Archive for July, 2008
July 24th, 2008 -- Posted in Story |
And start telling the truth for once.
Robert Shaw, Professor of Marketing Metrics recently said “Advertising is a zero-sum competitive game, strong advertisers grow at the expense of weak ones, stealing customers from the weak…as many campaigns showing negative performance as there are positive”.
So now we can drop the 30 year old (and more) gossip (because that’s what it is…merely gossip) about “Advertising works” because it is a zero sum game.
At the risk of putting myself in a majority of one I agree with Professor Robert Shaw, Advertising is never cost effective. Perhaps we can now get on with developing superior methods of marketing communication?
The President of the IPA, in his inaugural address presented “evidence” that advertising contributed £160 bn a year in added value to the economy. I’m afraid that he argues in vain…and inaccurately at that!
His statement could be laughably ignored if it wasn’t so grossly inaccurate and misleading.
Put simply advertising does not have any connection with the success or failure of a product or service that is of course, if you do not count a horrible waste of money a connection!
Advertising is supposed to be totally accountable, research has never been initiated to establish the sole effectiveness of advertising on sales…I think that it is a no-brainer why such research has never been conducted!
Instead advertising has become a reality show where the Judge is The President of the IPA and is allowed to quote such outrageously inaccurate statements!
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, we are given more misleading and confusing facts about the effectiveness, or otherwise, of advertising.
“Celebrity endorsements pay off as Supermarkets lift ad.spend” screams one headline. Whilst another headline screamed “M & S gloom hits the high street for £5 bn.”
It appears that M&S had £5 bn wiped off the share value of High Street stores. The Group reported a 2.2% fall in the final quarter of the year, with clothing sales down 3.2% and food down 1.5%.
This was despite widely acclaimed advertising for fashion, featuring models Laura Bailey, Erin O’Connor & Twiggy, and film star Antonio Banderas. Now perhaps advertising agencies don’t consider Laura Bailey et al celebrities, so then they have an excuse for their failure!
It was the first drop in sales for more than two years – need we say more!
The Estate of Business pays large sums of money to the Estate of Advertising. Advertising Agencies tend to prescribe remedies that lie within their own competence. Advertising is about perceptions not substance. Advertising majors in inspiration and creativity together with novelty.
They are supposed to deliver sales. As M&S have discovered, afterwards comes the cynicism, together with the disappointment. No…advertising does just not deliver sales…any more!
Having invested over $10 million in independent research, Paul Ashby is ideally suited to present the case for the widespread use of interactive marketing communication. The research investment has proved conclusively that one exposure to an interactive “event” is far more effective in all key measurements, than traditional advertising. Paul made this investment because his company, Effective. Accountable. Communication is predicated on being totally accountable to its Clients. Discover more on http://interactivetelevisionorinteractivetv.blogspot.com
July 20th, 2008 -- Posted in Story |
The movie The Great Debaters debates universal topics and themes which all human beings can relate to and understand. In regard to what is morally right or wrong, which is to be preeminent? The law or one’s own conscience?
This is but one of the many outstanding topics debated and argued throughout the film, which deals with racial inequality, injustice, and human rights abuses. For centuries the legislature had written unjust laws to enslave, disenfranchise, and oppress blacks in America.
Thankfully because of some noble and intellectually astute men who wisely framed and articulated their arguments peacefully, justice did come and anglo-saxon hearts were won over to freedom. This progressively and eventually brought about an emancipation for blacks across the nation. Yet those in power did not turn over their control and remove their domination easily. They had to be confronted, exposed, and battled endlessly.
Hence the beauty and burden of democracy is a wayward people can rule by majority and thereby legally enact immorality. As Ghandi stated civil disobedience at times is just when the laws of men are unjust.
Though those in power among the ruling class would say civil disobedience is nothing more than the true face of anarchy, nothing can be further from the truth when you look closer at America’s historical atrocities inflicted upon the African race.
Honestly no people is more positioned or poised to show true love and forgiveness to America and its people than the Africans who were oppressed by this nation.
A march of civil disobedience done peacefully as instructed by Ghandi maintained human dignity and respect for one’s opponent, even to the extent of humbly accepting the legal consequences for your actions. Such acceptance of the repercussions for defying the law (even if the be unjust) can by no means be anarchy.
Another topic of debate in the film is welfare, which some say discourages hard work. Survival, that is eating and drinking, having a roof over one’s head, undoubtedly is the greatest motivation for one to go to work daily. It is arguable therefore that welfare weakens the poor further making them lazy and unwilling to work and be self-sufficient.
Yet the innocent children of parents without jobs who are both willing and able to work should not be made to suffer and go without, while a nation so prosperous as ours thrives. The government should provide jobs before condemning the poor.
As blacks redeemed their dignity, got their births recognized, and obtained meaningful employment it was immediately evident that the color of one’s skin need not be the determining factor of one’s character.
Black poets such as Hughes, Bennet, and Hurst showed themselves intellectually strong and capable in their writings. Hatred is merely a game played by cool hands. Wise and timeless words!
Today we no longer demonize Indians, blacks, and communists. Instead we prefer to demonize Muslims and label them terrorists (often people who we know nothing about). Hence America’s oppression marches on – it has just be taken off our soil and moved to another “theater of war” afar where less public scrutiny will be given.
It is therefore faulty logic and presumptuous to call America godly and good when it poorly represents the heart of the Creator both historically and now.
Who are we to do nothing? Such was an unforgettable question asked in this marvelous film that calls us to account.
A law that violates my conscience is void of justice. So too are executive orders that send sons to war to kill innocent people of another color or creed just because they cannot comprehend the English language when a gun is put to their face.
Conscience precedes law and enables us to know right from wrong.
Blacks were hung, lynched, and killed without justice. Today history is again repeating itself.
Are we confused or convinced by our own media propaganda?
An unjust law is no law at all.
Your opponent is a mere dissenting voice to the truth, which we in our hearts ultimately already know. God is the judge of the living and the dead.
Intuitively Professor Tolson early on recognized in The Great Debaters the irony of Bethlehem Steel, a company that makes weapons of war and yet uses the name of the birthplace of the Prince of Peace Jesus Christ.
Whatever it takes to make us comfortable with imperialism and the military-industrial complex I suppose. The denigration of people continues, only afar.
Today blacks have freedoms they fought for and gloriously won! I encourage them and all people to continue the fight for freedom for others afar who are being brutalized by almighty America and abused under “the rule of law” which often is no law at all beyond that of our own making, while we simultaneously disdain international law and become a law unto ourselves.
Write your own dictionary! For America has skillfully mastered the manipulation of the English language and their actions speak louder than their words.
Contact Paul F. Davis to speak about or debate the issues of the day on your college campus, in your city, or in your country.
RevivingNations@gmail.com
http://www.PaulFDavis.com
407-284-1705
Paul builds dreams, transcends limitations, & reconciles nations. Paul worked at Ground Zero in NYC during 9/11; helped rebuild a home at the tsunami epicenter; comforted victims of genocide in Rwanda; spoke to leaders in East Timor during the war; inspired students & monks in Myanmar; addressed audiences throughout India, China, Pakistan, & parts of Africa where they’ve never seen a white man. He is a highly sought after worldwide professional speaker, prolific author, human rights activist, provocateur, and minister.
Filmmakers and producers interested in United States of Arrogance (Paul’s book) can contact Davis who owns the U.S. Trademark for movie rights. Davis, a worldwide professional speaker has touched over 50 countries & 6 continents empowering people throughout the earth to live their dreams!
Davis has written 12 books, 2 nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.
July 15th, 2008 -- Posted in Story |
Over the years, Tahiti and Polynesia have provided novelists and moviemakers with colorful subject matter. Early travelers told of wanton women on tropical shores, and Fletcher Christian added drama to the plot by leading a mutiny against the tyrannical Captain Bligh.
In 1934 American writers Charles Nordhoff and James Norman Hall brought out the Bounty Trilogy. This three-part novel deals with Christian’s mutiny on the Bounty, the escape of Bligh and his loyal crew members to Dutch Timor, and the colonization of Pitcairn Island by Christian and his fellow mutineers.
The novel was an instant bestseller, and director Frank Lloyd soon made it into a movie, Mutiny on the Bounty, starring Charles Laughton and Clark Gable. In keeping with the mood of his time, the mutiny was presented as a simplistic struggle between good and evil, and the film won an Oscar for Best Picture in 1935.
A generation later Marlon Brando flew down to Tahiti to star in a blockbuster remake of Mutiny on the Bounty. MGM’s 1962 production is still considered the most spectacular film ever made in the South Pacific, in part due to the glorious scenery of Tahiti and Bora Bora. Thousands of Tahitian extras appeared in the film, and Brando married his first lady, Tarita Teriipaia.
In 1984, yet another version of The Bounty was released, with Sir Anthony Hopkins as a resolute Bligh and Mel Gibson as an ambiguous Christian. Of the three Bounty films, this is probably the most historically accurate, and it’s certainly the one with the greatest psychological depth. It was largely filmed in Moorea’s Opunohu Bay.
Another Nordhoff and Hall novel, The Hurricane, has been brought to the silver screen twice. John Hall’s 1937 film portrays a young couple fleeing a despotic governor. In 1978 Dino de Laurentiis reshot The Hurricane on Bora Bora, with Mia Farrow and Trevor Howard. The resort built to house de Laurentiis’ crew still exists as the Sofitel Marara.
British novelist W. Somerset Maugham also had close ties to the South Pacific. In 1943 Albert Lewin filmed The Moon and Sixpence, Maugham’s fictionalized account of Paul Gauguin’s life in Polynesia. The nonconformist painter’s incompatibility with French colonial life provided Maugham with a pretext to explore the role of the artist in society. Another famous Maugham story, Rain, set in Samoa, has been made into a movie several times.
Other well-known authors who have popularized the legend of Tahiti include Herman Melville, Pierre Loti, Robert Louis Stevenson, Jack London, Rupert Brooke, and James A. Michener. Their stories, plays, and films have helped create the myth of a South Seas paradise. And even today, Tahiti and Polynesia beckon to romantics wishing to live their share of the dream.
David Stanley is the author of Moon Handbooks Tahiti His online travel guide to Tahiti and French Polynesia may be perused at Tahiti Travel Guide and his Tahiti travel photos are at Pacific Pictures.
You have permission to publish this article electronically or in print, free of charge, so long as the byline and resource box are included. Please do not use this article without the byline and resource box. Many thanks!
July 10th, 2008 -- Posted in Story |
Astrology is a wonderful science of sorts. Unfortunately, the astrology that most people are exposed to is very watered down and inaccurate. I am speaking of the various astrology forecasts published in newspapers and magazines today. The writers of such articles use a method called a sunrise chart to make predictions about the various signs which tries to say something accurate about each sign, which is a group of people all born in a 30-day period of time. These predictions are rarely accurate and if they are accurate at all, it is more of an accident than intentioned. The problem with these published predictions is that they give astrology a bad name. Most people laugh about these things and essentially what was regarded as a sacred science in ancient times is now a ‘gimmick’ or some form of perverse amusement. This is sad when one considers that true astrology, and other sciences such as the Science of the Cards, can give truly amazing predictions and information that can make a big difference in people’s lives.
Your birthday is essentially a blueprint of the life you are leading. A skilled astrologer or card reader can tell you things about yourself that would astound you. I have performed thousands of readings using astrology and the cards together and I have helped these clients with a wide range of challenges they face. The most common and usually most important issue is relationships, usually the intimate relationship with a partner. What some people do not know is that each birthday of the year has a particular relationship pattern associated with it. Some of these patterns are quite distinct and easy to identify. For example, some birthdays of the year are prone to marriage while others are not. Some of what I call these ‘un-marriageable’ birthdays will often get married, but rarely make a lasting success of it. Some birthdays should never get married at all really. But some people of these birthdays will usually try it anyway, often to give in to family pressure or to prove something to themselves. But ultimately these marriages fail. When I do a relationship reading for someone, the first thing I look at is their marriage-potential or commitment potential as it were. It makes the difference and helps frame everything about their love life in the proper context. It is not a curse to be born on a day that doesn’t really like commitment. It is just a choice, like all others, neither positive or negative. Some birthdays are highly sexually oriented while others are very security oriented. Some are creative while others are more practical and organized.
Most of the information I use about relationships and birthdays comes from the Science of the Cards. In this system each day of the year is assigned one of the 53 playing cards (52 plus the Joker). And that card holds the key to their lifetime destiny, just as much or more as one’s astrology sign. It not only reveals information about one’s love life potential and patterns, but identifies key personality traits and patterns of experience that are unique. Often one can even tell what professions would be best and just how one’s life can be expressed in its highest and most satisfying way. Below I give a glimpse of just some of what is offered by this amazing system. You will see a list of birthdays, some of which are the most marriageable and some who are the least. I will also include here, for your enjoyment, the specific Birth Card of each birthday and one or two celebrities who exemplify those qualities mentioned.
The list below is by no means complete. Every birthday has a rating that is highly accurate. This is just a sample. Keep in mind as you read that the Marriage-ability number starts with 0 and goes to 10, where 10 is the most marriageable and 0 the least.
• 1/1=King of Spades; Marriagability Rating–5; Celebrities born on this day–J. Edgar Hoover, Verne Troyer; Comments–The most Powerful card in the deck!
• 1/5=Nine of Spades; Marriagability Rating–8; Celebrities born on this day–Walter Mondale, Robert Duvall; Comments–Giving and highly organized.
• 1/11=Three of Spades; Marriagability Rating–4-5; Celebrities born on this day–Amanda Peet, Mary J. Blige; Comments–Highly creative and artistic.
• 1/16=Jack of Diamonds; Marriagability Rating–5; Celebrities born on this day–Kate Moss, Aaliyah; Comments–Inner conflict between freedom and commitment.
• 2/22=Three of Diamonds; Marriagability Rating–4; Celebrities born on this day–JDrew Barrymore, Michael Chang; Comments–Probably not marriage material.
• 2/25=King of Clubs; Marriagability Rating–9; Celebrities born on this day–Tea Leoni, Carrot Top; Comments–Highly intelligent.
• 2/22=King of Diamonds; Marriagability Rating–9; Celebrities born on this day–JDrew Sharon Stone, Prince Edward; Comments–Strong willed/business minded.
• 3/10=Five of Diamonds; Marriagability Rating–2; Celebrities born on this day–Queen Latifah, Vanessa Williams; Comments–Freedom, freedom, freedom!
• 4/5=Three of Spades; Marriagability Rating–3; Celebrities born on this day–Amanda Mike McCready, Jane Asher; Comments–Artist and travel oriented.
• 4/28=Six of Clubs; Marriagability Rating–9; Celebrities born on this day–Jessica Alba, Jay Leno ; Comments–Love and sex, what else!
•5/7=Queen of Diamonds; Marriagability Rating–3; Celebrities born on this day–Tracy Lords, Amy Heckerling; Comments–Creative and indecisive.
• 6/18=Queen of Clubs; Marriagability Rating–7; Celebrities born on this day–Paul McCartney, Isabella Rossallini; Comments–Psychic and highly intelligent.
• 7/23=Five of Clubs; Marriagability Rating–2; Celebrities born on this day–Paul Woody Harrelson, Stephanie Seymour; Comments–Freedom means everything.
•8/5=Eight of Diamonds; Marriagability Rating–5; Celebrities born on this day–Patrick Ewing, Anastasia Horne; Comments–Multiple marriages very possible.
• 8/22=Four of Clubs; Marriagability Rating–8; Celebrities born on this day–Tori Amos, Layne Staley; Comments–Organized and grounded.
• 9/15=Nine of Clubs; Marriagability Rating–7; Celebrities born on this day–Prince Harry, Dan Marino; Comments–Very sexy and love prone.
• 9/29=Eight of Hearts; Marriagability Rating–7; Celebrities born on this day–Natasha Wagner, Andrew Dice Clay; Comments–Playboy/playgirl.
• 10/12=Ten of Clubs; Marriagability Rating–6; Celebrities born on this day–Kirk Cameron, Hugh Jackman; Comments–Independent and powerful.
• 10/31=Four of Hearts; Marriagability Rating–9; Celebrities born on this day–Durmont Mulroney, Jane Pauley; Comments–Family oriented and powerful.
• 11/1=Six of Diamonds; Marriagability Rating–7; Celebrities born on this day–Jenny McCarthy, Anne Donovan; Comments–Marry a rich guy/lady!
• 11/27=Six of Hearts; Marriagability Rating–8; Celebrities born on this day–Robin Givens, Caroline Kennedy; Comments–Long-lasting relationships.
• 11/1=Ace of Diamonds; Marriagability Rating–1; Celebrities born on this day–Jay-Z, Jeff Bridges; Comments–Should never marry.
• 12/18=King of Hearts; Marriagability Rating–8; Celebrities born on this day–Brad Pitt, Katie Holmes; Comments–Strongly family bent.
• 12/31=Joker; Marriagability Rating–Who Knows?; Celebrities born on this day–Anthony Hopkins, Val Kilmer; Comments–A mystery unto themselves.
Ginny Heenan is working on the Science of the Cards with Robert Lee Camp. Robert is a professional astrologer and author of Your Birthday Your Card, The Cards of Your Destiny, and Love Cards, all found in most major bookstores. You can find the perfect match for love at his new web site, http://www.lovecardsdating.com
July 6th, 2008 -- Posted in Story |
The evil Decepticon Scorponok from Transformers takes no victims, anyone who dares to stand in his way end up being a victim of his destructive wrath. Scorponok is connected to Lord Zarak and in Generation 1 he’s the leader of the Decepticon Headmasters. Scorponok is one of the few Transformers that can assume three forms. He can turn into a giant scorpion that can demolish anything into shreds and whose tail can fire electrical blasts. He can also turn into a weapons defense battle station that assists the other Decepticons with endless weaponry and reparation barrack. His third shape is that of a mighty Transformer robot ready to follow orders from Decepticon leader Megatron.
In the animated series Zarak and Scorponok from Transformers appear in a three tier part saga called Rebirth. Lord Zarak was the unquestioned ruler of “The Hive” and he dominated planet Nebulos in which he made sure every living being was reduced to slavery. The Hive members had the distinct ability to mentally control machines. They used this power to control the Nebulans and eventually established themselves underground as the ultimate masters of Nebula. As the Hive’s powers augmented their minds became so powerful that they became ghostly creatures who could house themselves inside machines. Zarak is suspected to be blind and paraplegic but possesses a muscular build which he transports with his Headmaster suit.
Scorponok’s mainstream fame comes from his notable appearance in the 2007 live action Transformers movie. Curiously Scorponok doesn’t transform in the film, but his mechanical scorpion body gives him the power to travel underground at amazing speeds. The movie writers agreed that the concept for Scorponok was based on his Beastwars incarnation rather than the original Generation 1 version. Scorponok from Transformers teams up with Blackout, he is first seen being released by the gigantic helicopter into the desert in order to catch up with some escaping human troops. As opposed to all the other Decepticons, Transformer Scorponok doesn’t answer to Starscream’s call to battle. It’s rumored that this fierce Decepticon remains alive since he doesn’t make another appearance after the human military forces manage to defeat him
Michael Blacke is proud to be a huge Transformers fan who’s written many articles about these fascinating fictional robot machines. You can check out more about Scorponok Transformers in his Transformer Decepticons website.
July 2nd, 2008 -- Posted in Story |
It is interesting to consider that some of the most memorable and effective horror villains in our favourite films from the genre actually have very little in the way of screen time. Perhaps the fact we only get glimpses of them encourages us to fill in the blanks with our own imaginations, after all we fear the unknown above all else.
There is certainly a relationship between how much we see of a character on screen and how scary they are to the audience, a brief appearance often just whets the appetite and fans frequently go to sequels in the hope of seeing more of their favourite baddies. Typically in sequels the villain will tend to feature more prominently and become less feared as a consequence.
The villains who featured in the classic horrors of yesteryear have completely lost their impact through over-exposure. Dracula is no longer seen as a frightening character, a parodied version of him appears as the Count on Sesame Street indicating his absorption into popular culture is complete. Frankenstein’s monster is often portrayed as a sympathetic character nowadays and certainly doesn’t scare audiences anymore. Even the wolf man has become a joke, take films like Teen Wolf where far from being a scary monster he is an ordinary teen and his lycanthropic transformation has become a thinly veiled allegory for puberty.
More recent horror films and the characters they spawned have undergone the same process. Take Clive Barker’s 1987 film Hellraiser for example, a film which is largely remembered for Pinhead, who features prominently on the cover. The character actually has less than 10 minutes of screen time in total. Naturally in the endless slew of sequels Pinhead has been given more and more screen time and his ability to scare has decreased proportionately.
Freddy Krueger is another good example, he is a serious character in A Nightmare on Elm Street who lurks in the shadows and appears only fleetingly throughout the film. In the sequels, as original creator Wes Craven complained, the character appears on screen far more often and begins to spout comedy one-liners. He is transformed from a child murdering nightmare man into a lovable rogue.
In Ridley Scott’s 1979 film Alien the creature never appears fully on screen, we only get glimpses of it and quick flashes as it stalks and kills the crew of the ill fated Nostromo. However despite the fact the aliens get a lot more screen time in the sequel they do remain powerfully scary, maybe because the original artistic design by Giger is so good.
Perhaps the best example of a recent horror character who gained instant fame despite less than 20 minutes of screen time is Hannibal Lecter in The Silence of the Lambs. The performance from Anthony Hopkins was extremely memorable and in fact remains the shortest performance in a film ever to win a best actor Oscar. There is no doubt with more screen time in the sequels and appearances in parodies Hannibal’s fear factor has been diluted over the years.
So when it comes to scaring an audience with a memorable villain less is definitely more.
Simon J Hill watches too many horror films and reviews them at http://www.eathorror.com/
This article can also be found here http://www.eathorror.com/lessismore.php