In Progress - a collection of Projects
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Copywriting Final
For my final project in Copywriting class, I had to find a company, pick a product or service, create a strategy and target audience and make a campaign. For the campaign, I needed to come up with 4 headlines and one tagline.
Creative Brief:
The product:
Funky Shui, a small interior design company in San Francisco
The strategy:
Offering affordable solutions to bad living arrangements.
Target audiences:
20 - 30 urban dwellers in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Headlines:
Masters of the Ancient Art of the shoestring budget
Equal parts James Brown, and Bruce Lee.
Zen and the art of living large on a small budget
The One with designs that make you go "whoah"
Tagline:
We have Black Belts in Design Fu
Postscript:
Funky Shui was a company I came across on craigslist.org when I was getting gigs under Scathing Harpy Enterprises, the company my wife and I started in 2002. They had a posting for their services that had horrible spelling and terrible grammar. I pitched them to proofread and help them with their marketing material, but never heard back from them. I looked them up before doing this project, but the URL they had www.funkyshi.net wasn't up, and a Google search didn't turn anything up for them. ¶ 9:32 PM 0 comments
Creative Brief:
The product:
Funky Shui, a small interior design company in San Francisco
The strategy:
Offering affordable solutions to bad living arrangements.
Target audiences:
20 - 30 urban dwellers in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Headlines:
Masters of the Ancient Art of the shoestring budget
Equal parts James Brown, and Bruce Lee.
Zen and the art of living large on a small budget
The One with designs that make you go "whoah"
Tagline:
We have Black Belts in Design Fu
Postscript:
Funky Shui was a company I came across on craigslist.org when I was getting gigs under Scathing Harpy Enterprises, the company my wife and I started in 2002. They had a posting for their services that had horrible spelling and terrible grammar. I pitched them to proofread and help them with their marketing material, but never heard back from them. I looked them up before doing this project, but the URL they had www.funkyshi.net wasn't up, and a Google search didn't turn anything up for them. ¶ 9:32 PM 0 comments
An Editorial
This was for one of my English classes. As a Copywriter, I need to show I can write in different styles, so I might beposting more of writings here. Enjoy the edtiorial, it's one of my favorite topics.
--
Intelligent Design isn't
Currently, a war rages. One the one side you have a coalition of well organized, religious fundamentalists who will stop at nothing to see their demands met. They have infiltrated key positions in government and are now poised to destroy one of our nations most embattled and cherished institutions. Of course, I’m talking about the school systems across our country, and the groups have been trying to refute the sound, rational science that is being taught to our children and remove it entirely, replacing it with their dogmatic religious explanations for the way the world works.
On the surface, the argument sounds almost rational; but like most things in life, the first glance is the most deceptive. The summary of the now-called Intelligent Design camp’s argument is this: irreducible complexity. Life is so complex, that it could not exist without some unknown force, a creator of some sort. They never mention two words, creationism, and God. They also never raise their belief in God as their main reason for arguing against Darwin's Theory.
The Intelligent Design camp is using false logic, and a kind of telemarketing approach to win over the masses, bypassing the scientific community and appealing to the most ignorant of us all, the policy-makers in local areas, making inroads until there is no choice but to accept in our schools mention of their dogma alongside real science.
The word theory has two main definitions. There's Theory, with a Capital T and theory with a lowercase t. Evolution and its mechanism, Natural Selection, is called a Theory, because by definition in scientific terms a theory is: “A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.” * That's Theory with a Capital T. In regular usage, theory with a lowercase t is defined as: "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."* The Intelligent Design movement is trying to use the definition of the latter to undermine the former. There is no real reason to prevent the teaching scientific phenomena that explains how life works on earth.
They also use a very effective strategy to undermine the establishment: set up open forums in school districts, invite real scientists to debate them, which is refused, and then preach to the attendees unchallenged. They never mention Christianity, or God. They go to great pains to avoid bringing it up. Creationism is also a taboo word. But let's call a shovel a shovel and confront these fallacies for what they are: willful ignorance.
Recently, the debate was started up again in Kansas, where Intelligent Design proponents are trying to push new science standards in the schools that Darwin’s theory be challenged in the classroom when taught. A recent article in the New York Times wrote:
The problem with that is the Forces of Ignorance are using the scientific communitiy's refusal to participate in the farce for their own purposes. Again, the New York Times article quotes, Linda Holloway, who was a member of the 1999 state board that dumped evolution, said,
The worst part is that Kansas isn't alone in this foolishness. If the Kansas board adopts the new standards in June, they would join Ohio, which took a similar step in 2002, in mandating students be taught that there is controversy over evolution. Legislators in Alabama and Georgia have introduced bills this season to allow teachers to challenge Darwin in class, and the battle over evolution is simmering on the local level in 20 states.
The article also states;
One Creationist site here, recommends against using the argument that it is a theory and not fact, but instead recommends using the following:
This is again, an argument of definition, and a bad one at that. Details are being challenged to question the larger picture. Word choice is important when crafting an argument, especially when your argument is false. Humans learn more effectively by rote and rhyme, so by creating slogan's like "Goo to you" and titles that sound benign like "Intelligent Design", you gain more respectability. It's quite amazing how the Creationists have adapted over time to succeed.
Later, in letters to the NY Times, William Hall of New Jersey summed it up nicely, saying
I’d also like to present my favorite example of evolution; the fish emblems that have appeared on the back of cars. This symbol of the fish was the first icon of Christians, who would draw the simple lines in the sand to recognize each other, because the disciples and Christ were "fishers of men," and being a Christina in the Roman Empire wasn’t a healthy lifestyle.
This symbol started appearing on the backs of cars. A short time later, people showing the fish with legs, and the word 'Darwin' on it appeared. In response to these, there started to appear a fish symbol eating the Darwin fish, with the words The Truth written on it. The irony of this is that the eating fish descended from the original in response to the Darwin fish, adapting to its environment. Hence, it evolved to adapt to its environment.
Intelligent Design is just another euphemism for Creationism. Like racism, sexism, and other forms of ignorance in America; creationism must be confronted and rooted out like the bitter weed it is. One wonders what other agenda is being furthered, what power base is being established when reason is being turned on its head.
Orwell said it best in 1984 “Ignorance is Strength”, but strength for whom?
*The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth EditionCopyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
¶ 9:02 PM 2 comments
--
Intelligent Design isn't
Currently, a war rages. One the one side you have a coalition of well organized, religious fundamentalists who will stop at nothing to see their demands met. They have infiltrated key positions in government and are now poised to destroy one of our nations most embattled and cherished institutions. Of course, I’m talking about the school systems across our country, and the groups have been trying to refute the sound, rational science that is being taught to our children and remove it entirely, replacing it with their dogmatic religious explanations for the way the world works.
On the surface, the argument sounds almost rational; but like most things in life, the first glance is the most deceptive. The summary of the now-called Intelligent Design camp’s argument is this: irreducible complexity. Life is so complex, that it could not exist without some unknown force, a creator of some sort. They never mention two words, creationism, and God. They also never raise their belief in God as their main reason for arguing against Darwin's Theory.
The Intelligent Design camp is using false logic, and a kind of telemarketing approach to win over the masses, bypassing the scientific community and appealing to the most ignorant of us all, the policy-makers in local areas, making inroads until there is no choice but to accept in our schools mention of their dogma alongside real science.
The word theory has two main definitions. There's Theory, with a Capital T and theory with a lowercase t. Evolution and its mechanism, Natural Selection, is called a Theory, because by definition in scientific terms a theory is: “A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.” * That's Theory with a Capital T. In regular usage, theory with a lowercase t is defined as: "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."* The Intelligent Design movement is trying to use the definition of the latter to undermine the former. There is no real reason to prevent the teaching scientific phenomena that explains how life works on earth.
They also use a very effective strategy to undermine the establishment: set up open forums in school districts, invite real scientists to debate them, which is refused, and then preach to the attendees unchallenged. They never mention Christianity, or God. They go to great pains to avoid bringing it up. Creationism is also a taboo word. But let's call a shovel a shovel and confront these fallacies for what they are: willful ignorance.
Recently, the debate was started up again in Kansas, where Intelligent Design proponents are trying to push new science standards in the schools that Darwin’s theory be challenged in the classroom when taught. A recent article in the New York Times wrote:
“TOPEKA, Kan., May 5 - Six years after Kansas ignited a national debate over the teaching of evolution, the state is poised to push through new science standards this summer requiring that Darwin's theory be challenged in the classroom. In the first of three daylong hearings being referred to here as a direct descendant of the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee, a parade of Ph.D.'s testified Thursday about the flaws they saw in mainstream science's explanation of the origins of life. It was one part biology lesson, one part political theater, and the biggest stage yet for the emerging movement known as intelligent design, which posits that life's complexity cannot be explained without a supernatural creator.
“Darwin's defenders are refusing to testify at the hearings, which were called by the State Board of Education's conservative majority. But their lawyer forcefully cross-examined the other side's experts, pushing them to acknowledge that nothing in the current standards prevented discussion of challenges to evolution, and peppering them with queries both profound and personal.
“ ‘Do the standards state anywhere that science, evolution, is in any way in conflict with belief in God?’ the lawyer, Pedro Irigonegaray, asked William S. Harris, a chemist who helped write the proposed changes. When a later witness, Jonathan Wells, said he enjoyed being in the minority on such a controversial topic, Mr. Irigonegaray retorted, ‘More than being right?’“
The problem with that is the Forces of Ignorance are using the scientific communitiy's refusal to participate in the farce for their own purposes. Again, the New York Times article quotes, Linda Holloway, who was a member of the 1999 state board that dumped evolution, said,
"the mainstream scientists' failure to participate in the hearings signaled that they're afraid to be cross-examined, they're afraid to defend their theory.”
The worst part is that Kansas isn't alone in this foolishness. If the Kansas board adopts the new standards in June, they would join Ohio, which took a similar step in 2002, in mandating students be taught that there is controversy over evolution. Legislators in Alabama and Georgia have introduced bills this season to allow teachers to challenge Darwin in class, and the battle over evolution is simmering on the local level in 20 states.
The article also states;
"While the proposed standards for Kansas do not specifically mention intelligent design - and many of its supporters prefer to avoid any discussion of it - critics contend they would open the door not just for those teachings, but to creationism, which holds to the Genesis account of God as the architect of the universe."
One Creationist site here, recommends against using the argument that it is a theory and not fact, but instead recommends using the following:
“The problem with using the word ‘theory’ in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known ones such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Theory of Gravity, and lesser-known ones… It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.”
This is again, an argument of definition, and a bad one at that. Details are being challenged to question the larger picture. Word choice is important when crafting an argument, especially when your argument is false. Humans learn more effectively by rote and rhyme, so by creating slogan's like "Goo to you" and titles that sound benign like "Intelligent Design", you gain more respectability. It's quite amazing how the Creationists have adapted over time to succeed.
Later, in letters to the NY Times, William Hall of New Jersey summed it up nicely, saying
“Darwin's theory of evolution cites plenty of scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that species evolve to fit their environments. The religious conservatives who are pushing "intelligent design" try to pass it off as scientific theory, when it is actually just hypothesis.
Actual evidence is necessary to qualify as scientific theory. This is an important distinction that seems to have been lost in the political theatrics of the Kansas State Board of Education.”
I’d also like to present my favorite example of evolution; the fish emblems that have appeared on the back of cars. This symbol of the fish was the first icon of Christians, who would draw the simple lines in the sand to recognize each other, because the disciples and Christ were "fishers of men," and being a Christina in the Roman Empire wasn’t a healthy lifestyle.
This symbol started appearing on the backs of cars. A short time later, people showing the fish with legs, and the word 'Darwin' on it appeared. In response to these, there started to appear a fish symbol eating the Darwin fish, with the words The Truth written on it. The irony of this is that the eating fish descended from the original in response to the Darwin fish, adapting to its environment. Hence, it evolved to adapt to its environment.
Intelligent Design is just another euphemism for Creationism. Like racism, sexism, and other forms of ignorance in America; creationism must be confronted and rooted out like the bitter weed it is. One wonders what other agenda is being furthered, what power base is being established when reason is being turned on its head.
Orwell said it best in 1984 “Ignorance is Strength”, but strength for whom?
*The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth EditionCopyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
¶ 9:02 PM 2 comments
