Final Group Report!

Media Semester One 2007.“The environmental limits to human growth were first discussed (in Western discourse) by Thomas Malthus (1798). Western scientists have been investigating the evidence for the dangers posed to humanity’s survival by our environmental impact since the 1950's. Global warming itself, as a human driven process, has been discussed in scientific circles since the 1960's. It has taken until now (2006-2007) for this issue to become one of absolute public currency.” As stated in our brief as background.

The question then posed by this brief was enquiring as to why it has taken so long, approximately 210 years, for global warming to become common knowledge. Also adding to the question, what is media’s part in this new found awareness?To begin, we first had to research our topic in general, global warming, in order to fully understand its effects and why exactly it has come about. Through reading newspaper articles and many websites this is what we came up with in relation to global warming and then redefined it in our own terms, the way in which we (and quite possibly the majority of the general public) perceive the topic and take it as fact.

By definition global warming is the steady increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere. This, along time, will cause dramatic climatic change! Though most people just know it as the change of the atmosphere and climate (mainly temperature), brought about by artificial means, i.e., by man, primarily as a result of pollution. Nowadays it seems as though anything we do 'hurt' the environment (and in turn damaging our own chances of life in the future). Consumer or supplier, be it by driving to work, industry production (to allow modern human way of life) or even just by having a shower that is longer than three minutes, we are doing irreversible damage.

All our pollution has damaged the ozone layer, therefore allowing more harmful UV rays to enter our atmosphere which corrupts our climate, drastically changing the weather patterns. This is the main reason why we are so short on water, climate change, not enough rainfall and why? Global warming. Not only the climate change but our wastage of natural resources has really had an adverse effect on our and the world's environment as a whole. Wastage of water, wastage of product and overuse of fossil fuels (which themselves lead to global warming) has lowered humanity's chances of a comfortable life in future generations.

So, just recently, upon this realization, we are being urged to conserve, reuse, and recycle. Upon finally accepting global warming as fact, the government and authority bodies are making the public more aware of global warming and its influence on our futures. Those who realise just what global warming can do are in a panic. Now the attempt to turn around, or even erase the damage, is on. Companies are being urged to reduce their wastage, use of resources and to recycle as much as possible. Families are being forced to conserve in everyday life, and even so, the environment is still on the decline.

This the view that the general public will get on global warming, even after extensive research. The basic facts and general ideas behind global warming. They will see what the authority bodies want to show the world. Yet you will not get information about what has been done prior to the past 5years or so in relation to this issue that apparently is of epidemic proportions. You will get current policies, current theories, current actions to try and save our world, but there is a good 200 years of missing information, missing research and missing theories. Nowadays there are advertisements and television commercials on global warming. Many different avenues have been traveled down in order to increase public awareness now, but what about many years ago? Why not then? From the first revelation of global warming some 209 years ago to now there has been hardly any substantial speak of the issue, again we ask why?

We now know what global warming is, what it is doing to our planet and what the government and other bodies are attempting to do to halt or even try to reverse some of the damage. However we don’t know why everyone knows about it now and not many years ago. So why has it taken so long for the world to realise, to know and to accept that the very existence of life is at risk?

We had to ponder as to why so recently and so suddenly the world has been overcome with knowledge about global warming. With the media being largely in our thoughts, we brainstormed how exactly the media itself would have an effect on public knowledge and acceptance of global warming.

Through brainstorming we assessed media 200 years ago. We assessed monetary factors, publicity factors, industry availability and even existence? We then assessed media today, monetary factors, publicity factors and the thriving industry. Both of which we endeavored to make a correlation with knowledge of global warming.

So this is what we came up with on media 200 years ago; media prior to the 20th and 21st century, well, honestly, what media? A newspaper and possibly a man walking down the streets ringing a bell and yelling out what happened the day prior? This was the so called 'media' back in those days. There were no posters, no televisions to place commercials and documentaries on, no billboards or magazines, so I'm guessing that the media didn't really have that much influence over peoples thoughts. If or at the time of anyone in the world discovering global warming, unless in close proximity, no one else would even hear about it for decades! That's if anyone even believed the person. And we wonder why it's taken so long for word to get out about global warming!

We then came up with a summary of media today. Media in current society is much more diverse and readily available for viewing, listening and reading. There are many different avenues of media. We now have television, radio, billboards, newspapers, magazines and the Internet, all of which are awash with various information, numerous advertisements and much proof to substantiate any scientific claim made. We now know more, seek more and want to be informed of more than we ever have before, and why, because it is readily available to us. As a result, we have a heightened awareness of events around us due to the overwhelming power of current media.

Just with our definitions and summaries of media 200 years ago and media today it would appear that media and media coverage is the main, if not the sole, contributor as to why the public is now aware and informed about global warming. However, we beg to differ with this assumption. How can one element be solely responsible for such an epic occurrence?

Media coverage is only one part, the part to notify the individual, the world, yet it’s not the only factor. You may ask what other factors could there be? You could state why would we be looking any further than the media when there is so much evidence to show that media is the reason why people now know about global warming?

After much deliberation and debate we discovered the answer we had been looking for. As we discussed, the answer was plain and simple; choice. Everything in every one's lives relies on the choices that are made. In the past it has just been chosen to deny the fact of global warming, just choosing not to believe it, until now. Now when the evidence that global warming is true and is currently occurring, is too great to deny any further.

But why deny it to begin with? The answer is choice, it was chosen to be ignored, denied and swept under the carpet. By whom, you may ask? Who makes these choices? Our response is, everyone.Choices are made by everyone. The government, the scientific bodies, industries, the media and the general public. You may wonder what choices have to do with the media and with global warming, or even just what they have to do with science in general. What you don’t know is that they play a pivotal role in every step of any discovery, what is publicized or reported and in life itself. In relation to the topic at hand however, choice is a factor in many stages of the quest for world realization of the scientific evidence relating to and backing up global warming.

First of all there was the choice of the scientists way back 200 years ago to even study the Earth and the possible reality of global warming. This choice was made and the research done. The research showed global warming as fact the choice now was to discuss it. This was, as previously stated, discussed in 1798. The choice at that time was to take no further action. Whether this was a talked through choice of majority or a choice because not enough people took Thomas Malthus seriously we do not know but at that stage the choice stood. In the 1950's, some 150 years later, the choice was made to re investigate the environment. Then in the 1960's again it was chosen to discuss global warming as an issue of importance. Just recently the choice has been made to publicize global warming. To further study global warming, to validate it as fact and to develop further theories relating to global warming. The government has made the choice to enforce policies, to assist in reductions of pollution and to encourage environmentally friendly products and ways of life. The choice has been made to print articles in the newspaper, to put documentaries on television and commercials on the radio. The choice has been made to allow the media to cover this issue and to give so much publicity to this issue and articles surrounding it.

This topic now is widely covered and as such appears more believable and evidence seems to prove it more so than ever before. So was it the choice to publicize the topic, the choice of the media to present it in a more public way, to almost force it on society and to make people accept it through extensive presentation of evidence, information and ongoing publications? No, this is not the choice we are explaining.

There is really only one choice that defines whether or not the media has any influence at all over peoples thoughts and reactions to global warming. What one choice is it that we are implicating? The choice we are referring to is simply the choice to accept what has been placed in front of you, to accept what is told or shown to you. Put quite simply, it is the choice to believe.Our task now was to prove this. In order to prove this however, we first had to discover why people have chosen to believe only recently.

Upon examination of current media and media strategies we concluded that people are more inclined to believe such ideas as global warming now, or just recently, as it is at this time that many of the claims can seem to be proven facts. They can be shown to be more believable and publicized much more nowadays in comparison to any time before hand. In effect the knowledge of such an issue is much more common than ever before therefore as more people seem to know about it, discuss it and research it, it has become much more accepted and believed as a truthful fact.

Now to evidence this ourselves. We decided that a sufficient way to show our view and evidence our theory was to create a new product and attempt to sell the idea of it. Not literally sell the product, just advertise and see if the public would accept it as a new product on the market. We were to make this product reasonably controversial, something that is not going to be easily accepted, and play with its advertisement and image enough to make it seem a reality.

We came up with 'Mystifood'. A spray on food flavouring.

Mystifood is part of the Zücker Co. which mainly produces food products.The spray on flavor is the latest invention in the Mystifood food line. As part of Züker’s marketing team we are introducing the product to the public for the first time to get some opinion. Zücker is a manufacturing company from Germany with backgrounds in producing textile to food. The company was founded in 1984and is relatively new compared to other giant German manufacturers although this allows the company newer and fresher ideas in manufacturing innovative products such as this spray-on-flavor.
Founder:Dr. Stephanek Zuker (1920-2004)

The day that we toured the streets to get opinions from the public about Mystifood. We had several developments along the way as well and our story is no less than interesting.

The day started off at Southern Cross station, where we took the role of student researchers and went around carrying a huge ass camera, a small folding table and mystifood. We planned to hide the professional looking packaging and reveal it only after our interviewee had tasted the flavours. Although we did expect to be waved off by passersby who claims to be extremely busy, there were a hand full who took a glimpse at the 3 suspicious looking bottles on the table and made a face while walking away. It was especially so when we mentioned that it was a taste test and gave very vague information about the product. Our first customer was curious enough to walk up to us asking about what was going on, however we suspected he was wanting to get into our camera because he started telling us his life story as a pro-skater. After performing the test and asking for his opinions on the taste, we went on to the real questions. Be reminded that the whole taste test was purely created to heighten the illusion that this company actually exists.

We asked him how he felt about the idea of spraying on food and would he spend money on it when it was out on the shelf. He immediately linked the food spray to body spray and but went on to say that it was a brilliant idea. He had a look at the packaging as I was explaining how the actual aerosol food spray would work and the illusion was complete. He was prepared to part with his money to try the product out when it is available in IGA (or so we say).

We understood that it was a sensitive trust issue when it came to testing a suspicious food product, so we changed our tactics by placing the packaging right in the front of the table and the sprays behind them. We had some people who were more interested in looking at the packaging rather than testing the product. This was a really interesting because we realized that when we had a booth set up behind us, their eyes would scan the table first for something believable before engaging into it.Relating this back to our topic of choice, people as a whole are so used to seeing media around them that they would turn away from you if you only had a verbal concept. In their minds, they have a certain expectation to what is 'real'. Having watched the news and live reports day after day, some people will tend to believe what the news reports to be a fact. When the news stations decided to do a report on Global warming and showed what is believed to be evidence of the climate change, people responded to that after watching images and footage of the signs to this calamity. Seeing is believing so they say and the media has been able to make use of that. We are not saying that global warming doesn't exist. All we are trying to prove is that media does have the power to affect your choice. How?

Well. After being chased out from Southern Cross station by the station security for having that huge ass camera, we decided to go up a tram and actually set up our booth right in the middle of the carriage and do our interview right there. Although it was a total wacky idea, we reckon we could get a better chance of someone participating in our survey since people can't give the excuse that they were in a rush to go somewhere. We managed to put up our booth right in front of this one guy, who was staring at us the whole time we were setting up the booth. Who can blame him? We were right in his face. We started explaining what was happening and similarly we had the packaging laid out nicely right in front of the table. We did the whole test and managed to get him comfortable enough to talk about how he felt about the product and the idea of it. Although he was quite negative about the product, he was willing to try if the taste were stronger and had a better range of flavours. Right after that, we had the tram inspectors coming up on board and we were threatened with a heavy fine. Thanks to the whole 'student researchers' play, we got away Scot free but then we decided not to risk getting caught twice.

However, this proved an important point. Media is everywhere. On the floor of the streets, on the doors of a tram, in you face at the urinal to even on the ceiling while you stretch your neck to take a break on your ride home. When we did the survey in the tram, we were performing the same role as the advertisements stuck above the windows. Being trapped in that space for a certain amount of time gives media a chance alter your perception of they have to say. Even thou we did not get a good response about our product, now there is one more person who knows the 'existence' of mystifood.We went back into the city and continued our usual survey off the streets in the same way and the responses were pretty much the same. A fair bit of busy people and others interested in the packaging alone. And from those that we manage to convince to try our product, none of them actually raised the question of whether this was a real product. We believe that whole set up (i.e camera person, actual packaging, taste test samples) had pretty much bought over the trust of people. Basically, people are attracted to aesthetics, which gives them a choice to approach. After the attraction comes the facts which are presented in forms of verbal and/or visual materials, which gives the choice to believe.Somehow its like getting someone in America to invest money on a holiday resort in Indonesia and all that are presented to them are video footage of the place and paper proposals. The investors are not invited to take a flight down see to the actual place before closing the deal, but rather was shown visionary illusions of the future. Media played a role in hopes of convincing and affecting that investor's choice. Could global warming be a scam of the same nature? Are the measures recommended by the media a visionary illusion to improve their own status?

This project could be developed by possibly taking the illusion even further. The role sample of this would be similar to the student documentary Cesky Sen (Czech Dream). The product(s) were pushed as far as they could go, for the illusion to blow up in the public’s face. From this we learned that people never really question what is being presented to you unless it comes in a certain package. Their package was that they were businessmen and had everything going just like a new business should. However, the goal for our project is not to focus on capitalism/consumerism but more of what media allows us to believe something that is not real. It would be fascinating to see more reaction from people if we could get advertisement of this fake product via television, radio, newspaper etc. Recently there was a new TV. advertisement for the Nando’s chewing gum. It was a vague advertisement because first of all it didn’t really relate to the brand at all! Nando’s chicken and chewing gum, what??!! Although it became more intriguing for the public to find out if this was something for real or a total hoax just to get more attention for Nandos. This could be said that curiosity drives the public to search for the truth. Therefore if we made our food spray product even more seductive and even more ambiguous it could produce more interest.

The idea of the product itself is ridiculous, like one our surveyed said that he’d rather just cook than spray the taste on some bland food. Not only that, our presentation, we were semi professionals because we knew we couldn’t pull off a complete business/marketing people look weren’t convincing enough. However, because we were “students” some people were more inclined to help try the product.What was interesting is that not one person question the idea that this product is harmful that it will be in an aerosol can. There are so many things wrong with aerosol cans but no one seemed to care.

What we can take away from this project is that you can sell anything if you present it, create the right illusion and make people believe in anything even if what you are selling is totally bogus and devious. As for our low budget illusion making project, the response was quite expected; a lot more people questioned the product (not the idea of the product) and were skeptical. Because it is an intimate setting that we are asking people to put things in their mouth, we will have negative reactions more than positive. The set up of the experiment is also what may have drove some people away or made them more reluctant; with our professional looking and conspicuous camera and a mini foldable-table.

This project may help some realize how dark and mischievous the marketing/advertising business could be and because we are (could be?) somewhat an extension of that discipline we could either take our knowledge and our illusion making skills down a good or evil path. At least we will be a lot more inquisitive and dubious about things that are presented to us and not accept it wholeheartedly without further investigation. It will definitely make us THINK!