There has been a vast amount of media coverage on the subject of immigrants, a lot of it negative and focused on numbers coming in to Europe. This took a dramatic turn with the death of the small child Alan Kurdi when the publication of pictures of his body on a beach in Turkey hit the press. It was at this point when editors and press realized the extent of human tradegy and loss within this surge of chaos.
“It is not just a lack of humanity on the news agenda or a matter of luck or a matter of caring more about some people at the expense of others. We need a broader lens to see what really is going on” – Jan Egeland, Refugee council.
Almost every media coverage of migrants includes a picture of women and children to pull emotional strings. However, 80% of migrants are male which having witnessed in France was surprising contrasting the divergence between the reality and media’s perspective on it.
I have examined different types of source used by the media and there is a huge contrast of terminology: “ migrant, refugee, illegal immigrant, asylum seekers” this to many the term migrants was not enough to describe the distress of humanity. It demonstrates that the way the UK media has reported about the immigration debate has changed and is becoming increasingly “dehumanised” by using certain terminology.
“Around the world, media coverage is often politically led with journalists following an agenda dominated by loose language and talk of invasion and swarms,” said Aidan White, EJN’s director. Perhaps this is a reason why many have been frustrated on the hot topic and cannot see through to many of the media’s reports.
Despite the enormous amount of media coverage on this matter of immigration there aren’t a lot of scholarly input or analysis. It is ultimately up to the individual to understand and react in their own way to this event.
We all know that advertising for competitive companies need bright, initiate and diverse ideas to go far in that notoriously tight hierarchy to grow and stand out from other companies. The current market for eyecare is estimated at around £ 2 billion, bearing in mind that half being small independent companies. Two thirds of the adult population wear glasses or use them in day- to- day life. An ageing population centrally influencing the optic market. Nearly 90% of us will require corrective vision by the age of 60. Relating closely to Henry Mintzberg’s five p’s strategy that we touched on in our lecture this was a clear step that the renowned Specsavers took to reveal values of opportunistic advertising.
This tactical move on press advertising by Specsavers in 2012 at the Olympics gained a big lead on other eye wear competitors certainly while viewers were glued to their screens.
They used their famous catchphrase “Should have gone to Specsavers” in Korean relating to the “mix up” by the Hampden officials showing the South Korean flag ahead of the South Korean Women’s football team.
This strategy was to gain opportunistic advertising and displayed their ad on different platforms including digital and print. That incorporated 10 different newspapers on next day release. Resulting into a raise in appointment bookings and beating other competitors such as vision express who didn’t release an ad until after the Olympics.
In 2014, Specsavers also reacted quickly to the footballer Luis Suarez biting Italy’s Giorgio Chiellini in a world Cup match through a comical titter tactical ad. It was tweeted 30,000 times.
‘We’re constantly on the look out for great Should’ve Gone to Specsavers moments and I’m always amazed at the speed with which our creative team are able to react to incidents like this. They’ve worked closely with the marketing department to make sure this hit the newsstands today.’– Richard Homes.