The new logo above is an attempt to demonstrate our forward thinking, and creative offering. The word ingite itself gives a feeling of flames. We went with a green color as a sign of ???growth and nature??? to avoid the usual orange and yellowish colors of fire (which give out a negative feeling). The green has softened the concept and is more organic, which is similar to our message of grass roots marketing, word of mouth marketing, social media marketing, and natural traffic flow from good content.

Some feedback we’vre received is that it looks like a logo for an “Energy Drink” company or a skateboarding company. My answer is…so. Our services are not traditional marketing and are better understood by a younger demographic (which marketers are always trying to reach), so I think it fits. But what you do think?

Leave a comment and let me know.

I attended the GEW Utah Entreprenerial Conference today, since this week is Global Entrepreneur week. I was very glad I attended and came away with some very helpful points.

I was most impressed, however, with the organizers of the event. Greg Warnock, Alan Hall, Craig Bott and others are truly “giving back” to their communities. They have been very successful financially and are at a stage in their lives where their contribution is truly selfless.

It is people like this that change communities. That create an intangible spirit of success for the people around them. Without men like this to give back our communities would fall back again, reinventing ideals, with each generation.

Here are some of the kernals I recieved from the conference. They are just notes and deserve more attention in a later post…

• Funding: Will this transaction help the company in both the short and long run? Do I want to do business with these types of people (specific investors you are dealing with)? Will they add more value then money? (Do your due diligence on them). Is the transaction fair for both sides?
• Funding: Trade points in bulk and not one at a time. You win by making your business grow, not by negotiating a point
• The biggest enemy of success is complacency

It was great to see some of the friends I’ve made in the entrepreneural community again - and to meet others. I’m looking forward to attending again next year.

One of the great results from a more open and social internet is the power that becomes vested in the people. It allows them to get the things they need - information, products, negotiation power, support, ideas - from each other instead of having to rely on companies.

This is great for us, and can be troubling for businesses. Many companies have learned to adapt and to harness the listening and speaking power that is found in a more social internet. They adopt their strategies ??and engage with their customers effectively. These companies get it and are benefiting from it.

Occationally there are uprising within the social web that cause headache and trouble that companies are not used to. Recently

Johnson and Johnson pulled??an online advertisement for its over-the-counter pain pill Motrin after it triggered protest on the Internet from consumers who thought the ad was an insensitive portrayal of women’s pain.

The incident illustrates how quickly consumer response on so-called social-media sites can influence corporate behavior.

Johnson & Johnson are one of the companies that “get it” and I beleive responded well to the uprising. Their response helps keep loyalty to their brand and, I imagine, spared them additional costs in marketing and in brand repair.

With my new company, Latitude Interactive, we have begun helping businesses thrive in the social media space by helping them create and monitor communities. We are targeting certain industry’s right now and will roll our services out to other industrys soon.

With just a couple of weeks until we vote I thought I would share with you why I would vote yes on prop 8. From the various thoughts and opinions that have been published, these are the 10 that resonate most with me. If you would like to read more articles that have been well researched and very well written visit WhatIsTheHarm.org.

1. Voice of the People: Our founders fought for certain principles of government that would protect the people and make us truly free. One of those principles, self-government, which means that the government shall operate by the consent of the governed, was grossly violated by 4 judges. They took on a kingly role by imposing values on the people of California. They took our rights away when they discounted our right to vote and the results of that vote in 2000. Since when do judges define our values? They don???t. The people do. Voting ???Yes??? on prop 8 restores that vote and sends a message to abusers of power that the government is only a steward to the people.
2. Tolerance: Tolerance actually opposes same-sex marriage. Where same-sex marriage is legalized, tolerance is restricted. Freedom of religion is undermined, and freedom of speech is curtailed. Children in public schools are taught not true tolerance but the moral relativism of equivalency, i.e. that different forms of human sexuality are no more than matters of personal preference. Disagreement with this ???principle??? is not tolerated. A yes on prop 8 still provides tolerance for homosexuals through domestic partnerships and other means.
3. The Mine field of unintended consequences: In states and nations where same-sex marriage has been legalized, the public commitment to families and conjugal marriage and families is significantly weakened. Adoption has been impaired. Mothers are marginalized, and social support for them weakens. Sexualization of society increases. Public support for marital parenting wanes. Marital childbearing and childrearing drop, and public education becomes more propagandistic.
4. The rights of Children: Children, society???s most voiceless and vulnerable group, have rights that should be defended. Consider the following quotes from a liberal democrat in favor of prop 8. (read his entire article)
   

   Marriage is a gift that society bestows on its next generation. Marriage (and only marriage) unites the three core dimensions of parenthood — biological, social and legal — into one pro-child form: the married couple. Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. Marriage says to society as a whole: For every child born, there is a recognized mother and a father, accountable to the child and to each other.

   Marriage is society’s most pro-child institution. In 2002 — just moments before it became highly unfashionable to say so — a team of researchers from Child Trends, a nonpartisan research center, reported that “family structure clearly matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.”

   For these reasons, children have the right, insofar as society can make it possible, to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought them into this world. This human right, concerning children, protects those who are typically society’s most voiceless and vulnerable group.

   Do you think that every child deserves his mother and father, with adoption available for those children whose natural parents cannot care for them? Do you suspect that fathers and mothers are different from one another? Do you imagine that biological ties matter to children? In making the case for same-sex marriage, more than a few grown-ups will be quite willing to question your integrity and goodwill. Children, of course, are rarely consulted.

   I believe with all my heart in the right of the child to the mother and father who made her, I believe that we as a society should seek to maintain and to strengthen the only human institution — marriage — that is specifically intended to safeguard that right and make it real for our children.

5. The rights of parents: We have already seen troubling rights violations in Massachusetts and California where parents rights to teach moral values are taken away and given to the state. Its another example of imposing values on society by a kingly government instead of by the consent of the parents.
6. First Amendment Rights: ???Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech?????? This right safeguards the people from lifestyle preferences that they disagree with and no law should be created that would infringe upon those rights. When the California Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in June, it stipulated that same-sex couples can???t force religious organizations to marry them against the organization???s faith beliefs. Does that mean that members of those organizations are also guaranteed the free exercise of those faith beliefs without discrimination? Growing evidence says “no” as businesses, schools and individuals are being sued for exercising those beliefs. To read some of those situations click here.
7. Not a Civil Rights Issue: Marriage is defined to serve the public interest, not private special interests or civil rights. Marriage is a public institution, not a mere private arrangement to bind romantic interests. The law allows many private relations organized and defined as the private parties wish, but the institution of marriage between a man and a woman exists and is protected by law to promote fundamental social needs, including the perpetuation of society as well as the necessary link between husbands and wives and between parents and children for critical social needs. Not civil rights video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ft2TX_QklM
8. Equality does not require treating different relationships the same. Same-sex marriage advocates purport to desire ???equal treatment??? with heterosexual couples, but it is inequality to give full marital status to relationships that are so markedly different in lifestyle and social impact.
9. State Intrusion into the family: It has become fashionable to believe that marriage and children share only an incidental connection. I disagree: (full article)
   

   Marriage is, according to many intellectuals and jurists, first and foremost about the companionate and emotional needs of consenting adults.

   For this reason, it is contended that the rules governing marriage laws should be purged of any expectation that children are begotten from adult sexual unions. If marriage and children are to become as severable as the ???companionate??? view of marriage suggests, then it follows that there increasingly ought to be no expectation that parental responsibilities flow from adult sexual relations.

   As the state undermines the duty-based and child-focused nature of marriage, it increases the likelihood that marital duties, especially to children, will be abdicated and that adults will place their sexual desires above their responsibilities to their children.

   This redefinition of marriage moves more toward serving the needs of adults, not children, which will naturally invite, over time, greater state intrusions into family life.

10. The issue is about Marriage:I have heard a few uneducated people say that they believe that those that are for Prop 8 are fueled by bigotry. That couldn’t be further from the truth. The issue is about marriage, children and our principles of government. While I don’t necessarily like any of our choices for president right now, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John McCain and Sarah Palin all agree that SSM should not be legalized. Interesting to think that this maybe one of the only issues that they unanimously agree upon.

Those are my Top 10. Feel free to comment away.

Honestly, I was surprised to see that only 17% of US households are cord-cutters. I am also surprised when my direct TV wanted to activate my account by using a land line. I sarcastically told them that our landline was next to my typewriter.??

This study says that smaller, low income families are the ones cutting the cord, while those with money or large families keep the cord going strong. In my opinion it isn’t about money or family size as much as efficientcy and convienience.??

I currently use skype, vonage and AT&T for my business lines and personal calls, however, I’m looking into services like Number Garage to just forward my business calls straight to my cell phone. I would love to get into Google’s Grand Central, but they are not allowing sign ups right now.

Do you still have a land line? What does it cost you? Is it weird have two numbers? Do you want my old typewriter?

While I am a proponent of free markets and allowing businesses to suffer for bad investments and poor decisions, I???m not totally sold on the Ron Paul solution of ???do nothing??? in our current situation.

I believe limited bailouts are needed in extreme cases (like AIG) simply because allowing them to fail threatens bankruptcies and job losses in otherwise sound sectors.

Simply put, there is a role that government should play. Albeit a limited role.

There is a good article that goes into details about our current situation and the role of government. The following are a few of the takeaways that I agree with???

1. As a general principle the government should not bail out failing firms. Bailing out firms that have miscalculated in the market shoulders taxpayers with costs that should be borne instead by those who made the mistakes.

2. There can be rare situations in which a wave of bad decisions in one sector has such dire consequences for the most basic operations of the economy that other sectors are threatened, jeopardizing the functioning of the entire economy. In these rare cases another principle comes into play: Government institutions have a critical role in helping to assure the integrity of the market???s infrastructure, from the sanctity of contracts to the liquidity of the financial markets. When government fails to carry out this role in critical times, such as its failure to maintain liquidity after the stock market crash of 1929, the results can be catastrophic. As economist Milton Friedman explained, the failure of the Federal Reserve to maintain liquidity and functioning credit markets helped trigger and deepen the Great Depression.

3. The government should not try to support prices. Policymakers should not attempt to keep stocks or housing prices from falling to their proper market-determined levels. The role of the federal government is not to ensure that prices do not drop.

4. Strictly limit legislation to the immediate need to stabilize the financial situation. Within hours of the announcement of a financial rescue plan, there were media reports that congressional leaders were considering adding in provisions on a host of other issues, including unemployment benefits, food stamps, and infrastructure and Medicaid funding. Lawmakers should oppose any and all attempts to expand the legislation being proposed.

5. Carefully define the Fed???s role. The Federal Reserve should exercise its ???lender of last resort??? responsibilities to ensure liquidity but avoid the unwarranted mission creep of those responsibilities to new fields.

To read the entire article click here.

What do you think?

Always follow directions

In my attempt to be server admin or programmer, I thought “I can upgrade my old version of wordpress to the newest version, no problem.”

In the process of the upgrade, I, like a putz, ignored all the “make a back up of your blog contents” warnings. Classic. To be honest, part of the reason I ignored them was because (1) I wasn???t totally sure how to make a backup, and (2) I had the cocky attitude of “what can go wrong in a simple software upgrade?”

Needless to say, I lost it all. Now, I was never a frequent blogger, but I did have entries as old as 2004. Here???s to following directions???