Oatly is the pioneer of the oat milk brand. The brand combines scientific rigour with emotional and playful creativity.
Competitor
Other oat milk brands in the UK include Alpro and Minor Figures, as well as Dream, a brand of rice plant milk, and innocent, a brand with coconut milk products.
Context
Oatly is unique for bundling oat milk with coffee and works with coffee shops. Their packaging is also an advertisement, as it puts the company’s philosophy and trolling on the product to market itself through self-hacking.
Customer
The audience of Oatly milk is mainly coffee lovers and lactose intolerant people. Oatly focuses on these two groups of people by launching a variety of flavours modelled on milk, focusing on the health needs of consumers.
Culture
Oatly emphasises sustainability, nutritional health, and a brand philosophy of trust and transparency. They will be honest in labelling ingredients to reassure vegetarians.
Rationale
Oatly currently exists to promote them all in a straightforward exposition, mainly in the form of quizzes to clearly let the audience know the product’s features. As a result, we believe that consumers are already well aware of the benefits of Oatly’s products and that the brand lacks some interesting expressions. We wanted to bring more memorable points about the product and use this to raise the profile of Oatly in the minds of consumers. Therefore, we chose to adapt the story based on Snow White, replacing the poisoned apple with milk, to express Oatly can offer people an alternative choice, especially for those who cannot drink milk (e.g. lactose intolerant and vegetarians). We invited a male to play the witch, and the bad characters shouldn’t always be female. The prince is just a character who delivers the Oatly, and the princess would not waiting for a prince to save her.
Because of the proliferation of online social networks, there is now a completely novel approach to the production of information products. The Linux operating system is a prime example of how thousands of programmers may work together to create a single piece of software. Peer-production that is based on the concept of commons is “radically decentralized, collaborative, and nonproprietary, based on sharing resources and outputs among widely dispersed, loosely linked people who interact with each other without depending on either marked signals or management directives” (ref). The transmission of existing codified information is facilitated through commons-based media resources, which are made available via open collaboration to promote learning at scale. Production and innovation are also made more accessible, expanding people’s opportunities to acquire information and develop their skills.
Linux is an open-source operating system born in 1991 and is quite convenient, so it appears in many current devices on the market.
The term “commons-based resource” refers to a kind of social and economic production in which many people work together, often via the use of the Internet. Compared to initiatives run using more conventional commercial models, those based on the commons tend to have flatter organizational structures. One of the most distinguishing features of peer production based on commons is that it is not intended to generate revenue for any one entity. However, this is not always the case, commons-based initiatives are often created to not need any kind of monetary reward for participants. Examples of this include the widespread availability of STL (file format) design files for products online, which allow anybody with access to a 3-D printer to digitally recreate the object, so saving the prosumer a substantial amount of money. For example, MyMiniFactory is a platform for guaranteed printable free STL files.
A common consists of a resource, the individuals who share it (users, managers, producers, and suppliers), the value generated via the production or preservation of that resource, and the laws governing the usage of that resource. Obviously, material resource is the primary element of a commons-based resource. It has to do with the material means at disposal. Physical resources include things like water, soil, and air, whereas intangible resources include things like human genes, computer programs, algorithms, and cultural practices. They are all shared resources. Each of us is by right entitled to make use of them.
Subsequently, we have the element of social interaction. Users are those who put these tools to good use. As a concept, “the commons” cannot exist apart from individuals actively working together to oversee the care of a shared resource in each social setting. Humans may utilize acquired knowledge to either diagnose a condition or search for a treatment for it. Creativity may be fueled through the application of cultural practices. The people who utilize a resource in a communal way turn it into a common.
Regulation is the third component. This includes all of the policies and procedures that are in place to keep the commons in good shape. The ranges of these items are rather broad. Management of physical resources like water and forests is quite different from policing the use of bytes and information. The one thing that they all have in common is that the user community makes the choice on how its resources are to be handled. Only if individuals come to a consensus on how to handle a resource can this plan be implemented successfully.
P2P Value Directory: A collaborative way to map commons-based peer production.
The Chinese media industry has for the recent years experienced several changes that have brought it to a contradictory mix of social authoritarian and capitalist neoliberalism. For several years, Schramm’s “Soviet Communist Theory of the Press” has been widely used as a guideline for investigating the press systems within the communists, and in particular China. In China media is treated as the ultimate propaganda machine that is regarded as an apparatus of political manipulation and ideological control. It is important to note that censorship, the most serious danger to press freedom, is bound to exist in China, being among the worst in the world in terms of having the most restrictive media environments. The government of China uses several means to force the Chinese media and journalists to censor themselves. For instance, it uses libel lawsuits, and arrests with a good example being in 2017 when thirty-eight journalists were imprisoned. It is also commonly known that China blocks a majority of foreign websites including Facebook, Instagram, and some Google services. However, the Chinese public has always found ways of circumventing this “Great Firewall”.
Journalists taking pictures outside the Belt and Road Forum in Beijing, during the mass arrest in 2017. Photoby Thomas Peter/Reuters.
Under capitalist neoliberalism, the state serves as a committee to oversee the business concerns of the entire bourgeoisie. In the end, it depends on its military forces of men and women to safeguard the rights of something like the capitalist class, including the police, army, courts, and prisons. However, the capitalist class does not want to seem to be openly using violence to maintain its power. Military-police systems of governance, particularly now in a nation like China, would incite a working class that’s also statistically stronger than it’s ever been into a rebellion that might topple the whole system. Therefore, the bourgeois state defends capitalist power via other, gentler means, such as a strong dependence on the media to sway public opinion.
A journalist being impounded by the police. Photo by Vincent Yu.
Democratization of Media in China
There lacks a specific media company that is responsible with fights for China’s media freedom. However, several movements and groups all over the world have taken the initiative to ensure that the media industry can operate without too much restriction from within the government. The Institute of the Bar of Arbitrators (IBA) is serving as the Panel’s secretariat, and its director, Baroness Helena Kennedy QC, is its chair. She thinks world leaders should take action because of the rising number of journalists killed while doing their jobs. She warns that the increasing number of assaults on journalists should be a cause of anxiety to the free world and cites examples from Mexico, the Middle East, and the Philippines.
The Panel is co-chaired by Amal Clooney, a prominent human rights attorney at Doughty Street Chambers. More people should be held responsible for assaults on the media, she says on Global Insight. If global leaders are getting more unified, more determined, and more imaginative in discovering methods to silence the press, shouldn’t the defenders of the press do the same. ‘She’s saying,’ we interrogate. As the year progresses, the Panel will advise countries on how to better safeguard journalists by bringing their laws in line with international norms and taking action against those that are cracking down on the press. There is no reason to believe this behavior won’t persist if we don’t make it more expensive for those engaging in it.
To the ordinary social media user, algorithms that filter out irrelevant postings in favor of more “relevant” ones may appear helpful and benign. With the use of user preferences, social media platforms determine which posts should appear at the top of a user’s feed initially. Most social media feeds used to show content in reverse chronological order until they started using algorithms to choose what to show users. In a nutshell, the most recent updates from accounts a user was following were prioritized. Twitter still lets you choose to see your feed in reverse chronological order if you like. Content recommendations on social media are often determined by algorithms that analyze your activity. For this reason, social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter may prioritize content from your closest friends and family members. You’ve probably seen YouTube suggestions before, right? Again, this is tailored to you by looking at the shows you’ve seen before and the shows that people like yourself like to watch. Recommendations on each specific network also take into account factors like categories, #tags, and keywords.
Well, the influence algorithms have on audience size is a major factor in the debate around them. Even if Facebook’s algorithms are optimized, there are many cases in which they seem to “hide” material at random. On the flip side, there’s a well-documented phenomenon on YouTube that suddenly gain millions of views after being recommended to a seemingly random audience. However, algorithms are always being refined in an effort to smooth out any rough spots and deliver the best possible service to end users. As a consequence, marketers need to be flexible and responsive at all times. This calls for constant marketing of new information and adaptations to promotional approaches.
Also, some people think that algorithms on social media are there just to make businesses shell out more money for advertising. Brands will resort to advertising if they are unable to reach their target audience naturally, so the thinking goes. That implies greater advertising revenue for social media platforms. At the same time, some information (especially information generated by minority groups) that really needs to be seen may not be seen by more people and disseminated effectively due to lack of funding. This viewpoint may sound cynical or even paranoid, but social media marketers are well aware of the potential consequences of shifts in the relative prominence of sponsored and organic content on social network algorithms. No matter how or why social media algorithms came to be, they are here to stay. It’s important for the marketing department of different companies to understand what factors lead their content to be deemed of poor quality or irrelevant to their audience demographic by algorithms. For traditional users of social media networks, although it is fair to say that these algorithms have helped push feeds we’d most likely be interested into the front of the fold in most of the time, they are also leading to a further squeeze on our right to freely choose what we want to see on social platforms. Unconsciously, we are being manipulated.
Here’s exactly how social media algorithms can manipulate you.
When it comes to user-generated content campaigns, “Share a Coke” by Coca-Cola is unrivaled. In 2011, their marketing department came up with the concept to print the top 150 male and female names in Australia on their bottles. The goal of the campaign was to get families and friends to bond over a Coke. And everyone was going nuts about this fashion! Everyone was purchasing customized bottles and taking dozens of images to post online. Eighty nations throughout the globe accepted the notion with open arms. Photos of individuals drinking Coke with friends and family members flooded social media sites.
The concept of individualization was central to the “Share a Coke” marketing push. The goal of the campaign was to get the audience demographic emotionally invested in the brand and to feel like they contributed to its success. Customers in Australia were given the impression that the product was manufactured just for them by having their name printed on the bottle in lieu of the company logo. For those who didn’t fit the mold of the typical “Mom,” “Dad,” “Best Friend,” “Star,” etc., they resorted to the more general “Mom,” “Dad,” “Best Friend,” “Star,” etc. This promotion capitalized on the psychological impact of personalization by selling individualized bottles of soda to customers. In other nations, they took it a step further and let citizens choose whose names would be made public next. They also had kiosks where customers could have their names printed on a Coke on the spot, and a website where customers could type in their names to be included in the next shipment to their city. People used to social media to disseminate their results using visual mediums, such as photos and films, which increased online media exposure. If you want your brand marketing efforts to be successful, personalization is crucial. Having a sense of individuality and belonging to a larger community is crucial to human happiness.
In the end, our name is the most unique identifier we own. It’s the unique stamp of who we are. Coca-Cola encouraged its customers to show their individuality by customizing their own bottles of the soft drink. It doesn’t get more customized than having your name printed on a bottle of Coke. Emotionally capitalizing on the worldwide trend of self-expression and sharing. The fact that Coke can successfully implement such a plan is a testament to the brand’s legendary status. No one besides the brand’s creator would want their name attached to it unless it was as well-known as Coke. Sharing a Coke made ordinary people become celebrities by using the world’s most recognizable brand.
Who Benefits the most?
Ultimately, the brand benefits the most form UGC campaigns because it offers them a depth of advertising campaign in an unimaginable scale. The concept of community was central to the “Share a Coke” marketing campaign. The idea of sharing is heavily rooted in the notion of home and family. The narrative of love, acceptance, and comprehension resonated with the audience. With this, a worldwide family was formed. In marketing, nothing beats the marketing of positive recommendations from satisfied customers. A personal recommendation from a friend or even a total stranger tweeting from another nation is more likely to be trusted than one from a company. Coke’s launch plan included first supplying the country’s retail outlets with bottles bearing the brand names. Picture this: you’re in the grocery store and there’s a personalized Coke bottle in the fridge with your name on it, or the name of your buddy or lover. This caused a stir on the internet as people started posting images of their finds on social media and sending them to their friends. The next step was a TV ad and a three-page newspaper spread displaying a collage of images submitted by individuals who have the same name.
There can be no industry without something for consumers to buy. The material they produce is the service mass media outlets provide to their customers. Adequate privatization measures are a critical precaution against media consolidation and a method to preserve genuine media plurality, resulting in a press that gives a various viewpoint, and not only numerous venues, which is why the question of media ownership is essential to media freedom. Overall, private media increased diversity of opinion and, in some instances, freed the press from political interference. However, a major drawback is the impact that advertisers have on the content decision-making process of privatized media outlets.
Mass media outlets, such as television networks, newspapers, and news websites, all rely on original material to stay afloat. Selection of material is an integral part of every information system due to the constraints of time and space. Decisions on which stories to cover and what material to provide an audience are never easy for the mass media. Unfortunately, not all tales are turned into “content” and shared with the audience. Mass media content decisions are impacted by a wide variety of both internal and external influences. One of the most important of these is the business climate of the sector. All of the money for privately held broadcast media and much of the revenue for the print and Internet media comes from advertisements, making advertisers a crucial external component in any examination of the commercial aspects of the mass media. The amount of money that mass media outlets may charge advertisers depends on the size and composition of their audience. The material itself is not being sold to advertisers; rather, it is the audience for that content that is being sold to them, since the size of that audience determines the advertising rate.
A privatized channel 4 will exist to serve the billing of the pay masters. Given their financial stake, some worry that advertisers may use their considerable power to dictate what is published online. Producers, editors, and publishers often censor or remove stories that might offend advertisers, write pieces specifically to appease or attract advertisers, avoid topics that create controversial “environments” for advertising, and tailor articles and programs to attract the audience that advertisers covet. The bottom line is that they often compromise journalistic standards in pursuit of advertising revenue. When Channel 4 is privatized, financial considerations will take precedence above all others, shifting the focus of the staff from journalism to matters more directly connected to the company’s bottom line. This means that tales that might offend certain listeners are passed over in favor of ones that are more likely to appeal to a wider audience, that stories that are expensive to cover are minimized or disregarded, and that stories that pose financial concerns are also disregarded. As everyone knows, no businessman wants to do things that are thankless.
Channel 4 commissioning is worth nearly £1bn to regional economies, and it has spent £200m in Scotland since 2007. Photo by Philip Toscano/PA.
The quality of journalism will decline as advertisers prioritize delivering a large audience to advertisers above covering stories that might drive them away. As a result, channel 4’s focus as a for-profit enterprise will be on its advertisers rather than its viewers, readers, and listeners. As scholars point out, the negative effects of the mass media serving primarily the marketers’ financial interests are exacerbated by the major role they play in giving information in a democratic society. The relentless march of commercialization is another major cause for alarm. Similar to how the media landscape is always evolving, the advertising landscape will adapt as well. In an effort to reach their audience demographics, advertisers constantly adjust their media placement techniques in audience to the preferences of their target audiences. Sponsorship and product placement have increased as a result of the fragmentation of advertisers caused by technologies like as digital audience recorders (DVRs), the Internet, cable television, and pay-per-view. This raises the crucial issue of whether or not media censorship is required for the fulfillment of these advertising objectives. One can assume that the primary goal of advertising is not to shape content but rather to consistently and repeatedly contact as many people as possible who fit a certain audience. According to this theory, it is not essential to have complete or even partial sway on media content in order to accomplish marketing objectives. The evidence for a reduction in journalistic quality and media performance standards due to growing commercialization is, however, not very substantial.
