Things you always wanted to know the answer to [Vol. 6]

[Big Nanas]

StevieBee said:

People do not buy a perfume or cologne, they buy a pleasing aroma. Smellovision has yet to be invented so the advertising has to be inventive and create a proposition to potential customers that conveys the 'essence' of the aroma. Certain aromas evoke a sense of excitement and fun, others a sense of calmness and suaveness, and so on. It's this that the advertising tends to latch onto.

So, for example, we might see Johnny Depp looking all cool and grungy (and we know the ladies like Johnny Depp) on an advert and there he is extolling the virtues of Sauvage (a subtle mix of suave and savage - just like Johnny - and we all want to be like Johnny!). Then at some point in the future, you're wandering through John Lewis or at the airport we might see a display for Sauvage. The photo of Johnny Depp is there, looking like a still from the advert. Your brain makes the connection to the advert, so you head over for a little squirt and think - mmm, that's quite nice! (ignoring the hundreds of other colognes there which have not been advertised in the same way or at all). This has the propensity to translate into a sale, either then and there or at some point in the future.

The advert alerts you that the cologne exists

It positions the cologne against a certain style and characteristics that are aspirational to you.

This prompts you to test the product when the opportunity arrises.

That then leads to a sale.

That may all sound completely abstract, and in many ways it is, but is mighty powerful and effective.

And if you've never been motivated to try any cologne that's been advertised in this way, the chances are you are not the intended market.

Can also lead to some amazing adverts from a creative perspective where directors are given large budgets and free-reign. This is one of my favourites, directed by Spike Jones and featuring Margaret Qualley who improvised the dance entirely on set. Literally had nothing planned until the cameras rolled. Take note of the staircase scene (at 1:49) and consider where the camera is! :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoMqvniiEkk

I've never seen that before, amazing thanks. Big fan of Margaret Qualley. Daughter of Andie McDowell and was a dancer before being an actor. She's very good at both.

Nice one.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

hidetheelephants said:

nicanary said:

Sea levels are rising. Many people in hot countries don't have access to drinking water. Desalination plants exist.

Why don't we drain the oceans and make drinking water ?

Lack of cheap energy mostly.

Indeed. Desalination is incredibly energy intense, and also a surprisingly complex process. And that means not only high running costs but also a lot of initial capital investment.

[Chauffard]

The reasons many hot countries don't have access to water is usually the same reason they don't have decent roads and bridges, a decent health care system and constant civil unrest, inept and corrupt government usually.

Mexico and the hot states in the US seem to manage.

[Newc]

Chauffard said:

The reasons many hot countries don't have access to water is usually the same reason they don't have decent roads and bridges, a decent health care system and constant civil unrest, inept and corrupt government usually.

Mexico and the hot states in the US seem to manage.

This year's Nobel economics prize was exactly this. The key differentiator between countries' long term economic outcomes is the quality of their civic institutions.

[Chauffard]

Where do confrontational people, jobsworths, security personnel, even the cops, get the idea that you need their permission to, accidentally or otherwise, photograph or video them in a public area ?

I seriously doubt that was ever a UK rule, edict or law.

[John D.]

What does 'working with a perfect handshake' mean in project manager speak? I Googled it but just got lots of tips on how to do a good handshake.

[audi321]

John D. said:

What does 'working with a perfect handshake' mean in project manager speak? I Googled it but just got lots of tips on how to do a good handshake.

As a PM for many years I’ve never heard of that term, but as a guess I’d say 2 components working seamlessly together as expected.

[borcy]

Chauffard said:

Where do confrontational people, jobsworths, security personnel, even the cops, get the idea that you need their permission to, accidentally or otherwise, photograph or video them in a public area ?

I seriously doubt that was ever a UK rule, edict or law.

Probably started with people taking pictures of gov buildings, people thought there's no real reason for you to being doing that other than if you're upto no good. That and the gov warning people to look out for unusual or suspicious behaviour.

[Cotty]

Chauffard said:

Where do confrontational people, jobsworths, security personnel, even the cops, get the idea that you need their permission to, accidentally or otherwise, photograph or video them in a public area ?

I seriously doubt that was ever a UK rule, edict or law.

I have seen videos of cops in the USA and UK who think you can't video anything you can see in public. Its funny when it gets escalated and a superior officer comes down and has to explain that what they are filming is perfectly fine and the officers need to let them carry on. God knows where those officers got their education.

The bit that gets me is the constant demands for ID. The standard response is if you are not arresting me then I don't need to provide ID, that really winds up the police.

Edited by Cotty on Wednesday 13th November 10:19

[Doofus]

Cotty said:

I have seen videos of cops in the USA and UK who think you can't video anything you can see in public. Its funny when it gets escalated and a superior officer comes down and has to explain that what they are filming is perfectly fine and the offices need to let them carry on. God knows where those officers got their education.

The bit that gets me is the constant demands for ID. The standard response is if you are not arresting me then I don't need to provide ID, that really winds up the police.

The YT tts who call themselves "Auditers" (sic) aren't necessarily doing anything illegal, but they are deliberately stirring the st, and trying to create a situation in which they can go "Who, me? I'm an innocent victim of this bloke's anger".

They are weasely s who don't deserve anyone's attention. if one of them got a smack in the mouth, he got off light.

[StevieBee]

Chauffard said:

Where do confrontational people, jobsworths, security personnel, even the cops, get the idea that you need their permission to, accidentally or otherwise, photograph or video them in a public area ?

I seriously doubt that was ever a UK rule, edict or law.

Something I face on a near daily basis.

The key is not 'public area' but 'public realm'. For example, I had to film some sequences in the Bond Street area of Chelmsford - a posh shopping district. Whilst it's a public area, it's not public realm, the land being owned by a property/land management company from whom I needed to get authority. One step away you're in the High Street which is public realm falling under the auspices of the City Council. No issues filming there at all.

The difference is not always obvious so nine times out of ten, if approached, it's normally with good reason.

Providing both photographer/videographer and the people being filmed are on public realm land, you can photograph or film anyone of any age for any legal purpose. You can even use those images for commercial purpose without need for any recourse or permission from anyone who features (though is not got practice to do so).

Have to say that rarely, if ever, will the Police say anything. But there are some who believe they know best when they clearly don't. Put a drone up and you'll be amazed at the number of 'regulation experts' that suddenly appear like the shop keeper in Mr Ben!

[Cotty]

StevieBee said:

Chauffard said:

Where do confrontational people, jobsworths, security personnel, even the cops, get the idea that you need their permission to, accidentally or otherwise, photograph or video them in a public area ?

I seriously doubt that was ever a UK rule, edict or law.

Something I face on a near daily basis.

The key is not 'public area' but 'public realm'. For example, I had to film some sequences in the Bond Street area of Chelmsford - a posh shopping district. Whilst it's a public area, it's not public realm, the land being owned by a property/land management company from whom I needed to get authority. One step away you're in the High Street which is public realm falling under the auspices of the City Council. No issues filming there at all.

The difference is not always obvious so nine times out of ten, if approached, it's normally with good reason.

Providing both photographer/videographer and the people being filmed are on public realm land, you can photograph or film anyone of any age for any legal purpose. You can even use those images for commercial purpose without need for any recourse or permission from anyone who features (though is not got practice to do so).

Have to say that rarely, if ever, will the Police say anything. But there are some who believe they know best when they clearly don't. Put a drone up and you'll be amazed at the number of 'regulation experts' that suddenly appear like the shop keeper in Mr Ben!

Is that in relation to commercial filming. i.e. if someone whips out their phone to record a friend doing a dance to put on TicTok I assume they don't need to ask for permission.

I understand that Canary Wharf is a privately owned Estate and you do need permission for commercial filming but not amateur/personal use, I think thats correct.
https://group.canarywharf.com/media/filming-photog...

[Clockwork Cupcake]

The simple answer is that (especially for private non-commercial) it's not against the law but if someone kicks off about it you need to ask yourself whether it is worth the hassle of trying to argue that.

Here are some links from various police force websites saying that it is not illegal

https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/report/takin...
https://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/ask-the-police... (This one has some provisos that are worth noting)
https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-inform... (typically the Met can decide to say they suspect you are a terrorist, and then they *can* prevent you)

The above links, and pages more of links that say the same thing, are available by typing "is it legal to take photos in public in the UK" into Google.

[Cotty]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

The above links, and pages more of links that say the same thing, are available by typing "is it legal to take photos in public in the UK" into Google.

I wouldn't be much of a forum if everyone just Googled everything. Also sometimes there are grey areas and having someone who is familiar with filming in public to clarify some points is helpful.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

Cotty said:

I wouldn't be much of a forum if everyone just Googled everything. Also sometimes there are grey areas and having someone who is familiar with filming in public to clarify some points is helpful.

Granted. However, I meant it in the sense of "if you want further information / confirmation"

[smithyithy]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

Roofless Toothless said:

I have seen posts where people put certain phrases into a curious mixture of upper and lower case letters. I have no idea what this is supposed to signify. Can anyone enlighten me?

TeH youF

Youngsters.

I am guessing. I very much doubt there has been a resurgence in 90's l337 h4x0rr spk

It's a mark of getting older that we cease to understand what the fk youngers are on about. We used to be with it. But then they changed what "it" was.

*hugs*

I think in the mid-00's, around the time of MSN Messenger etc, deliberately mixing cAsEs was relatively common..

More recently, and this seems to be common on Reddit etc, it's used to repeat (or preemptively repeat) another person's comment in a sarcastic tone, or like when as a kid you'd mimic what someone else said but in an overacted 'idiot' voice, as if to mock what they were saying..

[Cotty]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

Granted. However, I meant it in the sense of "if you want further information / confirmation"

I believe Chauffard's question was, if these laws are easily accessible why are confrontational people, jobsworths, security personnel, even the cops not aware of them.

I have lost count of the number of times I have seen a video of someone in public saying "you can't film me". They completely do not understand that they have no right to privacy in public. So the question stands why are they not aware and where do they get the idea that you need their permission.

[RizzoTheRat]

StevieBee said:

Something I face on a near daily basis.

The key is not 'public area' but 'public realm'. For example, I had to film some sequences in the Bond Street area of Chelmsford - a posh shopping district. Whilst it's a public area, it's not public realm, the land being owned by a property/land management company from whom I needed to get authority. One step away you're in the High Street which is public realm falling under the auspices of the City Council. No issues filming there at all.

If you didn't have permission of the management company, what is the offence if you film anyway? Trespassing?

[mickythefish]

This isn't a political statement, I just wondered when did paying more taxes become the economic way. What happens to fewer taxes?

[Clockwork Cupcake]

Cotty said:

I believe Chauffard's question was, if these laws are easily accessible why are confrontational people, jobsworths, security personnel, even the cops not aware of them.

I have lost count of the number of times I have seen a video of someone in public saying "you can't film me". They completely do not understand that they have no right to privacy in public. So the question stands why are they not aware and where do they get the idea that you need their permission.

Ah, ok. I misunderstood the question then.

In that case it's probably like any popular misconception, and is self-perpetrating. Few people fact check what they believe. That's why sites like Snopes exist.

In this instance it could be from hearing about the paparazzi being prosecuted, or something like that.

Edited by Clockwork Cupcake on Wednesday 13th November 13:10