The new Valspar Paint commercials are absolutely stunning. The concepts behind these commercials are that you can match a paint swatch in the Valspar collection to any part of nature. The images are spectacular because they show the best aspects nature. One shot is of a collection of fall leaves blowing in the wind and the next is of tall glacial mountains surrounded by freezing water. The next scene shows ocean waves smashing into strong static rocks followed by a shot of miles of rolling sand dunes. All of these images have a square cut out of them to demonstrate how anyone can literally take sections of nature home with them. The idea is simple and beautiful which makes these advertisements unforgettable.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Individual Blog Post #3
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Fish out of Water
Jennifer Bilek
MCOM 100W
November 19, 2008
Global Warming is a Reality
Global warming is a controversial topic in society today. The specific issue addressed at the Rotary Club on the top of the Fourth Street garage was if global warming was caused from human activities. This debate started at 7:00 p.m., November 18, 2008, and lasted until 8:30 p.m.
There were two people debating on the “affirmative side” stating that global warming is not caused by humans and two people on the “negative side” stating that global warming is caused by humans. The debate style was cross examination with each side receiving a chance to present their argument and then allowing the opposing side time to rebuttal. This continued for the entire hour and a half.
The debate began with the mediator introducing the debaters and their qualifications. She then told the audience to “keep an open mind” and not to think about who was winning or losing the debate but rather to listen to the points that were being made.
The debate opened with the affirmative side defining what global warming was. At this point I felt rather confident that I could stay open minded. However, as the debate continued, I felt myself slip back into my original opinion on the topic.
The affirmative’s strategy to prove that global warming was not caused by humans was to state that the data collected was “inaccurate.” Dennis Haller, the lead debater on the affirmative side, said that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a report that comes out every five years with data collected from around the world and reviewed by hundreds of scientists, was “worthless and should be thrown into the trash where it belongs.” This narrow minded mentality and disrespectful nature to this highly regarded report was very disheartening.
The points Dennis and his partner Bob Kower made throughout this presentation were equally as disappointing. They continued to state that all of the evidence proving global warming was misinterpretations or examples of poorly designed data collecting. The evidence that they did provide was quickly disproved by the negative side which made me loose faith in the affirmative side’s argument.
The negative’s side had pages upon pages of graphs and diagrams proving that humans are the main cause of global warming. They explained everything clearly and with precision. They opened their debate by stating how science cannot guarantee that humans are the cause of global warming, but how the certainty level has raised significantly over the last ten years.
The negative side finished off the debate by showing a chart of what our future could be if we were to continue down the road we are currently traveling. This left a very powerful impression on the audience and made them think critically about how they treat the planet. The negative side started strong, continued to provide relevant and impressive data and finished with a lasting thought. This is the mark of a great debater because I left the event with full confidence of the negative side’s argument.
MCOM 100W
November 19, 2008
Global Warming is a Reality
Global warming is a controversial topic in society today. The specific issue addressed at the Rotary Club on the top of the Fourth Street garage was if global warming was caused from human activities. This debate started at 7:00 p.m., November 18, 2008, and lasted until 8:30 p.m.
There were two people debating on the “affirmative side” stating that global warming is not caused by humans and two people on the “negative side” stating that global warming is caused by humans. The debate style was cross examination with each side receiving a chance to present their argument and then allowing the opposing side time to rebuttal. This continued for the entire hour and a half.
The debate began with the mediator introducing the debaters and their qualifications. She then told the audience to “keep an open mind” and not to think about who was winning or losing the debate but rather to listen to the points that were being made.
The debate opened with the affirmative side defining what global warming was. At this point I felt rather confident that I could stay open minded. However, as the debate continued, I felt myself slip back into my original opinion on the topic.
The affirmative’s strategy to prove that global warming was not caused by humans was to state that the data collected was “inaccurate.” Dennis Haller, the lead debater on the affirmative side, said that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a report that comes out every five years with data collected from around the world and reviewed by hundreds of scientists, was “worthless and should be thrown into the trash where it belongs.” This narrow minded mentality and disrespectful nature to this highly regarded report was very disheartening.
The points Dennis and his partner Bob Kower made throughout this presentation were equally as disappointing. They continued to state that all of the evidence proving global warming was misinterpretations or examples of poorly designed data collecting. The evidence that they did provide was quickly disproved by the negative side which made me loose faith in the affirmative side’s argument.
The negative’s side had pages upon pages of graphs and diagrams proving that humans are the main cause of global warming. They explained everything clearly and with precision. They opened their debate by stating how science cannot guarantee that humans are the cause of global warming, but how the certainty level has raised significantly over the last ten years.
The negative side finished off the debate by showing a chart of what our future could be if we were to continue down the road we are currently traveling. This left a very powerful impression on the audience and made them think critically about how they treat the planet. The negative side started strong, continued to provide relevant and impressive data and finished with a lasting thought. This is the mark of a great debater because I left the event with full confidence of the negative side’s argument.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Individual Blog Post #2
This commercial for Diet Pepsi Max is one of my favorites of all time. This is not only because I find it incredibly funny but also because of the quality of the execution. Pepsi is a product that can be aimed at a variety of different races, sexes and ages. By choosing this song and by having multiple celebrate showings, it is very obvious that they are aiming to attract a younger crowd in this advertisement. This song and dance comes from a movie titled “A Night at the Roxbury,” a cult classic from 1998. One of the main characters in this movie is Steve Koren, who makes an appearance at the end of the advertisement. The combination of all of these elements makes this advertisement memorable, funny and entertaining.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Individual Blog Post #1
Jennifer Bilek
MCOM 100W
November 12, 2008
A new advertising trend that I have noticed is that companies are beginning to use cell phones as an advertising medium. I received a Payless shoe store advertisement in the mail with a twenty percent off coupon inside. Below the coupon was a label that said, “Send this coupon to your cell phone and begin receiving early notice of future sales and exclusive offers.” I think that the concept of using cell phones to advertise is both a great and horrible idea. From the advertiser’s perspective, I think that this could be a fantastic resource to explore. From the consumer’s perspective, I am not looking forward to the day when advertisements begin popping up when I want to make a call. The way that Payless lets you choose if you want to receive these messages is a great idea because only the people who really want to get the information will receive it. It is a positive for both the company as well as the consumer.
MCOM 100W
November 12, 2008
A new advertising trend that I have noticed is that companies are beginning to use cell phones as an advertising medium. I received a Payless shoe store advertisement in the mail with a twenty percent off coupon inside. Below the coupon was a label that said, “Send this coupon to your cell phone and begin receiving early notice of future sales and exclusive offers.” I think that the concept of using cell phones to advertise is both a great and horrible idea. From the advertiser’s perspective, I think that this could be a fantastic resource to explore. From the consumer’s perspective, I am not looking forward to the day when advertisements begin popping up when I want to make a call. The way that Payless lets you choose if you want to receive these messages is a great idea because only the people who really want to get the information will receive it. It is a positive for both the company as well as the consumer.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
