For someone with a schedule as heavy as Romney's (or any major politician), I imagine you shoot when you can get a chance. If high sun is when he's available, that's what you work with. Besides, it's a political ad, not a touching, highly personal cinematic portrait. Five seconds in Photoshop would have made that mic go away, though.
Valid point. Still, if I were a public figure, I'd take notice of things like:
1. overlay/inset partially over his right hand
2. text at right gets cut off, although that could be due to different AR in video vs. photo
3. G+ logo is wider than f & t
4. This is not vignetting, this is done like crap
5. 'Get involved' button is bigger than 'Donate', making the surrounding border look...well, I'm sure the American language has better words for all this nitpicking of mine
We read a thread that drives on politics but you don't allow people to talk about it.
I didn't see other threads with companies that use iAds. When are those coming?
I write this not to attack but I hope you understand that it's not fair to blame members for things the poster of this thread started.
? Talking about a politician using technology.
X Talking about your personal political agenda in a thread talking about a politician using technology.
Ladies and gentlemen, watch as this thread instantly gets off its real topic…
Yeah. The article itself was barely on target.
For whatever reason this doesn't appear to a "first" of any kind. It sounds like one of those made up firsts that people invent so they can be the first at something. Like "First female over 40 with type 2 diabetes to go into space!" or "First politician to eat a Quiznos sandwich on a presidential campaign run!" Thus heralding the trend towards eating sandwiches in presidential campaigns.
Both candidates make gaffes and typos occasionally. President Obama's name was misspelled on the signature line of a diplomatic agreement with Then-Russian President Medvedev earlier this year. With 24/7 partisan cable news, Twitter, and blogs on you all the time, you are bound to screw something up. It's the downside of all the technological development over the past 25 years or so. No surprise that candidates are trying to make use of the upsides (more data to analyze, more targeted advertising, more efficient use of campaign dollars).
Anyway, Romney may be the first on iAds, but I'm guessing he won't be the last.
We read a thread that drives on politics but you don't allow people to talk about it.
I didn't see other threads with companies that use iAds. When are those coming?
I write this not to attack but I hope you understand that it's not fair to blame members for things the poster of this thread started.
You misunderstand. It's not actually an article about politics or religion. It is a political campaign that chose a technology to communicate their positions, but said positions were not part of the article.
The article doesn't mention his religion, yet people decide it's on topic to talk about his religion, or even other religions. This isn't necessary.
The article says nothing about his political positions, yet readers decide political positions is a fair game topic.
I don't think this is too subtle of a distinction.
Normally we're not this fastidious about being on-topic, but politics and religion are topics that generally devolve into a vicious cesspool, and the deleted posts were clearly trending that way in my opinion.
I didn't see other threads with companies that use iAds. When are those coming?
Jeff sums it up well,
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
It is a political campaign that chose a technology to communicate their positions, but said positions were not part of the article.
but I'd add that this is newsworthy because it's the first political campaign to use this platform. There aren't articles about businesses that use iAds because that's for what they were originally designed. It's far from newsworthy.
But the first branching out of iAds to promote politics is.
However you feel about his politics, the man has undeniably presidential hair. You've got to give him that. Again, Apple upholds high standards. Admob would let any bad coiffure through.
but I'd add that this is newsworthy because it's the first political campaign to use this platform. There aren't articles about businesses that use iAds because that's for what they were originally designed. It's far from newsworthy.
But the first branching out of iAds to promote politics is.
What is the difference between business and politics today?
One may think these are two different things (as it should be) but it's not if we are honest enough to admit it.
Therefor I thought it was a good question to ask why other companies are not on the front page using iAds and political campaigns are.
It may be the first political strategy using iAds but still a fair question don't you think?
I know religion and politics are subjects which are very heavy for some people so to be clear I do not vote and don't choose any political or religious side.
Comments
Valid point. Still, if I were a public figure, I'd take notice of things like:
1. overlay/inset partially over his right hand
2. text at right gets cut off, although that could be due to different AR in video vs. photo
3. G+ logo is wider than f & t
4. This is not vignetting, this is done like crap
5. 'Get involved' button is bigger than 'Donate', making the surrounding border look...well, I'm sure the American language has better words for all this nitpicking of mine
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conrail
Five seconds in Photoshop would have made that mic go away, though.
Five seconds per frame.
I don't get it. Since Canadians can't vote in US elections, why do they need to see Romney's ads and why should he pay to have them visible in Canada?
Well said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
Comments about religion and politics are heavily discouraged. I've deleted most of those from this thread, still more may be deleted.
The original article isn't about politics anyway, it's about a campaign that bought into Apple's system.
We read a thread that drives on politics but you don't allow people to talk about it.
I didn't see other threads with companies that use iAds. When are those coming?
I write this not to attack but I hope you understand that it's not fair to blame members for things the poster of this thread started.
? Talking about a politician using technology.
X Talking about your personal political agenda in a thread talking about a politician using technology.
Yeah. The article itself was barely on target.
For whatever reason this doesn't appear to a "first" of any kind. It sounds like one of those made up firsts that people invent so they can be the first at something. Like "First female over 40 with type 2 diabetes to go into space!" or "First politician to eat a Quiznos sandwich on a presidential campaign run!" Thus heralding the trend towards eating sandwiches in presidential campaigns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanada
Only in Amercia
Both candidates make gaffes and typos occasionally. President Obama's name was misspelled on the signature line of a diplomatic agreement with Then-Russian President Medvedev earlier this year. With 24/7 partisan cable news, Twitter, and blogs on you all the time, you are bound to screw something up. It's the downside of all the technological development over the past 25 years or so. No surprise that candidates are trying to make use of the upsides (more data to analyze, more targeted advertising, more efficient use of campaign dollars).
Anyway, Romney may be the first on iAds, but I'm guessing he won't be the last.
You misunderstand. It's not actually an article about politics or religion. It is a political campaign that chose a technology to communicate their positions, but said positions were not part of the article.
The article doesn't mention his religion, yet people decide it's on topic to talk about his religion, or even other religions. This isn't necessary.
The article says nothing about his political positions, yet readers decide political positions is a fair game topic.
I don't think this is too subtle of a distinction.
Normally we're not this fastidious about being on-topic, but politics and religion are topics that generally devolve into a vicious cesspool, and the deleted posts were clearly trending that way in my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by champ01
I didn't see other threads with companies that use iAds. When are those coming?
Jeff sums it up well,
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
It is a political campaign that chose a technology to communicate their positions, but said positions were not part of the article.
but I'd add that this is newsworthy because it's the first political campaign to use this platform. There aren't articles about businesses that use iAds because that's for what they were originally designed. It's far from newsworthy.
But the first branching out of iAds to promote politics is.
Rmoney can afford it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleZilla
Rmoney can afford it.
However you feel about his politics, the man has undeniably presidential hair. You've got to give him that. Again, Apple upholds high standards. Admob would let any bad coiffure through.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Jeff sums it up well,
but I'd add that this is newsworthy because it's the first political campaign to use this platform. There aren't articles about businesses that use iAds because that's for what they were originally designed. It's far from newsworthy.
But the first branching out of iAds to promote politics is.
What is the difference between business and politics today?
One may think these are two different things (as it should be) but it's not if we are honest enough to admit it.
Therefor I thought it was a good question to ask why other companies are not on the front page using iAds and political campaigns are.
It may be the first political strategy using iAds but still a fair question don't you think?
I know religion and politics are subjects which are very heavy for some people so to be clear I do not vote and don't choose any political or religious side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by champ01
…I do not vote and don't choose any political or religious side.
Then why do you think you have a say in this at all? It's your duty to vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Then why do you think you have a say in this at all? It's your duty to vote.
I guess we all get a say in everything that effects everybody but in my opinion there is no place for politics if the goal is a real democracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by champ01
I guess we all get a say in everything that effects everybody but in my opinion there is no place for politics if the goal is a real democracy
The goal is being a well-functioning, non-corrupt republic. You want true democracy, hit up Switzerland.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/06/mitt-romney-rmoney-photoshop_n_1257877.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleZilla
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/06/mitt-romney-rmoney-photoshop_n_1257877.html
Yes, and as political mockery isn't the point of this thread, as has been said, I figured a little nudge back couldn't hurt.
And there's no wink emoticon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
Comments about religion and politics are heavily discouraged. I've deleted most of those from this thread, still more may be deleted.
Thank you. The Internet is a big place, there are better places to argue this stuff.
As far as Apple having anything to do with politics... gack. What a hot button, esp. today.