The New Video Arcade in Spain Might Be the Movie Theater

A New York Times article focused on video arcades becoming the new kind of theatre. In the article found at Arcade , a graduate of Instituto de Empresa in Madrid developed the first hybrid movie theatre located in Spain. The 3-D video gaming has high tech digital effects (black lights, fog, high definition, vibrating seats, game pads, and individual 17 inch screens on the seats. These cinema games are played in small theatres in suburban multiplexes seating about 50 people at a time. What used to be at home computer play is now community entertainment as video games invade theatres. Game tournament competition involves interaction with players and intense battles. The sound puts gamers at the center of the action for only $3.95. The reason these theatres were established was due to the decreasing admissions in regular movie theatres, but it doesn’t mean video halls will sell out Hollywood entertainment. The hope is that the concept will expand into North America and Europe if theatre companies buy the system. The idea didn’t work for a Germany theatre who gave it a try. Time Play Entertainment has allowed theatre goers to participate in ad sponsored games before the movie. Game manufactures are keeping their eye on the success of these theatres.


I don’t see this concept going very far due to the extremely high costs in all the equipment, and the demographic is so limited to young men in their late teens and 20s. It leaves women and the older population out of the entertainment. For that cost and with such a narrow target audience, no matter what the entrance fee, it won’t expand. The popularity of the theatres so far has only been seen on weekend nights. Video game halls would take away from an individual’s boredom and alone time to concentrate. Video game sales would decrease for stores and renters. Computer and game station use would drop drastically if people could go out and play in the public for less. Do you see this new “theatre” going anywhere?

-Amy

A New Camel Brand Is to the Nines

According to a recent New York Times article by Stuart Elliott found at No. 9, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco recently came out with a new Camel box design targeted at high-heeled and fashionable women. The style of the box has increased Camel's sales. Camel No. 9 sounds like a women's fragrance, Chanel No. 19, as well as a romantic song, "Love Potion No. 9". According to the senior marketing director of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, the "9" means "dressed to the nines, putting on your best." Subtle cues are the hot pink fuchsia color and minty teal green outline of the packaging. The slogan is "Light and luscious". In magazines, flowers surround the ad, making it fun and exciting, thus the appeal.
Because Camel is male-focused, Joe Camel, only 30% of women are Camel buyers. This limited their potential because half of adult women are smokers. As a result, Camel has come up with a new marketing strategy. Virginia Slims has always been the largest brand directed at women with the slogan, "You've come a long way, baby." The promotion for the new Camel cigarette box design is done through give aways at nightclubs, distributing coupons, and ads in magazine like Cosmopolitan, Glamour, and Vogue, although these magazines have a young reader audience too.

This new advertising campaign will surely impact women smokers who may have been turned off by Joe Camel before, preferring a cigarette brand directed at women, like Virgina Slims. The fancy and pretty packaging, as well as the flowery bright ads, will attract women, since it is a known fact that women are impacted by visual ads with flair that are beautiful or attractive. This draws them in, increasing the sales. This was a smart move for Camel cigarettes, lingering away from the more male dominant name and appealing to women smokers who make up a large segment of young adult/adult smokers. I can only predict a positive impact for Camel.

-Amy

Products No Longer So Personal

An article by Nina M. Lentini for The New York Times discussed the new doors being opened by advertising agencies. The article, which can be found at Personal, said the media has taken a step forward in developing an "anything goes" attitude toward commercial and print ads for personal products, subjects whose function is usually only whispered about in private. These products include feminine hygiene products beyond menstrual protection, condoms, grooming aids, along with pregnancy and conception products. Society has become more comfortable in recent years in discussing these topics that are a part of everyday life. Still, jaws are dropping and people are talking about the controversial new ads. Follow up reports show sales are rising. The most recent ad is for a digital home pregnancy test, Clearblue Easy. The commercial broke a public urination taboo. The New York company poured liquid, urine streams, onto something that at first sight looks "futuristic". The slogan is "The most sophisticated piece of technology...you will ever pee on". The commercials focus on reality as controversial and disturbing as it is. The campaign uses humor to limit embarrassment. It goes to show that society is no longer soft and safe. Serious situations are taken lighter. As far as the mens' products, Philips Bodygroomer shaver for the younger than 40 who want to get rid of body hair is the latest ad shocker. Even the chief executive at Philips was shocked when he first saw the ad. Though he is liberal, he worried about the reaction. In the commercial ad a man in his mid 20's in a white bathrobe describes the body hair shaving process using pictures of fruits and vegetables. He uses slang terms for the body parts which are bleeped out. The spot only appears online.

If sex education is now taught in middle school I think society can handle personal hygiene ads that aren't sexually explicit. These products are in stores everywhere for public display, so advertising them is only gaining them exposure for people who don't know about them and offering solutions to personal problems people naturally have. It is helpful information that should be advertised. Kids don't understand the products' purposes anyway.

-Amy

Curses! When do we run foul language?

There has been ongoing talk over the controversy stirred up by Grey's Anatomy star, Isaiah Washington, after he used a slur in a heated argument directed at a co-star off-camera.

According to an online article, Slur, the big entertainment news headline has created a lot of buzz in the print media.
When the New York Times published a related article, they didn't use the defensive term itself in the huge article. However, the article surrounded that one word and the world of discrimination and ethical issues it brought up.
The Poynter.com writer of this article, Aly Colon, learned what the word was after hearing her colleagues mention what they heard on television. The word not printed was "faggot".
The big media and journalistic controversy is over whether and when it is appropriate to print the word online, in the newspaper, or on air. The writers at Poynter have decided to take the initiative to make such a decision for the journalists.
The writer says that whether to use the word depends more on the reason it is being used rather than the word itself. Journalists, when choosing whether to use it, should consider the purpose, audience, and clarity it would provide to the context.

When discussing the print of foul language, the word itself must be used to see if it is okay.
I can see why this is a big issue, but in keeping with accuracy and honesty and reporting details and facts, this is the main point, the message that has people talking.
People are scared to repeat offensive words, but words matter because they explain, clarify, and inform. One word could cause the whole article to be confusing and unclear if you don't now what it is talking about or what the controversy surrounds exactly.
Using the word is a risk that could offend gay people, but it is not intended to offend readers. It is intended to state the facts of the news article, to be fair, and to be accurate. At the time it was spoken it might have been offensive to the person it was directed at and those around, but the word is printed to explain why it was such a big ordeal and how it is seen as wrong or deserving of consequential action.
The seriousness of the situation can't be explained to the fullest without using the word. This issue over what foul language is okay to print comes up often in the media.
The reputation of the writer will not be in question as it could be for the subject of the article. The mention of the word is not intended to defame or slander the person who used the word or falsify what actually happened or was said.
I'm sure others have different opinions about the use of foul language in print, but how is it different from the spoken word in broadcast news?

-Amy