The Abercrombie Emergency Room.

On Wednesday, “The New York Times” published details behind the Abercrombie & Fitch Emergency Department and Trauma Center that is being constructed for the Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio. Abercrombie and Fitch donated $10 million to the hospital and, in appreciation, the hospital decided to name the new emergency center after the company.

This provoked much opposition from the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood coalition. The coalition claims that advertisements for Abercrombie and Fitch are too provocative and use sexuality to market to children and teens. They argue that naming the emergency room after the company would marry the Abercrombie brand and reputation to the children’s hospital.

Donating money to a children’s hospital is generous and necessary for the life of the hospital. A donation of $10 million to a single hospital is worth erecting or re-naming a hospital wing in the honor of the donator. No matter if that contributor is a single person, family or brand. This decision should not take into account the type of advertising strategy the company currently employs.

Take a second to consider the commercialization of the Mattel Children’s Hospital U.C.L.A. or the Hasbro Children’s Hospital in Rhode Island. Granted Hasbro and Mattel are children’s toy makers, but they are also successful companies with the ability to donate in large quantities. This is also the case for Abercrombie and Fitch. Should it matter that the money comes from a company with provocative ads? Should it matter where the money comes from at all? Shouldn’t it be about the children and their needs that can be met through donations? Would the name of the emergency room really stop a worried parent from taking their sick child to the hospital? It shouldn’t and it won’t.

Ignite Portland

Do you know what you would say if you had five minutes on a stage? This is made possible for people with creative ideas by an event known as Ignite. The event is brought together by volunteers and presenting and admission are free of charge. People who are interested in presenting contact the organizers for a spot in the show, which happens on a single evening. If a presenter is chosen, he or she is allowed a Power Point presentation with 20 slides and a five minute presentation. Funding comes entirely from sponsors who donate the venue (Wieden + Kennedy was the venue for Portland) and food or drinks if requested.

Ignite Portland is about sharing original ideas with people who are interested. There is no single keynote speaker and there is no specific theme. The main rule is “Don’t Be Stupid” and a good presentation is one that is informative, fun, engaging, unique and not a pitch. Presentations can be for commercial ideas, but the presentation needs to be executed smartly or the Ignite audience will reject it. Some presentations in Portland had valuable topics such as “Are Surveys Useful?” and “Emergence in Business.” These topics were separated by topics like “As the Wheel Turns: Learning to Unicycle” and “You Give Good TXT: How to Talk to Someone Romantically Online.”

Ignite seems like it is a great experience for those interested. It would be fun to create a presentation about a topic of my choice and present it to an audience who will pay attention. I think this is a very cool opportunity for people who are trying to get an idea out on the table. After a group of presentations, there is a break for the audience to personally interact with the presenters. This is a very beneficial networking opportunity for presenters who are looking for people to interact with about their idea. Though I don’t see this as particularly important to society, I do think that it is a unique opportunity for interactions between people who would otherwise interact. Planners would see this as a great opportunity to test their ideas and get constructive feedback. Ignite attracts audiences who are eager to learn from presenters.

Planners could use this (a free event, remember) as a way to conduct research or test potential insights. Ignite has a strict format that includes 20 slides and 15 seconds on each slide, so creativity would be limited. Ignite wouldn’t replace other forms of qualitative research because only a small portion of consumers would be represented and there is no way to guarantee that the target demographic is in attendance. That aside, Ignite events would be a beneficial and cheap way for planners to communicate with audiences.