Advertising: 50s promotional video on oil.

This video was produced in 1956 by John Sutherland sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute which 'celebrates' petroleum usage and economic competition.



Questions to ponder. Did they foresee the detrimental effects on Earth 50 years later due to the over reliance on petroleum? Should we be projecting effects 50 years ahead from now before we say yes to nuclear energy? Did the usage of cartoon in this film make it more palatable for the audience to swallow? Will the usage of cartoon now depict our disregard for seriousness on such a serious topic? Or does cartoon work in any decade because it injects a sense of humour and/or fun into complicated topics?

And note the choice of words. "Petroleum provides a better lifestyle to Americans" and referring 'competition with strong inference of democratic capitalism' by rephrasing it to "...but also the freedom to make it work for everybody... and if you have both of these things (oil and competition), any goal is possible!"- now that's another form of propaganda which uses virtue words to 'corner' the audience because who, in the right mind, would disagree to a 'better lifestyle' or 'the freedom to make it work for everyone'? No one. Is that ethical in today's age? To include these kind of subliminal tactics in advertising messages? Or will even the audience respond to it? Is it believable? According to all of America's Presidents - it does! Whenever they say "In defence of democracy..." - hah! There it is. Tsk tsk tsk.

Observation: Parenting in Malaysia.

I was in the immigration line just the other day, coming back from a sun kissed holiday when a rambunctious little kid was throwing a tantrum. The parents (both Malaysians) were trying to pacify and calm him down. So they exhausted their ways by:

1) Ignoring him
2) Control him physically by grabbing his hand and pulling him closer to them (so that he won’t ‘disturb’ other people in the line and/or create more havoc than he needs to)
3) Soothing him by assuring him that he doesn’t need to wait thaaat long (there were at least a dozen people in front of them)
4) Carrying him because at this point, the kid was almost uncontrollable
5) Diverting his thoughts to the candies that mom promises to buy once they ‘get out’
6) Threatening to leave him at the airport if he continues behaving as such

And when all of the above failed, the mom spanked him.

It’s interesting to note the underlying cultural tones to may have caused the above situation. During the days when his parents were kids, they probably got it a lot harder from their parents because in a typical Malaysian Chinese family, tantrums will just earn you two tight slaps. So perhaps, they grew up with that kind of notion ingrained in them. Trying not to mirror their parents, they must have tried mellowing their disciplinary methods by ignoring the tantrum before cajoling the child with rewards (candies). If that doesn’t work, then they threaten him (not taking you home). And if that doesn’t work too, the spanking begins. Notice how the renounce of rewards changes into threats that get harsher when each method fails before ultimately sentencing the ‘punishment’.

It’s even more interesting to note that during the whole process of ignoring, cajoling, threatening and spanking – the sentencing of the punishment, never once the parents decide to find out what was wrong with the child. What was bothering him so much that he has decided to vie for his parents’ attention in such behavior? Why didn’t they consider looking for the root of the problem which may have saved their steps from 1 to 6 before sentencing the child to a physical punishment (that could have been easily avoided)? How do child disciplinary methods in the East differ from the West? How true or effective is the concept of ‘spare the rod and spoil the child’? Hmm.

Media: The fickled Malaysian women ('s weekly).

In my usual scour for news on what ticks Malaysians and what tickles them, I picked up this month's Women's Weekly. Though not a magazine of my usual choice and definitely not my cup of reading tea, I discovered something strange in this issue which is quite... amusing.

On the cover of the magazine, the blurb runs "How to stop the other woman stealing your man!", brings you to the full article on page 129 about Tess Stimson who published a book called 'Beat the bitch' based on a true story from personal experience. Obviously Tess had been the bitch and upon tasting her own medicine, she decided to save womenkind from self destruction by publishing a book.

So, I get it. The fairer sex, being all girl and womenhood power obviously see the need to raise the red flag to protect one another from future heart breaks, caused... not by her man (okay, maybe partially), but (mostly) by the bitch.

Flip couple of pages later on 142, you will discover a 10-page spread on 10 married men with a headline that ran across the page saying "Who's the hunkiest hubby of all?" - The search is back for The Weekly's hunkiest hubby. Vote for your favourite finalist now and win! (emphasis and raised eyebrow mine). Hmm. Do you see the obvious irony? Or is it just... me?

So, I get a different message now. Girls just want to have fun, so voting for someone else's husband is just plain innocent, good clean fun which of course will never lead to you or anyone as a matter of fact being the bitch (refer to Tess' advocation). Oh, of course not! Don't be silly...

It wasn't a specific article that caught me by surprise. It's the entire magazine and how the content was planned and structured that caught my undivided attention. It is quite contradicting, no?

No wonder women are said to be from Venus. Actually, wherever she's from, she definitely isn't from the same planet of testosterones. First she said yes which means no which means yes which means no... These mixed messages, you see, are difficult for a Martian to decipher.

Social media: Twitter Tips.

From Social Media Examiner.

Interview With Brian Clark of Copyblogger from Michael A. Stelzner on Vimeo.

The Sophie Lancaster Foundation.

This short animation was produced by agency Propaganda as a tribute to Sophie Lancaster, the young Goth who was brutally beaten to death by a mob in August 2007 in her selfless attempt to save her boyfriend's life. Just because she was dressed 'differently'.



Sometimes being in communication and media, we should be doing more of these kind of work. Giving voice to those who have none, to change what we can in this world, no matter how minute the effort may seem. It is after all, an effort.

Stop praying for change. Be the change.

Bye bye Windows, hello Google Chrome OS.

What about security? And malware? And the rampant online virus?

Anthropology: How PSAs have changed.

Compare what we see now (if there are any PSAs (public service announcement) at all) with what was produced in the 50s.



It's really interesting to see how the film was 'composed'. The usage of animation to target children. In the event of a nuclear blast, just 'duck and cover'. It's strange. The first usage of the atomic bomb was in 1945 wiping out civilization in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The extend of its horrendous consequences must have been noted, studied and tracked for half a decade before the production of this film. Do you think by ducking and covering, the Japanese kids could have gotten away from the atrocities of an A bomb?

This is a pure example of advertising and propaganda which technique is known as card stacking. A method of presenting information that is positive (or best positive) to an idea and conveniently omitting the 'rest of the information'. According to the Institute of Propaganda Analysis which was founded in the 1930s, the best way for people to overcome such intentional propaganda is to search and secure more information - to see both sides of the story, all sides to a coin. The 'card stacking' method is less and less effective in today's age because of the advent of the internet. The influx of information, both accurate or otherwise, allows the mass to 'think and decide' for themselves and not be malleable to whatever advertising says.

If you've been advertising using this method, shame on you.