In the past, there have been many logos, graphics, signs, slogans, and photographs attached to tragic events. I don't always agree with it, but it's not new.

I think one thing we can do is design better ways to inform the public on the event in detail beyond the sensationalist news sites/channels to promote knowledge, thoughtfulness and true empathy over biases, political agendas, and shallow acts of instant gratification.

Perhaps there could be a website that collects people's personal stories on the event. So that when one of us on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean says that we give our sympathy, we don't just say it because we read the Facebook sidebar, reshared an image, and did the "temporary" profile picture change, but because we read someone's experience, and truly meant it.

For me is something like this: http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3payqf

Do not underestimate the power of awareness and grief-en-masse. Seeing others sympathize can go a long way in aiding the recovery of the people who were directly affected.

It creates a "market" of sorts, that can prompt powers-that-be to take action. Whether that's a brand willing to increase awareness of themselves by setting up a fund-raiser for the affected, or a psychiatrist that reaches out to offer free consults for those affected through social channels.

The point there, is that the separate needs/wants (the need for help, the want to contribute) can be connected by a middle man.

And awareness draws such middle-men in.

So by all means.

.edit: I personally don't even care if a brand slaps their brand-name all over an initiative with good results: help is needed. I wouldn't complain if my ambulance was cheaper but had "RED BULL" all over the side. Especially well known brands, to be honest. Their "star-power" might enable them to get more money through to the actual cause.

I've came to realize this more and more lately. We haven't had such news and media coverage on the Russian airplane, the attack in Beirut, terrorist attacks in Nigeria and on any other terrorist attack outside the EU and US. It's like those people don't really matter to us. I wonder if they actually don't or that it is created by the media.

The group is also a constituent, and because of that it has the power to exert influence over elected representatives.

A symbol is a way of reinforcing social norms through peer pressure.

If people want to get behind a symbol that makes other people feel pressured by society to be more peaceful that's ok with me.

So there is a need for more meaning? As if the tragedy itself lacks of meaning or power? I actually believe we are over-saturated with meaning, with coverage, with opinions etc.

IMHO the brandification of a tragedy not only cheapens the actual fact, but it removes some of its meaning. Now it's an image, a picture that goes viral, a logo and a slogan that can be shared so easily, or a semi-transparent flag on top of profile pictures.

It becomes a simulacrum for grief and compassion, that replaces the need for actual action and engagement. The signifier itself is worthless and cheap, as it can be shared so simply by individuals or media publishers without much thought. On the other hand, the signified has a tremendous value, as the shock, the fear, the grief, the compassion and the need for helping other people can be genuine and powerful.

But when it comes canned in the form of a logo or a slogan that needs to be consumed by the masses in order to satisfy their need to show that they care, then all the real value is lost.