After a car crash in Beverly Hills, Nicole Richie reaches her breaking point putting the blame on the paparazzi. She told the courts she fears for both her and her infant children’s lives.
Her request for a three-year restraining order against two photographers, Eduardo Arrivabene and Ivon Emilio Melo Miguel, was granted by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge, Carol Boas Goodson. The men agreed to stay 50 yards away from Nicole Ritchie and her family.
Richie claims the paparazzi have trespassed on her property, invading both her family’s privacy and safety.
Miguel apologized on the stand and told Richie he would no longer take her pictures if she didn’t want him to. Both Richie and her husband, Joel Madden, agreed that they did not want their photos taken by Miguel or Arrivabene.
Goodson expressed her concerned about inhibiting Arrivabene and Miguel’s First Amendment rights, however because both men agreed to abide by the restrictions of the restraining order, her worries faded and the ruling became final.
I agree with the ruling made by Judge Goodson. Not only do the paparazzi put their own lives at risk when pursuing a “car chase” to get that million dollar photo, but they are putting the celebrity and civilians lives at risk as well.
Although the first Amendment protects the paparazzi, it does not give them the right to be reckless; the rules of the road must still be followed.
I do believe that celebrities must pay the price of fame by putting up with the paparazzi and having their photos taken, but I also think there should be a limit to the paparazzies liberties.
When they overstep their boundaries and invade a persons’ space, there needs to be a consequence. The first Amendment protects freedom of speech and press, but that should not allow the press to take pictures of celebrities in their homes or be within touching distance of them that make the celebrities feel unsafe or uncomfortable.
I think all paparazzi should keep a 50 yard distance from those they are following, and where they can take pictures should be limited to public places; not in or around the homes of the celebrities.
Advertising today has truly taken on a whole new meaning in the 2000 era. It is truly invasive in every aspect of the word. It’s on TV, it’s on the internet, it’s on our cell phones, it’s where we shop, it’s on billboards, it’s in our movies…it’s everywhere.
And advertisers are changing and learning how to advertise more successfully…how’s that you ask? Through our children.
My mass communication class watched a film called “Consuming Kids”; and mind blowing doesn’t even begin to describe the movie.
Advertising have discovered that targeting kids is one of the most successful ways to sell their products, and the sooner they do this, the more likely they’ll have the child wrapped around their fingers for life.
I’ve said this time and time again, but every time I’m still surprised when I see how truly numb we are to advertising and it’s effect on us.
There is a scene in the film where two little girls are being followed around a grocery store. One little girl grabs a box of cheese crackers with Scooby Doo pictured on the front. The little girl picks up the box and says she love’s it and wants to buy it. The man asks her if she’s ever had those crackers before and she says no, however she knows they are good and wants them.
The realization that advertisers have come to in targeting children is amazing but very devious. No wonder children bring in millions for advertisers. It doesn’t matter what the product is, just make sure it’s plastered with a beloved character and it will sell.
Another thing I saw and really bothered me was learning about the observing of children throughout their daily lives…even in the bathroom.
Advertisers are going to the extremes to sell their products; so much so that I believe it’s an invasion of privacy.
So my question is: where in the heck are the parents?
Advertisers can only succeed if we let them. Children are not the breadwinners; they don’t have jobs and make money, so it is up to the parents to purchase the products that their children want but don’t need.
If parents can learn to say no, buy only what their children need and not desire, then advertisers might be forced to take find a new strategy, and hopefully one that isn’t so invasive and in some instances, not morally wrong.
I’m glad I’m taking this class. It’s opened my eyes to the dishonesty of the industry and I’ll make sure when I become a parent I don’t fall into the trap of these “clever” advertising scandals.
There isn’t a person on this earth who doesn’t know the name Oprah. She’s idolized, admired, and worshipped by many which in turn empowers’ her. She’s been called a king maker, and anyone who goes on her show with business aspirations has a huge chance of a future of achievement.
Oprah’s made people like Dr. Phil huge successors, and her promotions have what we now call the “Oprah effect”.
This is where:
- The talk show host recommends a product, like a book.
- It becomes a best seller
- Book clubs form
- Online book discussions emerge
- Communities build
Oprah’s human like the rest of us, but unfortunately her mistakes are witnessed around the world and she must be extremely careful to avoid negative publicity…but this is not always an easy thing to do.
Oprah promoted New Age leader James Arthur Ray on her show a number of times, and unfortunately this has come back to haunt her.
James Arthur Ray is a professional writer and speaker, with his newest hit book, New Age, creating media frenzy. He’s been interviewed and talked about on CNN, Fox, and Entertainment Tonight, so of course Oprah got involved.
After becoming an overnight star, on October 8th, 2009, Ray charged up to $10,000 per person to participate in a retreat which included fasting for 36 hours during a “vision quest” exercise and was left alone in the Arizona desert with sleeping bags to rest for the night. The next day consisted of a sweat lodge that turned deadly.
James Shore and Kirby Brown died in the sweat lodge. Eighteen others were hospitalized after suffering burns, dehydration, breathing problems, kidney failure or elevated body temperatures. Liz Neuman, another attendee, died October 17 after being comatose for a week, according to wikipedia.com
As Oprah’s Public Relations Agent, there are several things I would advise her to do to reverse the negative publicity.
1. There needs to be a show dedicated to this horrible incident. Oprah should first publicly apologize for sponsoring a man and product that lead to the death of 3 people and injuries of several others.
2. Oprah can explain that they never meant for this to happen, and that she hopes her viewers can understand that they had no idea James Ray would be so irresponsible and had no way of foreseeing that.
3. On the show, Oprah and her staff should explain how they plan to avoid making this same mistake and that they will investigate people thoroughly people supporting them on the show.
4. Oprah should do something for the families of the victims that died and were injured. She can invite the families to be guest on her show and also present them with gifts of apologies. Oprah’s staff should investigate each family and find out what each family could really use that will change their lives for the better.
5. Via letter or phone call, Oprah’s company should offer to fund the funeral and burial/tombstones or cremation/urns for those that passed.
As Oprah’s PR Agent, I also need to predict how our campaign could backfire.
1. Oprah’s apology could not be taken seriously. People could assume it is purely just a campaign to help her image.
2. People could take Oprah’s excuse as pathetic and inexcusable.
3. People may not believe in Oprah and her staff’s ability to avoid making the same mistake, particularly because she’s interviewed and supported people in the past that proved to be false.
4. People and the viewers may think it is inappropriate for Oprah to give gifts to the families affected by this tragedy.
5. The families may find it too soon or pushy of Oprah and her staff to offer to pay for the funerals, burials, cremations and/or urns.
However, in saying all of that, as long as Oprah and her staff abide by the PRSA Code of Ethics, she should feel no backlash from the public or press.
Her campaign should:
• Be accurate and truthful.
• Avoid conflicts of interests.
• Work to strengthen the public’s trust in the profession.
• Protect confidential and private information of the families unless the staff is given permission.
• Work to strengthen the public’s trust in the profession.
• Be honest and accurate in all communications.
• Reveal sponsors for represented causes and interests.
• Act in the best interest of clients or employers.
• Disclose financial interests in a client’s organization.
• Safeguard the confidences and privacy rights of clients and employees.
• Avoid conflicts between personal and professional interests.
• Decline representation of clients requiring actions contrary to the Code.
• Accurately define what public relations activities can accomplish.
• Report all ethical violations to the appropriate authority.
My campaign does abide by all of these rules, so Oprah’s negative publicity should be a thing of the past!
Good Luck Chuck is a film starring Jessica Alba and Dane Cook. It’s about the “luckiest” guy on earth. Cook’s character, Charlie Logan, is a good luck charm and women are guaranteed to find true love after sleeping with him. But, what seems to be any mans dream turns bad for Charlie when he meets Alba’s character, Cam. Chuck will do anything to break the curse so he can get the heart of Cam before she falls in love with another man.
Product placement; we see this form of advertising all the time and don’t even know it. We’ve become numb to the gross amounts of invasive advertising that takes up our daily lives. As I watched this film, I paid attention to all the different products shown in this film and found 6 including:
- Toyota
- “Perfectmatch.com” like match.com
- Mountain Dew
- Fritos
- Pepsi
- American Airlines
I was surprised at the seemingly small amount of product placement in this film assuming this would be a movie with tons of what I like to call, “camouflage advertising”, however I’m sure I missed some.
The 6 products all have an equal chance at being noticed and remembered by the audience. They were not subtly put into the scene, but instead stood out like a “sore thumb”. The Pepsi add was shot at a distance but took up so much space on the bus stop board it was hard to miss.
Dane Cook is shot chugging an unmistakable Mountain Dew, and there is a Frito bag ever so smartly placed facing the camera in another scene. Alba’s character drives a Toyota Prius which makes sense for her character who loves Penguins and working with animals, thus probably cares about helping the environment. Then there’s the end of the film where Cook’s character rushes to the airport and we see several smartly displayed American Airline logos.
I don’t know that the audience will leave the film thinking about the products, but they definitely won’t be missed during the film. I don’t know that I would have really remembered any of the products had I not been looking for them and wrote them down.
I think cars are the easiest products to remember in a film, especially if they play a large role in the movie in that we see them in more than one seen, but others are much more difficult to retain since product placement is not the premise of the movie.
We all know that advertising is headed in a new direction. With TV changing so that more and more people are choosing to buy programs that allow them to avoid commercials when watching their shows, businesses have had to come up with different ways to advertise their products to the masses.
Product placement in "Fantastic Four"
The products in this film were used for a number of reasons, starting with funding. I’d assume that Mountain Dew, Pepsi and Fritos view film as a way to advertise to the masses, and the film producers see this as a way to help fund their budget.
Advertisers want you, the viewer, to think like this: “You’re sitting down watching the film, and man that Pepsi looks really refreshing, or those Fritos look tasty!” It’s the company’s way of telling your subconscious that you want to drink or eat their product, and better yet, if Dane Cook is drinking it, then you should too! It’s a win-win for businesses and producers.
On top of being able to advertise to a large audience, certain companies are able to not only advertise their products but choose to do so in a way that they feel represents’ their company. For example the Toyota Prius goes well with Alba’s earth loving character.
It was smart of the film producers to ask Toyota to help fund their project because it’s a good fit for the car company and a better chance at getting funding for the film.
So…if you haven’t paid attention to product placement, keep your eyes open during your next movie experience, I promise you’ll be amazed!
