ornament van earrings fortunate woman knockoff give ground matrimonial to a higher degree goodliness from loersertydass's blog
The ethics of celebrity endorsement Religion EthicsAustralian Broadcasting Corporation
It's a notable milestone for a celebrity to snag a coveted endorsement deal. Not only are they a profitable income stream, they also have a coolness factor that boosts the star's credibility as a major force in pop culture.
Michael Jackson famously pitched Pepsi as the "next generation" in the 1980s, while Beyonce is the current ambassador, her face adorning Pepsi products in what amounts to a sparkling US$50 million deal. Jean Claude van Damme saw his career revived when he did the splits to Enya for Volvo, shooting the brand into the viral video stratosphere, a rare kind of success story where both sides get a boost.
But things get sticky when the celebrity's endorsements collide with activism and the objections of a cyber savvy public. Beyonce, for example, has been taken to task for promoting unhealthy sugar laden soft drinks. Russell Crowe famously attacked celebrities who capitalise on their popularity in order to sell products, resulting in a fairly public spat with George Clooney, who has been more than the face of Nespresso chic.
Cue Scarlett Johansson siren, luxury brand and Oxfam ambassador, and the new face of Israeli owned company Sodastream, which specialises in home made soft drinks. Much excitement surrounded the Superbowl ad for Sodastream, due to air on 2 Febuary, which cost a sweet $4 million and features Johanssen as the company's first global ambassador. Latest reports say Fox has banned the ad, with Sodastream arguing the network is afraid of Coke and Pepsi.
The real controversy, however, began elsewhere. There is uproar in the cyberverse, and it's not about competition or an actress selling sugar to the masses. Johansson's endorsement of the brand rapidly descended into the political when it was revealed that Sodastream has a factory located on an illegal settlement in the West Bank, Maaleh Adumim, a settlement that reportedly forcibly displaced 200 Palestinian families. The factory is one of 25 globally, but its mere existence is enough to taint the seeming innocuousness replica vca alhambra bracelet of home soft drink systems.
The memes came pouring out, featuring a Photshopped Johanssen in scenes of destruction, while she stayed noticeably silent on the issue. Sodastream van cleef knock off clover bracelet hit back, saying it treats it employees fairly 550 of them are Palestinians who, the company says, are awarded the same benefits as Israeli workers. A report from Electronic Intifada suggests otherwise.
But it was really Johansson's response that pro Palestinian activists were waiting for, and she finally delivered one by means of a statement released to The Huffington Post last week. Johansson isn't backing down, responding to the public criticism with the assertion that she's not in this to take sides more specifically, she didn't intend on "being the face of any social or political movement, distinction, separation or stance".
I have no doubt Johansson had no idea that representing a soft drink company would get political. But now that it has, does it really cut it to churn out lines like: "I remain a supporter of economic cooperation and social interaction between a democratic Israel and Palestine"?
Johansson goes on to make it clear that she cares about peace for all, saying that "SodaStream is not only committed to the environment but to building a bridge to peace between Israel and Palestine, supporting neighbours working alongside each other, receiving equal pay, equal benefits and equal rights." Johansson's off handed dismissal of public objection shows loyalty to the brand employing her, even if she skirts around the politics behind it all with neutral statements about bridges to peace.
To what extent, though, does it make her complicit? In essence, you have a factory being run on an illegal settlement being brand managed into a vehicle of economic and social interaction, and the morally conscious public aren't buying it.
Meanwhile, Johansson's agreement with SodaStream has also brought her into conflict with global charity Oxfam, an organisation she has represented since 2007. Oxfam is appalled by Johanssen's association with Sodastream, publicly saying that it's "opposed to all trade from Israeli settlements, which are illegal under international law."
What makes the Johansson SodaStream Oxfam issue interesting is how unalike this episode of "Celebrity Endorsement Failure" is to previous episodes. Usually, when endorsements fall apart, it is commonly the brand disassociating itself, rather than the celebrities from sports stars who skirt scandal and end up losing major endorsements (Stephanie Rice, Tiger Woods and Lance Armstrong to name just a few), to Pepsi pulling Madonna's "Like a Prayer" ad imitation vca alhambra bracelet because burning crosses and sex don't mesh well with the youthful brand.
Yet this was an entirely different kind of awkward stand off. For days Oxfam didn't pull the plug, much to the chagrin of activists, and Johannsen remained unmoved until now. Johanssen has announced that she has decided to bow out of her ambassador duties, saying in a statement that she has "a fundamental difference of opinion" with Oxfam International. Although Oxfam clearly rejects trade from settlements, it hasn't declared a boycott. Nevertheless, the statement reads:
"Scarlett Johansson has respectfully decided to end her ambassador role with Oxfam after eight years. She and Oxfam have a fundamental difference of opinion in regards to the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement. She is very proud of her accomplishments and fundraising efforts during her tenure with Oxfam."
Palestine and Israel make for a frequent zone of contention, which is understandable given Palestine's status as an occupied land. Performers choosing to do concerts in Israel are frequently petitioned to back out by a very noisy internet collective. Gone are the days when you needed to send snail mail to voice your discontent just ask the institutions and film festivals that have been subject to boycotts.
It's an issue that is perhaps at odds with Johansson's previous endorsements. As an ambassador for Moet she oozes sexiness, but as a representative of global charity Oxfam she collected brownie points from the Left.
This all leads to a fairly obvious question no one seems to be asking: do celebrities have a social and ethical responsibility when being a commercial ambassador? More importantly, how much research should a celebrity do before signing the contract and cashing the endorsement cheque?
The Johannson SodaStream Oxfam issue proves that brand risk travels both ways. As consumers, we're happy to suspend disbelief about a celebrity's use of a product they endorse after all, who truly believes Johannson loves sugary drinks so much she makes them for herself at home, or that George Clooney whips out Nespresso pods for visitors relaxing in one of his mansions? But it appears we are no longer willing quietly to acknowledge that celebrities are merely cashing in on a branding opportunity without our collective social conscience coming into play.
Celebrities would do well to be mindful that in a social media drenched world, signing on to the wrong deal may also risk alienating large portions of the public.
The howling mob may no longer brandish pitchforks and flaming torches, but one thing is certain: celebrity association has enough pull that when it comes to a product being ethically questionable in any way, you'll hear the cyber howls from many memes away. A Palestinian Australian Muslim, she graduated with an arts/law degree, but following a brief stint in legal practice became an editor and journalist.
Samuel Moyn
Today's populism, which is once again nationalist and secular, presents conservative Christians with opportunities to gain political advantage over the secular progressivism they see as a threat. That rhymes with the interwar years. Do Christians therefore need to speak, yet again, about human dignity in ways that put limits on populism, too?
Against the Market in UniversitiesFlannel about empowerment and the increase of purchasing liberty conceals a barbarous indifference to the notion that learning changes you, that this takes time, and that the point of the intellectual life is not productivity but comprehension, and the liberty to ask awkward questions. The proposal that the quality of teaching should be measured by levels of graduate salary is simply one of the more egregious versions of this indifference .
There is No Such Thing as Western Civilisation
Kwame Anthony Appiah
Culture like religion and nation and race provides a source of identity for contemporary human beings. And, like all three, it can become a form of confinement, conceptual mistakes underwriting moral ones. Yet all of them can also give contours to our freedom. Social identities connect the small scale where we live our lives alongside our kith and kin with larger movements, causes, and concerns. They can make a wider world intelligible, alive, and urgent. They can expand our horizons to communities larger than the ones we personally inhabit. But our lives must make sense, too, at the largest of all scales.
It's a notable milestone for a celebrity to snag a coveted endorsement deal. Not only are they a profitable income stream, they also have a coolness factor that boosts the star's credibility as a major force in pop culture.
Michael Jackson famously pitched Pepsi as the "next generation" in the 1980s, while Beyonce is the current ambassador, her face adorning Pepsi products in what amounts to a sparkling US$50 million deal. Jean Claude van Damme saw his career revived when he did the splits to Enya for Volvo, shooting the brand into the viral video stratosphere, a rare kind of success story where both sides get a boost.
But things get sticky when the celebrity's endorsements collide with activism and the objections of a cyber savvy public. Beyonce, for example, has been taken to task for promoting unhealthy sugar laden soft drinks. Russell Crowe famously attacked celebrities who capitalise on their popularity in order to sell products, resulting in a fairly public spat with George Clooney, who has been more than the face of Nespresso chic.
Cue Scarlett Johansson siren, luxury brand and Oxfam ambassador, and the new face of Israeli owned company Sodastream, which specialises in home made soft drinks. Much excitement surrounded the Superbowl ad for Sodastream, due to air on 2 Febuary, which cost a sweet $4 million and features Johanssen as the company's first global ambassador. Latest reports say Fox has banned the ad, with Sodastream arguing the network is afraid of Coke and Pepsi.
The real controversy, however, began elsewhere. There is uproar in the cyberverse, and it's not about competition or an actress selling sugar to the masses. Johansson's endorsement of the brand rapidly descended into the political when it was revealed that Sodastream has a factory located on an illegal settlement in the West Bank, Maaleh Adumim, a settlement that reportedly forcibly displaced 200 Palestinian families. The factory is one of 25 globally, but its mere existence is enough to taint the seeming innocuousness replica vca alhambra bracelet of home soft drink systems.
The memes came pouring out, featuring a Photshopped Johanssen in scenes of destruction, while she stayed noticeably silent on the issue. Sodastream van cleef knock off clover bracelet hit back, saying it treats it employees fairly 550 of them are Palestinians who, the company says, are awarded the same benefits as Israeli workers. A report from Electronic Intifada suggests otherwise.
But it was really Johansson's response that pro Palestinian activists were waiting for, and she finally delivered one by means of a statement released to The Huffington Post last week. Johansson isn't backing down, responding to the public criticism with the assertion that she's not in this to take sides more specifically, she didn't intend on "being the face of any social or political movement, distinction, separation or stance".
I have no doubt Johansson had no idea that representing a soft drink company would get political. But now that it has, does it really cut it to churn out lines like: "I remain a supporter of economic cooperation and social interaction between a democratic Israel and Palestine"?
Johansson goes on to make it clear that she cares about peace for all, saying that "SodaStream is not only committed to the environment but to building a bridge to peace between Israel and Palestine, supporting neighbours working alongside each other, receiving equal pay, equal benefits and equal rights." Johansson's off handed dismissal of public objection shows loyalty to the brand employing her, even if she skirts around the politics behind it all with neutral statements about bridges to peace.
To what extent, though, does it make her complicit? In essence, you have a factory being run on an illegal settlement being brand managed into a vehicle of economic and social interaction, and the morally conscious public aren't buying it.
Meanwhile, Johansson's agreement with SodaStream has also brought her into conflict with global charity Oxfam, an organisation she has represented since 2007. Oxfam is appalled by Johanssen's association with Sodastream, publicly saying that it's "opposed to all trade from Israeli settlements, which are illegal under international law."
What makes the Johansson SodaStream Oxfam issue interesting is how unalike this episode of "Celebrity Endorsement Failure" is to previous episodes. Usually, when endorsements fall apart, it is commonly the brand disassociating itself, rather than the celebrities from sports stars who skirt scandal and end up losing major endorsements (Stephanie Rice, Tiger Woods and Lance Armstrong to name just a few), to Pepsi pulling Madonna's "Like a Prayer" ad imitation vca alhambra bracelet because burning crosses and sex don't mesh well with the youthful brand.
Yet this was an entirely different kind of awkward stand off. For days Oxfam didn't pull the plug, much to the chagrin of activists, and Johannsen remained unmoved until now. Johanssen has announced that she has decided to bow out of her ambassador duties, saying in a statement that she has "a fundamental difference of opinion" with Oxfam International. Although Oxfam clearly rejects trade from settlements, it hasn't declared a boycott. Nevertheless, the statement reads:
"Scarlett Johansson has respectfully decided to end her ambassador role with Oxfam after eight years. She and Oxfam have a fundamental difference of opinion in regards to the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement. She is very proud of her accomplishments and fundraising efforts during her tenure with Oxfam."
Palestine and Israel make for a frequent zone of contention, which is understandable given Palestine's status as an occupied land. Performers choosing to do concerts in Israel are frequently petitioned to back out by a very noisy internet collective. Gone are the days when you needed to send snail mail to voice your discontent just ask the institutions and film festivals that have been subject to boycotts.
It's an issue that is perhaps at odds with Johansson's previous endorsements. As an ambassador for Moet she oozes sexiness, but as a representative of global charity Oxfam she collected brownie points from the Left.
This all leads to a fairly obvious question no one seems to be asking: do celebrities have a social and ethical responsibility when being a commercial ambassador? More importantly, how much research should a celebrity do before signing the contract and cashing the endorsement cheque?
The Johannson SodaStream Oxfam issue proves that brand risk travels both ways. As consumers, we're happy to suspend disbelief about a celebrity's use of a product they endorse after all, who truly believes Johannson loves sugary drinks so much she makes them for herself at home, or that George Clooney whips out Nespresso pods for visitors relaxing in one of his mansions? But it appears we are no longer willing quietly to acknowledge that celebrities are merely cashing in on a branding opportunity without our collective social conscience coming into play.
Celebrities would do well to be mindful that in a social media drenched world, signing on to the wrong deal may also risk alienating large portions of the public.
The howling mob may no longer brandish pitchforks and flaming torches, but one thing is certain: celebrity association has enough pull that when it comes to a product being ethically questionable in any way, you'll hear the cyber howls from many memes away. A Palestinian Australian Muslim, she graduated with an arts/law degree, but following a brief stint in legal practice became an editor and journalist.
Samuel Moyn
Today's populism, which is once again nationalist and secular, presents conservative Christians with opportunities to gain political advantage over the secular progressivism they see as a threat. That rhymes with the interwar years. Do Christians therefore need to speak, yet again, about human dignity in ways that put limits on populism, too?
Against the Market in UniversitiesFlannel about empowerment and the increase of purchasing liberty conceals a barbarous indifference to the notion that learning changes you, that this takes time, and that the point of the intellectual life is not productivity but comprehension, and the liberty to ask awkward questions. The proposal that the quality of teaching should be measured by levels of graduate salary is simply one of the more egregious versions of this indifference .
There is No Such Thing as Western Civilisation
Kwame Anthony Appiah
Culture like religion and nation and race provides a source of identity for contemporary human beings. And, like all three, it can become a form of confinement, conceptual mistakes underwriting moral ones. Yet all of them can also give contours to our freedom. Social identities connect the small scale where we live our lives alongside our kith and kin with larger movements, causes, and concerns. They can make a wider world intelligible, alive, and urgent. They can expand our horizons to communities larger than the ones we personally inhabit. But our lives must make sense, too, at the largest of all scales.
The Wall