Royal Mail is a British multinational postal service and courier originally established in 1516 as a department of the English government. Until 2015 it was partially or wholly state-owned, but now operates as a private company. Royal Mail stands for high service standards and reliability. Part of its mission is to improve customer satisfaction levels and to deliver in a more customer-responsive and proactive way.
Because of this, we wanted to convey Royal Mail as a personable and reliable delivery service that achieves guaranteed delivery times. By adopting the theme of festivity, we related delivery back to its fundamental goal of connection and communication, and the difference this can make to people’s lives.
With the diversification of the delivery market, we wanted to capitalise on the qualities Royal Mail could use to differentiate itself from other services. Unlike international corporations, Royal Mail has a distinct, regional heritage that a British audience can uniquely relate to. Again, we saw Christmas time as a setting that could tap into a collective memory while highlighting the brand’s place in the modern world.
Focusing on one family, they face contemporary issues, exacerbated by the COVID 19 pandemic, such as living far away from each other and use modern solutions like FaceTime. In this, we highlight the kind of togetherness that a postal service can facilitate and its continuing importance in 2021. As well as this, in the film, people receive both letters and parcels, a service Royal Mail can uniquely offer. Other services such as Amazon Logistics or DHL deliver parcels but do not handle national post. With this, the brand can continue to appeal to a wide customer base, growing its range of services while improving/consolidating the ones it presently provides.
I have been using Instagram for several years now. In fact, the first app I open in the morning is Instagram. I, one of the many, also interact with the platform by generating and circulating content online
Today I woke up, scrolled through my Instagram feed, while sipping my coffee, liked a lot of pictures, saw some videos on my explore page. Saw some ads – one was from an app called Vinted (they are a platform where people can sell their clothes to give them a new life, like thrifting.), next ad I remember seeing was from amazon, and I also saw an ad by getir_uk (this ad I have seen multiple times a day.) These ads are indicative of my online behaviour. It is what marketers call ‘personalised retargeting’.
I use Instagram for multiple things. To record and archive my life in images, to share posts and videos and interact with friends back home and in London. While my profile is very private, I tend to share many personal details on the app. But, this doesn’t stop the advertisers from tracking my online behavioural patterns. I, as a user, generate information that is constantly collected, examined, sold, and presented back to me in the form of targeted advertisements.
As the researcher Matthew P. McAllister has pointed out, “Social media offer businesses new, boundary-pushing opportunities to tap into people’s online activity by collecting enormous amounts of personal information and seamlessly integrating advertising and social networks.” Users formerly only valued as consumers are now a part of the production process. On these social media platforms, consumers become producers of content, integral to the platform’s existence. It is worth mentioning that the users participate voluntarily in these activities and rather enjoy posting and engaging online. But this productivity is transformed into profit by these media giants.
“The sites then capitalize on the time users spend participating in the communicative activity.”
Matthew P. McAllister
Now that value is generated by content creation, they also generate a new commodity form, known as ‘cybernetic commodity‘. Dallas Smythe was the first to identify the role the audience plays for media companies. “The notion of double commodification speaks to the dual role of social media users: a source of free labour as well as providers of information that is sold for profit or used in the process of profit generation. This practice reflects larger patterns of capitalist exploitation, under which general social relations are increasingly becoming productive.” Therefore now engaging with social media sites has been conceptualised as free labour or unpaid work time – it provides monetary value.
Consumption and Production have blurred lines because of user-generated content, we are calling it labour not because we are creating free content, but also because we are creating ‘information commodities‘.
These sites collect cookies, which track text and patterns on the website. These tools enable advertisers to personalise targetting. Advertisers can learn about what you view online, and deliver a related advertisement in real-time, tailored to your location, income, shopping interests, etc. This surveillance culture is prominent to promote behavioural targetting, an intrusion to privacy but sold as capital.
We as users/labourers do not have any control over how this data is used and indicates the significant power imbalance at work. It makes me think about how I am not rewarded, in any way, for the commodity that I produce. However, this process of value extraction through the commodification of data is a fair demonstration of Platform Capitalism. We scroll and post for leisure but it’s actually work. It is a type of work where the process of commodification extends beyond the traditional workplace and wage-labour relationship, extracting value from ever-widening aspects of our lives with just a couple of likes as a reward.
The capture of productive activity online reflects the condition of value extraction in contemporary capitalism, where work seeps into leisure time and leisure time becomes work, where autonomous communicative creation and alienation overlap, and, critically, where processes of commodification extend beyond the traditional workplace and wage-labour relationship, extracting value from ever-widening aspects of our lives.
Last Year a Canadian Student was experimenting with Twitter’s Algorithm, what he noticed was something worth conferring. He observed that Twitter’s algorithm continually selected his face instead of his darker-skinned friend’s from the photo of the two, to show on their feeds. This fuelled tonnes of Twitter users’ curiosity and led many to experiment with Twitter’s algorithm. Below is an example of another experiment –
These experiments kept proving Twitter’s ‘Algorithmic Bias’. Researchers decided to deal with a variety of diverse people, ethnicities, genders and saw evidence that Muslims, disabled and older people faced this discrimination as well.
Algorithmic Bias or ‘The coded gaze‘ as Joy Buolamwini has coined, can lead to exclusionary experiences for communities consequential to discriminatory practices. These highlight a broader problem in the tech industry.
According to Chabert in Pasquinelli, “Algorithms have been around since the beginning of time […]. Algorithms are simply a set of step by step instructions, to be carried out quite mechanically, so as to achieve some desired result.” Similarly, in modern times, while the Algorithm is an AI tool (machine learning), it doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Algorithms as AI tools undergo ‘training’ of sorts as machine learning tools. They are exposed to a lot of big data (could be any kind), and then it learns to make predictions and judgements according to the patterns it notices. In this particular case of Twitter, while it shows personalised Advertisements based on our likes and dislikes on the platform, it has learned (through data and collective online behaviour) to internalize prejudices that would’ve never been written into the system intentionally. In simpler words, it is a reflection of our society.
A deeper exploration is required into historical and social conditions that lead to reinforcement of such social prejudices. the connection between the Algorithmic Bias and tropes of White Supremacy (a belief where white people are superior to other races and thus should dominate them. In a modern context, it means maintaining the power and privilege held by white people.), as well as age-old hegemonic notions, is very obvious and can’t be ignored, as they are directly reflected in the technology design.
It has been pointed out before that because these platforms have become such an important part of our daily lives we somewhere start believing that the information being provided to us is depoliticised or neutral, which is absolutely not the case. Just because it is accurate, doesn’t mean it is ethical and fair. These systems can be biased based on who builds them, how they’re developed, and ultimately who uses them, especially since this technology often operates in a corporate black box. We frequently don’t know how a particular artificial intelligence or algorithm was designed, what data helped build it, or how it works.
Completely eradicating algorithmic bias sounds impossible but we need to start somewhere. The first step can be complete transparency and accountability. While Twitter has apologised there were no repercussions to the platform. These corporates should be completely transparent about what data they are using to train these algorithms.
Sometimes we forget that Advertisements exist here to sell and make profits. If you have noticed, the most popular of Ads are either emotional or address a specific social movement/ideology. The most recent and popular is harnessing the power of women empowerment and Feminism. India has also jumped onto the bandwagon. There has been a surge of such Advertisements in the Indian market. One of the many such Ad campaigns was #ShareTheLoad by Ariel India.
In this particular ad, we see a role inversion, which is a common narrative we see in feminist advertisements, where Indian men, appear to act out of character and tend to question their patriarchal role in society.
In this Ariel ad, we see the woman performing multiple household tasks simultaneously, making tea for her husband, who is oblivious to the fact that his wife is multitasking a work call, preparing his tea, preparing dinner, loading laundry in the washing machine, picking up toys, sending an email…the father, however, reads out a letter to his daughter as he watches her perform so many tasks by herself. As he mentions in the letter – how she used to play ‘Ghar Ghar’ (House House) as a kid and now manages the household completely by herself. The dad laments in the background and acknowledges his responsibility for this state of affairs.
He, in the letter, admits that he has never set a better example for his daughter and that his daughter’s stress is a direct consequence of his ignorance as a role model. In the letter, as we see the daughter read on-screen, he apologises and resolves to change his ways. The last scene of the ad shows the father loading the machine, much to the mom’s surprise. The last frame flashes the words on-screen “why should laundry be a mother’s job”? with #ShareTheLoad.
This ad very intelligently fuses the social message of switching roles with their commercial objective of selling detergent, because what better place to switch roles than the kitchen. Historically, in an Indian household, the kitchen has embodied gender segregation.
a positive response to the campaign resulting in sales growth.
The ad flows a certain way, which invokes this individualistic feeling of responsibility towards women empowerment. From a woman’s point of view, it successfully makes them feel seen, but from a man’s point of view, it rather cleverly elicits responsibility which will likely affect their buying behaviour and potentially become a consumer of Ariel. The messaging in this advertisement, and the ideas that they have communicated, are in alignment with their brand value and commercial interests, with this campaign they were aiming at a potential growth of their target group with men and simultaneously potentially expand their goodwill amongst their women consumers.
As the researcher elaborates on Karl Marx’s and Frederick Engels’ theory of ‘Ruling Class and Ruling Ideas’ in this article, “While regular citizens are busy with their day-to-day tasks, part of the ruling class take on the function of the “thinkers”, those whom we see as subject matter experts, and actively develop and promote those values and messages. The ruling class also has some control over the dissemination of these ideas.”
I can’t help but criticise the intentions of this advertisement. This ad especially exists in the ‘Economy of Visibility‘ which in her book ‘Empowered: Popular Feminism and Popular Misogyny‘ by Sarah Banet-Weiser is defined as the visibility of popular feminism, where examples appear on television, in film, on social media, and on bodies, but it often stops there, as if seeing or purchasing feminism is the same thing as changing patriarchal structures.
While this ad questions the role of a woman in the kitchen it doesn’t help in shattering existing patriarchal structures which affect women at a deeper and intersectional level. It clearly rehashes the age-old neoliberal idea of competitive individualism and consumerism packaged as a solution to transform patriarchal traditions.
I come from the country India, which famously is the largest democracy in the world. I use the word ‘Democracy’ very loosely in this context. It is very similar to Britain’s Parliamentary System. We also have a Prime Minister who leads the ruling party and serves as the head of the government. Having said that, the media under our Prime Minister Narendra Modi functions in a capitalist as well as a socialist economy and therefore is highly regulated and controlled. Because of the heavy gate-keeping by the authorities, it serves to build a specific narrative around the current ruling party and the PM.
Narendra Modi, Indian Prime Minister
India’s press freedom has always played a crucial part in shaping India’s culture and protecting India’s democracy since its independence from Britain in 1947. However, the current scenario indicates otherwise. Government officials are known to pressurise or bribe news outlets to ignore and not report the uglier side of his party’s objectives, which is to modify India from a tolerant and culturally diverse country into a majorly Hindu one.
The decisions made by our government are influenced by their vested political and economic interests with little public opinion consideration or input. As McChesney rightly mentions in his work Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times, “The media system is linked ever more closely to the capitalist system, both through ownership and through its reliance upon advertising, a function dominated by the largest firms in the economy. Capitalism benefits from having a formally democratic system, but capitalism works best when elites make the most fundamental decisions and the bulk of the population is depoliticised.”
India’s business model prevents independent media organisations to strive without any intervention from the government or the business leaders. Their operations are either impeded, or the journalists and advertisers are threatened and harassed. Sadly this practice has worked in the government’s favour, major news media outlets have surrendered to the suppression tactics and even sceptical journalists have censored themselves in order to not be branded as anti-nationalists.
But, amidst this ongoing humanitarian crisis, some digital news media organisations emerged as bastions of a disruptive new wave. One Independent media organisation that comes to mind is Scroll.in. They are digital news only organisation with the widest reach in India. They pride themselves on bringing sharp focus to the stories that go unreported. As they say on their blog website, “Our goal is to add critical perspectives to these stories through rigorous reporting, objective analyses, and expert commentary.”
They play a very important role in the ‘democratisation’ of media in our country. Many aspects come into play, first and foremost they do not take any funding from the government and are fully dependant on their own subscription/advertising model. They also receive donations from their readers. They have their in-house newsroom which either does on-site reporting or receive a contribution in the form of videos, photos and articles. Second, they are bold enough to present critical points of view as well as encourage their readers to question the authority instead of just accepting it as the absolute truth, while also reporting events without being biased and opinionated. They are bold enough to be Politically Incorrect. Last but not the least, they give a voice to the underrepresented communities that are usually silenced or ignored by the mainstream media.
Below is an example of uncensored news, while the mainstream media has covered the events as well, they have been majorly trying to shift the blame instead of holding the authorities accountable.
I would like to end this blog with a quote from Robert Waterman McChesney’s book Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times, “If we value democracy, it is imperative that we restructure the media system so that it reconnects with the mass of citizens who in fact comprise ‘democracy’. The media reform I envision and write about here can take place only if it is part of a broader political movement to shift power from the few to the many.”
Recently it has been announced that Channel 4 will be privatised as an organisation. This means a transfer of ownership from the government to the private sector, a private business entity, will take place. Channel 4, as a PSB (Public Service Broadcaster), has delivered the most diverse and distinctive content in the UK with shows like ‘The Peep Show’, ‘It’s a Sin’, ‘The Great British Bake Off’ under its umbrella. They’re known to provide a platform to underrepresented communities in their productions. They follow a publisher-broadcaster model, as they mention on their website, “Alongside our not-for-profit model, this means that all of Channel 4’s revenues are invested back into content, going straight into the creative economy and supporting the independent production sector – and all at no cost to the taxpayer.”
L-R: The Peep Show, The Great British Bake Off, Derry Girls.
While change is not always a bad thing, privatisation of Channel 4 comes with risks. The reasoning I see for this decision could be the noticeable change in the media landscape recently, especially during the pandemic. We can see consumer habits shifting from watching cable television or having a shared TV experience to watching paid content privately: Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney Plus, etc., but, these platforms are only available to someone who can afford them.
A substantial impact of this decision will be on the content and the audiences. Privatisation will make it most likely rely on re-hashing existing shows and importing American TV comedy and drama. As rightly mentioned in Equity’s submission to the Government’s consultation on the proposed privatisation of Channel 4, “By diluting the incentive of challenging programming to the altar of the market, Channel 4’s service will lose any reason to engage fully in the costly process of scripted commissioning.”
Authors Micky Lee and Dal Yong Jin propose a similar argument in their book Understanding the Business of Global Media in the Digital Age. It says, “One consequence of selling public goods as private goods is that society will be worse off. Society will be weakened if most of its population has limited access to infrastructure. For the same reason, media products should be looked at as public goods, because socially meaningful media products will benefit society as a whole.
One consequence of selling public goods as private goods is that society will be worse off.
Micky Lee & Dal Yong Jin
Channel 4’s focus under this model would be delivering profits more than diverse and experimental content, which will hurt the small production houses it works with. Under private ownership, the owner will be able to own (IP), produce and control the content which Channel 4’s current model prohibits. Smaller show’s slots will be likely cancelled to make time for bigger commercial generic content, that serves the interest of the owners. It might be moving towards silencing diverse opinions as well challenging stories.
What does this privatisation have in store for their biggest hit ‘The Great British Bake Off’? While I am worried about censorship, I don’t think its success or profit margins will be affected in any way. I do see the eccentrics being cut down a little bit to attract an even wider international audience, which I am against because the whole charm of the show is the unconventional delivery. However, what I do see in the show’s future are lots and lots of spin-offs. Because often when a format is a hit, commissioners run towards what else there might be in a similar space. We have seen this proven in a lot of shows all around the world, the best example would probably be the multiple variations of the show ‘Masterchef’.
I think the privatisation of Channel 4 is a win only for the current ruling government of the UK and a loss for everybody else. I do not see it as a sustainable solution culturally and socially, However, I do believe that making wider structural changes to the UK’s PSB model can be beneficial for all broadcasting companies.
