Metropolitan police Trident ad: credited with helping to cut London's gun crime by 15%
The advertising campaign that supported Trident, the Metropolitan police's anti-gun crime initiative, has been judged the most effective in the UK.
Developed by ad agency MCBD, the campaign won the grand prix at the annual IPA Effectiveness awards last night.
The award, considered the UK benchmark for awarding campaigns on the basis of results, credited the campaign with leading to an 86% rise in calls providing information on gun crime, and a 15% reduction in actual gun crime.
Media agency MediaCom planned and bought media for the ad push, which also won a gold award.
The ads aimed to fight gun crime in London's black community and were targeted at streetwise men aged 18 to 24. They dramatised the devastating effects of gun crime and challenged the glamorous imagery surrounding the weapons.
Based around the strapline "Stop the guns", the campaign included ads on petrol pumps and a music video.
London effectiveness agency of the year went to MCBD - which also picked up a gold award for its Waitrose campaign - while The Union picked up the same award for Scotland.
The prize for effectiveness agency of the year in the regions went to Omnicom-owned BDH TBWA.
"In this competition we saw examples of how advertising can rescue a failing business, launch a successful brand extension and insulate a brand from increasing competitive threat," said Richard Storey, the M&C Saatchi chief strategy officer and the convener of the judges.
"However, what inspired the judges most was the proof that it can be successfully and creatively engaged to reduce an endemic social problem like gun crime."
In total four golds, six silvers, eight bronzes and 11 special prizes were presented at the awards.
This year the awards were limited to UK agencies with an income of up to £20m.
Wednesday, 14 November 2007
Thursday, 8 November 2007
Marxism
Well Marxism is society are told what to do according to class therefore people face inequality and there are types of media which are suited for that class. However this is wrong so pluralist give choices to their audiences.
I agree with the person above, i do believe that there is a social class division, which splits the society up. The rich will stay rich and the rich will stay poor.
There is only a social class division if you think there is. And if you do then there are ways to stop that. Individuals split themselves up into social 'classes'.
Yeah, individuals are to express there opinions through ther media without restrictions. Such as google setting up blogger.com, as the audience get more literate they become more demanding and selective.
But like you said, google owning blogger.com is an example of big companies owning small companies. Rupert Murdoch for instance owns many companies, and although he provides variety, he chooses what goes on and what doesn't in his companies and therefore his underlying message(if he was one) can still be approved throughout.
Firstly on blogger.com you can set up a blogger.com you can set set up a blog on anything so no ideologies ae fittered to us. Yes Murdoch will channel his opinions to us but in todays society there are so many sources to gain info from.
False conciousness we become passive!!!
Interesting......
I agree with the person above, i do believe that there is a social class division, which splits the society up. The rich will stay rich and the rich will stay poor.
There is only a social class division if you think there is. And if you do then there are ways to stop that. Individuals split themselves up into social 'classes'.
Yeah, individuals are to express there opinions through ther media without restrictions. Such as google setting up blogger.com, as the audience get more literate they become more demanding and selective.
But like you said, google owning blogger.com is an example of big companies owning small companies. Rupert Murdoch for instance owns many companies, and although he provides variety, he chooses what goes on and what doesn't in his companies and therefore his underlying message(if he was one) can still be approved throughout.
Firstly on blogger.com you can set up a blogger.com you can set set up a blog on anything so no ideologies ae fittered to us. Yes Murdoch will channel his opinions to us but in todays society there are so many sources to gain info from.
False conciousness we become passive!!!
Interesting......
Tuesday, 6 November 2007
Pluralism
In what ways do I agree with Pluralism?
To a certain extent i agree with pluralism as society, for example the media have choices within the market for example with magazines. Also if we look at superstores there is now a wide range of places to go however there is a tesco preety much located everywhere therefore people-consumers are drawn towards them. Similarly, television have choices of channels to watch however if one person owns these channels then they will provide the audience with the same values as a result there is really not much choice.
This shows that there really is not a pluralistic society.
To a certain extent i agree with pluralism as society, for example the media have choices within the market for example with magazines. Also if we look at superstores there is now a wide range of places to go however there is a tesco preety much located everywhere therefore people-consumers are drawn towards them. Similarly, television have choices of channels to watch however if one person owns these channels then they will provide the audience with the same values as a result there is really not much choice.
This shows that there really is not a pluralistic society.
Murdoch confronts rebels and rules out bid for Facebook
Rupert Murdoch hosed down a shareholder rebellion yesterday as nearly a quarter of News Corporation's investors voted for greater democracy within the Australian billionaire's media empire.
At News Corp's annual meeting in New York, some 23% of shareholders backed a resolution from an Australian activist seeking changes in the dual class voting structure to create "one share, one vote".
The move would loosen Mr Murdoch's grip on the company, parent of newspapers such as The Times and The Sun and the controlling investor in BSkyB.
"We're running a corporate structure which is frankly embarrassing - which is a gerrymander," said Stephen Mayne, accusing Mr Murdoch of being paranoid about a takeover. "Trust yourself, back your record. You're a legend - nobody's going to sack you."
Such a change has little chance of success because the Murdoch family controls a 30% voting block. Wall Street critics say the structure keeps the mainstream "B" shares out of the Standard & Poor's 500 index, consigning them to a lower rating.
Mr Murdoch said protection from takeover was beneficial because it allowed management to take more risks.
He ruled out buying Facebook, rival to NewsCorp's social networking site MySpace.
"We're going in slightly different ways. They [Facebook] are more of a utility - I won't say a phone book - for friends to connect with each other," he said, describing MySpace as more "cultural".
At News Corp's annual meeting in New York, some 23% of shareholders backed a resolution from an Australian activist seeking changes in the dual class voting structure to create "one share, one vote".
The move would loosen Mr Murdoch's grip on the company, parent of newspapers such as The Times and The Sun and the controlling investor in BSkyB.
"We're running a corporate structure which is frankly embarrassing - which is a gerrymander," said Stephen Mayne, accusing Mr Murdoch of being paranoid about a takeover. "Trust yourself, back your record. You're a legend - nobody's going to sack you."
Such a change has little chance of success because the Murdoch family controls a 30% voting block. Wall Street critics say the structure keeps the mainstream "B" shares out of the Standard & Poor's 500 index, consigning them to a lower rating.
Mr Murdoch said protection from takeover was beneficial because it allowed management to take more risks.
He ruled out buying Facebook, rival to NewsCorp's social networking site MySpace.
"We're going in slightly different ways. They [Facebook] are more of a utility - I won't say a phone book - for friends to connect with each other," he said, describing MySpace as more "cultural".
Channel 4 in clear on housemates' offensive words
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/nov/06/bigbrother.raceandreligionChannel 4 has been cleared of breaching broadcasting regulations over its decision to transmit an incident in which a Big Brother contestant used a racially offensive word to describe another housemate.Nineteen-year-old Emily Parr was axed from the show by producers after making the comment to Charley Uchea early in this summer's Big Brother series.Emily Parr: acknowledged that she should have been 'more careful with her words'. Photograph: Channel 4 Ofcom said Channel 4's decision to broadcast the incident was justified by the context of the show, adding that it had made clear that the language was "offensive and unacceptable".Around 450 complaints were made after Parr's comment was broadcast in a Channel 4 highlights episode of Big Brother on June 7 this year.Parr, from Bristol, was dancing with two of her fellow contestants on the night of June 6-7 when she said to Uchea: "You pushing it out, you nigger."When she was challenged by the pair, Parr said she was joking, adding that she had black friends who called her that.Parr was removed from the house the following morning, June 7. At the time of her disqualification, Channel 4 said Parr had used a "racially offensive word" and that she had acknowledged she should have been "more careful with her words".But some viewers complained that Channel 4 had over-reacted by removing Parr from the house, and had failed its its duty of care to the reality TV contestant.Channel 4 was also cleared today by Ofcom of any wrong-doing in a similar incident on this year's series of the reality show when a contestant was called a "poof".The behaviour of the housemates and Channel 4 was under close scrutiny in the wake of the Celebrity Big Brother race row when the treatment of the Bollywood actor Shilpa Shetty by Jade Goody, Danielle Lloyd and Jo O'Meara prompted 54,000 complaints and led to effigies being burnt on the streets of India."Ofcom has made clear in previous adjudications and findings that the broadcasters' right to broadcast such material and the audience's right to receive it is an important principle," said the regulator in its ruling today."It has been established over many series that the Big Brother audience expects to see all aspects of the housemates' characters exposed during their stay in the house."Channel 4 would not have been expected to keep key character information from viewers, since it is the viewers who decide who to vote for."By including these scenes, Channel 4 offered viewers an insight into all the housemates' characters, not just Emily Parr's. In Ofcom's view this context is in line with the editorial content of the series and audience expectations."The regulator said the programme had made clear that the use of that particular word was "offensive and unacceptable ... Ofcom therefore considered that there was appropriate justification and there was no breach of the code".Separately, around 200 viewers complained after two incidents in which another Big Brother contestant, Laura Williams, called housemate Liam McGough a "poof".Viewers who complained said the word was as offensive to the gay community as the word used by Parr was to the black community.Channel 4 told Ofcom that "very careful consideration" had been given to its inclusion in the show.But the broadcaster said that it had underestimated the offence it caused viewers after the first comment was aired.When it was repeated, Big Brother called Williams into the diary room to reprimand her for her language, and she was later evicted from the house by viewers.Channel 4 said the decision to broadcast the comment had been considered at senior levels in both the channel and the production company, Endemol.In its ruling, Ofcom said: "For the broadcaster, the important distinction had been made that Laura Williams, in contrast to Emily Parr, had not used this term directly against a gay housemate (Liam McGough is not gay) and it had been very clear that the gay housemate whom it had been used in front of had not been offended by her use of the term, unlike Charley Uchea in the Emily Parr incident."The regulator said there was "insufficient or no evidence to suggest that Laura Williams used the word ... in a denigratory way".The comments were included in Big Brother updates on Channel 4 broadcast on July 1 and July 4.Ofcom said it was "not possible or appropriate at present to establish definitively the degree of offence use of the world 'poof' can cause in all contexts".But it said it was "sympathetic" to the concerns voiced by complainants about the use of the word, and reminded broadcasters to "exercise care about the frequency with, and context in, the word is broadcast".
Marxism
Checkpoint 1: What is the difference between the Proletariat and Bourgeoisie?
The Bourgeoisie own the means production. There are two categories for these people: the wealthy bourgeoisie who do not work themselves but employ others, the petty bourgeoisie who also have high status and employ people to work for them but also do the work themselves. The Proletariat are usually working class who get exploited by the higher status and higher classes.
Checkpoint 2: What is the difference between the ISA and RSA?
ISA is simply physical violence control, an example of this can be the police.
RSA is psychological control, through such as Masjids, Church, Family, Education.
How much of a marxist am i?
I believe that I am not much of a Marxist as i feel that your social class should not hinder any of your chances in life. However the reality is that there are major class conflict within society and as Althusser stated the working class are constantly getting expoilted. But this is obviously a good thing for the Bourgeoisie as they pay low wages but income is always on the rise therefore profits are always high. Furthermore the ISA and RSA help maintain Bourgeoisie ideologies for example the education system has a teacher who has power compared to a student. Therefore students are told from a young age that there will always be someone above them in status even when they enter the world of work. I believe to a certain extent that this is wrong however by doing this it help to keep social order but then again it does not provide equality. The ISA and their institutions like the media inforce someones iable. Overall, i dont like the fact that individuals have different chances in life due to their social status. Also, large media institutions that inforce their views on us as the consumers. There will always be a class conflict in society which will never be solved.
The Bourgeoisie own the means production. There are two categories for these people: the wealthy bourgeoisie who do not work themselves but employ others, the petty bourgeoisie who also have high status and employ people to work for them but also do the work themselves. The Proletariat are usually working class who get exploited by the higher status and higher classes.
Checkpoint 2: What is the difference between the ISA and RSA?
ISA is simply physical violence control, an example of this can be the police.
RSA is psychological control, through such as Masjids, Church, Family, Education.
How much of a marxist am i?
I believe that I am not much of a Marxist as i feel that your social class should not hinder any of your chances in life. However the reality is that there are major class conflict within society and as Althusser stated the working class are constantly getting expoilted. But this is obviously a good thing for the Bourgeoisie as they pay low wages but income is always on the rise therefore profits are always high. Furthermore the ISA and RSA help maintain Bourgeoisie ideologies for example the education system has a teacher who has power compared to a student. Therefore students are told from a young age that there will always be someone above them in status even when they enter the world of work. I believe to a certain extent that this is wrong however by doing this it help to keep social order but then again it does not provide equality. The ISA and their institutions like the media inforce someones iable. Overall, i dont like the fact that individuals have different chances in life due to their social status. Also, large media institutions that inforce their views on us as the consumers. There will always be a class conflict in society which will never be solved.
Globalization Discussion
Rav and Deep are having a discussion about globalization.
Rav: Well lets take Tesco for example if they become a monopoly then we as consumers will have no choice what happened to the whole 'pluralistic society'.. and will be forced to buy our shopping from them compared to competitors like Asda etc. So what i am saying is if Microsoft take over what we do on computers then in theory we will be conforming to the idelogies of Bill Gates....
Deep: I understand but if someone like Bill Gates is doing well and what he is doing then why dont he just carry on. If he is taking over then potentially he is catering for the mainstream audience therefore he will cater for everyones needs, as does Tesco as they now provide electricals as well as groceries....
Rav: Well the media is significant for globalisation. Mcluhan stated the 'global village' if something was happening in India we would get the news in England within seconds. There are multinationals they have an economic advantage as they give 'better audience reach and diversification....'
Deep: As you said we get news from these institutions but how can you be sure that they are not biased for example look at Murdoch who preety much owns everything his views could be implemented on the information the organisation present to the audience which again could be biased.
Rav: Well lets take Tesco for example if they become a monopoly then we as consumers will have no choice what happened to the whole 'pluralistic society'.. and will be forced to buy our shopping from them compared to competitors like Asda etc. So what i am saying is if Microsoft take over what we do on computers then in theory we will be conforming to the idelogies of Bill Gates....
Deep: I understand but if someone like Bill Gates is doing well and what he is doing then why dont he just carry on. If he is taking over then potentially he is catering for the mainstream audience therefore he will cater for everyones needs, as does Tesco as they now provide electricals as well as groceries....
Rav: Well the media is significant for globalisation. Mcluhan stated the 'global village' if something was happening in India we would get the news in England within seconds. There are multinationals they have an economic advantage as they give 'better audience reach and diversification....'
Deep: As you said we get news from these institutions but how can you be sure that they are not biased for example look at Murdoch who preety much owns everything his views could be implemented on the information the organisation present to the audience which again could be biased.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)