Oxfam and Behind the Brands: Mondelez

1) Choose one of the big ten companies showcased in the Oxfam Behind the Brands website. What is its humanitarian score?

I found it more than difficult while scrolling through all the brands to find one that was over 50%. The grand total: 1, it's score being 54%. A pass, but still a fail to most. The company and brand I chose was Mondelez, specifically it's brand Cadbury. It's overall score is 29% leveling out to be 'Poor' on the scales the website has created. 

2) What areas did the company score the lowest points in?

Cadbury and Mondelez scored its lowest point in 'Land', its score being 1. With the score of 2, was 'Women' and 'Water' while the other 4 areas scored in 3s and 4s. 

3) What are the different methods that Oxfam has given you through the site to affect global market behaviors?

There is the link to send a message to Canada's governor to the World Bank, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. Another way is the petitions you can sign against various companies and actions they make as well as the option to join the GROW Campaign. 

4) How can you change the behaviors of large corporations?
Using today's media as an advantage, it's easy to spread the word via. Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Pinterest or email. This gets you into forms and debate online which has a much wider audience on an international scale than it used to. There you can speak with people who share your concerns and spread the message around. 

Writing letters are always an option for more of an individual protest and way to voice your concern, however campaigns are usually more effective as the massive swarm of voices heard can make yours more than just an echo in an empty room. This works as more of a formal protest and respectable one however if a company continues to ignore the voices of their consumers, boycotting is an option as well as a public demonstration (no violence intended here, just a group of people showing what they care about- violence can turn your message the other way and lose you supporters). Phone calls are also an option, though old fashioned and rarely noticed. There are many ways to get in contact with companies, the CEO is the better figure to be in contact with as supposed to a representative as your message will go to the top right away. 

5) Put a link to the Oxfam site in your blog entry. 

[Link here]

Reddit and Worldstarhiphop vs. Freedom of Speech

Read the two articles that criticize Worldstarhiphop and Reddit and answer the following questions.
Article Criticizing Reddit  ||  Article Criticizing Worldstarhiphop


1. How do we find a balance between free speech and hate speech on the internet? Should all websites have a moderator to censor content that is unfit for viewing?
Yes, I believe websites should have at least two or three moderators if I'm honest with myself. Through personal experience, being the host and moderator to a blog, I know that when stress builds up you can make impulsive decisions (mostly when hate comments come in, replying to them with a sassy attitude that doesn't really give a damn about what they say when really the question should be deleted) that hinder the effect and professional reputation a blog can have. In the last few months, I've recruited a co-host to assist me in what the blog was created for (It's a writing blog) and she and I both work off one another so we can continue the professional appearance the blog has. 
Regarding the articles: The people of the internet believe they can push the boundaries society has set concerning responsibility and rights and have managed to put both aside when it comes to posting opinions. As one of the most famous lines in Comic Books goes (Marvel's Spiderman- Uncle Ben), "With great power comes great responsibility". This I find applies to these situations. People with power believed they can say what they wish when in reality, this is far from the truth. If an article on the internet, or a video or any source material shows something that can be offensive to someone on a personal discriminatory level, I believe then that it is inappropriate and should be looked over by a moderator. 
2. Should there be a law banning people from uploading videos of abuse and illegal acts.
I believe there should be yes. However appealing to this matter on a different side, internet videos have helped multiple investigation services find those responsible for a crime or act. For example, there was a video a few years ago of a group of young men breaking into a car and smashing it up. Within 24 hours the police found and arrested each individual because they uploaded the video to Youtube. Now this is simply stupidity when trying to commit a crime in hopes to get away with it in my humble opinion. Looking back on my initial view though, the boys probably wouldn't have gotten the idea of break into the car in the first place if there weren't already videos posted on the internet of others committing the same act. The question has multiple answers, each with valuable facts and reasons behind them however mine remains at yes, there should be a law against posting videos and abuse and illegal acts to the internet. 
3. Does having sites like Worldstarhiphop and Reddit do anything to add to our culture and society or they simply a reflection of the darkest part of our society? 
This question is a difficult one to answer, I believe there can be multiple ways to answer it, very much like the question above. It would be ideal to think they only show the darkest part of our society and contribute nothing to our culture however like most thoughts regarding such a matter, the ideal isn't the reality. The culture of 'hip-hop' has been taken far away from that of what I believe was the original intention. The videos on the internet and the articles and opinions posted spark a thought in others heads that think this kind of behavior is acceptable and right. This thought sparked creates the next set and generation of acts that follow along in their prior's footsteps, this being said, yes these acts today have and will add to our culture. 

Adbusters: Starbucks

 Starbucks was in the news in November of 2008 due to the concerns of environmentalists and those concerned over the world's fresh and clean water supply. Beside (or above, however your browser accepts this webpage) is an Adbusters spoof ad that I've made in Photoshop as part of this unit and assignment. The text reads: (Top) We'll waste the rest of the world's fresh water supply to give you the highest in sanitary heath standards in our mission to provide you with over priced coffee. As it's probably obvious, I'm not a Starbucks person. I much prefer Tim Horton's and a good University fund.

"A controversy erupted last week when a United Kingdom newspaper reported that millions of gallons of water was being wasted by Starbucks each day because of its policy of keeping taps running non-stop at thousands of stores around the world."

Was the first paragraph in the article from Greenbiz and was pretty much the sum up of the article. With the world's fresh water supply only being 10% and most of it being unattainable, are we really able to throw our precious resource away like this? Yes sanitary standards are a major concern, especially with big companies and corporations however the environment should take bigger claim over decisions than egos.

American Apparel and Adbusters

1. Choose an article that is critical of the actions or behaviors of a major corporation or popular company or icon and post a link to your blog. 
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-10-31/american-apparel-ceo-dov-charney-on-his-controversial-ad 

2. What is the intended message of the article?
The intended message is to show the CEO of American Apparel's side of the mess that was created when American Apparel launched an ad after hurricane Sandy releasing a 20% off sale to the nine states most effected by the storm. The writer of the article does have some biased towards the situation however when the interview was conducted the replies given by Dov Charney are nothing but acceptable and empathetic. He does what he does and he apologizes in his own words while keeping a professional ere by saying "We've never claimed to be a perfect advertiser. Our heart is always in the right place. We’re just trying to bring a little value to everyone. It’s all about fun.". 

3. Are you surprised by the content of the article? Is there anything in the article that you were not already aware of?

I was surprised to hear the side of the CEO of the company and what he had to say on the matter. I was aware, being a shopper at American Apparel as well as having multiple friends who work in the stores on the floor and back in stock that the ads are said to ere on the side of pornography to some extent. "The clothing retailer, long criticized for using porn imagery to hawk underwear and T-shirts..."

4. How do you think you can change the original intended message of the company or to question the ideals of the company you have chosen?
The intended message of the company is generally classified as fashion and spreading it however the way they advertise is already enough to put people off without the need for controversy in the news. 

5. Post a link to a print ad that is currently presenting the companies image to the public.
Ad 1
Ad 2 (website- can see any ad posted)

6. Post an Adbuster spoof ad that is critical of the company. 
The ad isn't necessarily a spoof but instead is a letter from Adbusters to American Apparel and in response a letter to the editor back from the company. 

Adbusters

1.Cut and paste one spoof ad from Adbusters and explain the meaning of the Advertisement.

 

This ad speaks volumes about today's values and modern pop culture. Personally I can name every brand on the left side while only three leaves match a name in my mind on the right. The meaning is to say that we as people individual and as a society are cut off from nature and too far in deep with marketing and consumerism. Be it that we spend too much time in the city and shopping malls are taking over the trees and small parks within the downtown and greater area, or that we've lost the essential knowledge of nature the ad is effective.

2.How does the spoof ad change the original intended message of the company?

The spoof ad has the company logos drawn like an elementary school kid would as well as the leaves on the opposite side. It changes the logos to make them look more simple and reserved like the leaves and it shows just how recognizable they are that even if they aren't drawn full scale or colored like how we know them, they are still more recognizable than leaves we see everyday. For example, the leave that's in the top left corner is a maple leaf, what Canada's flag is known for and what we see every day. I asked the person next to me what it was and they couldn't tell me but they could tell me what the Nike symbol was right off the bat.

 

3. Do you think the  spoof ad is effective in making consumers question the original message of the company?

It does make you think twice about how we regard brands in today's society compared to the nature that is supposedly surrounding us. 

 

4. Do you agree or disagree with the sentiment of the spoof ad? 

I agree with the statement completely that we know pop culture more than we do nature and what surrounds us. 

Another ad that shows the same message, that we know modern irrelevant things that the media conveys almost 24/7 is this: Name the people we should be learning about for the things they've done vs. name the people we know for doing stupid things and being famous in today's pop culture.