Feb. 3 review of media content (news, entertainment, advertisements, social media texts, internet games, youtube videos, online chat) can be posted here
Part 2, clip of Kingkong on 360- degree-screen.
Credits: Produced by Universal Studios, i-phone-recorded by Myra Lambino, annotation in the form of “Kingkong I don’t like thaaaaat! Kingkong go around!”: c/o Mommy’s grandkids,
uploaded here for non-commercial purposes
Discover more from marichulambino.com
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
http://mediamonitor201115474.wordpress.com/2014/02/03/media-monitor-feb-3/
LikeLike
Pantene – Labels Against Women #ShineStrong
This advertisement is more than just fair, it takes a progressive stands towards the promotion of gender equality and the breaking down of stereotypical prejudice. The advertisement doesn’t make use of false claims, re-enactments, or visual dramatisations, but it tastefully exposes the underlying differences in gender perception as experienced by men and women who lead relatively similar lives. The clip actually doesn’t even narrate the use of a product, and while it does feature the brand logo and campaign slogan at the end, it doesn’t even feature any product shots or dramatisations of user experience. The advertisement takes a leap of faith by going against traditional advertising methods and empowering its audience (and market), leaving viewers with a sense of courage and will to stand up in the name of equality.
LikeLike
http://wp.me/p47KER-5E
LikeLike
To : Prof. Marichu Lambino
Link :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VycHUukVcl0
The link above shows a detergent powder soap TV commercial in the Philippines with Brand ARIEL. This TV commercial was first aired last August 2013 and is still being shown to public. The product is being endorsed by a well-known TV host , also known as the “King of Talk” – Mr. Boy Abunda.
With regards, to what I have learned in Media Ethics, in the topic Code of ethics for advertising , here are the top three things I have observed in this commercial. First, clearly the advertisement is without any disguise, meaning it did not hide from the viewers that “ this is an advertisement, which is the correct thing to do as stated in Advertising Code of Ethics Section 1 (Presentation). Second, I have also noticed that this commercial made use of the term “brand X” to pertain to other brands , stating other brands are of low quality and should not be the choice of the people. Truly, this commercial did not mention or show anything that will give you a hint of what brand is that “Brand X”, but still using the word “brand X” is derogative in nature because it showcase a point of comparison. I think it is better if they have use the term “ other brands”. Third, this commercial features a different meaning of the word “ kuripot” or in English “thrifty” but now in line in a positive Filipino value.
From: Charmaine Ycasas
Comm110
201378428
LikeLike
201150258 http://mixtura927.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/media-monitor-feb-4/
LikeLike
Aquino, Rica
COMM 110
Youtube link: m.youtube.com/watchv=XYz3sl0LEA4
The link above is a commercial on cheese with the brand name, Panda. The skit has a panda playing the lead role where it shows up each time the other characters don’t buy or use the Panda cheese. This commercial has some ethical issues implied to it.
First, on the issue of racial discrimination. A panda is usually connoted to having a Chinese origin. The scenes in the commercial showed different other races such as for example, the Mexican girl, the Italian chef, the Indian worker and the American father and son. So with the panda showing up every time they refuse Panda cheese, it seems to show that being Chinese is a sign of superiority. Their tagline “Never say no to Panda” says so much about it.
The display of violence every time they refuse Panda cheese shows the Power of China over people. Not only that, it is also not good for children audiences who may interpret the acts of the Panda, being a cute and kid-friendly figure, as okay to do since they see it on television.
Another issue is on Consumerism. In this case, there seems to be forced consumerism. It is very well depicted in the last scene with the Father and son in the grocery. Where the father was forced to buy 2 pieces of Panda cheese since the panda would throw their cart.
There are many other better ways to endorse this Panda cheese product and it does not have to use violence or racial discrimination as a tool to do so.
LikeLike
Francheska Joy S. Pondevida
2012-78562
Hi ma’am this advertisement of Mcdonald’s last 2013 doesn’t in any way violate any rule in the advertising code of ethics. It is actually a good advertisement for children because it doesn’t promote disrespect and any rude or anti-social behavior. Also, the advertisement promotes good practice and teaches children to be respectful and towards their elders.
In recent times, children ads make children ignorant of their surroundings usually seen in bar and soap advertisements. Other advertisements portray children as embarking on too much adventure and recklessness.
This kind of advertisement of Mcdonald’s should be produced often because it really inspires and strengthens Filipino values and relationships.
LikeLike
http://ph.celebrity.yahoo.com/video/wowtv-see-scarlett-johansson-39-035400153.html
Above is a link to a SodaStream commercial starring Scarlett Johansson which got banned from airing. Scarlett appeared really hot according to commentators but that was not the reason she the ad was banned. Before the ad ends, Scarlett mentions “sorry coke and pepsi”.
It is stated in the Advertising Code of Ethics by AdBoard that:
“Advertisements should not directly or indirectly disparage, ridicule or unfairly attack
competitors or non-competitors, competing or non-competing products or services,
including distinguishing features of their advertising campaigns such as specific
layout, copy, slogan, visual presentation, music/jingle or sound effects.” Which is specifically what the advertisement had violated.
Overall the commercial could have been appealing to the audience, but even just four words could put all your cost for production in vain, if you’re not wary. I’m pretty sure the producers were aware even before the violation was noticed by the public.
LikeLike
Patricia Ann Concepcion
201035451
Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0IsAFMgzks
This Dove commercial aired 2 months ago claiming that after one wash, the user’s hair becomes smoother and less damaged. It featured testimonies of random women to support its claim.
What bothers me is that the product outrageously proclaims to do miracles to hair without mentioning the ingredients of the shampoo, or what makes it different from the other brands. The commercial did not site a source or did not make any information available to the public to support its claim that using their product actually repairs damaged hair. The commercial didn’t clarify whether their definition of a single wash meant to be used with their conditioner, even if the image of this product was included in the end. In my personal opinion, this commercial directly violates the Advertising Code of Ethics.
LikeLike
Last Sunday, February 2, 2014 an episode of “Buzz ng Bayan” did an exposition of the life and origin of Cedric Lee. He was revealed to have come from a wealthy family, and was described by college friends as a “quiet” student of De La Salle University. He is now 44 years old and a businessman by occupation. He was revealed to have had relationships with various female celebrities despite already being married.
In relation to this, the life of Deneice Cornejo was also scrutinized. Her positive qualities were emphasized whereas the true issues such as her relationship with both Lee and Vhong Navarro seemed to have been purposely omitted as the cut was abrupt and the episode ended with a statement tantamount to “may justice reign supreme.” It was as if the episode had been aired to reinforce the idea that Deneice Cornejo was a “good girl” and could not have been in cahoots with Lee.
LikeLike
Concerning the banned BMW M5 commercial
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srrbvNNUKrA
In Code of Ethics for Advertising, it is stated that “advertisements should not depict or exploit persons as sex objects and should not carry any sexual double entendres.”
True enough that Madonna’s character was dressed quite decently (as compared to other women in other car commercials), but she was subjected to the male gaze and ridiculed nevertheless. It is disappointing because here is a woman who is dominant and empowered, but she was heavily shamed for being so. Once again, men were proven to be in control, putting woman back to their place. This is evident in the scene where water was spilled on the crotch of the woman.
The commercial reinforces the wrong notions of the society on how women should be, highlighting that is is the men who holds the steering wheel. It is as if saying that women are not meant to “drive” the world. The commercial was banned for being sexist.
LikeLike
Like It! it help me in doing my homeworks.:)
LikeLike