Monday, 28 March 2016
Wednesday, 2 March 2016
Pre-Production Documents - 1st Advert
This is the location recce for my Wispa Chocolate advert. I decided to use this location as spot for filming the advert because it has the element of a busy morning in London, which is something we as a group are trying to show the audience. Victoria station is well known for its busy rush hours and we wanted to capture that moment in our chocolate advert, also the character in our advert is rushing to go to work so it makes sense to show her rushing through the rush hour in a busy station, making it more realistic to the audience.
Tuesday, 1 March 2016
Unit 30-Advertising Regulations
The following video below , explains the work of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA)
They have a control over what adverts are broadcasted in our TV screens and help to regulate what they feel is somewhat inappropriate or may encourage less vigilance across society.
I have been researching into their work and found some pretty interesting and understandable bans on adverts which, when first seeing didn't really realise its in-appropriacy. The main thing to focus on is the viewers and their concerns, different viewers of the advert will have varied points of concern. One may be a parent who for instance sees an advert with too much sexual reference and reports the fact that their child can become influenced by it.
Here is an advert banned by the Advertising Standards Authority which is on the VIP E- Cigarettes TV advert. This advert was complained about by many people, (199) who collectively raised a particular point about the disgrace of the advert. Firstly, the public were swayed away from the point of the advert which is supposedly trying to promote a decrease for the amount of tobacco inhaled by people. The E-cigarette is meant to allow consumers to 'vape' which means by using an electronic cigarette you are producing a nicotine rich vapor.
Of course this wasn't the main concern in the advert but the public along with the ASA pointed out that there were many sexual references, this automatically brought its value down. Another thing to look at was the fact that they have used a women to host for the advert and not a man- which again sexually objectified her. along with many viewers also complained on the idea that the advert was encouraging non-smoker to try the E-Cigarette The 'Association of Directors of Public Health UK'
However, one of the main reasons why this advert was seen to be inappropriate by the ASA was that there was some encouragement within the dialogue and teenagers were encouraged to copy this young lady. Not only this but the E-cigarette also comes with various flavors including milkshake and bubblegum, this again was a hazard for young children who decided to consume it. The news article below explains this concern from a medical angle to the advert.
I have been researching into their work and found some pretty interesting and understandable bans on adverts which, when first seeing didn't really realise its in-appropriacy. The main thing to focus on is the viewers and their concerns, different viewers of the advert will have varied points of concern. One may be a parent who for instance sees an advert with too much sexual reference and reports the fact that their child can become influenced by it.
Of course this wasn't the main concern in the advert but the public along with the ASA pointed out that there were many sexual references, this automatically brought its value down. Another thing to look at was the fact that they have used a women to host for the advert and not a man- which again sexually objectified her. along with many viewers also complained on the idea that the advert was encouraging non-smoker to try the E-Cigarette The 'Association of Directors of Public Health UK'
However, one of the main reasons why this advert was seen to be inappropriate by the ASA was that there was some encouragement within the dialogue and teenagers were encouraged to copy this young lady. Not only this but the E-cigarette also comes with various flavors including milkshake and bubblegum, this again was a hazard for young children who decided to consume it. The news article below explains this concern from a medical angle to the advert.
The tabloid to the left shows you what the 'Mirror' had to say on this issue. The headline is a direct warning to parents, because they may be unaware of the fact that children have had access to these cigarettes. Below this it says that 'reports found 11 and 12 year olds have been buying them from pizza parlours and high street shops..' which raises the concern for the law and the safety of children in public places. As a law student this in the UK would definatly conrodict the Protection of young persosn act 1996.
The ASA in a way allow for greater awareness and help society feel safe and cared for.
Another advert banned by the ASA was the advert for 'Plusnet'. Plusnet is a British service provider of broadband, landline and digital television. Its advertisements promise to provide the best service for broadband, digital television and landline service in a competitive way. Services such as BT, Virgin and Sky could be considered a competition for Plusnet as they offer the same/similar service to customers.
However, one of the Plusnet adverts which customers found poor within promotion concerning the broadband service, the advert offered an ''all broadband , half off'''offer to customers, yet a customer complained that this offer was not for everyone , just for new customers to the service, the customer also challenged that the on-screen text was not clear enough to read. This I would agree with because the terms and conditions which appear at the bottom of the screen are not very clear for someone to read, therefore the customers wouldn't know what the terms and conditions of the offer included. This is a downfall for the advert as its aim is to promote it's service for people to join and become customers.
Other customers complained that the claim ''all broadband's half off'' was quite misleading as the advert made out that this applied to packages that included line rentals as well as braodband-only services, however the claim only applied for packages which include line rentals and not broadband-only services because the price for that remained the same. Misleading your customers/ viewers in an advert like this is quite risky because you're trying to win them over by allowing for them to trust in you, and be sure that you will provide the service that meets their needs and this is not a good way to do it. The amount of customers using your service will decrease drastically and you will lose their trust.
The ASA's rulings on this advert were quite clear, for the complaint about the on-screen text which was not very clear for people to see, the ASA decided that although the text was presented in a font that made it hard to see clearly , it was still noticeable as it appeared in white against a black background, this meant that it was sufficient enough for a customer who 'made some positive effort to read the text' and couldn't have mislead them. Therefore the ASA said that it did not breach the code BCAP Code rule 3.11. I would disagree with this ruling because although I am not a customer at Plusnet , I think that if I were to be one I wouldn't be satisfied with their quality of on-screen text, which is an important part of the whole promotion of the service they intend to provide. Finally, in this case the complaint was not upheld.
The complaint on misleading claims in the advert was upheld and the complaint on the service not applying to all services was also upheld. The final action the ASA took was that they'd told Plusnet to ensure their conditions of promotions were clear in the future and the qualifications reflected the availability of these promotions.
The last advert I will be talking about is the '' GoCompare.com'' car advert for which the ASA upheld.
The advert was complained about by 1 person who complained about the voice-over that said ''Tonight, back by popular demand, the man who has enriched the lives of millions''
Another advert banned by the ASA was the advert for 'Plusnet'. Plusnet is a British service provider of broadband, landline and digital television. Its advertisements promise to provide the best service for broadband, digital television and landline service in a competitive way. Services such as BT, Virgin and Sky could be considered a competition for Plusnet as they offer the same/similar service to customers.
However, one of the Plusnet adverts which customers found poor within promotion concerning the broadband service, the advert offered an ''all broadband , half off'''offer to customers, yet a customer complained that this offer was not for everyone , just for new customers to the service, the customer also challenged that the on-screen text was not clear enough to read. This I would agree with because the terms and conditions which appear at the bottom of the screen are not very clear for someone to read, therefore the customers wouldn't know what the terms and conditions of the offer included. This is a downfall for the advert as its aim is to promote it's service for people to join and become customers.
Other customers complained that the claim ''all broadband's half off'' was quite misleading as the advert made out that this applied to packages that included line rentals as well as braodband-only services, however the claim only applied for packages which include line rentals and not broadband-only services because the price for that remained the same. Misleading your customers/ viewers in an advert like this is quite risky because you're trying to win them over by allowing for them to trust in you, and be sure that you will provide the service that meets their needs and this is not a good way to do it. The amount of customers using your service will decrease drastically and you will lose their trust.
The ASA's rulings on this advert were quite clear, for the complaint about the on-screen text which was not very clear for people to see, the ASA decided that although the text was presented in a font that made it hard to see clearly , it was still noticeable as it appeared in white against a black background, this meant that it was sufficient enough for a customer who 'made some positive effort to read the text' and couldn't have mislead them. Therefore the ASA said that it did not breach the code BCAP Code rule 3.11. I would disagree with this ruling because although I am not a customer at Plusnet , I think that if I were to be one I wouldn't be satisfied with their quality of on-screen text, which is an important part of the whole promotion of the service they intend to provide. Finally, in this case the complaint was not upheld.
The complaint on misleading claims in the advert was upheld and the complaint on the service not applying to all services was also upheld. The final action the ASA took was that they'd told Plusnet to ensure their conditions of promotions were clear in the future and the qualifications reflected the availability of these promotions.
The last advert I will be talking about is the '' GoCompare.com'' car advert for which the ASA upheld.
The advert was complained about by 1 person who complained about the voice-over that said ''Tonight, back by popular demand, the man who has enriched the lives of millions''
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)