10 Mar 2011  There are many reasons people struggle to quit smoking, one of the key reasons in China is social pressure. It is unknown how many Chinese adults started smoking because they could not turn down the repeated offer of cigarettes from friends or strangers, it is also unknown to what extent the low desire to quit smoking is the result of the need to remain a regular or ‘social’ smoker. According to Report on Chronic Disease in China, a document released by the Ministry of Health in 2006, there were 350 million smokers and 540 million passive smokers in China, 50 million of them were teenagers with a rising trend of teenagers below 10 years old becoming smokers. To address the issue of increasing child smokers in China and to promote a smoke-free childhood, Pfizer China collaborated with the Beijing Bureau of Health to conduct a “Stay healthy by not smoking –tobacco control in school by using speaking book” program on February 21, 2011. The book, Stay Healthy by Not Smoking, has a soundtrack that corresponds to the text and illustrations, and describes the health benefits of not smoking from the perspective of a 12-year-old boy, Xiao Ming. The story encourages children to stay healthy by not smoking, and to play an active role in protecting themselves from second-hand smoke by creating a smoke-free environment in their schools and families.  The smoke-free childhood program reached around 8,000 students from 15 primary schools in Beijing, and also the family members of the students. The program comprehensively trained teachers at the schools in addition to reaching out to students. The trained teachers will later conduct health education activities with students by using the “speaking book,” which was developed by Pfizer in close collaboration with the World Medical Association, the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Chinese Association on Tobacco Control, and the Chinese Medical Doctor Association. After school, the students will bring the speaking book home to read with their family members. Through bonding with their parents, the program aims to influence the adult smoking population as well. Pfizer China started the Smoke-free Childhood program in 2010 and the program proved successful in raising disease awareness with 81.3% of parents responding they would try to build a smoke-free environment for their children at home, and 65.8% of the students showing commitment to encourage their parents to seek professional support if needed. |
viernes, 11 de marzo de 2011
Hand in Hand for a Smoke-free Childhood in China
sábado, 26 de febrero de 2011
video_player_embed_code_text
video_player_embed_code_text
Rise of Neurocinema: How Hollywood Studios Harness Your Brainwaves to Win Oscars
One thing you aren't likely to hear Sunday night from the Oscar-winning producer after accepting the trophy for Best Picture: "I'd like to thank my neuroscience partners who helped us enhance the film's script, characters, and scenes."
It's not that far-fetched, though.
A sizable number of neuromarketing companies already brain test movie trailers for the major studios through fMRI, EEG, galvanic skin response, eye-tracking and other biometric approaches. For now, the test data helps the studios and distributors better market the movie.
But what about using brain feedback to help make the movie?
A trailblazing few firms and studios have delved into the upstart practice of "neurocinema," the method of using neurofeedback to help moviemakers vet and refine film elements such as scripts, characters, plots, scenes, and effects. Princeton University psychology professor Uri Hasson coined the term "neurocinematics" based on an fMRI study, in which he concluded that certain types of films (e.g. horror, action, sci-fi) produced high activation scores in the amygdala region of viewer subjects' brains, the part that controls disgust, anger, lust, and fear. Hasson asserted that horror filmmakers can potentially control viewers' brains by precisely editing their films to maximize amygdalic excitement and thus "control for" buzz and success at the theater.
Stephen Susco, who wrote the $187 million grossing horror movie Grudge, is not a practitioner of neurocinema. But he tells Fast Company that he sees its growth as part of the "natural evolution of studios trying to maximize profit while making the upstream development process more scientific, less based on just experience and instinct."
Other filmmakers seem divided.
Independent filmmaker and neurocinema pioneer Peter Katz told Fast Company about the studios' frustration with sketchy focus groups full of viewer respondents who "don't really know or can't articulate or even remember how they feel about a movie or scene." On the other hand, Morgan Spurlock's upcoming film, The Greatest Movie Ever Sold makes fun of studios' growing reliance on marketing, including trailer testing via fMRI brain scans, as a way to supposedly flop-proof films and bolster the odds of a blockbuster.
The first time "Academy Awards" appeared in the same sentence with "neuromarketing" was probably a little over a year ago.
Last year's Oscar-decorated director James Cameron had told Variety magazine during the making of the epic hit Avatar that "a functional-MRI study of brain activity would show that more neurons are actively engaged in processing a 3-D movie than the same film seen in 2-D."
(It is no coincidence that a scanner-like "chamber" plays a starring role in Avatar. The story explores and potentially foreshadows the mind-blowing possibilities of hooking up our brain to an MRI machine... and neurocinema.)
The neuromarketing firm MindSign was so excited by Cameron's reference they offered him "exhibition" (free) services including fMRI brain scans of subjects exposed to Avatar trailers (see below). And Avatar, like many modern big-budget films, appears to have been strongly fortified by neuromarketing trailer testing, which uses EEG and biometric techniques to measure and record viewer brain responses to different trailer scenes and sequences.
Unlike mainstream neuromarketing companies, MindSign has a niche focus on movies and trailer testing. Its founders used to work for Dreamworks and Sony and own one of the few fMRI machines used in the neuromarketing field. There is plenty of debate and rhetoric among competing firms about the best technologies for brain measurement. fMRI is considered reliable and brain in-depth but the machines are bulky, expensive, and preclude a real-world shopping context. NeuroFocus, which bills itself as the world leader in neuromarketing, employs EEG devices that are worn as headsets by viewers in the theater for movie and trailer screenings (see below). EmSense distributes a "lighter" version of these headsets to panels of respondents which results in a larger sample of test subjects.
Still and all, neurocinema does not seem to be widely practiced by the major Hollywood studios. When Fast Company inquired for this story, marketing executives from five production companies behind films nominated in the Best Picture category declined comment or claimed no use or knowledge of neurocinema. 20th Century Fox, which distributed Avatar, declined to participate in this story. MindSign was reticent to disclose client names in our interview. The neuromarketing consultants and Hollywood filmmakers we did speak with also acknowledged that the studios are intensely competitive and notoriously tight-lipped, even about trailer marketing.
While he refused to discuss specific clients with Fast Company, NeuroFocus CEO A. K. Pradeep shared, "as a sneak peak," some observations based on commercial neurocinema projects. They currently leverage neurocinematics for script vetting and character development, even cast selection. He's animated in talking about the budding field as a film industry "game-changer" in the next few years. Pradeep works with leading studios in both the US and India and thinks Hollywood is chasing Bollywood on neurocinema.
He foresees convergence between games (some of whose makers are long-time NeuroFocus clients) and neurocinematic films. Multiple if not infinite versions of one film with myriad story twists and endings will be produced and consumed. Netflix and Facebook will play a big part in film "personalization." "Real-time instant consumer brain response-based personalization will create true dynamic modifications of the same movie and afford endless delight to consumers."
(The trend of rapid-fire versioning films to indulge movie fans was highlighted recently when Paramount's Insurge Pictures announced they were releasing a second, extended version of Justin Bieber's Never Say Never 3-D concert documentary just two weeks after the first. "The narrative doesn't begin or end in the movie theater anymore," John M. Chu, the film's director, told The New York Times.)
While Spurlock, for one, is fascinated by the ascending influence of neuromarketing, his film is all about (and funded by) product placement. NeuroFocus claims a more scientific form of the craft--"product integration--measured to pinpoint moments of maximal attention, emotional engagement, and memory movement. Products and services are then integrated into the movie at these precise points of highest neurological engagement. There is measurable and justifiable value to the marketer, and clear defined value to the movie maker."
NeuroFocus is also ratcheting up work in Bollywood on a new business model for the film industry that is about--more than getting butts in the seats--doing some societal good. "Every paid-for product placement sponsorship has an accompanying pro-bono social message placement. The end client teams up with their charity or social message of choice and convinces the studio that both must be done to underwrite the effort," Pradeep says. MindSign co-founder Philip Carlsen says the business side of Hollywood is excited about the potential of neurocinema. "The producers love it. I mean, spending $100,000 on a scientific, neurological method to help make their $350 million investment pay out is a no-brainer," he says. Katz hopes "neurocinema will give filmmakers a better understanding of their viewers' experiences and ultimately lead to better viewing experiences."
Just as with the neuromarketing of soup or cars, there are challenges to the effectiveness and acceptance of neurocinema. Neuroscientists cannot create ads or make movies. And the debate continues over conflicting technologies and standards, from Madison Avenue to Hollywood. The equipment and studies tend to be costly and can't really replicate the real buyer and viewer world. There is the predictable backlash from consumer advocates over "brandwashing" and mind control. In the case of Hollywood, many writers may feel that neurocinema is writing them out of the script ("I get hate mail from the writers," says MindSign's Carlsen). Neurocinema projects may in fact be more useful in some genres (action/adventure/sci-fi: Avatar) than others (drama: The King's Speech).
So while it's highly unlikely on Sunday night that the Oscar-winning producer will thank a neuromarketer or will have employed neurocinematics (at least publicly) to make this year's Best Picture, it does appear that neuromarketing is creeping further into movie-making. Pradeep's vision that "brainbusters become blockbusters" may not be that far-off.
Read more of our 2011 Academy Awards coverage
It's not that far-fetched, though.
A sizable number of neuromarketing companies already brain test movie trailers for the major studios through fMRI, EEG, galvanic skin response, eye-tracking and other biometric approaches. For now, the test data helps the studios and distributors better market the movie.
But what about using brain feedback to help make the movie?
A trailblazing few firms and studios have delved into the upstart practice of "neurocinema," the method of using neurofeedback to help moviemakers vet and refine film elements such as scripts, characters, plots, scenes, and effects. Princeton University psychology professor Uri Hasson coined the term "neurocinematics" based on an fMRI study, in which he concluded that certain types of films (e.g. horror, action, sci-fi) produced high activation scores in the amygdala region of viewer subjects' brains, the part that controls disgust, anger, lust, and fear. Hasson asserted that horror filmmakers can potentially control viewers' brains by precisely editing their films to maximize amygdalic excitement and thus "control for" buzz and success at the theater.
Stephen Susco, who wrote the $187 million grossing horror movie Grudge, is not a practitioner of neurocinema. But he tells Fast Company that he sees its growth as part of the "natural evolution of studios trying to maximize profit while making the upstream development process more scientific, less based on just experience and instinct."
Other filmmakers seem divided.
Independent filmmaker and neurocinema pioneer Peter Katz told Fast Company about the studios' frustration with sketchy focus groups full of viewer respondents who "don't really know or can't articulate or even remember how they feel about a movie or scene." On the other hand, Morgan Spurlock's upcoming film, The Greatest Movie Ever Sold makes fun of studios' growing reliance on marketing, including trailer testing via fMRI brain scans, as a way to supposedly flop-proof films and bolster the odds of a blockbuster.
The first time "Academy Awards" appeared in the same sentence with "neuromarketing" was probably a little over a year ago.
Last year's Oscar-decorated director James Cameron had told Variety magazine during the making of the epic hit Avatar that "a functional-MRI study of brain activity would show that more neurons are actively engaged in processing a 3-D movie than the same film seen in 2-D."
(It is no coincidence that a scanner-like "chamber" plays a starring role in Avatar. The story explores and potentially foreshadows the mind-blowing possibilities of hooking up our brain to an MRI machine... and neurocinema.)
The neuromarketing firm MindSign was so excited by Cameron's reference they offered him "exhibition" (free) services including fMRI brain scans of subjects exposed to Avatar trailers (see below). And Avatar, like many modern big-budget films, appears to have been strongly fortified by neuromarketing trailer testing, which uses EEG and biometric techniques to measure and record viewer brain responses to different trailer scenes and sequences.
Unlike mainstream neuromarketing companies, MindSign has a niche focus on movies and trailer testing. Its founders used to work for Dreamworks and Sony and own one of the few fMRI machines used in the neuromarketing field. There is plenty of debate and rhetoric among competing firms about the best technologies for brain measurement. fMRI is considered reliable and brain in-depth but the machines are bulky, expensive, and preclude a real-world shopping context. NeuroFocus, which bills itself as the world leader in neuromarketing, employs EEG devices that are worn as headsets by viewers in the theater for movie and trailer screenings (see below). EmSense distributes a "lighter" version of these headsets to panels of respondents which results in a larger sample of test subjects.
Still and all, neurocinema does not seem to be widely practiced by the major Hollywood studios. When Fast Company inquired for this story, marketing executives from five production companies behind films nominated in the Best Picture category declined comment or claimed no use or knowledge of neurocinema. 20th Century Fox, which distributed Avatar, declined to participate in this story. MindSign was reticent to disclose client names in our interview. The neuromarketing consultants and Hollywood filmmakers we did speak with also acknowledged that the studios are intensely competitive and notoriously tight-lipped, even about trailer marketing.
While he refused to discuss specific clients with Fast Company, NeuroFocus CEO A. K. Pradeep shared, "as a sneak peak," some observations based on commercial neurocinema projects. They currently leverage neurocinematics for script vetting and character development, even cast selection. He's animated in talking about the budding field as a film industry "game-changer" in the next few years. Pradeep works with leading studios in both the US and India and thinks Hollywood is chasing Bollywood on neurocinema.
He foresees convergence between games (some of whose makers are long-time NeuroFocus clients) and neurocinematic films. Multiple if not infinite versions of one film with myriad story twists and endings will be produced and consumed. Netflix and Facebook will play a big part in film "personalization." "Real-time instant consumer brain response-based personalization will create true dynamic modifications of the same movie and afford endless delight to consumers."
(The trend of rapid-fire versioning films to indulge movie fans was highlighted recently when Paramount's Insurge Pictures announced they were releasing a second, extended version of Justin Bieber's Never Say Never 3-D concert documentary just two weeks after the first. "The narrative doesn't begin or end in the movie theater anymore," John M. Chu, the film's director, told The New York Times.)
While Spurlock, for one, is fascinated by the ascending influence of neuromarketing, his film is all about (and funded by) product placement. NeuroFocus claims a more scientific form of the craft--"product integration--measured to pinpoint moments of maximal attention, emotional engagement, and memory movement. Products and services are then integrated into the movie at these precise points of highest neurological engagement. There is measurable and justifiable value to the marketer, and clear defined value to the movie maker."
NeuroFocus is also ratcheting up work in Bollywood on a new business model for the film industry that is about--more than getting butts in the seats--doing some societal good. "Every paid-for product placement sponsorship has an accompanying pro-bono social message placement. The end client teams up with their charity or social message of choice and convinces the studio that both must be done to underwrite the effort," Pradeep says. MindSign co-founder Philip Carlsen says the business side of Hollywood is excited about the potential of neurocinema. "The producers love it. I mean, spending $100,000 on a scientific, neurological method to help make their $350 million investment pay out is a no-brainer," he says. Katz hopes "neurocinema will give filmmakers a better understanding of their viewers' experiences and ultimately lead to better viewing experiences."
Just as with the neuromarketing of soup or cars, there are challenges to the effectiveness and acceptance of neurocinema. Neuroscientists cannot create ads or make movies. And the debate continues over conflicting technologies and standards, from Madison Avenue to Hollywood. The equipment and studies tend to be costly and can't really replicate the real buyer and viewer world. There is the predictable backlash from consumer advocates over "brandwashing" and mind control. In the case of Hollywood, many writers may feel that neurocinema is writing them out of the script ("I get hate mail from the writers," says MindSign's Carlsen). Neurocinema projects may in fact be more useful in some genres (action/adventure/sci-fi: Avatar) than others (drama: The King's Speech).
So while it's highly unlikely on Sunday night that the Oscar-winning producer will thank a neuromarketer or will have employed neurocinematics (at least publicly) to make this year's Best Picture, it does appear that neuromarketing is creeping further into movie-making. Pradeep's vision that "brainbusters become blockbusters" may not be that far-off.
Read more of our 2011 Academy Awards coverage
¿Publicidad subliminal de Marlboro en Ferrari?
Profesionales de la medicina han exigido una investigación para esclarecer la supuesta publicidad "subliminal" para promocionar la marca de tabaco Marlboro a la que la escudería Ferrari de Fórmula Uno podría estar recurriendo en sus vehículos y en los uniformes de los pilotos, algo que contraviene la normativa europea.
Según indica hoy el diario británico The Times, reputados médicos han llegado a pedir la intervención gubernamental para investigar el uso que hace este equipo de automovilismo de posible publicidad encubierta.
Se acusa a Ferrari de emplear los colores rojo, blanco y negro tanto en sus coches como en el nuevo logo de los trajes de los pilotos, que lucen una banda horizontal blanca a la altura del pecho, para "recordar" a los espectadores a un paquete de Marlboro. De acuerdo con lo que estipula la vigente normativa europea a este respecto, para las empresas de tabaco constituye un delito patrocinar eventos deportivos.
El citado periódico recuerda que ayer mismo, un portavoz de la Comisión Europea de Salud Pública señaló que pensaba que el enfoque adoptado a este respecto por esa marca de cigarrillos constituía una potencial práctica de márketing subliminal.
Cuando quedan diez días para que los equipos de Fórmula Uno se desplacen a España, el mencionado portavoz urgía a los gobiernos español y del Reino Unido, que celebrará el Gran Premio Británico el 11 de julio, a esclarecer si la segunda compañía de tabaco más importante del mundo podría estar infringiendo la ley.
Por otro lado, John Britton, miembro del Royal College Of Physicians, apuntó, en declaraciones hechas a "The Times", que la distribución de los colores empleados por Ferrari, así como su logo, "recuerdan a la parte inferior de un paquete de Marlboro". "Me sorprendí mucho cuando lo vi, porque está rozando los límites", señaló.
Según indica hoy el diario británico The Times, reputados médicos han llegado a pedir la intervención gubernamental para investigar el uso que hace este equipo de automovilismo de posible publicidad encubierta.
Se acusa a Ferrari de emplear los colores rojo, blanco y negro tanto en sus coches como en el nuevo logo de los trajes de los pilotos, que lucen una banda horizontal blanca a la altura del pecho, para "recordar" a los espectadores a un paquete de Marlboro. De acuerdo con lo que estipula la vigente normativa europea a este respecto, para las empresas de tabaco constituye un delito patrocinar eventos deportivos.
El citado periódico recuerda que ayer mismo, un portavoz de la Comisión Europea de Salud Pública señaló que pensaba que el enfoque adoptado a este respecto por esa marca de cigarrillos constituía una potencial práctica de márketing subliminal.
Cuando quedan diez días para que los equipos de Fórmula Uno se desplacen a España, el mencionado portavoz urgía a los gobiernos español y del Reino Unido, que celebrará el Gran Premio Británico el 11 de julio, a esclarecer si la segunda compañía de tabaco más importante del mundo podría estar infringiendo la ley.
Por otro lado, John Britton, miembro del Royal College Of Physicians, apuntó, en declaraciones hechas a "The Times", que la distribución de los colores empleados por Ferrari, así como su logo, "recuerdan a la parte inferior de un paquete de Marlboro". "Me sorprendí mucho cuando lo vi, porque está rozando los límites", señaló.
Efe | Londres
Actualizado jueves 29/04/2010 12:28 horas
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)