Ein öffentliches Projekt, dass über einen so langen Zeitraum läuft, wird wieder einmal unmöglich ausgewogen, vollständig und gerecht zu bewerten sein. Ich prognostiziere mindestens 20 Seiten mit Ideen.
Hi Sibylle,
It is indeed a long project, we're excited to see a lot of participation! But we do, of course know it means being persistent and thorough with our rating monitoring.
All the best,
Jess
Yes, I didn't see it listed in the supported formats, my question was more about the formats you would evaluate (or not)
My idea was posting to Jovoto takes off the Prezi, and the link to the Prezi on Prezi.com
My questions are because I don't want to break any rule, and want to make sure it is something you would evaluate.
Pablo
Important question, here's the answer in both English and German:
You don not have to use brand elements, however if you do, we will not remove your idea from the platform. As long as no legal issues are raised and the submission is unique and original, the idea can remain within the project. If there are any legal problems, for the benefit of the creator & all parties involved, we will remove any copyrighted content. In the event of any legal issues, Greenpeace is here to support you.
Ihr müßt keine Markenelemente verwenden aber wir werden Ideen, die dies tun, nicht aus dem Wettbewerb nehmen. Solange es keine rechtlichen Probleme gibt und die Einreichung Schöpfungshöhe hat, können auch solche Ideen im Wettbewerb bleiben. Sollte es jedoch zu rechtlichen Schwierigkeiten kommen, müssen wir markenrechtlich problematische Einreichungen - auch zu Eurem eigenen Schutz - offline setzen. Sollten sich für Euch rechtliche Fragen dabei ergeben, steht Greenpeace hinter Euch.
You are welcome to illustrate your idea in both German and English, but it should be able to translate and work in German because the campaign will take place within Germany.
I'm wondering why all submissions looks like if they are from Mc Donalds... Greenpeace starts the campaign against Mc Donalds. Would it make not more sense, if it looks more like greenpeace? Only a thought...
"The production of cheap meat is jointly responsible for the biggest environmental problems of our time, such as climate change, deforestation, extinction and the pollution of the air, soil and water as a result of the risky cultivation of genetically-modified plants. " - Sorry, but it is big fake here. What scientifical resaurches greenpeace use to prove that CHEAP meat production negatively, or somehow, affects the world climate change???????????
On how the low level of consciousness it is targeted?
How is it ethical to do the campaign against McDonald's only, not fastfood the all? Whose interests are behind this?
First, thanks for your comment. Critical questions are important to create dialog around these giant and crucial topics.
The links under the briefing provide a reference of why Greenpeace takes the stance on the environmental impact of cheap meat and GMOs.
McDonald's specifically in focus because following a big Greenpeace campaign in 2000 McDonald’s was one of the first companies to stop using chicken meat that has been produced with genetically-modified animal feed. However, this year they have returned to the use of poultry which has been fed with GMO animal feed and we'd like to ask them to return to their previous stance and forgo the use of genetically-modified animal feed.
Going after a brand is a strategy that can leverage the impact on the producers, which stand behind the brands that are usually unknown to the consumers.
Thanks, I have seen eng. links and have to say once again - You have no scientifical research, no references on scientific articles, that "cheap meat affects global climate change" - it is your fake.
Wait... what? There are numerous reasons why cheap meat - produced by massive numbers of animals - creates problems. Even if you disregard the toxic manure, the ecological nightmare of gen soy, and the cruelness against animals - just the fact that these animals constantly receive antibiotics has its ramifications.
I completely understand why targeting one company first makes sense. We all know about the problems caused by cheap meat, but it is more of an abstract thing... people might shun the chicken from a discount chain, but still go for products with meat or cold cuts. When you make it about one product - in this case the burger - people cannot hide behind abstract knowledge. Plus, I am still shocked that they changed policy after 14 years.
I only ask greenpeace not to make people stupid, they say that "cheap meal affects global change" - it isnt true, and no scientific research that proves it.
If you know some artickle about how chicken change global climate, in Science, Nature, etc, please show me!
I personally hate McDonald's and all fast-food chains, but I think Evegni is right - if it is going to be agings GMO at all, there should be campaign that face the problem in all the areas, because all the products in the supermarkets are GMO, all the fast-food chains and etc.
As well if they don`t use GMO they will need more plants and larger fields which means cutting forests down and more expenses (fuel, electricity, machines, time, water and etc.)...larger field more chemicals! GMO does not harm the planet in my opinion, but harms us - especially the fruits and vegetables on the market!
Copyright laws are obviously complex, but I know that US "fair use" allows for parody, satire, and product criticism (among other things) of brands and their trademarks. I am guessing somewhere along those lines, it must be allowed to use McD imagery to criticize McD.
Is mayonnaise also contaminated by genetically-modified animal feed because the main ingredient of the mayonnaise is egg? are corn and soy oil also contaminated?
We are talking about the European market in this case. Here the mayonnaise, oil etc. have to be labeled if they contain gen-soya or gen-corn. McDonald's would have to label it on the menu and inform the consumer, if their meals contained any genetically engineered products as such. However in animal products, you are unfortunately not required to state if the animals have been fed with GM animal feed. We would welcome it if they would label it! Then probably no company in Europe would use it, since no one wants to offer and sell stuff which is marked with "GM-food" on the label.
Mayonnaise might still be produced with eggs from gen-fed chicken, though... right? I know that everyone is buying free-roaming eggs, but don't really notice how much eggs are in their ready-made products... and those are neither free-roaming nor particularly happy chicken.
We don't know from which company and country McDonald's Germany orders their mayonnaise. It could be possible that the used eggs are also from chicken which are fed with GMO. But the German market of fresh eggs is GMO-free. The egg producers in Germany announced few weeks ago that they don't use GM-feed. They are a good example that GE-free feeding is possible and not necessary.
To help create awareness, support this project and this critical topic, throughout the project, Greenpeace Germany would love to share some of your ideas through their media channels. In order to do so you're welcome to submit in English, but it in order to make sure it could reach everyone and be a successful campaign in Germany, German is the way to go.
Therefore, we'd love to ask our german speaking community members to help! So dear German speakers of the community, if you're up for helping, grab a non-native speaker and see if you can Deutsch it up :-)
Thanks for all of the amazingly clever, crucial and thought provoking works so far!
Best,
Jess
Just to clarify - since this is a public project, they can obviously use the sharing features of the site - but not save and upload images to their media channels. That would require prior licensing.
Hi CrossTheLime,
It is a mandatory to include the originators name, but because the images exist in the public domain, the images are able to be shared.
To be specific, it is stated in our Terms and Conditions here: §7.1.4
If it's in the terms and attributed.... sure. Though I would still think that regular sharing, where you get to the entry owner and site within one click, would show more appreciation for our work.
Yes, please try and do actual attribution with link. Right now, it looks like this "Bildidee: Big Mess by Jere" - that for me is not a useful attribution that is fair to the designer.
P.S. Is it otherwise okay if we add our watermark/ designer name to the design? I hate having my work float around the internets without attribution... and when they upload, someone shares - bang, my image is all over the place without anyone knowing that it is mine.
I am truly torn. 200 shares, which at least have my watermark. It would have been nice if they had linked my name to my FB. But basically, if Greenpeace doesn't buy the design, my work is down the drain - people are now talking about printing the poster (which then is without my watermark). Combine that with the reach the photo now had - it is done for. That chicken cannot be used or sold anywhere else. And I get nothing out of that "promo", because they didn't even link my account.
I would truly appreciate it if you could take a closer look at your TOUs, because a link to the designer's website or Facebook should be the least the client does when using our work.
I´m aware of this..., I choose red, because the red colour was used for about 40 years and I think everyone know this, and for this campaign it signs something like a "warning" , but the most reason for me is this article https://www.greenpeace.de/themen/mcdonalds-gruene-schminke
Completely valid remark! I actually think that with many posters, it works well... and people will still recognize it. It was just weird to see every entry with that color. :)
Dear Jessica
i have already send an email and I want to ask why we can't upload animated gifs (the animated gif seems to work in preview before the upload...) I tried to put animated and static version of my project together and i couldn't can you help please?
Great call to action CrossTheLime. There are still many many "rating-not-shown" ideas and we could all benefit from some critical feedback. Let's all jump in!
Yes, I couldn´t rate any works because they are in german, although I understand they must be in that language in the end . I'm working on my proposal in english, after I will figure out how to translated. The idea about the help of german speaking community members can work :)
I’m always up for a good academic exchange, so my question would be what does Greenpeace offer as alternative, as it is common sense to not point out fault without providing solution, and nowhere in this campaign is there any sign of the latter.
The phrase cheap meat should be self-explanatory, as is the nature of economics. None of these franchises are holding a gun to anyone’s head to purchase their goods, and if we are to go by logic, then the fact that prices have not risen despite the cost of non-GM fed poultry should speak plenty to anyone that there’s a price to be paid for the constant.
I, for one, am of the predisposition that human lives come before any animal or ecosystem, because contrary to popular politically-correct belief, we are a sentient species capable of creating habitable environments for ourselves. So if the alternative that this campaign is proposing is that these franchises return to the more expensive option, and follow through with the natural economic consequence that entails, which would be raising prices, to then let the public decide whether they want to shell out more for their meat or not, why not just package the message as such instead of making the franchise out to be an enemy?
Because, let’s face it, the reason anyone goes to a fast-food franchise is because they’re too lazy to cook and have too little money to buy better ingredients even if they weren’t – why blame the supply on the demand it caters to? Or is the underlying issue of blaming fellow Germans for being cheap just too risqué for further campaigns?
The price difference between GM-fed and non-GM-fed poultry is just a very small one - less than 1 Cent for one chicken burger. And it´s not a matter of a cheaper product for the consumer: McDonald´s hasn´t reduced the prices for their chicken products after having changed their policy.
Also worth considering; Non-GM feed isn´t more expensive because of higher production costs. It´s higher price is caused by the GM industry and the "genetic pollution" it causes. It could be at least the same price, if not cheaper (yields are the same, production costs can be lower; it´s the separation and controls needed causing the higher price). If you take into account the true costs of GM crop cultivation, which is the heavy collateral damage caused by destructive cropping systems (mainly pesticide use), a GM-fed poultry product should cost much more than the GM-free one.
Talking about solutions: Greenpeace´s vision is to feed the world with ecological agriculture as we are convinced that is the only suitable way to do it. This can not be seen as an "alternative", because the current systems are not a suitable way at all. This could indeed be the start of an academic exchange; the same is true for human diets, e.g. when thinking of meat consumption. We know that GE in animal feed can only be one aspect when looking at McDonald´s products - but it could be (as it was) a first step in a more sustainable production.
I think it's fair to say that no corporation decreases price, because the nature of shareholding is to see an increase in profit per annum, so it's highly doubtful McDonald's would blaze the way in that regard - as with other corporations, it just seems they are looking on ways to maximize profit by reassessing what can be done cheaper. Similarly, on the scheme of things, it's also fair to say any monetary advantage multiplied by the level of their production equals substantial gains, as with other multinational economic entities.
On an ideological level, there is nothing to fault in Greenpeace's vision of a sustainable future, but on a practical level, the means are vague and adversely open-ended. As in this example, a lot is outputted to the producer and|or supplier, to the point of defamation, without taking into account the fundamentals of any economy - demand. To the average academic, that just looks like what it is, an easy cop out from addressing the real issue by putting blame on external and seemingly foreign, invasive elements of a world economy, as opposed to spotlighting the local consumer, who continues to buy regardless whether it is GM or not.
Though this is the opinion of a single person with a single lifespan of experience, but through my years of businesses with the government and corporations, I can easily point out that standing on the outside and pointing out faults without offering solutions only goes so far. This is more political than anything else, as the quality of meats is not criminal and not liable for court. So as is the logic with any political transaction, why isn't the position of Greenpeace to broker a win-win solution, work within the political framework, and together with McDonald's to offer a legitimate option to the consumers, as opposed to against? Obviously profits dictate capitalism and their corporations, so why isn't the media campaign something to satiate that need and build a framework for future cooperation - it isn't as if this multinational environment just appeared yesterday. I'm sure there are many professionals in your fold that could negotiate inside the system to that end.
Hi Alpha,
Thanks for your reflected and solution oriented comment. Greenpeace is well known for driving high media attention to problems caused by multinational cooperation. In my opinion, this is one of their means to find solutions.
Best wishes,
Jess
As promised, today October 1st we have the exciting line up for the professional Jury that will be supporting your ideas with their expert evaluations and feedback.
Let's give a warm welcome to our professional Jury, who you can see above and read more about in this Jury Announcement blog post!
And don't forget to stay tuned in! Our Client & Jury Halftime Feedback is scheduled for Tuesday, Oct. 10th so make sure you get all your ideas & updates in so we can sum up the best and most valuable feedback for you and the direction of this thrilling project!
Looks like the jury decision has been made? At least they altered a number of entries, posted to their Facebook, and asked users to copy these to the McDonalds Facebook. Meaning they are used as campaign motives.
Oh, mine wasn't altered, but is freeeeeeely used by users, too.
no, there has been no clients choice or Jury decision been made yet.
Greenpeace features these ideas within their McGen campaign. There is no direct link to the submission to protect the creative in case of legal interferences.
As you told me in your PMs you see this critical and we will put this on the list for discussion with Greenpeace in the halftime feedback on wednesday.
I understand why entries have been uploaded to promote the contest... though I already had some question marks and been talking to Jovoto about that. Mine was one of them, and with 200-300 shares, that means my work is done for - can never sell this anywhere else.
But now, they took 3 entries and branded them, uploaded them, asking users to use them for a shitstorm on McD. So it seems obvious that those three are the campaign motives and jury choices.
Which is great (congrats to the winners), but means that the community can stop spending any more time on this project, despite the fact that it should still run another 2-3 weeks. I am just missing that announcement - if the choice has been made, it should be obvious that designers can spend their precious time on other endeavours where they can actually still earn money...
no, there has been no clients choice or Jury decision been made yet.
Greenpeace features these ideas within their McGen campaign. There no direct link to the submission to protect the creative in case of legal interferences.
As you told me in your PMs you see this critical and we will put this on the list for discussion with Greenpeace in the halftime feedback on wednesday.
Have responded through private message, too, but think this needs to be public.
This goes beyond promoting the contest. They changed the images to fit their campaign. Uploaded them. And then asked their fans to use these images for a shitstorm on the McDonald's site.
That is a full-fledged campaign. These three designers need to be paid for their work.
And that means either the project needs to be abbreviated now, before any of us spend any more time on it, or there need to be 6 client's choices. The three images they are already using must be paid in any case.
And to just to clarify why I am convinced that this has nothing to do with usage as covered within the TOU.
AIM OF THE PROJECT:
The aim of the campaign is to attract attention to the problem of genetically-modified animal feed via digital and analog channels and to thereby increase the pressure on McDonald’s, in order to encourage the fast-food giant to forgo the use of genetically-modified animal feed in poultry farming once again.
Done. The have chosen three posters, and actively used them in an online campaign against McDonalds.
Your TOU:
...to use the ideas and associated works in any medium for the purpose of communicating and promoting the project and/or ideas submitted to the project.
Asking fans to post to the McDonalds site does not have the aim of promoting the CONTEST. It is solely there to fullfill the aim of the project, as described above.
Hi CrossTheLime,
This is indeed a critical case and we completely understand your point of view. This is a this is a serious concern and we will try to contact Greenpeace over the weekend and if we can't manage we will discuss it first thing Monday morning- as soon as everyone will be back in the office.
Thanks so much for clearly expressing your opinion - we'll get back to you as soon as we can.
Best,
Jess
We talked to Greenpeace this morning and they totally understand your point, as do we.
The facebook post that was made on Greenpeace's facebook page, which asked people to post designs created on jovoto on to the McDonalds FanPage has just been taken down from their Facebook stream.
Greenpeace wants to sincerely apologize for this. Their campaigning went too far with this post and they did not intend to misuse your creative work.
Secondly they understand your criticism about the way they featured your creative work on their own Facebook page – some of them have already been edited and from here, we will definitely discuss how to improve this on Tuesday within the halftime feedback talk.
Thats the update so far – More to come after the halftime feedback, which will take place this Tuesday.
Thanks for expressing your concerns and all of your awesome, creative work.
That of course still means the four entries need to be paid, no matter what. We are talking hundreds of posts on the McDonald's site. Meaning they end up with 7 jury choices in the end. To be honest, considering how much my chicken was used, because it was posted shortly before their Facebook post, I actually would appreciate being paid, too - a girl can dream.
Just checked - they might have deleted the main Facebook post, but the altered posters, along with the exact same call to action, are still happy and alive. And are still being used, obviously.
Dear Cross the lime i think you have absolutely right from your side (by the way congrats for your entries). From my side i think that all this that happened is unfair for everyone
… hi, i followed your conversation and i keep an intent view on that.
being critical is what greenpeace expect us to do in our submissions. i´am really surprised now, what kind of habits greenpeace is using to get attention. tools we are trying to avoid with honor.
thx to all parts in that discussion, being alerted.
Hello everyone,
Today we had our halftime feedback talk with Greenpeace. We are working on a summary and reviewing it and we will post it as soon as we can.
Thanks for you patience.
All the best,
Jess
thanks for your patience! – We just posted the halftime feedback above under the briefing.
Since some of you critized how ideas in this public project have been featured in social media, we spoke in much detail with Greenpeace about the way ideas can be shared.
– Of course featured ideas will always have a clear reference to the author/creator of the idea as well as a link to the project.
– The Facebook post that has been critized has been taken down by Greenpeace very quickly right on the weekend – and you find their apology above in the comments.
Greenpeace clearly clarifies that they respect and appreciate your work a lot and we are excited to see this project growing and your smart ideas to support the cause.
Sorry, but not good enough. Their behavior was a clear breach of contract. I still maintain that the designers need to be paid for this, on top of the agreed-upon prize pool.
Especially since they might have deleted their main Facebook post - like, two days after it started, which is pretty much the life span of any Facebook campaign - but they also KEPT the designs in their photo stream, with the exact same call for action.
Neither do I see any kind of apology in the feedback.
Fact is - Greenpeace is using the whole project as part of their campaign. They did not feature me or the other designers out of the goodness of their hearts, but from the start were counting on their fans to use these campaign motives as a kick-starter to their campaign.
So where does this leave us? What is the use of a contract?
No matter how much I appreciate the goals of the campaign, my sympathy is limited when an organization who rakes in almost 300 million euros a year expects designers to work for free,.
We have been very proactively intermediating your concern. The post has been taken down on saturday 2pm, you find an apologize above posted by Jess in the name of Greenpeace.
Greenpeace fully respects and values creative's work and featured ideas will always have a clear reference of the author.
In no way Greenpeace intends to misuse creatives work and they heartily invite you for a personal talk. I will PM you.
Here in the briefing I would like to get back to goal of the project itself – to support Greenpeace in a meaningful challenge for all of us – to alarm that genetically modified animal feed is being used by big players in the global food industry – and change that for the wellbeing of us and our planet.
After reading back on Jovoto this is not the first time!
"Did you align the creators before publishing this creation?"
We love our work, we like the projects, we choose to submit our idea's with the safe feeling of not being "used".
Don't get me wrong here, it's nice to spread an idea. But in this way it makes me believe they doing it over the back of the creators without a question if it's OK.. so where are the copyrights then?
The example shown is about the creation of andreea but the links go directly to the project (and not to her design/contact/portfolio), that is closing within hours after that post.
There was no purpuse of promoting the project and they seems to just using it for spreading their own awareness for GMO.
Let's hope that for those who got picked by the Greenpeace FB team for promoting their action against McDonalds, will recieve a reasable compensation. Otherwise we can't trust the full and real potential of Jovoto.
In a jovoto public project ideas are allowed to be shared on social media under the condition that the creative's name is stated. In the examples listed above, the creatives name is declared, like in the template that was agreed upon for sharing ideas from this project.
Normally direct links to the ideas are included- The reason that the ideas were not directly linked is due to the specific legal circumstance of this project and was intended to protect any featured creatives.
On jovoto there are different modes of working. You may be more interested in the jovoto private projects, where you work under- well, less public and more private conditions. If you are interested in checking it out, just click on the button in your profile overview to upload your portfolio.
We've come so far! And now they're only 3 days left before the submission phase closes.
Good thing there are a few more days to get in all your last updates and ideas before Monday.
Thanks for all of your hard work and awesome ideas so far - and I'm excited to see what else comes our way!
Congratulations on completing an extremely exciting and meaningful project!
I'd like to thank everyone for their hard work and participation- There are so many artistic and clever ideas here. A tip of the hat to all of you for helping make this happen!
You've submitted a total of 387 ideas
and have made 5254 ratings SO FAR!
Now we enter the rating only phase- let's see how many more ratings you can add. It'll take some time ;) but it's worth it!
We'll be doing continuous rating monitoring throughout the next week and once the project closes for rating on Oct. 27th, we'll do the final round of monitoring and officially announce the winners as soon as possible.
Until then- thanks so much, it's really appreciated!
All the best,
Jess
And we'll be doing a lot of thorough rating monitoring!
Keep in mind this is may not be the final ranking - Please wait until after rating monitoring is done and the project is officially closed.
ja, ich bin zwar neu hier, aber fand manche sachen das voting betreffend auch eher -sagen wir mal- nicht gerade transparent... mal sehen, was am ende rauskommen wird
The rating mechanism takes all ratings into account. This means not only the ratings of your idea are influencing the ranking of your idea. Since a majority of ratings is posted towards the end of a project the rating monitoring is a necessary step to identify harsh manipulation attempts. These ratings will be annihilated and the final rank calculated again. So stay tuned.
Hi everyone,
As Bastian says, the rating mechanism takes all ratings into account - and looking at your specific ideas, many of your ideas were not specifically bashed in the last hours of the project. It is more related to the overall amount of ratings coming in- which is rather why the rating of your ideas can change so drastically.
We're working on monitoring the ratings from the entire projects (last hours included) and we'll have the official ranks as soon as possible. Thanks for your patience.
All the best,
Jess
Dear all idea submitters, raters, commentors and creators !
After spending some intensive time with my trusted computer and algorithms- going through 10407 ratings- (thanks for all those, there were so many great ideas- it sure was fun rating them all!) And now we've been able to bring the project to an official close.
Congratulations to all of the Community Winners and we'll be getting back to you very soon about the Client's Choice winners!
Thanks for all your fantastic ideas and time working to create awareness for this important cause!
All the best,
Jess
Good Morning!
We've got an incredibly quick decision from the Greenpeace Jury and we can mark and announce the Jury award winners!
::drum roll please::
Diese Entscheidungen kann ich zum Teil überhaupt nicht teilen oder verstehen. Da gab es viel bessere Konzepte und Designs, als das ein oder andere Gewinnermotiv. Nun ja es war eben eine EXPERTENENTSCHEIDUNG. hahah
it would be a good idea to display the 13 winners separately. As in the categories for "see all ideas" are currently "rated, all, etc" there should be a category called winners that should display the 13 winners, isn't it?
Hi Karan, For the moment you can use the 'popular' ranking function to see the community winners. To see the Client's Choice we will have to discuss if we can make that possible. Thanks for your input! Best, Jess
Today is a day of winners!
We're happy to announce that Greenpeace would like to license an additional 4th idea.
The winners, also the choice of the community- DENKdifferent & oxelot with their idea Inside Out!
Well done you two! It's obvious everyone loves the idea :-)
All the best,
Jess
Good morning -- It's been a while, but you all came to mind today!
We have a new project on the platform called "Power to the People." The client, Citizens for Democracy i.G. is looking for awesome key visuals/campaign posters that will inspire people to stand up and take action. After seeing the incredible work you all created for Greenpeace, perhaps you'd be interested in submitting a poster. Right now there's a real opportunity to stand out to the client and earn from €400 in week 1 awards!
Jess
Comments
erster ;)
Ein öffentliches Projekt, dass über einen so langen Zeitraum läuft, wird wieder einmal unmöglich ausgewogen, vollständig und gerecht zu bewerten sein. Ich prognostiziere mindestens 20 Seiten mit Ideen.
Hi Sibylle, It is indeed a long project, we're excited to see a lot of participation! But we do, of course know it means being persistent and thorough with our rating monitoring. All the best, Jess
Ich meinte eigentlich eher, dass der Zeitaufwand alle Einreichungen zu bewerten immens sein wird und die meisten da passen werden.
Hi, What is the format you prefer? I want to submit a Prezi for this project, but thought I would rather ask first. Pablo
Platform does not support Prezi. But you can either upload images and chose the presentation layout or you just upload a PDF presentation.
Yes, I didn't see it listed in the supported formats, my question was more about the formats you would evaluate (or not) My idea was posting to Jovoto takes off the Prezi, and the link to the Prezi on Prezi.com My questions are because I don't want to break any rule, and want to make sure it is something you would evaluate. Pablo
you probably do not want to send people elsewhere to have to look at your concept. But its possible ...
Yes I would prefer to be able to post the Prezi here (the embed code is very like a video) Lets give it a try, we will all learn something for sure.
There we go. The Prezi will be visible by tomorrow evening.
good cause
Can we use the character of Ronald Mc Donald with no problem??? ( being measured, of course)
Important question, here's the answer in both English and German:
You don not have to use brand elements, however if you do, we will not remove your idea from the platform. As long as no legal issues are raised and the submission is unique and original, the idea can remain within the project. If there are any legal problems, for the benefit of the creator & all parties involved, we will remove any copyrighted content. In the event of any legal issues, Greenpeace is here to support you.
Ihr müßt keine Markenelemente verwenden aber wir werden Ideen, die dies tun, nicht aus dem Wettbewerb nehmen. Solange es keine rechtlichen Probleme gibt und die Einreichung Schöpfungshöhe hat, können auch solche Ideen im Wettbewerb bleiben. Sollte es jedoch zu rechtlichen Schwierigkeiten kommen, müssen wir markenrechtlich problematische Einreichungen - auch zu Eurem eigenen Schutz - offline setzen. Sollten sich für Euch rechtliche Fragen dabei ergeben, steht Greenpeace hinter Euch.
English or german?
You are welcome to illustrate your idea in both German and English, but it should be able to translate and work in German because the campaign will take place within Germany.
I'm wondering why all submissions looks like if they are from Mc Donalds... Greenpeace starts the campaign against Mc Donalds. Would it make not more sense, if it looks more like greenpeace? Only a thought...
Great point- 'denking' different. We'd love to see you go for it :-)
Hehehe :) I will THINK about it :D
"The production of cheap meat is jointly responsible for the biggest environmental problems of our time, such as climate change, deforestation, extinction and the pollution of the air, soil and water as a result of the risky cultivation of genetically-modified plants. " - Sorry, but it is big fake here. What scientifical resaurches greenpeace use to prove that CHEAP meat production negatively, or somehow, affects the world climate change???????????
On how the low level of consciousness it is targeted?
How is it ethical to do the campaign against McDonald's only, not fastfood the all? Whose interests are behind this?
Sad things happens.
Hi Evgeni,
First, thanks for your comment. Critical questions are important to create dialog around these giant and crucial topics.
The links under the briefing provide a reference of why Greenpeace takes the stance on the environmental impact of cheap meat and GMOs.
McDonald's specifically in focus because following a big Greenpeace campaign in 2000 McDonald’s was one of the first companies to stop using chicken meat that has been produced with genetically-modified animal feed. However, this year they have returned to the use of poultry which has been fed with GMO animal feed and we'd like to ask them to return to their previous stance and forgo the use of genetically-modified animal feed.
Going after a brand is a strategy that can leverage the impact on the producers, which stand behind the brands that are usually unknown to the consumers.
Thanks, I have seen eng. links and have to say once again - You have no scientifical research, no references on scientific articles, that "cheap meat affects global climate change" - it is your fake.
Wait... what? There are numerous reasons why cheap meat - produced by massive numbers of animals - creates problems. Even if you disregard the toxic manure, the ecological nightmare of gen soy, and the cruelness against animals - just the fact that these animals constantly receive antibiotics has its ramifications.
I completely understand why targeting one company first makes sense. We all know about the problems caused by cheap meat, but it is more of an abstract thing... people might shun the chicken from a discount chain, but still go for products with meat or cold cuts. When you make it about one product - in this case the burger - people cannot hide behind abstract knowledge. Plus, I am still shocked that they changed policy after 14 years.
I dont say Gmo is good.
I only ask greenpeace not to make people stupid, they say that "cheap meal affects global change" - it isnt true, and no scientific research that proves it.
If you know some artickle about how chicken change global climate, in Science, Nature, etc, please show me!
i mean : they say cheap chicken make global CLIMATE change :)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2739143/Less-meat-key-food-security.html http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/21/giving-up-beef-reduce-carbon-footprint-more-than-cars
I am a huge fan of meat - but try and go for grass-fed where possible...
I personally hate McDonald's and all fast-food chains, but I think Evegni is right - if it is going to be agings GMO at all, there should be campaign that face the problem in all the areas, because all the products in the supermarkets are GMO, all the fast-food chains and etc. As well if they don`t use GMO they will need more plants and larger fields which means cutting forests down and more expenses (fuel, electricity, machines, time, water and etc.)...larger field more chemicals! GMO does not harm the planet in my opinion, but harms us - especially the fruits and vegetables on the market!
So many good ones! And fun reading.. I do feel I could go get a McChicgen!
how could it be that you invoke to violate McDonald´s int. trademark rights here ???
Copyright laws are obviously complex, but I know that US "fair use" allows for parody, satire, and product criticism (among other things) of brands and their trademarks. I am guessing somewhere along those lines, it must be allowed to use McD imagery to criticize McD.
Is mayonnaise also contaminated by genetically-modified animal feed because the main ingredient of the mayonnaise is egg? are corn and soy oil also contaminated?
We are talking about the European market in this case. Here the mayonnaise, oil etc. have to be labeled if they contain gen-soya or gen-corn. McDonald's would have to label it on the menu and inform the consumer, if their meals contained any genetically engineered products as such. However in animal products, you are unfortunately not required to state if the animals have been fed with GM animal feed. We would welcome it if they would label it! Then probably no company in Europe would use it, since no one wants to offer and sell stuff which is marked with "GM-food" on the label.
Mayonnaise might still be produced with eggs from gen-fed chicken, though... right? I know that everyone is buying free-roaming eggs, but don't really notice how much eggs are in their ready-made products... and those are neither free-roaming nor particularly happy chicken.
We don't know from which company and country McDonald's Germany orders their mayonnaise. It could be possible that the used eggs are also from chicken which are fed with GMO. But the German market of fresh eggs is GMO-free. The egg producers in Germany announced few weeks ago that they don't use GM-feed. They are a good example that GE-free feeding is possible and not necessary.
Dear Community, Idea Submitters and Commentors,
To help create awareness, support this project and this critical topic, throughout the project, Greenpeace Germany would love to share some of your ideas through their media channels. In order to do so you're welcome to submit in English, but it in order to make sure it could reach everyone and be a successful campaign in Germany, German is the way to go.
Therefore, we'd love to ask our german speaking community members to help! So dear German speakers of the community, if you're up for helping, grab a non-native speaker and see if you can Deutsch it up :-)
Thanks for all of the amazingly clever, crucial and thought provoking works so far! Best, Jess
Just to clarify - since this is a public project, they can obviously use the sharing features of the site - but not save and upload images to their media channels. That would require prior licensing.
Hi CrossTheLime, It is a mandatory to include the originators name, but because the images exist in the public domain, the images are able to be shared. To be specific, it is stated in our Terms and Conditions here: §7.1.4
If it's in the terms and attributed.... sure. Though I would still think that regular sharing, where you get to the entry owner and site within one click, would show more appreciation for our work.
We do encourage the use of our share button :-)
Yes, please try and do actual attribution with link. Right now, it looks like this "Bildidee: Big Mess by Jere" - that for me is not a useful attribution that is fair to the designer.
P.S. Is it otherwise okay if we add our watermark/ designer name to the design? I hate having my work float around the internets without attribution... and when they upload, someone shares - bang, my image is all over the place without anyone knowing that it is mine.
Yes, ideed. It's your work and if you'd like to use your watermark, do so!
I am truly torn. 200 shares, which at least have my watermark. It would have been nice if they had linked my name to my FB. But basically, if Greenpeace doesn't buy the design, my work is down the drain - people are now talking about printing the poster (which then is without my watermark). Combine that with the reach the photo now had - it is done for. That chicken cannot be used or sold anywhere else. And I get nothing out of that "promo", because they didn't even link my account.
I would truly appreciate it if you could take a closer look at your TOUs, because a link to the designer's website or Facebook should be the least the client does when using our work.
Dear Cross the Lime,
thanks for sharing your concern! – I can understand your issue and will PM you.
Yours Jesko
Are you guys aware that most of McDonald's communication is actually green now, not red? Referring to the background...
I´m aware of this..., I choose red, because the red colour was used for about 40 years and I think everyone know this, and for this campaign it signs something like a "warning" , but the most reason for me is this article https://www.greenpeace.de/themen/mcdonalds-gruene-schminke
Completely valid remark! I actually think that with many posters, it works well... and people will still recognize it. It was just weird to see every entry with that color. :)
Dear Jessica i have already send an email and I want to ask why we can't upload animated gifs (the animated gif seems to work in preview before the upload...) I tried to put animated and static version of my project together and i couldn't can you help please?
Hi pavlinak, gifs aren't a supported format on jovoto, but I can help you uploading another type of file. I'll send you a private message now!
Somehow, there isn't much interaction, feedback, or voting yet in this project. Wondering why that is?
Maybe is the language must be an english version too!!!
you can have some initiative, Cross the Lime...
I am already trying...! And yes, true - English... gotta change that, too, though I added the English version to the text part.
Great call to action CrossTheLime. There are still many many "rating-not-shown" ideas and we could all benefit from some critical feedback. Let's all jump in!
Yes, I couldn´t rate any works because they are in german, although I understand they must be in that language in the end . I'm working on my proposal in english, after I will figure out how to translated. The idea about the help of german speaking community members can work :)
I’m always up for a good academic exchange, so my question would be what does Greenpeace offer as alternative, as it is common sense to not point out fault without providing solution, and nowhere in this campaign is there any sign of the latter.
The phrase cheap meat should be self-explanatory, as is the nature of economics. None of these franchises are holding a gun to anyone’s head to purchase their goods, and if we are to go by logic, then the fact that prices have not risen despite the cost of non-GM fed poultry should speak plenty to anyone that there’s a price to be paid for the constant.
I, for one, am of the predisposition that human lives come before any animal or ecosystem, because contrary to popular politically-correct belief, we are a sentient species capable of creating habitable environments for ourselves. So if the alternative that this campaign is proposing is that these franchises return to the more expensive option, and follow through with the natural economic consequence that entails, which would be raising prices, to then let the public decide whether they want to shell out more for their meat or not, why not just package the message as such instead of making the franchise out to be an enemy?
Because, let’s face it, the reason anyone goes to a fast-food franchise is because they’re too lazy to cook and have too little money to buy better ingredients even if they weren’t – why blame the supply on the demand it caters to? Or is the underlying issue of blaming fellow Germans for being cheap just too risqué for further campaigns?
Hi Alpha Tomasowa,
The price difference between GM-fed and non-GM-fed poultry is just a very small one - less than 1 Cent for one chicken burger. And it´s not a matter of a cheaper product for the consumer: McDonald´s hasn´t reduced the prices for their chicken products after having changed their policy.
Also worth considering; Non-GM feed isn´t more expensive because of higher production costs. It´s higher price is caused by the GM industry and the "genetic pollution" it causes. It could be at least the same price, if not cheaper (yields are the same, production costs can be lower; it´s the separation and controls needed causing the higher price). If you take into account the true costs of GM crop cultivation, which is the heavy collateral damage caused by destructive cropping systems (mainly pesticide use), a GM-fed poultry product should cost much more than the GM-free one.
Talking about solutions: Greenpeace´s vision is to feed the world with ecological agriculture as we are convinced that is the only suitable way to do it. This can not be seen as an "alternative", because the current systems are not a suitable way at all. This could indeed be the start of an academic exchange; the same is true for human diets, e.g. when thinking of meat consumption. We know that GE in animal feed can only be one aspect when looking at McDonald´s products - but it could be (as it was) a first step in a more sustainable production.
Apologies for not responding earlier.
I think it's fair to say that no corporation decreases price, because the nature of shareholding is to see an increase in profit per annum, so it's highly doubtful McDonald's would blaze the way in that regard - as with other corporations, it just seems they are looking on ways to maximize profit by reassessing what can be done cheaper. Similarly, on the scheme of things, it's also fair to say any monetary advantage multiplied by the level of their production equals substantial gains, as with other multinational economic entities.
On an ideological level, there is nothing to fault in Greenpeace's vision of a sustainable future, but on a practical level, the means are vague and adversely open-ended. As in this example, a lot is outputted to the producer and|or supplier, to the point of defamation, without taking into account the fundamentals of any economy - demand. To the average academic, that just looks like what it is, an easy cop out from addressing the real issue by putting blame on external and seemingly foreign, invasive elements of a world economy, as opposed to spotlighting the local consumer, who continues to buy regardless whether it is GM or not.
Though this is the opinion of a single person with a single lifespan of experience, but through my years of businesses with the government and corporations, I can easily point out that standing on the outside and pointing out faults without offering solutions only goes so far. This is more political than anything else, as the quality of meats is not criminal and not liable for court. So as is the logic with any political transaction, why isn't the position of Greenpeace to broker a win-win solution, work within the political framework, and together with McDonald's to offer a legitimate option to the consumers, as opposed to against? Obviously profits dictate capitalism and their corporations, so why isn't the media campaign something to satiate that need and build a framework for future cooperation - it isn't as if this multinational environment just appeared yesterday. I'm sure there are many professionals in your fold that could negotiate inside the system to that end.
Hi Alpha, Thanks for your reflected and solution oriented comment. Greenpeace is well known for driving high media attention to problems caused by multinational cooperation. In my opinion, this is one of their means to find solutions. Best wishes, Jess
Hello Jessica,
Thank you, too, and all the best.
You're very welcome! All the best, Jess :)
Hello All!
As promised, today October 1st we have the exciting line up for the professional Jury that will be supporting your ideas with their expert evaluations and feedback.
Let's give a warm welcome to our professional Jury, who you can see above and read more about in this Jury Announcement blog post!
And don't forget to stay tuned in! Our Client & Jury Halftime Feedback is scheduled for Tuesday, Oct. 10th so make sure you get all your ideas & updates in so we can sum up the best and most valuable feedback for you and the direction of this thrilling project!
All the best, Jess
Looking forward to the Jury's comments!
Looks like the jury decision has been made? At least they altered a number of entries, posted to their Facebook, and asked users to copy these to the McDonalds Facebook. Meaning they are used as campaign motives.
Oh, mine wasn't altered, but is freeeeeeely used by users, too.
whats their Facebook page?
Saw it.
Dear Cross the lime,
no, there has been no clients choice or Jury decision been made yet.
Greenpeace features these ideas within their McGen campaign. There is no direct link to the submission to protect the creative in case of legal interferences.
As you told me in your PMs you see this critical and we will put this on the list for discussion with Greenpeace in the halftime feedback on wednesday.
Yours Jesko
See reply below.
I saw the facebook page, too. I can understand why specific entries have been uploded before the end of the contest
I understand why entries have been uploaded to promote the contest... though I already had some question marks and been talking to Jovoto about that. Mine was one of them, and with 200-300 shares, that means my work is done for - can never sell this anywhere else.
But now, they took 3 entries and branded them, uploaded them, asking users to use them for a shitstorm on McD. So it seems obvious that those three are the campaign motives and jury choices.
Which is great (congrats to the winners), but means that the community can stop spending any more time on this project, despite the fact that it should still run another 2-3 weeks. I am just missing that announcement - if the choice has been made, it should be obvious that designers can spend their precious time on other endeavours where they can actually still earn money...
Dear Cross the lime,
no, there has been no clients choice or Jury decision been made yet.
Greenpeace features these ideas within their McGen campaign. There no direct link to the submission to protect the creative in case of legal interferences.
As you told me in your PMs you see this critical and we will put this on the list for discussion with Greenpeace in the halftime feedback on wednesday.
Yours Jesko
Have responded through private message, too, but think this needs to be public.
This goes beyond promoting the contest. They changed the images to fit their campaign. Uploaded them. And then asked their fans to use these images for a shitstorm on the McDonald's site.
That is a full-fledged campaign. These three designers need to be paid for their work.
And that means either the project needs to be abbreviated now, before any of us spend any more time on it, or there need to be 6 client's choices. The three images they are already using must be paid in any case.
And to just to clarify why I am convinced that this has nothing to do with usage as covered within the TOU.
AIM OF THE PROJECT: The aim of the campaign is to attract attention to the problem of genetically-modified animal feed via digital and analog channels and to thereby increase the pressure on McDonald’s, in order to encourage the fast-food giant to forgo the use of genetically-modified animal feed in poultry farming once again.
Your TOU: ...to use the ideas and associated works in any medium for the purpose of communicating and promoting the project and/or ideas submitted to the project.
Asking fans to post to the McDonalds site does not have the aim of promoting the CONTEST. It is solely there to fullfill the aim of the project, as described above.
Hi CrossTheLime, This is indeed a critical case and we completely understand your point of view. This is a this is a serious concern and we will try to contact Greenpeace over the weekend and if we can't manage we will discuss it first thing Monday morning- as soon as everyone will be back in the office. Thanks so much for clearly expressing your opinion - we'll get back to you as soon as we can. Best, Jess
Dear All,
We talked to Greenpeace this morning and they totally understand your point, as do we.
The facebook post that was made on Greenpeace's facebook page, which asked people to post designs created on jovoto on to the McDonalds FanPage has just been taken down from their Facebook stream.
Greenpeace wants to sincerely apologize for this. Their campaigning went too far with this post and they did not intend to misuse your creative work.
Secondly they understand your criticism about the way they featured your creative work on their own Facebook page – some of them have already been edited and from here, we will definitely discuss how to improve this on Tuesday within the halftime feedback talk.
Thats the update so far – More to come after the halftime feedback, which will take place this Tuesday.
Thanks for expressing your concerns and all of your awesome, creative work.
Have a great weekend :-)
All the best! Jess
Thanks for handling this, despite the weekend.
That of course still means the four entries need to be paid, no matter what. We are talking hundreds of posts on the McDonald's site. Meaning they end up with 7 jury choices in the end. To be honest, considering how much my chicken was used, because it was posted shortly before their Facebook post, I actually would appreciate being paid, too - a girl can dream.
Curious to see what the halftime feedback brings.
Just checked - they might have deleted the main Facebook post, but the altered posters, along with the exact same call to action, are still happy and alive. And are still being used, obviously.
Dear Cross the lime i think you have absolutely right from your side (by the way congrats for your entries). From my side i think that all this that happened is unfair for everyone
… hi, i followed your conversation and i keep an intent view on that. being critical is what greenpeace expect us to do in our submissions. i´am really surprised now, what kind of habits greenpeace is using to get attention. tools we are trying to avoid with honor. thx to all parts in that discussion, being alerted.
Hello everyone, Today we had our halftime feedback talk with Greenpeace. We are working on a summary and reviewing it and we will post it as soon as we can. Thanks for you patience. All the best, Jess
Any update?
We will post the feedback tomorrow morning. Best, Jess
What time zone...? :)
Dear All,
thanks for your patience! – We just posted the halftime feedback above under the briefing.
Since some of you critized how ideas in this public project have been featured in social media, we spoke in much detail with Greenpeace about the way ideas can be shared. – Of course featured ideas will always have a clear reference to the author/creator of the idea as well as a link to the project. – The Facebook post that has been critized has been taken down by Greenpeace very quickly right on the weekend – and you find their apology above in the comments.
Greenpeace clearly clarifies that they respect and appreciate your work a lot and we are excited to see this project growing and your smart ideas to support the cause.
Yours Jesko
Sorry, but not good enough. Their behavior was a clear breach of contract. I still maintain that the designers need to be paid for this, on top of the agreed-upon prize pool.
Especially since they might have deleted their main Facebook post - like, two days after it started, which is pretty much the life span of any Facebook campaign - but they also KEPT the designs in their photo stream, with the exact same call for action.
Neither do I see any kind of apology in the feedback.
Fact is - Greenpeace is using the whole project as part of their campaign. They did not feature me or the other designers out of the goodness of their hearts, but from the start were counting on their fans to use these campaign motives as a kick-starter to their campaign.
So where does this leave us? What is the use of a contract?
No matter how much I appreciate the goals of the campaign, my sympathy is limited when an organization who rakes in almost 300 million euros a year expects designers to work for free,.
Dear Cross the lime,
We have been very proactively intermediating your concern. The post has been taken down on saturday 2pm, you find an apologize above posted by Jess in the name of Greenpeace. Greenpeace fully respects and values creative's work and featured ideas will always have a clear reference of the author. In no way Greenpeace intends to misuse creatives work and they heartily invite you for a personal talk. I will PM you.
Here in the briefing I would like to get back to goal of the project itself – to support Greenpeace in a meaningful challenge for all of us – to alarm that genetically modified animal feed is being used by big players in the global food industry – and change that for the wellbeing of us and our planet.
Yours Jesko
OK, can somebody explain the following: http://prntscr.com/4y0w8s http://prntscr.com/4y0ymg http://prntscr.com/4y0z9h
After reading back on Jovoto this is not the first time! "Did you align the creators before publishing this creation?"
We love our work, we like the projects, we choose to submit our idea's with the safe feeling of not being "used".
Don't get me wrong here, it's nice to spread an idea. But in this way it makes me believe they doing it over the back of the creators without a question if it's OK.. so where are the copyrights then? The example shown is about the creation of andreea but the links go directly to the project (and not to her design/contact/portfolio), that is closing within hours after that post. There was no purpuse of promoting the project and they seems to just using it for spreading their own awareness for GMO.
Let's hope that for those who got picked by the Greenpeace FB team for promoting their action against McDonalds, will recieve a reasable compensation. Otherwise we can't trust the full and real potential of Jovoto.
Dear njiwedu0b,
Thanks for your feedback-
In a jovoto public project ideas are allowed to be shared on social media under the condition that the creative's name is stated. In the examples listed above, the creatives name is declared, like in the template that was agreed upon for sharing ideas from this project.
Normally direct links to the ideas are included- The reason that the ideas were not directly linked is due to the specific legal circumstance of this project and was intended to protect any featured creatives.
On jovoto there are different modes of working. You may be more interested in the jovoto private projects, where you work under- well, less public and more private conditions. If you are interested in checking it out, just click on the button in your profile overview to upload your portfolio.
All the best, Jess
Dear All, stupid question, but where can download the greenpeace logo as .eps? can't find it in briefing. thanks! catharina
Hi dieseimer, We added the logo to the briefing in the added Materials section. All the best, Jess
I did from here http://www.brandsoftheworld.com/logo/greenpeace-1
ah, ok! thank you!
Dear Community,
We've come so far! And now they're only 3 days left before the submission phase closes. Good thing there are a few more days to get in all your last updates and ideas before Monday.
Thanks for all of your hard work and awesome ideas so far - and I'm excited to see what else comes our way!
All the best, Jess
Now we're close! Only 4 hours left!
For the final spurt, please keep in mind for any last minute ideas and updates- the main focus should be on soy, rather than corn. -- Thanks!
I'll get back to you with the "official stats" as soon as the submission period has closed. Best, Jess
Dear Submitters, Raters and Commentors,
Congratulations on completing an extremely exciting and meaningful project!
I'd like to thank everyone for their hard work and participation- There are so many artistic and clever ideas here. A tip of the hat to all of you for helping make this happen!
You've submitted a total of 387 ideas and have made 5254 ratings SO FAR!
Now we enter the rating only phase- let's see how many more ratings you can add. It'll take some time ;) but it's worth it!
We'll be doing continuous rating monitoring throughout the next week and once the project closes for rating on Oct. 27th, we'll do the final round of monitoring and officially announce the winners as soon as possible.
Until then- thanks so much, it's really appreciated! All the best, Jess
Das war jetzt krass... und mathematisch quasi nicht zu erklären. WOW
What are you referring to?
Was meinst du Aris?
steht unten
über 100 votes ... im schnitt über 9 PK und in den den letzt 2 Stunden mit weniger als 10 votes 8 Plätze verloren.
Geht mir genauso, seht immer nur da "loves your idea" kurz danach geben einem die Leute 0 Punkte. Zum kotzen.
Aber bei 100 votes muss das schon brutal zugegangen sein die letzten Stunden.
And we'll be doing a lot of thorough rating monitoring! Keep in mind this is may not be the final ranking - Please wait until after rating monitoring is done and the project is officially closed.
give us back the "Loved & disliked ideas"
ja, ich bin zwar neu hier, aber fand manche sachen das voting betreffend auch eher -sagen wir mal- nicht gerade transparent... mal sehen, was am ende rauskommen wird
Habe mich über ganz ähnlich heftige "Abstürze", nach teilweise nur 1 oder 2 neuen Ratings ziemlich gewundert.
Tja. Ich war wochenlang ohne größere Unterbrechung unter den Top 10. Schwupps, weg isses. ;)
The rating mechanism takes all ratings into account. This means not only the ratings of your idea are influencing the ranking of your idea. Since a majority of ratings is posted towards the end of a project the rating monitoring is a necessary step to identify harsh manipulation attempts. These ratings will be annihilated and the final rank calculated again. So stay tuned.
Hi everyone, As Bastian says, the rating mechanism takes all ratings into account - and looking at your specific ideas, many of your ideas were not specifically bashed in the last hours of the project. It is more related to the overall amount of ratings coming in- which is rather why the rating of your ideas can change so drastically. We're working on monitoring the ratings from the entire projects (last hours included) and we'll have the official ranks as soon as possible. Thanks for your patience. All the best, Jess
Dear all idea submitters, raters, commentors and creators !
After spending some intensive time with my trusted computer and algorithms- going through 10407 ratings- (thanks for all those, there were so many great ideas- it sure was fun rating them all!) And now we've been able to bring the project to an official close.
Congratulations to all of the Community Winners and we'll be getting back to you very soon about the Client's Choice winners!
Thanks for all your fantastic ideas and time working to create awareness for this important cause! All the best, Jess
congratulations!
Congrats to all the winners!!
Congratulations to all the winning ideas. Now I am really noisy what ideas are the Client´s Choise Winners... There are really some good ideas...
IS there any Information when this will be announced?
Congrats to all!!
Thank you so much, dear community, for voting!!! And congrats to all of you, too!!! :D And a special thank you to Jorge ;)
Good Morning! We've got an incredibly quick decision from the Greenpeace Jury and we can mark and announce the Jury award winners! ::drum roll please::
The three Jury award winners are: "Flip them the bird!" by Iazl "Hungerstreik" by Cross the Lime "Food Chain" by hellotommy
A big congratulations to you three!
Here is even the first article with the jury selection, have a look!
Congratulations to all participants - Thanks for all of your hard work, making this a very successful project :-)
All the best, Jess
First place deserved the first place. Great jury choice overall!
congratulations to all the winners
Congrats Iazl , Cross the Lime, hellotommy .-)
Diese Entscheidungen kann ich zum Teil überhaupt nicht teilen oder verstehen. Da gab es viel bessere Konzepte und Designs, als das ein oder andere Gewinnermotiv. Nun ja es war eben eine EXPERTENENTSCHEIDUNG. hahah
Congratulations!!!!! It was great!!!
Big congratulations to all winners! It was a great contest! :)
Congratulations to all the winners!
it would be a good idea to display the 13 winners separately. As in the categories for "see all ideas" are currently "rated, all, etc" there should be a category called winners that should display the 13 winners, isn't it?
Hi Karan, For the moment you can use the 'popular' ranking function to see the community winners. To see the Client's Choice we will have to discuss if we can make that possible. Thanks for your input! Best, Jess
Today is a day of winners! We're happy to announce that Greenpeace would like to license an additional 4th idea. The winners, also the choice of the community- DENKdifferent & oxelot with their idea Inside Out! Well done you two! It's obvious everyone loves the idea :-) All the best, Jess
Thank you Jess ;)
Congratulations, well deserved!
SUPER CONGRAAAATS TEAM!!! BRILLIANT WORK!!! =D
thanks......
I appreciate all the winners. Really, this is a great work done by them.
Good morning -- It's been a while, but you all came to mind today! We have a new project on the platform called "Power to the People." The client, Citizens for Democracy i.G. is looking for awesome key visuals/campaign posters that will inspire people to stand up and take action. After seeing the incredible work you all created for Greenpeace, perhaps you'd be interested in submitting a poster. Right now there's a real opportunity to stand out to the client and earn from €400 in week 1 awards! Jess