: that to its enormous amount of users, or a smaller group of individuals trying to protect them.

Want up-to-the-minute entertainment news and features? Just hit 'Like' on our Digital Spy Facebook page and 'Follow' on our @digitalspy Twitter account and you're all set.

Excerpt from:

Facebook hiring 3000 moderators in response to spate of disturbing Live videos - DigitalSpy.com

Fstoppers

How to Impress Image Buyers in Stock Photography Fstoppers Variety and consistency in uploading new content is the clearest path to regular income. When an ... Keep in mind that stock images have the potential to sell year after year, and will appear in the search results next to the newest and highest quality ...

Here is the original post:

How to Impress Image Buyers in Stock Photography - Fstoppers