| |
|
POSTED BY Buzz
ON Aug 08, 2012 AT 22:33 IST
,
Edited At: Aug 08, 2012 22:33 IST
James Fallows of the Atlantic puts it in perspective:
For years it [Singapore] has been worried about flaccid birth rates among its people, often with an edge of eugenics thinking. So in partnership with Mentos, it's trying a more direct and with-it approach...
...About the only thing that needs explaining is when, around time 2:18, the video talks about "putting a bao in the oven," a bao is like a little bundle or dumpling or bun. And before that, in the line: "I know you want it / so does the SDU," here is what they're talking about. But even if you didn't know that you'd get the idea. There's a little more explanation to the right, which says a lot about Singapore in just a few lines.
The Singapore government has often been criticized for being too Gradgrind-like and strait-laced. So, no joke, congrats to whoever broke the stereotype by doing this. And ... ummm, Happy National Day / Night!
Read Full Post
|
POSTED BY Buzz
ON Aug 08, 2012 AT 22:33 IST, Edited At: Aug 08, 2012 22:33 IST
POSTED BY Buzz
ON Aug 08, 2012 AT 18:54 IST
,
Edited At: Aug 08, 2012 18:54 IST
Campaign India reports:
Pharmaceutical company Ultratech India has launched 18 Again, a vaginal rejuvenation and tightening gel. Curry-Nation has worked on the creatives for the launch campaign of the new product in the personal care space.
"If I sit with my family and watch a commercial created by Curry-Nation, I should not feel ashamed or embarrassed!" says Priti Nair, director, Curry-Nation, who's behind the campaign:
“This is a one-of-a-kind women-centric product, and the idea is to create a demand for such a product in the Indian market. Since the product is targetted towards concerns that are not usually talked about publicly, the challenges of creating a campaign for this is also higher. Since the the product is primarily targeted at housewives with children, we wanted to create a film that is tasteful yet engaging.”
She has a point. Only a few months back, the whole country had been tch-tching about this:
Clearly, television viewing in India and notions of family viewing seem to be changing...
Read Full Post
|
POSTED BY Buzz
ON Aug 08, 2012 AT 18:54 IST, Edited At: Aug 08, 2012 18:54 IST
POSTED BY Buzz
ON Mar 16, 2012 AT 20:34 IST
,
Edited At: Mar 16, 2012 20:34 IST
Yes, yes, we know and totally agree with what Mukul Kesavan wrote last December:
The real cricketing illiterates are the people who believe that adding ODI centuries to Test centuries and arriving at a hundred gives you a heroic landmark. It doesn’t. This isn’t just a meaningless statistic, it’s a pernicious one because it equalizes two different orders of achievement.
...why are we going on like idiots about this non-event, this half-wit’s holy grail? Why can’t we be content to celebrate Tendulkar’s real achievement? Fifty-one Test hundreds… say that slowly because no one will ever score more. And if you must celebrate his 48 ODI centuries, do, but as a distinct and separate achievement. There’s no such thing as an international hundred. If you do want to join his Test centuries to some other figure to bulk out his numbers, add them to his 27 first class hundreds: at least those were made in the same four-innings format of the game.
So celebrate his 49th ODI hundred today and let others add 51 Test hundreds to it and allow others to think of it as some kind of a 100, when the real celebration should perhaps await his 50th ODI ton. As the man himself said, he feels 50 Kgs lighter already.
Meanwhile, let's just raise a toast and smile along with the Amul girl...
Read Full Post
|
POSTED BY Buzz
ON Mar 16, 2012 AT 20:34 IST, Edited At: Mar 16, 2012 20:34 IST
POSTED BY Buzz
ON Mar 16, 2012 AT 12:44 IST
,
Edited At: Mar 16, 2012 12:44 IST
POSTED BY Buzz
ON Mar 16, 2012 AT 12:44 IST, Edited At: Mar 16, 2012 12:44 IST
POSTED BY Buzz
ON Feb 16, 2012 AT 13:10 IST
,
Edited At: Feb 16, 2012 13:10 IST
Twitter witticisms as poll campaigns. First came an ad from the Shiv Sena (with a typo - mind 'it'!), and then the response.
Read Full Post
|
POSTED BY Buzz
ON Feb 16, 2012 AT 13:10 IST, Edited At: Feb 16, 2012 13:10 IST
POSTED BY Buzz
ON Feb 10, 2012 AT 23:40 IST
,
Edited At: Feb 10, 2012 23:40 IST
POSTED BY Buzz
ON Feb 10, 2012 AT 23:40 IST, Edited At: Feb 10, 2012 23:40 IST
POSTED BY Buzz
ON Feb 08, 2012 AT 23:18 IST
,
Edited At: Feb 08, 2012 23:18 IST
POSTED BY Buzz
ON Feb 08, 2012 AT 23:18 IST, Edited At: Feb 08, 2012 23:18 IST
POSTED BY Buzz
ON Jan 25, 2012 AT 22:06 IST
,
Edited At: Jan 25, 2012 22:06 IST
POSTED BY Buzz
ON Jan 25, 2012 AT 22:06 IST, Edited At: Jan 25, 2012 22:06 IST
POSTED BY Buzz
ON Jan 01, 2012 AT 23:59 IST
,
Edited At: Jan 01, 2012 23:59 IST
Via Twitter.
As one of the comment puts it:
Front page ad in @the_hindu by General Secy, TN Cong Committee. Also owns a News Channel. But that's par for the course.
POSTED BY Buzz
ON Jan 01, 2012 AT 23:59 IST, Edited At: Jan 01, 2012 23:59 IST
POSTED BY Buzz
ON Sep 15, 2011 AT 01:31 IST
,
Edited At: Sep 15, 2011 01:31 IST
Some USD 150,000 is apparently what it cost for this ad that appeared in the WSJ on Sept 11:
Image courtesy TheLongWarJournal which, quoting the TOI, went on to say:
Pakistan has placed an advertisement in the US media to reach out to America on 9/11. "Which country can do more for your peace", asks the advertisement in the Wall Street Journal . "Since 2001, a nation of 180 million has been fighting for the future of the world's 7 billion."
Dawn reported that Islamabad had initially given this advertisement to The New York Times but they refused to carry it. The ad says that since Sept 11, 2001, 21,672 Pakistani civilians have lost their lives. The army also has lost 2,795 soldiers. The country has lost $68 billion. The ad noted that despite sacrifices the country was still engaged in "the war for world peace". "Can any other country do so? Only Pakistan," it maintained.
It was not clear whether the ad was carried in other U.S. publications. Pakistan’s government also tried to place it in the New York Times. The Times asked for “more clarity in the ad about who was placing it,” according to a spokeswoman for the newspaper. The Times did not hear back from the government and so has not yet run the ad, she said.
The ad as printed in the Journal carries a line at the bottom in small font saying “Government of Pakistan” next to a web address for the government. A spokeswoman for the Journal declined to comment.
Pakistan's excellent Cafe Pyala blog put it in perspective by pointing out:
Well, our sources inform us that the problem about the source of the ad arose because neither the Pakistan Embassy in Washington nor the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) nor the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (MoI&B) were the sources of the ad. In fact, our sources confirm that none of these three Pakistani government entities was even consulted about the ad. In fact, the ad, designed by the Pakistani advertising agency Midas, was placed directly from the Prime Minister's Secretariat.
But what does it say about the Pakistani State if its organs feel they need to bypass each other to get a point across that, ostensibly, all of them should be agreed upon? What does it say about how policies are made and implemented?
Then again, we might also point out that the US$150,000 apparently spent on running the ad in the WSJ could have been better utiltized for things with a currently slightly higher priority than a PR exercise.
Meanwhile, in India, Parody ads are already doing the rounds. Here is one via pragmatic_d asking whether the NYT would have run this one instead:
Read Full Post
|
POSTED BY Buzz
ON Sep 15, 2011 AT 01:31 IST, Edited At: Sep 15, 2011 01:31 IST
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Angelina Jolie |
| BJP |
| Congress |
| Copyrights - Intellectual Property Rights - Patents |
| Cricket - Match & Spot Fixing |
| Cricket - IPL |
| Genetics- Genes- DNA- etc |
| Health- Medicine- Fitness |
| NDA |
| Pratap Bhanu Mehta |
| Rahul Dravid |
| S. Sreesanth |
| Third Front |
| UPA |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Go |
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|
| | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|