text:
Talk:Persuasive technology

The complete pre-refactor article is in Persuasion technology. I've been ruthless, probably too ruthless, but when bringing stuff back (some more belongs I'm sure) I hope the two aims of clarity and NPOV will be kept in mind. There is also a little material added.

The text between the two sets of double lines below refers to the article before the refactor. Suggest that talk about the post-refactor article go between this paragraph and the first set, but below the second set would be OK too. Andrewa 07:09 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

New discussion has now started at the bottom. I suggest using section edit to get to it. Andrewa 15:52, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

How far does this go? Isn't brainwashing and terrorist/kamikaze suicide training, and all military boot camp, pretty much persuasion technology?
 * yes, and that should be dealt with

Draw a line between this stuff and weapons of mass destruction - how?
 * you can't, and that should be dealt with - a scientist convinced to work on something dangerous by brainwashing is just as much of a weapon as the thing s/he's building
 * duh? weapons of mass destruction indescriminately kill innocent civilians. i don't see how brainwashing is at all related?

Draw a line between persuasion and what's called collective intelligence. Draw a line between persuasion and what's called artificial intelligence.
 * did this at the end under 'future potential', sort of. Treated them both as enabling technologies to persuasion

It's hard, since the difference between random nonsense spouted by a computer or communication system, and 'intelligence', is whether you believe in it and act on it. Predictive power in hard sciences might be another criterion, but is it necessarily true that a perfect physics theory that only a computer can calculate is 'persuasion'? Into some nasty/deep cognitive/objectivity issues.

This should be re-written so that it is less of a presuasive article with an implied call to action and more of a codification of the technologies

 * the codification is more of the technology scenarios, the ways combinations of technologies enable one person over another. The technologies are not really so reducible as the problem, it's the combination of them, their pervasiveness.

 * maybe the title should be "persuasion VIA technology?" or "BY technology?" if that's unclear?
 * now alternate titles. perhaps 'presentation technology' is also an alternate, as there seems to be no article on that now

 * The issues above, relating to AI and CI and such, probably should be dealt with, and that will help to neutralize, drastically, since so many people think those are positive technologies, and the arguments about them are almost glaringly promotional.

and why they generate the asymmetrical playing field in persuasive dialog (if that is the point you are going for...is it?).

 * 'why' is obvious, isn't it?

The constant evoking of Big Brother images hurts the piece, because it illuminates an authorial agenda beyond codification. Kind of ironic given the subject.
 * Yes, and that's not necessarily bad, because people can read to the end of it and say 'hey, I was just PERSUADED that this exists and that it's a problem... but I can also click away and read other views that say there's NO PROBLEM, and this same technology is helping me do that'. Another take on 'neutrality.

Rewrite to concentrate on the facts.
 * Better fact concentration at the end, where it's most speculative.

 * Hard to deal in 'facts' in 'future potential', easier in 'scenario' where that is more or less what's done. Similar to technological singularity in some respects.

If they speak for themselves, the audience will be stirred to act. The Big Brother images just make it look sensationalist; they don't add to its persuasive power.

 * Um, the article isn't supposed to have "persuasive power", it's supposed to list the various views. Since the view of those who ignore these asymetrical power impacts of technology is "it's no problem, it's the same as having a bigger vocabulary or wallet or whatever", it's hard to really balance as one goes.  Fact is, people who think this don't refute these arguments, theyjust ignore them, or think they're indicative of 'survival of the fittest' or something.

Not saying I agree or disagree with the point of the piece...I'm not convinced either way. I'm just trying to help whip the prose into shape. --- User:Williamv1138
 * It's hard for someone who has a strong point of view to neutralize it when there are literally no intelligent arguments 'pro', at least none we hear from anyone but maybe Bill Gates (and his arguments are more like hand-waving and making strange motions with his lips that make him look like the Salt Monster from Classic Star Trek - you don't get MY SALT BILL!!!!)

 * Bill won't get Lou Gertner's salt either, nor Scott McNealy's. He got Steve Jobs' though.

The term 'unfairly' in the title could have a question mark, as in

augments conversation 'unfairly'?

that at least is asking, not stating the point

-

This article is full of weird ideas and editing style reminiscent of "24".

 * Actually, most of it is entirely orthodox and unobjectionable. It needs a copyedit and some clearer structure, but the basis of the entry is sound. Which are the "weird" ideas? Tannin 14:46 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

Re: Persuasion Technology. I tried paring this down to make it clearer some months back. I had hoped the author would take the hint to de-ramble it. Instead, the author immediately restored the original text verbatim without comment. The problem for me is that it is alluding to deep, dark conspiracy more so than describing the mechanics of persuasion technology. If W needs an article about persuasion technology, it should be long on description of the technology and short on polemics. But since my efforts were bluntly discarded, I put the NPOV dispute at the top awhile back and left it alone. Williamv1138 P.S. I didn't do the bulk delete, so don't dog me about it or congratulate me for it.

I believe that the outright removal of the text of this article is disgraceful. Persuasion and the persuasion bias implied by models and technology is an important topic for people interested in effectively communicating. This taking out of the *entire article* simple smacks of the kind of censorship that will eventually ruin Wikipedia if not meaningfully and sustainably addressed. - 209.29.81.120

-

but, what on earth do you mean by "see talk"

I look at talk, and I see no comment explaining the removal of this article

Though I see quite well that this article is called by several articles ?!? So...how can it not exist at all ???

Tannin also agrees that it is ok, just need some editing !

Bon

-

Then please write a new article, perhaps with a name that is used by someone else than 24. Persuasive technology comes to mind as a good name. The Anome

 * OK, OK. I'm on the case. Essentially it will be a heavy-duty copyedit of 24's thing, with (as I see them) the silly bits taken out and the language toned down. (I did study this stuff years ago, though I much prefer to work in other areas these days and I'm rusty.) Please don't delete the page, as the edit history should be retained. Tannin 12:48 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

 * I am glad. It bothered me to see links leading to an empty article. If you studied this stuff some years ago, that's great. Bon

but which difference is there between persuasive and persuasion ?

and why do you yourself object to this article ? I saw comments above stating some others found it sure biased but acceptable with edits...so where is the probem exactly ?

bon

The title is odd, but I see no need to remove the whole article. I'e studied in this area, too; I'll give you a hand if you like, Tannin. -- Stephen Gilbert 13:24 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

 * Thank you Stephen. Knocking 24's stuff into shape is no easy task! Help will be very welcome. I'll do another 20 minutes or so on it, then post the result back - either into the article itself, or else if it's still really rough, here into talk. Tannin 13:37 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

 * Gahh!! 24's stuff is ridiculously hard to edit! The mix of weird sentence structure and silly stuff with lumps of cold hard reality and bizarre but almost rational switches of topic mid-sentence is enough to drive a man to drink. The frustrating thing about it is that, underneath the ranting, there really is useful and important information. A re-draft of the intro follows. I won't stick this back into the entry proper yet, as it's rough and not (in my view) of publication quality yet. But it's pushing 1:00AM, my brain is getting fuzzy, and I want to do some more bird entries before I go to bed. Tannin

[Tannin text integrated as new introduction, now deleted from talk]

Hmm... I just read it over. Better than I thought. But I'm still going to bed! Over to you, Stephen. Tannin

 * you really have to emphasize the technology end, and include the spooky stuff... propaganda, neurolinguistic programming, hypnosis, drugs;

As it stands, this still seems to me to be more of an essay than an article. The NPOVing of sections hasn't yet changed its basic nature, which IMO was to promote awareness of the dangers of these techniques and render them less effective as a result. The assumption that the world would be a better place without such things may even be one we all agree with, but even if it's a true assumption that doesn't make it something we want in Wikipedia, again IMO.

 * Hasty of you. The purpose of the article is to list the techniques and discuss their use.  If you wish to employ them, you can.  Since Wikipedia is itself such a persuasion technology, there is a great need to err in favour of criticism, of not promoting these techniques, as the mere existence and use of online media is an advertisement for their effectiveness.  So it's something that must be here to balance systemic bias if for no other reason. EofT

At the risk of getting technical, it depends on whether you consider ethical theories knowledge, and having some qualifications in philosophy myself I'd say they are not. We can and should describe such theories, that information is knowledge, but not promote them.

 * That view is insane in the view of the majority of people on this planet, who do in fact consider ethics in the sense of a moral code to be more real than what you see and hear. What percentage of people practice religion?  Why? The point of view of philosophy is itself a minority view, and not the one accepted by the vast majority.  There is no promotion of any theory here, I think, just a fairly bald-faced statement that persuasion technology is taken for granted, too often.  But the news establishes that things like Photoshop for instance are not morally neutral, but create problems just by existing. EofT

The key, then, to the much-needed rewrite is to give the information, without attempting persuasion. There's a superb irony here. As it stands, the article itself is guilty of the very thing it seeks to discourage. This point is made above but obliquely I think.

 * The balance in what is there seems hard to replicate. Rather than "seek to discourage", it seems to make clear in its structure what it cannot easily make clear in its text:  that to trust online knowledge is itself to be subject to persuasion.  So any "guilt" or "cause" is assigned by your own reading.  It is of course a "superb irony", it was seemingly designed as one, judging by the above.   Perhaps it can be designed no other way.  The trash which has several times been written here by vandals to try to replace it, has so far failed to stick, because the tone of the article seems to be a necessary part of its message - to avoid persuading, it takes a harsh critical view of exactly what it is doing:  using persuasion technology (Internet, Web, Wikipedia) to warn of the dangers of using persuasion technology. That is necessarily an irony. EofT

Hope this helps. Andrewa 18:13 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * It does, a bit, in that it elaborates a wrong view, that of philosophy, which is of course itself another persuasion technology but a primitive one that works only on those educated into stupidity. The incoherency argument about this is that it is incoherent to criticize a medium in that medium itself, and so, a good deal of irony is the best you can get. EofT

 * Hmmm. I'm tempted to reply to some of these points, but I don't think this is the place for it. Some others I agree with. I certainly agree with the comment made in the summary line that philosophers don't define reality, and disagree with the suggestion that we should be purged (although it would save me a lot of time and bandwidth).

 * Overall these comments just strengthen my opinion that as it stands, this is not an article, it's still an essay assuming and promoting a particular POV, just less coherently than it once did. I think an article on the subject is possible, even desirable, but I see enormous problems in NPOVing this one.

 * I certainly wouldn't delete it. There is content in it that does belong in an article. The rest all belongs in the Meta, as it's relevant to the question of whether Wikipedia is itself a persuasion technology, which then has some relevance to NPOV and similar issues.

 * I don't even think it matters a lot if it stays where it is. I think the POV of it is obvious and nobody will be fooled into thinking otherwise. So the only problem I see is that it violates the policy of NPOV. Andrewa 07:03 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Seems more to point out a flaw in NPOV, that being, no one is asking the Internet, the web, the browser, Wikipedia, or English to justify themselves as neutral statements, regardless of how much they may alter the conciousness of the reader. But, if you think it is more advocacy than it should be, why not wrap around the introduction by Tannin above, which was more to the liking of some?  That should have been done long ago.  Or as with predicted effects of invading Iraq divide clearly the pro and con arguments made by promoters and detractors.  There are lots of ways to create neutrality.  EofT

 * The 'flaw' in NPOV is simply that you don't want to abide by it. Until this is resolved, I see no point in risking an editing war to save this otherwise worthwhile article.

 * You are assigning NPOV powers it does not have. There are plenty of issues with NPOV and  exists to discuss them.  But do a thought experiment first:  If you ignore my caution and rewrite this to give equal time to pro-Internet, pro-web, pro-technology views in general, the fact that it is presented on the Internet on the web, via browser technology, and the emotional desire all people have to believe what they are doing is good and that their own judgement is unbiased, will negate the balance - the net effect of the article will be to promote persuasion technology.  It is this effect that the original author seem to have tried to avoid, by writing transparently a critique (counting on the medium itself to balance), and in doing so the article acquired a good deal of irony, which you noticed.  If you attempt what you are describing without this same attitude, you will fail, and the end result will be somewhat biased.  Peraps not unsaveably so.  But note that Tannin tried above and then failed to push it to completion.  Neutrality is not simply a matter of attributing statements.  It's a state of mind.  Do as you feel necessary.  But don't be surprised if the end result acquires an NPOV dispute tag again. EofT

 * More progress. There's no point criticising NPOV here. As you rightly say, that discussion belongs in the Meta, as does most of this talk page, much of the article, and also the summary line of your last update 'NPOV is not magic'. That's true but irrelevant. Here NPOV is a given.

 * If it did not require serious human creativity to balance articles, we would be able to do it by program. On the contrary, we must ruthlessly criticize NPOV, in order to find its limits, or order not to do stupid things in its name (which is *often* the case here, in fact, explicit mention of NPOV may well be more likely when justifying something stupid or hasty than something wise).EofT

 * (Whew, eight indents deep!) Still more progress. Yes, quoting NPOV can be a tactic or excuse to put your own POV, obviously, and this happens. It can easily happen unintentionally (inevitably does, and I've certainly fallen foul of this myself on occasions), and sometimes I suspect is quite intentional. Again, I don't think this is the place to develop these ideas. Here, NPOV is an ideal, and a given.

 * In summary, it's good to use talk to discuss NPOV issues in particular articles. It's bad to be personal about it. It's not the place to criticise or discuss the ideal of NPOV.

 * Hmmm. I'm thinking hard about what needs to happen now. I wouldn't like to lose any of this, but in a Wiki losing things is almost impossible anyway. My opinion is still that eventually, this article needs a merciless refactor, addressing not only POV but also jargon and obscurity. The poetry, irony, and other more subtle non-linear thinking patterns used here should all be preserved, but elsewhere, as should the discussion of NPOV, linear and otherwise. The Meta is the obvious place.

 * If you wish to write a new article, by all means move the one there now in its current form to meta, with a link from here if you like. I agree there is subtlety to this piece that has been hard to reproduce, but also that this is no reason to fear improvements.  Why not start, though, by getting jargon and obscurity out where you can, and see if it is these, not the POV, that is the real issue?  Again, you can start from Tannin's analysis which is sane enough, and introduce in those terms, make a simple note at the top which says 'it is inherently ironic to criticize technology using that same technology, and inherently promotional to present essays about technology using that technology, so text may err in favor of criticism to balance these inherent systematic biases'.  Or something like that. EofT

 * Hmmm, well put about the irony. This point has already been made in several places, but not that clearly. I'm still not altogether comfortable with this phrasing for the article. Not easy.

 * Not a new article, just a ruthless refactor, with no benefit of the doubt given to things that seem obscure or POV or both. I think it's best to address both at once. Successful clarifying will make POV more obvious.

 * I'm not yet convinced I'm the one to do this. It needs a lot of time and TLC spent on it, and by someone who can stay cheerful when their careful craftsmanship seems to be trashed. I'll see when I'm in a strong mood. I note Tannin's work and at least one offer of help above, perhaps we could get both of these writers interested again.

 * That would make four of us. It could work. Andrewa 22:32 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Not for the fainthearted, obviously. Andrewa 14:00 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Currently its main value is the amusement of a few. On one hand I don't personally mind this at all. My most treasured possesion at age five was a copy of The Book of Knowledge (1954, Waverly) whose eight volumes contain all sorts of articles including fiction, beautifully illustrated and clearly distinguished from the factual content. But it's against Wikipedia policy, and IMO it's also getting in the way of writing the accurate, factual article that Wikipedia exists to provide.

 * Not sure accuracy, or lack of facts, is the issue here. It's more the judgemental adjectives and counter-persuasive stance.  Something more explicitly ironic would be better. EofT

 * That's the reason for the policy.

 * Are you quite sure you're not yourself one of the 'philosophers' you want purged? Andrewa 18:49 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Having just written the entry for ethicist, maybe I'm one of those. But I don't consider that the same as being a philosopher, as that article clly states.  But in case I am one, maybe I should purge myself from this rewrite.  EofT

Post-refactor discussion
"Job applicants have long been advised to wear navy rather than brown suits, to make the better personal impression. This use of colour, even if effective, is not persuasion technology. By way of contrast, the use of certain colours and colour combinations in fast food outlets because they have been scientifically shown to encourage people to eat more is persuasion technology."

 * User:Mydogategodshat writes: I do not understand this paragraph. Why do you consider the use of colour to persuade people to buy a hamburger different from the use of colour to persuade someone to hire you? Both are persuasive activities. Both involve technology in the process. One involves a clothes manufacturing technology, the other a decorating and printing technology. The only difference is that one is presented on a body whereas the other is presented on a building. Are you claiming that one is persuasive because it has been researched, but the other is not persuasive because, even though it works, there has been no formal study to prove that it works?

 * I agree. I don't see the difference. 65.95.163.163
 * Neither do I. Maybe he feels one is more scientific, and the other is merely anecdotalNostrum 01:56, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * The distinction would have to be the proof that one is a technology and the other is not. 65.95.163.163

 * Very good questions. I admit I struggled with this a bit. Where would you draw the line? Or don't you think it's helpful to even try to?

 * I agree that the issue is that one is a technology, the other is not. That's exactly what I was trying to get across. If someone were to use science to develop an interview-friendly cloth for suits, that would be persuasion technology. Do you really think that the old advice not to wear brown suits to interviews was technology at all? I don't.

 * My view is that unless we can provide some clear, NPOV idea of what does and doesn't qualify as Persuasion Technology, the article doesn't belong in Wikipedia at all. As there was some strong support for it to stay, I thought it was worth having a go. But whether it should stay at all is still an open question IMO.

 * Of course we "can". Read the excellent text by Tannin above.  It is quite clear: "Persuasion technology is a general term for presentation technology and technologies used in any area that involves changing people's minds, notably advertising. Any technology designed and deployed for those purposes can be considered a persuasion technology."  To the degree clothes change minds, they are an example of same.  EofT 15:59, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Quite so. The issue is more whether the use of navy suits as described is technology at all. But come on fellas, be bold. I don't want the last word on this. Andrewa 21:26, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Note also that persuasion technology has a similar definition. There is agreement among people who know the field, what this means.  It is the layman's objections that are sabotaging this article.  For instance, various attempts in the above to rename it, simply proved this is the only title possible.  EofT

 * Have a look at http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/ppt2.html for some more recent input on this topic, although it's no help with this specific issue as it doesn't actually use the term "Persuasion Technology". Andrewa 15:52, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * It is about PowerPoint specifically, and is dealt with there. But this is only one example of such a technology.

 * True. Andrewa 21:26, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

2006 - citations missing
Is it me, or is it odd that the external link to Stanford is actually to a project about web-content credibility???? The examples of behavior at IBM and Sun are interesting, but are they true? --Mereda 16:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that citations are seriously lacking. It is unclear to me how much of this article has any basis in controversy for which there exist citations.

As for the link to the Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab. I am a researcher there, but did not add the link -- and the link seems to point to our specific project on web credibility, rather than our lab homepage, which covers the study of persuasive technology more broadly.

I'm unconvinced that this article as it stands has much basis. I'd be happy to be involved in work on a revised version that connects more directly to research that I am aware of. First of all, I think the article should be called 'Persuasive technology'. Just one point in favor of this: Google has 101,000 results for 'persuasive technology', but only 15,800 for 'persuasion technology'; Google Scholar has 430 documents for 'persuasive technology', but only 11 for 'persuasion technology'.

What do you all think? --Theswampman 22:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

More to add here: I'm unclear that this article should exist. This does not seem to be a category of technologies that sees significant use at all -- whether by scholars, journalists, or practitioners. I would like to suggest removing this article. An alternative would be merging content elsewhere, or renaming it "persuasive technology" and rewriting it entirely.--Theswampman (talk) 07:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong title
Why does this article have the wrong title template at the top? --Eleassar my talk 16:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Persuasion technology → Persuasive_technology — See my comments above under Citations Missing. This article as-is does not correspond to a significant area of inquiry, while 'persuasive technology' names an area in which there has and continues to be significant research and press. (It is important to note that I am a researcher in this area and have published on the topic; that is, I have expertise in the area, but am also perhaps biased.) Renaming the article obviously won't be enough, this will require significant editing, which should be clear already. I am happy to take part in that, but contribution from others will be needed. An alternative is to just delete the article. Thanks. — Theswampman (talk) 02:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

I think this can be safely closed and moved, as nobody seems to mind. ~  JohnnyMrNinja  07:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Redirect captology to persuasive technology
A recent edit in the captology article redirected it here. This seems like a reasonable change, but I wanted to open it up for discussion first. I created a new section on the Captology talk page for the purpose of this discussion: Talk:Captology - Scarpy (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Critique
copied from User talk:Fnuller2

How is an academic peer-reviewed publication not reliable or independent? I really dont get that ... The paper I am referring to has been peer reviewed by experts in the field and published at a top publication venue.
 * Since The ConceptualPenis and SokalSquared, the value of the slogan "peer reviewed publication" has diminished significantly in my mind, but the paragraph as you wrote it suffers from a number of fatal flaws
 * The fact that a paper has been published about it, does not warrant a separate section, based solely on that paper. This lends WP:UNDUE weight to that paper and hence violates the neutral point of view
 * The paper has been published very recently (Oct 2018), there has been no chance of any critical reflection by colleagues in the field.
 * It is a primary source.
 * The language used ("One avenue of (constructive) critique...", "hinges on a linear relation between designer and user", "are thus routinely imagined to be persuasive instruments" may fly in a publication, but it's not suitable for Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia intended for the general public.
 * By a curious coincidence, you cited an article from same publication in an unrelated topic ("Information and communication technologies for development"), which makes me suspect an attempt to increase of said publications visibility by linking to certain publications WP:CITESPAM. Call me paranoid, if you want.

Examples of Persuasive Technology
Is anyone away of examples of persuasive technology, especially open source ones? I'm aware that Facebook uses this to encourage people to continue to use it more and more, and to trend the goals of marketers. This is discussed in the documentary 'the social dilemma'. 2601:187:C07F:B4C0:0:0:0:5515 (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Persuasive technology


text:
STS-1

STS-1 (Space Transportation System-1) was the first orbital spaceflight of NASA's Space Shuttle program. The first orbiter, Columbia, launched on April 12, 1981, and returned on April 14, 1981, 54.5 hours later, having orbited the Earth 37 times. Columbia carried a crew of two—captain John W. Young and first officer Robert L. Crippen. It was the first American crewed space flight since the Apollo–Soyuz Test Project (ASTP) in 1975. STS-1 was also the maiden test flight of a new American spacecraft to carry a crew, though it was preceded by atmospheric testing (ALT) of the orbiter and ground testing of the Space Shuttle system.

The launch occurred on the 20th anniversary of Vostok 1, the first human spaceflight, performed by Yuri Gagarin for the USSR. This was a coincidence rather than a celebration of the anniversary; a technical problem had prevented STS-1 from launching two days earlier, as was planned.

Crew
Commander John Young and pilot Robert Crippen were selected as the STS-1 crew in early 1978. Young stated that as the Chief of the Astronaut Office he recommended himself to command the mission. Young, with four previous missions, was the most experienced astronaut in NASA at the time and was also the only member of NASA Astronaut Group 2 still in service. He flew twice on Project Gemini and twice on the Apollo program, walked on the Moon in 1972 as the Commander of Apollo 16, and became Chief of the Astronaut Office in 1974. Crippen, part of NASA Astronaut Group 7 after the cancellation of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL), was a rookie and would become the first of his astronaut group to fly in space. Prior to his selection on STS-1, Crippen participated in the Skylab Medical Experiment Altitude Test (SMEAT) and also served as a capsule communicator (capcom) for all three Skylab missions and the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP).

Columbia carried Extravehicular Mobility Units (EMU) for both Young and Crippen in the event of an emergency spacewalk. If such an event occurred, Crippen would go outside the orbiter, with Young standing by in case Crippen required assistance.

Young and Crippen trained the longest for a space mission before flying in NASA history. If STS-1 had launched in March 1979 as originally scheduled "We'd have been launched about halftrained", Young said. As no one had flown the shuttle before, they helped design the craft's controls, including 2,214 switches and displays in the cockpit — about three times as many on the Apollo command module — and many contingency procedures. STS-1 carried 22 manuals, each three inches thick and together weighing 29 kg; the procedure for an electronics failure from a cooling system malfunction had 255 steps.

Support crew

 * Daniel C. Brandenstein (ascent CAPCOM)
 * Henry W. Hartsfield
 * Joseph P. Allen (entry CAPCOM)

Mission parameters

 * Mass:
 * Orbiter liftoff: 99453 kg
 * Orbiter landing: 88662 kg
 * DFI payload: 4909 kg
 * Perigee: 246 km
 * Apogee: 274 km
 * Inclination: 40.30°
 * Period: 89.88 minutes

Suborbital mission plan
During the original planning stages for the early Space Shuttle missions, NASA management under the Carter Administration felt a need to undertake initial tests of the system prior to the first orbital flight. To that end, Vice President Walter F. Mondale as chairman of the National Space Council suggested a suborbital flight landing at the emergency landing site at Dakar, Senegal. NASA further suggested that STS-1, instead of being an orbital flight, be used to test the Return To Launch Site (RTLS) abort scenario. This involved an abort being called in the first few moments after launch, and using its main engines, once the SRBs had been jettisoned, to power it back to the launch site. This scenario, while potentially necessary in the event of an early abort being called, was seen as being extremely dangerous. Young overruled both proposals, and STS-1 went ahead as the first orbital mission. The NASA managers were swayed by Young questioning the need for the test, and the weight of his opinion was especially strong as he was someone who not only had been to the Moon twice, but had walked on it. He would fly the Space Shuttle again on the STS-9 mission, a ten-day flight in 1983.

"Let's not practice Russian roulette, because you may have a loaded gun there."

Mission summary

The first launch of the Space Shuttle occurred on April 12, 1981, exactly 20years after the first crewed space flight, when the orbiter Columbia lifted off from Pad A, Launch Complex 39, at the Kennedy Space Center. The launch took place at 12:00:04UTC. A launch attempt two days earlier was scrubbed because Columbia's four primary general purpose IBM System/4 Pi computers (GPCs) failed to provide correct timing to the backup flight system (BFS) when the GPCs were scheduled to transition from vehicle checkout to flight configuration mode.

Not only was this the first launch of the Space Shuttle, but it marked the first time that solid-fuel rockets were used for a NASA crewed launch (although previous systems had used solid-fuel motors for their escape towers or retro rockets). STS-1 was also the first U.S. crewed space vehicle launched without an uncrewed powered test flight. The STS-1 orbiter, Columbia, also holds the record for the amount of time spent in the Orbiter Processing Facility (OPF) before launch – 610 days, the time needed for the replacement of many of its heat shield tiles.

The NASA mission objective for the maiden flight was to accomplish a safe ascent into orbit and return to Earth for a safe landing of Orbiter and crew. The only payload carried on the mission was a Development Flight Instrumentation (DFI) package, which contained sensors and measuring devices to record the orbiter's performance and the stresses that occurred during launch, ascent, orbital flight, descent and landing. All 113 flight test objectives were accomplished, and the orbiter's spaceworthiness was verified.

During the final T−9minute holding period, Launch Director George Page read a message of good wishes to the crew from President Ronald Reagan, ending with, "John, we can't do more from the launch team than say, we wish you an awful lot of luck. We are with you one thousand percent and we are awful proud to have been a part of it. Good luck gentlemen."

Ignition of the three RS-25 main engines was sensed as a sharp increase in noise. The stack rocked "downwards" (towards the crew's feet), then back up to the vertical, at which point both Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) ignited. Crippen likened lift-off to a "steam catapult shot" (such as when an aircraft is launched from an aircraft carrier). The stack's combined northwards translation and climb above the launch tower's lightning rod were readily apparent to Young. After clearing the tower the stack began a right roll (until the +Z axis or vertical fin pointed) to a launch azimuth of 067° True (in order to achieve an orbital inclination of 40.30°), and pitched to a "heads down" attitude (to reduce loading on the wings ). Simultaneously control was passed from the launch team in Florida to Flight Director Neil Hutchinson's Silver team in Flight Control Room 1 (FCR 1) in Texas with astronaut Dan Brandenstein as their CAPCOM.

Columbia's main engines were throttled down to 65% thrust to transit the region of Max Q, the point during ascent when the shuttle undergoes maximum aerodynamic stress. This occurred 56 seconds into the flight at Mach1.06. The wind corrected value was 29 kPa (predicted 28 kPa, limit 30 kPa). The two SRBs performed better than expected causing a lofted trajectory, and were jettisoned after burnout at 2 minutes and 12 seconds (at 53000 m altitude, 2800 m higher than planned). After 8 minutes and 34 seconds Mission Elapsed Time (MET), the main engines were shut down (MECO, at altitude 118000 m) and the external tank was jettisoned 18 seconds later to eventually break up and impact in the Indian Ocean. Two twin-engined Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) engine burns of 86 seconds duration initiated at 10 minutes and 34 seconds MET and 75 seconds duration at 44 minutes 2 seconds MET inserted Columbia into a 246 xx orbit. This subtle deviation from the original plan of 240 km circular went largely unnoticed. In fact, it adjusted the spacecraft's orbital period to take account of the April 10, 1981, scrub, so that attempts could still be made to use KH-11 reconnaissance satellites to image Columbia on orbit. Overall Young commented that there was a lot less vibration and noise during launch than they had expected. However, the sensations accompanying the first firing of the large Reaction Control System (RCS) jets surprised the crew. Crippen commented "it's like a big cannon just fired ... you don't like them the first time you hear them". Young reported that "the entire cabin vibrates ... it felt like the nose was being bent".

Once on-orbit both crew members safed their ejection seats and unstrapped. The next critical event was payload bay door opening. This was essential to allow heat rejection from Columbia's systems via the doors' space radiators. Failure to open these by the end of the second orbit would have resulted in a return to Earth at the end of the fifth orbit, before the limited capacity of the flash evaporator cooling system was exceeded. As they opened the doors the crew noticed that they had sustained damage to thermal protection system (TPS) tiles on the OMS pods. This was televised to the ground. Shortly afterwards Young, then Crippen doffed their emergency ejection suits.

The majority of the crew's approximately 53hours in low Earth orbit was spent conducting systems tests. Despite the scheduling impact of efforts to image Columbia's TPS by utilizing external assets, these were all accomplished. They included: Crew Optical Alignment Sight (COAS) calibration, star tracker performance, Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) performance, manual and automatic RCS testing, radiation measurement, propellant crossfeeding, hydraulics functioning, fuel cell purging, and photography. The OMS-3 and OMS-4 burns at 006:20:46 and 007:05:32 MET respectively raised this orbit to 273.9 xx (compared to a planned 280 km circular). These two firings were single engined utilizing the crossfeed system. The crew reported a cold first night on board despite acceptable temperature indications. They found the second night comfortable after settings were adjusted.

During the second day of the mission, the astronauts received a phone call from Vice President George H. W. Bush. President Ronald Reagan had originally intended to visit the Mission Control Center during the mission, but at the time was still recovering from an assassination attempt which had taken place two weeks before the launch (Reagan had only returned home to the White House the day prior to the launch).

The crew awoke from their second sleep period earlier than planned. Preparations for return to Earth began with breakfast. Stowing of cabin items, flight control system checkout, data processing system reconfigurations, and then ejection suit donning followed. In Houston, the Crimson team headed by their Flight Director Don Puddy came on duty in FCR1 for the mission's final shift. His CAPCOM was astronaut Joseph P. Allen with Frederick Hauck assisting. Payload bay door closing was a critical milestone to ensure vehicle structural and thermal integrity for re-entry. If power closing had failed, Crippen was trained to conduct a one-man extravehicular activity (EVA) to manually winch them closed. With cabin switch positions verified, the crew strapped into their ejection seats. Meanwhile, Johnson Space Center (JSC) pilots Charlie Hayes and Ted Mendenhall were airborne over California's Edwards Air Force Base area in a Shuttle Training Aircraft (STA) performing a final check of landing weather conditions.

Auxiliary Power Units (APUs) 2 and 3 were started (to provide flight control hydraulic pressure). The 160-second twin-engine OMS de-orbit burn took place during the 36th orbit over the southern Indian Ocean and changed the orbital parameters from 270 xx to 270 xx. This ensured atmospheric capture of the spacecraft close enough to the planned landing site to have sufficient energy for a controlled glide landing, but not so close that energy would have to be dissipated at a rate exceeding its structural capability. Young then slowly pitched Columbia up to the wings level nose high entry attitude. Both crew members armed their ejection seats during this pitch around. Nearly half an hour later APU 1 was started as planned. Shortly afterwards, Columbia entered an approximately 21-minute long communications blackout. This was due to a combination of ionization (16 minutes) and lack of ground station coverage between Guam and Buckhorn Tracking Station at Dryden Flight Research Facility. Entry Interface (EI) was reached over the eastern Pacific Ocean 8110 km from the landing site at a speed of around 28240 km/h. EI is merely an arbitrarily defined geodetic altitude of 120000 m employed by NASA for the purposes of trajectory computations and mission planning. Above this altitude, the spacecraft is considered to be outside the "sensable atmosphere".

Most of this first orbiter entry was flown automatically. An initial angle of attack of 40° had to be maintained until through the most severe aerodynamic heating after which it was gradually reduced. At about 100000 m altitude a light pink air glow caused by entry heating became visible, and both crew members lowered their visors. Columbia had to maneuver 583 km "cross range" of its orbital ground track to reach the planned landing site during the entry. Consequently, a roll into a right bank was flown when the air density had increased sufficiently to raise dynamic pressure to 570 Pa (with speed still in excess of Mach 24 and approximately 78000 m altitude). Automatic roll reversals to control energy dissipation rate and cross range steering were performed at around Mach 18.5 and Mach 9.8. The crew clearly observed the coast of California as Columbia crossed it near Big Sur at Mach 7 and 41000 m. Both the Mach 4.8 and Mach 2.8 roll reversals were automatically initiated and manually completed by John Young. The last RCS jet firing took place at an altitude of 17000 m — 4300 m lower than desired (due to a predicted risk of combustion chamber explosion).

Young again took manual control for the remainder of the flight as they went subsonic approaching the Heading Alignment Circle (HAC). A wide left turn was flown to line up with lake bed runway23, whilst T-38 "Chase1", crewed by astronauts Jon McBride and "Pinky" Nelson joined formation. Main gear touch down occurred on runway23 at Edwards Air Force Base, at 339 km/h equivalent airspeed, slightly slower and around 800 m further down the runway than planned. This was the result of a combination of better than predicted Orbiter lift-to-drag ratios and tail wind. Touch down time was 18:21UTC on April 14, 1981. As they rolled to a stop, Young remarked over the radio, "This is the world's greatest all electric flying machine. I'll tell you that. That was super!"

Columbia was returned to Kennedy Space Center from California on April 28, 1981, atop the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft. The 36-orbit, 1729348 km flight lasted 2days, 6hours, 20minutes and 53seconds.

Mission anomalies

STS-1 was the first orbital test flight of what NASA claims was, at the time, the most complex flying machine ever built. Roughly 70 anomalies were observed during and after the flight, owing to the many components and systems that could not otherwise be adequately tested. These included:

 * Similar to the first Saturn V launch in 1967, engineers underestimated the amount of noise and vibration produced by the Space Shuttle. Shock waves from the SRB thrust were deflected up into the orbiter's tail section, which flexed the wing flaps and bent several fuel tank supports; Columbia could have had trouble landing if the flaps had been damaged. An improved sound suppression system was later installed in LC-39A to damp vibrations.
 * Pilot Crippen reported that, throughout the first stage of the launch up to SRB separation, he saw "white stuff" coming off the External Tank and splattering the windows, which was probably the white paint covering the External Tank's thermal foam.
 * The astronauts' on-orbit visual inspection showed significant damage to the thermal protection tiles on the OMS/RCS pods at the orbiter's aft end, and John Young reported that two tiles on the nose looked like someone had taken "big bites out of them". The U.S. Air Force also photographed the orbiter using a KH-11 KENNEN reconnaissance satellite. Due to the top secret nature of the satellite, only a small number of NASA personnel were aware of this, and they had arranged for the photography prior to the launch as a precaution to make sure no damage had been done to the thermal tiles on the underside of the orbiter, as there had never been a flight of a crewed spacecraft before where the heat shield was exposed to the vacuum of space for the entire duration of the mission. Young and Crippen were instructed to perform maneuvers with the RCS thrusters to align Columbia so that the KH-11 could photograph it, but were not informed of the reason for them. Aligning the shuttle's low Earth orbit with the KH-11's polar orbit was a somewhat tricky move, and launch on April 12 was scheduled for a few minutes after the launch window opened, due to the need to get the KH-11 into correct orientation for imaging the shuttle. Images obtained confirmed that damage to Columbia was not serious. Post-flight inspection of Columbia confirmed that approximately 16 undensified tiles near the OMS pod had been lost during ascent.
 * Columbia's aerodynamics at high Mach numbers during reentry were found to differ significantly in some respects from those estimated in pre-flight testing. A misprediction of the location of the center of pressure (due to using an ideal gas model instead of a real gas model) caused the computer to have to extend the body flap by sixteen degrees rather than the expected eight or nine. Also, the first roll maneuver resulted in lateral and directional oscillations during which side slip angles of up to 4° were reached. This was twice as high as predicted. Analysis attributed the cause to unexpectedly large rolling moments due to yaw RCS jet firings. During the early stages of entry, orbiter roll control is achieved as a result of sideslip modulation.
 * The orbiter's heat shield was damaged when an overpressure wave from the solid rocket booster caused a forward RCS oxidizer strut to fail.
 * The same overpressure wave also forced the orbiter body flap – an extension on the orbiter's underbelly that helps to control pitch during reentry – into an angle well beyond the point where cracking or rupture of its hydraulic system would have been expected. Such damage would have made a controlled descent impossible, with John Young later admitting that had the crew known about this, they would have flown the shuttle up to a safe altitude and ejected, causing Columbia to be lost on the first flight. Young had reservations about ejection as a safe abort mode due to the fact that the SRBs were firing throughout the ejection window, but he justified taking this risk because, in his view, an inoperative body flap would have made landing and descent "extremely difficult if not impossible."
 * The strike plate next to the forward latch of Columbia's external tank door was melted and distorted due to excess heat exposure during reentry. This heat was attributed to an improperly installed tile adjacent to the plate.
 * During remarks at a 2003 gathering, John Young stated that a protruding tile gap filler ducted hot gas into the right main landing gear well, which caused significant damage, including the buckling of the landing gear door. He said that neither he nor Crippen were told about this incident and he was not aware that it had happened until reading the postflight mission report for STS-1, also adding that the gas leak was noted in the report, but not the buckling of the landing door. (The buckling of the door is in fact in the anomaly report, anomaly STS-1-V-49).

Despite these problems, the STS-1 mission was completed successfully, and in most respects Columbia performed optimally. After some modifications to the Shuttle and to the launch and reentry procedures, Columbia flew the next four Shuttle missions.

Mission insignia
The artwork for the official mission insignia was designed by artist Robert McCall. It is a symbolic representation of the Space Shuttle. The image does not depict the black wing roots present on the actual Shuttle.

Anniversary

The ultimate launch date of STS-1 fell on the 20th anniversary of Yuri Gagarin's Vostok 1, the first spaceflight to carry a human crew. In 2001, Yuri's Night was established to celebrate both events. In a tribute to the 25th anniversary of the first flight of Space Shuttle, Firing Room 1 in the Launch Control Center at Kennedy Space Center – which launched STS-1 – was renamed the Young-Crippen Firing Room. NASA described the mission as "the boldest test flight in history".

External tank
STS-1 and STS-2 were the only two shuttle flights to have the External Tank painted white. To reduce the Shuttle's overall weight, all flights from STS-3 onward used an unpainted tank. The use of an unpainted tank provided a weight saving of approximately 272 kg, and gave the External Tank the distinctive orange color which later became associated with the Space Shuttle.

In popular culture
The song "Countdown" by Rush, from the 1982 album Signals, was written about STS-1 and the inaugural flight of Columbia. The song was "dedicated with thanks to astronauts Young and Crippen and all the people of NASA for their inspiration and cooperation".

The footage of the launch was commonly played on MTV throughout the 1980s and 1990s, and was the first thing shown on the channel, along with footage of Neil Armstrong on the Moon and the launch of Apollo 11.

IMAX cameras filmed the launch, landing, and mission control during the flight, for a documentary film entitled Hail Columbia, which debuted in 1982 and later became available on DVD. The title of the film comes from the pre-1930s unofficial American national anthem, "Hail, Columbia".

The beginning of the song "Hello Earth", on Kate Bush's 1985 Hounds of Love album, contains a short clip of dialogue between Columbia and Mission Control, during the last few minutes of its descent, beginning with "Columbia now at nine times the speed of sound..."

In 2006, "Collateral Damage," the 12th episode of the ninth season of the long-running Canadian-American military science fiction television show Stargate SG-1, a childhood flashback shows that the character Lieutenant Colonel Cameron Mitchell witnessed the launch with his father live on television at the age of ten, one of the events that led to him becoming a United States Air Force pilot.

Wake-up calls
NASA began a tradition of playing music to astronauts during the Project Gemini, and first used music to wake up a flight crew during Apollo 15. A special musical track is chosen for each day in space, often by the astronauts' families, to have a special meaning to an individual member of the crew, or in reference to the day's planned activities.

Pad fatalities
An accident occurred on March 19, 1981, that led to the deaths of three people. During a countdown test for STS-1, a pure nitrogen atmosphere was introduced in the aft engine compartment of Space Shuttle Columbia to reduce the danger of an explosion from the many other potentially dangerous gases on board the orbiter. At the conclusion of the test, pad workers were given clearance to return to work on the orbiter, even though the nitrogen had not yet been purged due to a recent procedural change. Three technicians, John Bjornstad, Forrest Cole, and Nick Mullon, entered the compartment without air packs, unaware of the danger since nitrogen gas is odorless and colorless, and lost consciousnesses due to lack of oxygen. Several minutes later, another worker saw them and tried to help, but passed out himself. The fourth did not alert anyone, but was himself seen by two other people. Of those two, one alerted a security guard and another went to help the unconscious group. The security guard entered the compartment with an air pack and removed the five men from the compartment.

Security procedures delayed ambulances from arriving on the scene by several minutes. Bjornstad died at the scene; Cole died on April 1 without ever regaining consciousness, and Mullon suffered permanent brain damage and died on April 11, 1995, from complications of his injuries. These were the first launchpad deaths at Cape Canaveral since the Apollo 1 fire, which killed three astronauts during preparations for the crewed Moon landing missions.

The incident did not delay the launch of STS-1 less than a month later, but pilot Robert Crippen gave an on-orbit tribute to Bjornstad and Cole. A three-month inquiry determined a combination of a recent change in safety procedures and a miscommunication during the operations were the cause of the accident. A report called LC-39A Mishap Investigation Board Final Report was released with the findings. The names of John Bjornstad, Forrest Cole and Nicholas Mullon are engraved on a monument at the US Space Walk of Fame in Florida.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: STS-1


text:
Guerrilla marketing

Guerrilla marketing is an advertisement strategy in which a company uses surprise and/or unconventional interactions in order to promote a product or service. It is a type of publicity. The term was popularized by Jay Conrad Levinson's 1984 book Guerrilla Marketing.

Guerrilla marketing uses multiple techniques and practices in order to establish direct contact with potential customers. One of the goals of this interaction is to cause an emotional reaction in the clients, and the ultimate goal of marketing is to induce people to remember products or brands in a different way than they might have been accustomed to.

As traditional advertising media channels—such as print, radio, television, and direct mail —lose popularity, marketers and advertisers have felt compelled to find new strategies to convey their commercial messages to the consumer. Guerrilla marketing focuses on taking the consumer by surprise to make a dramatic impression about the product or brand. This in turn creates buzz about the product being marketed. It is a way of advertising that increases consumers' engagement with the product or service, and is designed to create a memorable experience. By creating a memorable experience, it also increases the likelihood that a consumer, or someone who interacted with the campaign, will tell their friends about the product. Thus, via word of mouth, the product or service being advertised reaches more people than initially anticipated.

Guerrilla marketing is relatively inexpensive, and focuses more on reach rather than frequency. For guerrilla campaigns to be successful, companies generally do not need to spend large amounts of money, but they need to have imagination, energy and time. Therefore, guerrilla marketing has the potential to be effective for small businesses, especially if they are competing against bigger companies.

The message to consumers is often designed to be clear and concise. This type of marketing also works on the unconscious mind, because purchasing decisions are often made by the unconscious mind. To keep the product or service in the unconscious mind requires repetition, so if a buzz is created around a product, and if it is shared amongst friends, then this mechanism enables repetition.

Etymology and origin
The term "guerrilla marketing" is traced to guerrilla warfare, which employs atypical tactics to achieve an objective. In 1984, the term guerrilla marketing was introduced by Leo Burnett's creative director Jay Conrad Levinson in his book Guerrilla Marketing. The term itself was from the inspiration of guerrilla warfare which was unconventional warfare using different techniques from usual and small tactic strategies used by armed civilians. Because the key goal is to manipulate consumers into talking about the product or brand via social media platforms, significant imagination and energy is required in order to capture the attention of sufficient numbers of people. This is especially the case when one considers that, with other firms competing for people's attention, there can be significant "clutter" in the environment that the consumer is forced to deal with on a daily basis. Guerrilla marketing is popular for small or medium-sized businesses who have tight budgets. But the same tactics have also been used by large companies trying to differentiate themselves from competitors via social media campaigns. Similar marketing tactics have also been used by individuals seeking employment. Guerrilla marketing has also evolved to include street marketing, which itself has evolved to encompass activities beyond the everyday realm of urban streets and thus now includes newer promotional methodologies. Examples include mass-printed flyers and animated digital signage.

Ambient marketing
Ambient communication is advertising presented on elements of the environment, including nearly every available physical surface. It is a compilation of intelligence, flexibility, and effective use of the atmosphere. These kinds of ads can be found anywhere and everywhere from hand dryers in public bathrooms and petrol pumps through to bus hand straps and golf-hole cups.

Ambush marketing
Ambush marketing is a form of associative marketing, used by an organization to capitalize upon the awareness, attention, goodwill, and other benefits, generated by having an association with an event or property, without that organization having an official or direct connection to that event or property. This form of marketing is typically seen at major events where rivals of official sponsors attempt to build an association with the event and increase awareness for their brands, sometimes covertly. For example, during the 2012 London Olympics, footwear maker Nike created 'find your Greatness' spots where they featured athletes from several locations called London (but without showing the real London or referring to the Olympic games). This was intended to build a strong association between London Olympics and Nike.

Stealth marketing
Stealth marketing is a deliberate act of entering, operating in, or exiting a market in a furtive or secretive manner, or an attempt to do so.

Viral marketing
Viral marketing describes any strategy that encourages individuals to pass on a marketing message to others (often via online social-media platforms), creating the potential for exponential growth in the message's exposure and influence. Like viruses, such strategies take advantage of rapid multiplication to explode the message to thousands, to millions. Off the Internet, viral marketing has been referred to as "word-of-mouth", "creating a buzz", "leveraging the media", "network marketing", But on the Internet, for better or worse, it's called "viral marketing".

Buzz marketing
Similar to viral marketing, buzz marketing uses high-profile media to encourage the public to discuss the brand or product. Buzz marketing works best when consumer's responses to a product or service and subsequent endorsements are genuine, without the company paying them. Buzz generated from buzz marketing campaigns is referred to as "amplified WOM" (word-of-mouth), and "organic WOM" is when buzz occurs naturally by the consumer.

Grassroots marketing
Grassroots campaigns aim to win customers over on an individual basis. A successful grassroots campaign is not about the dissemination of the marketing message in the hope that possible consumers are paying attention, but rather highlights a personal connection between the consumer and the brand, and builds a lasting relationship with the brand.

Astroturfing
Astroturfing is among the most controversial guerrilla marketing strategies, and it has a high risk of backfiring for the company marketing the product or service. Astroturfing derives from artificial “turf”, often used in stadiums or tennis courts – also known as fake grass. Hence, fake endorsements, testimonials and recommendations are all products of Astroturfing in the public-relations sector. Astroturfing involves generating an artificial hype around a particular product or company through a review or discussion on online blogs or forums by an individual who is paid to convey a positive view yet who does not reveal their true motivation. This can have a negative and detrimental effect on a company, should the consumer suspect that the review or opinion is inauthentic and manipulative of public opinion. The result is damage to the company's reputation, and possibly litigation.

Street marketing
Street marketing uses unconventional means of advertising or promoting products and brands in public areas. The main goal is to encourage consumers to remember and recall the brand or product marketed. As a division of guerrilla marketing, street marketing is specific to all marketing activities carried out in streets and public areas such as parks, streets, and events. Street marketing also encompasses advertising outdoors, such as on shopping trolleys (shopping carts, in the US), public toilets, sides of cars or public transport, manhole covers, footpaths, rubbish bins, etc.

Street marketing is not confined to fixed print-form advertisements. It is common practice for organizations to use brand ambassadors who distribute product samples or discount vouchers, and answer queries about the product while emphasizing the brand. The brand ambassadors may be accompanied by a kiosk which contains the product samples or demonstration materials, or they may be wearing a "walking billboard". The physical interaction with consumers has a greater influencing power than traditional passive advertising.

Street marketing is understood as mobilizing not only the space of the streets but also the imagination of the street: that of street culture and street art. The Y-generation broadly consisting of young urbanites (15 – 30 years old), is often put forth as the most susceptible target for the campaigns due to its associations with the culture of the street.

According to Marcel Saucet and Bernard Cova, street marketing can be used as a general term encompassing six principal types of activities: This activity is more traditional, and is the most common form of street marketing employed by brands. This consists of personalizing a high-traffic space using brand imagery. The idea is to create a micro-universe in order to promote a new product or service. The goal of such actions is to create a space in which the brand's message is communicated through human activity. This form of mobile presentation is based on the development of means of transport: taxi, bike, Segway, etc. These activities involve the customization of street elements. These activities take the form of spectacles, such as flash mobs or contests. The idea is to promote a product, service, or brand value through organization of a public event.
 * Distribution of flyers or products
 * Product animations
 * Human animations
 * Road shows
 * Uncovered actions
 * Event actions

Typical procedure
First, corporations identify the public places where the campaign can be developed such as beaches, cultural events, close to schools, sporting events and recreation areas for children. Next, companies have to develop a plan to get close to different media and the target market. In order to attract attention, street marketing events not only involve unusual activities, but use technology as part of the events. The purpose is to increase the value of the campaigns and get potential consumers' attention.

Companies develop plans taking into account that the global communication and interaction involved in guerrilla or street marketing is not limited to customers or the media. They are also developed to identify opportunities and collect enough information about products, markets and competitors. For businesses, it is important that customers stay with them, instead of choosing the competitors’ offers. They implement innovative strategies with which they will not lose position in the market, and they consider supplementation with other advertisement through other mediums, such as radio and television, when using street marketing.

Various strategies are used in guerrilla marketing. One strategy involves providing offers to increase sales. In many cases, businesses do not only supply their products or services to be recognized, but they also offer other things for free. Another instance is to present a fundraiser offer. The point of this strategy is to help other organizations, such as schools, by offering them money. Most companies implement this method not only to increase their sales, but to improve their reputation and image among the community. Finally, there is a strategy called "team selling" that consists of forming groups of people, the majority of them young, who go knocking on doors of different houses in a neighborhood. They do this in order to help companies with promoting and selling their products or services.

When doing guerrilla marketing or street marketing, organizations also consider focusing on the psychological approach. For many companies, this implies if they are having success or not. Street marketing focuses on some psychological aspects to know customers' behavior and preferences. For example, certain psychological areas study how people's brains are divided: 45% of people are left-brained, 45% are right brained, and 10% are balanced. Left-brained persons tend to be logical, right-brained ones tend to be emotional, and the rest are a combination the two. Then, according to the product or service that enterprises provide, and also the kind of customer, businesses decides the way they are going to manage their street marketing campaigns. Besides, almost all the enterprises base their street marketing campaigns on repeating the messages they spread among their customers. Repetition is related to the unconscious part of the mind. This is the one in charge of making decisions. It lets people know what they are going to choose, as well as what they are going to buy. Businesses follow the principle that establishes that, the more people paying attention to the campaign, the more possibilities that campaign has for being remembered.

When a company decides to do a guerrilla marketing campaign which could be anything out of viral, ambient, ambush, street or stealth, the focus for them is to meet the objectives. The main objectives for them are: Through the experience and the ephemeral feelings shared between the company and the target, advertisers and agencies generate a feeling of intimacy that resonates beyond the encounter. This feeling of nearness becomes all the more lasting as the affected individuals relive this encounter on the internet through social media.
 * To create enough buzz to serve in word-of-mouth, helping the brand to establish well with its products
 * To touch most of the five sensory identities of the customer/consumer, enhancing personal experience with the brand and building a good reputation
 * To reach the target successfully by taking the brand to them in their daily routine

Strategy
The guerrilla marketing promotion strategy was first identified by Jay Conrad Levinson in his book Guerrilla Marketing (1984).The book describes hundreds of "guerrilla marketing weapons" in use at the time. Guerrilla marketers need to be creative in devising unconventional methods of promotion to maintain the public's interest in a product or service. Levinson writes that when implementing guerrilla marketing tactics, smaller organizations and entrepreneurs are actually at an advantage. Ultimately, however, guerrilla marketers must "deliver the goods". In The Guerrilla Marketing Handbook, the authors write: "...in order to sell a product or a service, a company must establish a relationship with the customer. It must build trust and support the customer's needs, and it must provide a product that delivers the promised benefits..."

Online guerrilla marketing
The web is rife with examples of guerrilla marketing, to the extent that many people don't notice its presence - until a particularly successful campaign arises. The desire for instant gratification of internet users provides an avenue for guerrilla marketing by allowing businesses to combine wait marketing with guerrilla tactics. Simple examples consist of using 'loading' pages or image alt texts to display an entertaining or informative message to users waiting to access the content they were trying to get to. As users dislike waiting with no occupation on the web, it is essential, and easy, to capture their attention this way. Other website methods include interesting web features such as engaging landing pages.

Many online marketing strategies also use social media such as Facebook and LinkedIn to begin campaigns, share-able features and event host events. Other companies run competitions or discounts based on encouraging users to share or create content related to their product. Viral videos are an incredibly popular form of guerrilla marketing in which companies film entertaining or surprising videos that internet users are likely to share and enjoy, that subtly advertise their service or product. Some companies such as Google even create interactive elements like the themed Google logo games to spark interest and engagement. These dynamic guerrilla marketing tactics can become news globally and give businesses considerable publicity.

Examples
There are various organizations that have implemented guerrilla and street marketing strategies. The majority of them are small companies, but there are also big companies that have been involved in the guerrilla and street marketing environment. Most of the examples of the strategies that both small and big enterprises have put into action include costumed persons, the distribution of tickets, and people providing samples, among others. As stated before, one guerrilla marketing conventional method that is used by many businesses is to provide fliers. The goal is to create awareness to customers about what the enterprise is doing. One example of this took place in Montpelier, Vermont, where the New England Culinary Institute (NECI) sent a group of students to a movie theatre to hand out 400 fliers. The fliers had coupons in which NECI was inviting people to go to its monthly Theme Dinners. Another company, Boston's Kung-Fu Tai Chi Club, chose the option of disseminating fliers instead of placing its advertisements in newspapers. The purpose of the fliers was to promote the company's self-defence classes for women.

Other businesses apply the technique of sending disguised people to promote things on the streets. For example, Match.com organized a street marketing activity in the “Feria del Libro” (“Book Fair”) in Madrid. It consisted of a man dressed like a prince who was walking among the crowd looking for his “real love”. He had a glass slipper and even got to try the shoe on some people. A woman behind him was giving bookmarks to the people which contained messages such as “Times have changed; the way to find love, too” or “You have been reading love stories all your life; experience yours on Match.com”. Also, in Madrid and Barcelona, Nokia developed a campaign called “Avestruz” (“Ostrich”) to promote the 5500 and 5700 mobiles. In the campaign, a group of real-size ostrich puppets tried to interact with young people in order to let them know these mobiles provide a high-quality MP3 playback. The puppets were holding their own telephones and listening to the music. When a young person appeared, the puppet tried to catch his/her attention to show him/her the quality of the mobile. The reason why Nokia decided to use ostriches was that they are big animals, so people could easily look at them.

There are enterprises that disseminate passes or tickets to different events. For example, Sony invests on joining promoters and tells them that they have to infiltrate in public meetings. What they have to do is to distribute free tickets to concerts and other musical events sponsored by the company. Another instance is the Spanish company Clickair (an extension of Iberia Airlines), that developed a campaign in which a group of five people had to walk through Barcelona streets dressed as Euros. The group was supplying approximately 3,000 tickets to promote different Clickair destinations. The people who first sent a text message with the required information would get free tickets to go on a trip. In the end, the company received a total of 3,390 messages.

Along with these examples, there are other street-marketing techniques that are even more unusual. Lee Jeans, a French company dedicated to the selling of jeans, promoted the opening of their new store in rue des Rosiers in Paris. The method they applied consisted of distributing denims, as well as denim accessories, on the different streets of the neighborhood. Furthermore, in Italy, the members of the company Nintendo put into action a campaign in which they used post-its to promote the Wii console. They pasted several post-its with the shapes of some characters from different video games. Those images were placed as if they were billboards on the streets. “Wii not forget”, the name of the campaign, and a brief explanation of it, were the words written on the post-its.

In some cases, some street marketing may incite the ire of local authorities; such was the case in Houston, Texas, when BMW's ad agency (Street Factory Media in Minneapolis) attached a replication, made from styrofoam, of a Mini-Cooper to the side of a downtown building. For the cost of a small city-issued fine, the company received front page advertising on the Houston Chronicle.

Sony Ericsson used an undercover campaign in 2002, spearheaded by Jonathan Maron, when they hired 60 actors in ten major cities and had them accost strangers and ask them: "Would you mind taking my picture?" The actor then handed the target a brand new picture phone while talking about how cool the new device was. In this way, an everyday activity was converted into a branding event.

Guerrilla marketing is not exclusive to small companies. For big companies it is a high risk, high reward strategy. When successful, it can capture additional market share, but if it fails it can damage the company's brand image. One successful guerrilla marketing campaign is the Coca-Cola ‘Happiness Machine”. In January 2010, Coca-Cola, with the help of Definition 6, filmed a reaction video of a Coke vending machine dispensing ‘doses’ of happiness to unsuspecting students in St. John's University. A seemingly normal vending machine surprised students by dispensing items that were more than they bargained for. The students received items ranging from extra Coke, pizza, flowers, to even a twelve-foot hero sub. “Coke’s goal to inspire consumers through small, surprise moments of happiness” said Paul Iannacchino Jr., Creative Director, Definition 6. With a budget of only $60,000, the video generated 500,000 views in the first week. It now has over 7 million views to date. The campaign was so popular that a 30-second edit of the footage was featured during American Idol's 19th season. The Coca-Cola “Happiness Machine” also went on to receive the CLIO's prestigious Gold Interactive Award at the 51st annual awards dinner held in New York City. After the campaign's success, Coca-Cola decided to continue with the ‘Happiness’ theme and has released similar videos since then.

Strategic risk
Because of the nature of guerrilla marketing, the message and objective must be clearly defined in order to avoid being misunderstood. Misinterpretation by the targeted audience of the message intended to be promoted is a risk. Word-of-mouth advertising does not always remain sufficiently focused to present the intended message. The rumor-like spread of word-of-mouth marketing is uncontrollable once released, and can result in a misrepresentation of the message or confusion about a brand.

Another risk involves wrongly timed (or wrongly placed) events, which may actually be perceived to be against the interests of the consumer. For instance, in an ill-conceived promotion which took place on January 31, 2007, several magnetic circuit boards—each with an flashing LED cartoon figure—were attached to metal surfaces in and around Boston, Massachusetts to promote the animated series, Aqua Teen Hunger Force. The circuit boards were mistakenly taken for explosive devices. Several subway stations, bridges, and a portion of Interstate 93 were closed as police examined, removed, and (in some cases) destroyed the devices.

Some guerrilla marketing may incite the ire of local authorities. Then risks are assessed and may still be considered worthwhile. Such was the case in Houston, Texas, when BMW Auto's ad agency, Street Factory Media, attached a replica of a Mini-Cooper (made of Styrofoam), to the side of a downtown building in January 2013. For the small cost of a city-issued fine, the company received front page advertising in the Houston Chronicle. Another problem presents itself if marketers fail to properly execute an undercover campaign. They run considerable risk of backlash. An example of this can be found in Sony Entertainment's on-line debacle with Zipatoni. The company attempted to promote Zipatoni through a stealth marketing campaign, which was quickly detected by the internet community, resulting in Sony immediately experiencing a backlash from video game enthusiasts.

Street art is thus a subversive activity, hijacking public places and inventing rather paradoxical forms of expression that reformulate ways of communicating, all of which inform street marketing practices. Thus marketing in the street, given that it is inspired by the work of such artists, brings with it constraints and statutory risks for which agencies and advertisers are generally not prepared. The main problem is that, by definition, street mobilization campaigns require the use of public space, and that use must be authorized by government authorities to be legal. This is just as true for simple operations like distributing flyers as it is for mobilizing products or people and, of course, for a disguised campaign.

The authorizations necessary to carry out such a campaign are often very difficult to obtain within the time allotted for bringing the plan to fruition. Numerous potential operations have failed to obtain authorization for safety reasons, and in certain urban areas it is even expressly forbidden to undertake a guerrilla marketing campaign. In such cases, many agencies and advertisers will simply go ahead with the operation, meaning that they choose to act without authorization. How is such a choice reached, and on what bases? How is it justified? What impact does this choice have on the performance and costs of the operation? What transformations does this choice bring to the agency–advertiser relationship? These are the main questions posed in the development of street marketing operations today.

Inexpensive costs
In a declining economy, guerrilla marketing is an increasing solution to giving companies the comparative edge over others. During times when companies are downsizing and cutting costs, companies look to guerrilla marketing as a cheaper strategy than conventional marketing. Instead of investing money in the marketing process, guerrillas invest energy, time and creativity. If done successfully, companies will be able to reach conventional goals for profits and growth with a smaller marketing budget. One such example is the Blair Witch Project. A group of film students filmed an amateur horror movie. By setting up an internet campaign devoted to spreading rumors about the fictitious 'Blair Witch', it created a lot of interest for the film. With a budget of $50,000, the movie grossed $250 million worldwide.

According to Jay Levinson, guerrilla marketing emphasizes strongly on customer follow-up rather than ignoring customers after their purchase. Focusing on customer follow-up is a cheaper strategy because the cost of selling to a new customer is six times higher than selling to an existing customer. During a tough economy, it is important to focus on building relationships rather than sales, and aiming at individuals instead of groups. This promotes repeat sales, referrals and increased size of purchase. The use of telephone as a follow-up tool is helpful in improving customer relationships. Email is also another inexpensive tool for maintaining relationships. Emails can be used to direct people to the company website. The site can be then used to provide information and to advance sales.

title: Guerrilla marketing


text:
User:Lordrich

My home page is http://lordrich.com/, where you will find out all you need to know about me

title: User:Lordrich


text:
Charles Wesley

Charles Wesley (18 December 1707 – 29 March 1788) was an English Anglican cleric and a principal leader of the Methodist movement. Wesley was a prolific hymnwriter who wrote over 6,500 hymns during his lifetime. His works include "And Can It Be", "O for a Thousand Tongues to Sing", "Christ the Lord Is Risen Today", "Love Divine, All Loves Excelling", the carol "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing", and "Lo! He Comes With Clouds Descending".

Wesley was born in Epworth, Lincolnshire, the son of Anglican cleric and poet Samuel Wesley and his wife Susanna. He was a younger brother of Methodist founder John Wesley and Anglican cleric Samuel Wesley the Younger. He was the father of musician Samuel Wesley and the grandfather of musician Samuel Sebastian Wesley.

He was educated at Oxford University, where his brothers had also studied, and he formed the "Holy Club" among his fellow students in 1729. John Wesley later joined this group, as did George Whitefield. Charles followed his father and brother into ministry in 1735, and he travelled with John to Georgia in America, returning a year later. Following their evangelical conversions in 1738, the Wesley brothers travelled throughout Britain, converting followers to the Methodist revival through preaching and hymn-singing. In 1749, he married Sarah Gwynne, daughter of a Welsh gentleman who had been converted to Methodism by Howell Harris. From 1756 his ministry became more static and he ministered in Bristol, and later London.

Despite their closeness, Charles and John did not always agree on questions relating to their beliefs. In particular, Charles was strongly opposed to the idea of a breach with the Church of England in which they had been ordained.

Early life
Charles Wesley was the eighteenth child of Susanna Wesley and Samuel Wesley. He was born in Epworth, Lincolnshire, England, where his father was rector. In 1716, at the age of 8, he entered Westminster School, where his brother Samuel was usher. He was selected as King's Scholar in 1721 and head boy in 1725–26, before matriculating at Christ Church, Oxford.

At Oxford, Wesley formed a prayer group among his fellow students in 1727; his elder brother, John, joined in 1729, soon becoming its leader and moulding it in line with his own convictions. They focused on studying the Bible and living a holy life. Other students mocked them, saying they were the "Holy Club", "Sacramentarians", and "the Methodists", being methodical and exceptionally detailed in their Bible study, opinions and disciplined lifestyle. The Wesleys' future colleague, George Whitefield. joined the group. Wesley tutored while studying; he graduated in 1732 with a master's degree in classical languages and literature. He followed his father and brothers into Anglican orders, being ordained as a priest in September 1735. That same year his father died.

Voyage to America
On 14 October 1735, Wesley and his brother John sailed on The Simmonds from Gravesend, Kent, for Savannah in the Georgia colony of British America at the request of the governor, James Oglethorpe. Wesley was appointed Secretary of Indian Affairs and while John remained in Savannah, Wesley went as chaplain to the garrison and colony at nearby Fort Frederica, St. Simon's Island, arriving there on 9 March 1736 according to his journal entry. Matters did not turn out well, and he was largely rejected by the settlers. In July 1736, Wesley was commissioned to England as the bearer of dispatches to the trustees of the colony. On 16 August 1736, he sailed from Charleston, South Carolina, never to return to the Georgia colony.

Ministry
In 1738 the Wesley brothers, both dejected following their unsuccessful mission, had religious experiences: Charles experienced an evangelical conversion (or "renewal of faith" ) on 21 May and John had a similar experience in Aldersgate Street just three days later. A City of London blue plaque at 13 Little Britain, near the church of St Botolph, Aldersgate, off St. Martin's Le Grand, marks the site of the former house of John Bray, reputed to be the scene of Wesley's evangelical conversion. It reads, "Adjoining this site stood the house of John Bray. Scene of Charles Wesley's evangelical conversion, May 21st 1738". Wesley commemorated the first anniversary of his religious experience by composing an 18-stanza poem, with its seventh verse, beginning "O for a thousand tongues to sing", now serving as the opening of a shorter hymn.

Wesley felt renewed strength to spread the gospel to ordinary people and it was around then that he began to write the poetic hymns for which he would become known. In January 1739, he was appointed as curate to serve at St Mary's Church, Islington, but was forced to resign when the churchwardens objected to his evangelical preaching. Later that same year, finding that they were unwelcome inside parish churches, the Wesley brothers took to preaching to crowds in open fields. They were influenced by George Whitefield, whose open-air preaching was already reaching great numbers of Bristol colliers. Charles Wesley wrote to Whitefield regularly and is mentioned in many of Whitefield's journal entries. Whitefield drew from many of Wesley's hymns and even had one written to him by Wesley. From 1740, Charles and John were the joint leaders of the Methodist Revival and evangelised throughout Britain and Ireland. They were opposed by many Anglican clergy, especially when their appointed lay preachers began to preach in parishes without seeking permission. In Newcastle, Wesley established its first Methodist society in September 1742 and faced mob violence in Wednesbury and Sheffield in 1743 and at Devizes in 1747.

Following a period of illness, after 1756 Wesley made no more journeys to distant parts of the country, mainly just moving between Bristol and London. Increasingly in his later years, Wesley became the mouthpiece of the so-called "Church Methodists"—he was strongly opposed to a separation of Methodism from its Anglican roots. In the 1780s, he was especially dismayed by his brother's ordination of Methodist ministers to serve in America (see ), which he criticised in a published poem.

Marriage and children
In April 1749, he married the much younger Sarah Gwynne (1726–1822), also known as Sally. She was the daughter of Marmaduke Gwynne, a wealthy Welsh magistrate who had been converted to Methodism by Howell Harris. They moved into a house at 4 Charles Street in Bristol in September 1749. Sarah accompanied the brothers on their journeys throughout Britain until at least 1753.

In 1771, Wesley obtained another house in London, and moved into it that year with his elder son. By 1778 the whole family had transferred from Bristol to the London house, at 1 Great Chesterfield Street (now Wheatley Street), Marylebone, where they remained until Wesley's death and on into the 19th century. The house in Bristol still stands and has been restored, however the London house was demolished in the mid 19th century.

Only three of the couple's children survived infancy: Charles Wesley junior (1757–1834), Sarah Wesley (1759–1828), who like her mother was also known as Sally, and Samuel Wesley (1766–1837). Their other children, John, Martha Maria, Susannah, Selina and John James are all buried in Bristol, having died between 1753 and 1768. (See monument in garden on north side of junction of Lewis Mead and The Haymarket, Bristol.) Both Samuel and Charles junior were musical child prodigies and, like their father, became organists and composers. Charles junior spent most of his career as the personal organist of the Royal Family, and Samuel became one of the most accomplished musicians in the world and is often called "the English Mozart". Samuel Wesley's son, Samuel Sebastian Wesley, was one of the foremost British composers of the 19th century.

Death and burial
On his deathbed he sent for the rector of St Marylebone Parish Church, John Harley, and purportedly told him "Sir, whatever the world may say of me, I have lived, and I die, a member of the Church of England. I pray you to bury me in your churchyard." At the age of 80, he died on 29 March 1788 in London. His body was carried to the church by six clergy of the Church of England. A memorial stone to him stands in the gardens in Marylebone High Street, close to his place of burial. One of his sons, Samuel, became the organist at the church.

Hymns and other works
Wesley was a prolific hymnwriter. Among the collections (hymnals) of Wesley's hymns published in his lifetime were Hymns on God's Everlasting Love (1741, 1742), Hymns on the Lord's Supper (1745), and Short Hymns on Select Passages of the Holy Scriptures (1762), together with others celebrating the major festivals of the Christian year. His hymns are marked by their strong doctrinal content (notably the Arminian insistence on the universality of God's love), a richness of scriptural and literary allusion, and the variety of his metrical and stanza forms. They are considered to have had a significant influence not only on Methodism, but on Christian worship and modern theology as a whole.

Wesley's poetry included epistles, elegies and political and satirical verse. A collected edition of The Poetical Works of John and Charles Wesley, edited by George Osborn, was published in thirteen volumes in 1868–1872. Osborn's collection has now been supplemented by the three volumes of The Unpublished Poetry of Charles Wesley.

Jason E. Vickers states that Wesley's 'conversion experience' in 1738 had a clear impact on his doctrine, especially doctrine concerning the power of the Holy Spirit. The change was most prominent in his hymns written after the same year. From his published work Hymns and Prayers to the Trinity and in Hymn number 62 he writes "The Holy Ghost in part we know, For with us He resides, Our whole of good to Him we owe, Whom by His grace he guides, He doth our virtuous thoughts inspire, The evil he averts, And every seed of good desire, He planted in our hearts." Charles communicates several doctrines: the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the sanctifying work of the Spirit, the depravity of mankind, and humanity's personal accountability to God.

Hymnody
In the course of his career, Wesley published the words of between 6,500 and 10,000 hymns, many of which are still popular. These include:
 * "Arise, My Soul, Arise" (Words)
 * "And Can It Be That I Should Gain?" (Words)
 * "Christ the Lord Is Risen Today" (Words)
 * "Christ, Whose Glory Fills the Skies" (Words)
 * "Come, O Thou Traveller Unknown" (Words)
 * "Come, Thou Long Expected Jesus" (Words)
 * "Depth of Mercy, Can it Be" (Words)
 * "Father, I Stretch My Hands to Thee" (Words)
 * "Hail the Day That Sees Him Rise" (Words)
 * "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing" (Words)
 * "Jesus, Lover of My Soul" (Words)
 * "Jesus, The Name High Over All" (Words)
 * "Lo! He Comes with Clouds Descending" (Words)
 * "Love Divine, All Loves Excelling" (Words)
 * "O for a Heart to Praise My God" (Words)
 * "O for a Thousand Tongues to Sing" (Words)
 * "O Thou Who Camest from Above" (Words)
 * "Rejoice, the Lord is King" (Words)
 * "Soldiers of Christ, Arise" (Words)
 * "Sun of Unclouded Righteousness" (Words)
 * "Thou Hidden Source of Calm Repose" (Words)
 * "Ye Servants of God" (Words)

The words to many more of Charles Wesley's hymns can be found on Wikisource, and in his many publications.

Some 150 of his hymns are in the Methodist hymn book Hymns and Psalms, including "Hark! the Herald Angels Sing", and The Church Hymn Book (In New York and Chicago, US, 1872) where "Jesus, Lover of My Soul" is published. Many of his hymns are translated into other languages, and form the foundation for Methodist hymnals, as well as the Swedish Metodist-Episkopal-Kyrkans Psalmbok printed in Stockholm in 1892.

Psalms
Wesley's hymns are notable as interpretations of Scripture. He also produced paraphrases of the Psalms, contributing to the long tradition of English metrical Psalmody. A notable feature of his Psalms is the introduction of Jesus into the Psalms, continuing a tradition of Christological readings of the Psalms evident in the translations of John Patrick and Isaac Watts. The introduction of Jesus into the Psalms was often the source of controversy, even within Wesley's own family. Charles' brother Samuel Wesley wrote a poem against such practice. Of particular importance is Wesley's manuscript Psalms, held in the archives of the Pitts Theology Library at Emory University.

Legacy
Wesley is still remembered for his ministry while in St. Simon's Island, Georgia, by the South Georgia Conference of the United Methodist Church; in 1950, the conference opened a Christian retreat center on the island by the banks of the Frederica River, designating it Epworth by the Sea in honour of his and John's birthplace.

In the 19th century, Charles Wesley's legacy was downplayed by Methodist historians, largely because of his opposition to separating from the Church of England. He is remembered (with his brother) in the Church of England with a Lesser Festival on 24 May.

He is commemorated in the Calendar of Saints of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America on 2 March with his brother. The brothers are also commemorated on 3 March in the Calendar of Saints of the Episcopal Church. Charles is commemorated on 29 March in the Calendar of Commemorations by the Methodist Order of Saint Luke; John is commemorated on 2 March; their parents are also commemorated.

As a result of his enduring hymnody, the Gospel Music Association recognised Wesley's musical contributions to the art of gospel music in 1995 by listing his name in the Gospel Music Hall of Fame.

Wesley's hymns are utilised in not only Methodist churches but other Protestant denominations, and have been adopted by the Roman Catholic Church. Wesley wrote two of the so-called Great Four Anglican Hymns: "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing" and "Lo! He Comes With Clouds Descending".

 * Memorials

Tercentenary
24 May 2007 was celebrated as the tercentenary of Wesley's birth, with many celebratory events held throughout England, even though Wesley was in fact born in December 1707. The date of 24 May is known to Methodists as Aldersgate Day and commemorates the spiritual awakening of first Charles and then John Wesley in 1738.

In November 2007, An Post, the Irish Post Office, issued a 78-cent stamp to commemorate the 300th anniversary of Wesley's birth.

In film

 * A Heart Set Free – T. N. Mohan, 2007, a feature-length documentary on Charles Wesley's life and hymns.
 * Wesley – Foundery Pictures, 2009, starring Burgess Jenkins as John Wesley, R. Keith Harris as Charles Wesley, and featuring June Lockhart as Susanna Wesley and Kevin McCarthy as Bishop Ryder

title: Charles Wesley