I am also going to add in Ted DiBiase and Cody Rhodes as they were part of Randy Orton's triple team, 'Legacy'.
The name of the brand that i have chosen for this product is 'Boys-Toys', because they are action figures.
Tuesday, 1 February 2011
The product i wish to advertise.
For my media coursework, i am going to make an advert to advertise Randy Orton figures.
I am also going to add in Ted DiBiase and Cody Rhodes as they were part of Randy Orton's triple team, 'Legacy'.
The name of the brand that i have chosen for this product is 'Boys-Toys', because they are action figures.
I am also going to add in Ted DiBiase and Cody Rhodes as they were part of Randy Orton's triple team, 'Legacy'.
The name of the brand that i have chosen for this product is 'Boys-Toys', because they are action figures.
Today i have learnt that we can place different people into different catatergories. This helps us to target different products to those different people. The 5 main catergories are: Wealthy Achivers, Urban Prosperity, Comfortably off, Moderate mans and hard pressed.
Wealthy Achievers
Wealthy Executives
01 - Affluent mature professionals, large houses
02 - Affluent working families with mortgages
03 - Villages with wealthy commuters
04 - Well-off managers, larger houses
Urban Prosperity
Prosperous Professionals
13 - Well-off professionals, larger houses and converted flats
14 - Older Professionals in detached houses and apartments
Comfortably Off
Starting Out
24 - Young couples, flats and terraces
25 - White collar singles/sharers, terraces
Moderate Means
Asian Communities
37 - Crowded Asian terraces
38 - Low income Asian families
Hard Pressed
Struggling Families
44 - Low income larger families, semis
45 - Older people, low income, small semis
46 - Low income, routine jobs, unemployment
47 - Low rise terraced estates of poorly-off workers
48 - Low incomes, high unemployment, single parents
49 - Large families, many children, poorly educated
Wealthy Achievers
Wealthy Executives
01 - Affluent mature professionals, large houses
02 - Affluent working families with mortgages
03 - Villages with wealthy commuters
04 - Well-off managers, larger houses
Urban Prosperity
Prosperous Professionals
13 - Well-off professionals, larger houses and converted flats
14 - Older Professionals in detached houses and apartments
Comfortably Off
Starting Out
24 - Young couples, flats and terraces
25 - White collar singles/sharers, terraces
Moderate Means
Asian Communities
37 - Crowded Asian terraces
38 - Low income Asian families
Hard Pressed
Struggling Families
44 - Low income larger families, semis
45 - Older people, low income, small semis
46 - Low income, routine jobs, unemployment
47 - Low rise terraced estates of poorly-off workers
48 - Low incomes, high unemployment, single parents
49 - Large families, many children, poorly educated
Monday, 31 January 2011
Advertising Standards Authority - ASA
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is the self-regulatory organisation (SRO) of the advertising industry in the United Kingdom. The ASA is a non-statutory organisation and so cannot interpret or enforce legislation. However, its code of advertising practice broadly reflects legislation in many instances. The ASA is not funded by the British Government, but by a levy on the advertising industry.
Its role is to "regulate the content of advertisements, sales promotions and direct marketing in the UK" by investigating "complaints made about ads, sales promotions or direct marketing", and deciding whether such advertising complies with its advertising standards codes. These codes stipulate that "before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove all claims, whether direct or implied, that are capable of objective substantiation" and that "no marketing communication should mislead, or be likely to mislead, by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise".
Guy Parker has been Chief Executive of the ASA since June 2009. His salary for this role is £120,000.
The ASA is the UK's independent regulator of advertising across all media, including, from 1 March, marketing on websites. We work to ensure ads are legal, decent, honest and truthful by applying the Advertising Codes.
From March 1st marketing communications on websites will be regulated by the ASA.
BCAP is responsible for writing and maintaining The UK Code of Broadcast Advertising.
CAP is responsible for the rulebook The UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising, Sales Promotions and Direct Marketing. Non-broadcast means ads in media such as cinema, press, posters and online.
Ad:
A direct mailing, for a lottery, was headlined "Congratulations XXX you've won VIP tickets". The mailing included text that stated "You have won a pair of VIP concert tickets in the People's Postcode Lottery to join the captivating André Rieu and his Johann Strauss Orchestra in concert. You are one of 2,000 lucky players plus their guests to [sic] this special concert ... Our team will be calling all winners in the coming weeks to organise this unique concert experience. In the meantime if you have any further questions, please call our free-phone customer service line ... ".
Issue:
The complainant, who did not receive a call from People's Postcode Lottery, challenged whether the promotion was administered fairly, because she was subsequently informed all tickets had been taken.
Response:
People's Postcode Lottery (PPL) said they had secured 2,000 tickets to the concert and booked hotel rooms for 2,000 players and their guests as well as coach transport, as part of the full-prize package. They said 1,000 winners were selected over the course of three draws, which were independently adjudicated; the winners would be invited, along with a guest. PPL said they were aware a significant proportion of their players would not be interested in the prize and they therefore sent all prize winners one of two letters, dependent on whether they held a telephone number for the individual; one letter stated PPL would contact the player with details of their prize and the other requested the player call PPL within 10 days if they wished to attend. They submitted copies of the letters.
They said their contact centre called everyone who received the first letter within 10 to 20 days of the letter arriving with the recipient; they called every number at least once and the majority twice. PPL said they did not, however, leave messages for those players they were unable to reach, which, in retrospect, was an error on their part because some players were unaware they had received the call. They said by 24 August 2010, they had 1,634 confirmed attendees. They left the list open for a week after that but then had to close it to ensure there was sufficient time to organise the hotels and coaches. They said any winner who called to say they wished to attend before that date was added to the list; they then presumed players they had not heard from were not interested in attending. The majority of players who called subsequently were also added to the list. However, that was determined by whether there was any space on the coaches already booked to depart from their region. PPL said coaches for the complainant's region were already full and she was therefore placed on a waiting list. By the week prior to the concert, only 15 people remained on the waiting list and they were hopeful that with 1,640 attendees, there would be enough cancellations to allow all of those on the waiting list to attend. However, the concert was unfortunately then cancelled due to circumstances beyond their control. They said all confirmed winners were informed of that and that their prize would be honoured when the concert was rescheduled. They said all winners, plus those on the reserve list would be offered the opportunity to redeem the prize on the new rescheduled date. They said they had not intended to mislead, however, they acknowledged that the letter the complainant received should also have made clear the prize could be reallocated if PPL were unable to contact them by the deadline. They said future promotions would make clear the circumstances under which a player could forfeit a prize.
Assessment:
Upheld
The ASA noted the mailing stated that the complainant had won the tickets and would be contacted by PPL. She did not hear from them however and subsequently called them to enquire about the prize. We acknowledged PPL were prepared to amend future mailings, however, we considered that would not be sufficient to ensure a similar promotion was administered fairly. We noted the mailing did not make clear there was any possibility prizes could be reallocated or that availability of the prizes might be limited according to regional coach departures. Nevertheless, we considered consumers who had been informed they had won a prize would legitimately expect to receive it. We were concerned that the mailing stated there were 2,000 prizes but that some recipients of the mailing were told prizes were no longer available after, we understood, only 1,640 tickets had been allocated. We were also concerned that the mailing stated that recipients would be contacted by PPL but that they did not take sufficient action to ensure consumers who were informed they had won prizes were able to obtain them. We therefore concluded that the promotion was not administered fairly and caused unnecessary disappointment.
The promotion breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 8.2 (Sales promotions), 8.9 (Availability) and 8.15.1 (Administration).
Action:
The mailing must not appear again in its current form. We told PPM to ensure promotions did not cause unnecessary disappointment in future.
Its role is to "regulate the content of advertisements, sales promotions and direct marketing in the UK" by investigating "complaints made about ads, sales promotions or direct marketing", and deciding whether such advertising complies with its advertising standards codes. These codes stipulate that "before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove all claims, whether direct or implied, that are capable of objective substantiation" and that "no marketing communication should mislead, or be likely to mislead, by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise".
Guy Parker has been Chief Executive of the ASA since June 2009. His salary for this role is £120,000.
The ASA is the UK's independent regulator of advertising across all media, including, from 1 March, marketing on websites. We work to ensure ads are legal, decent, honest and truthful by applying the Advertising Codes.
From March 1st marketing communications on websites will be regulated by the ASA.
BCAP is responsible for writing and maintaining The UK Code of Broadcast Advertising.
CAP is responsible for the rulebook The UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising, Sales Promotions and Direct Marketing. Non-broadcast means ads in media such as cinema, press, posters and online.
Ad:
A direct mailing, for a lottery, was headlined "Congratulations XXX you've won VIP tickets". The mailing included text that stated "You have won a pair of VIP concert tickets in the People's Postcode Lottery to join the captivating André Rieu and his Johann Strauss Orchestra in concert. You are one of 2,000 lucky players plus their guests to [sic] this special concert ... Our team will be calling all winners in the coming weeks to organise this unique concert experience. In the meantime if you have any further questions, please call our free-phone customer service line ... ".
Issue:
The complainant, who did not receive a call from People's Postcode Lottery, challenged whether the promotion was administered fairly, because she was subsequently informed all tickets had been taken.
Response:
People's Postcode Lottery (PPL) said they had secured 2,000 tickets to the concert and booked hotel rooms for 2,000 players and their guests as well as coach transport, as part of the full-prize package. They said 1,000 winners were selected over the course of three draws, which were independently adjudicated; the winners would be invited, along with a guest. PPL said they were aware a significant proportion of their players would not be interested in the prize and they therefore sent all prize winners one of two letters, dependent on whether they held a telephone number for the individual; one letter stated PPL would contact the player with details of their prize and the other requested the player call PPL within 10 days if they wished to attend. They submitted copies of the letters.
They said their contact centre called everyone who received the first letter within 10 to 20 days of the letter arriving with the recipient; they called every number at least once and the majority twice. PPL said they did not, however, leave messages for those players they were unable to reach, which, in retrospect, was an error on their part because some players were unaware they had received the call. They said by 24 August 2010, they had 1,634 confirmed attendees. They left the list open for a week after that but then had to close it to ensure there was sufficient time to organise the hotels and coaches. They said any winner who called to say they wished to attend before that date was added to the list; they then presumed players they had not heard from were not interested in attending. The majority of players who called subsequently were also added to the list. However, that was determined by whether there was any space on the coaches already booked to depart from their region. PPL said coaches for the complainant's region were already full and she was therefore placed on a waiting list. By the week prior to the concert, only 15 people remained on the waiting list and they were hopeful that with 1,640 attendees, there would be enough cancellations to allow all of those on the waiting list to attend. However, the concert was unfortunately then cancelled due to circumstances beyond their control. They said all confirmed winners were informed of that and that their prize would be honoured when the concert was rescheduled. They said all winners, plus those on the reserve list would be offered the opportunity to redeem the prize on the new rescheduled date. They said they had not intended to mislead, however, they acknowledged that the letter the complainant received should also have made clear the prize could be reallocated if PPL were unable to contact them by the deadline. They said future promotions would make clear the circumstances under which a player could forfeit a prize.
Assessment:
Upheld
The ASA noted the mailing stated that the complainant had won the tickets and would be contacted by PPL. She did not hear from them however and subsequently called them to enquire about the prize. We acknowledged PPL were prepared to amend future mailings, however, we considered that would not be sufficient to ensure a similar promotion was administered fairly. We noted the mailing did not make clear there was any possibility prizes could be reallocated or that availability of the prizes might be limited according to regional coach departures. Nevertheless, we considered consumers who had been informed they had won a prize would legitimately expect to receive it. We were concerned that the mailing stated there were 2,000 prizes but that some recipients of the mailing were told prizes were no longer available after, we understood, only 1,640 tickets had been allocated. We were also concerned that the mailing stated that recipients would be contacted by PPL but that they did not take sufficient action to ensure consumers who were informed they had won prizes were able to obtain them. We therefore concluded that the promotion was not administered fairly and caused unnecessary disappointment.
The promotion breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 8.2 (Sales promotions), 8.9 (Availability) and 8.15.1 (Administration).
Action:
The mailing must not appear again in its current form. We told PPM to ensure promotions did not cause unnecessary disappointment in future.
Thursday, 27 January 2011
Monday, 24 January 2011
ACORN Classification
ACORN (acronym for A Classification Of Residential Neighbourhoods) is a geodemographic information system categorising all United Kingdom postcodes into various types based upon census data and other information such as lifestyle surveys. It was developed by Richard Webber of CACI Limited, who also developed the competing MOSAIC system, and is sold to businesses, health and local authorities typically for marketing and planning purposes.
Thursday, 18 November 2010
Monday, 15 November 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)