You are on page 1of 8

Task 1

Dan Leaf

The print on the first slide is an advertisement based on helping members of the public to save money. It is asking for you to take out insurance on things that you care about such as your car or pet. This print is directing its words straight at the person reading it. Straight away, the first thing people will see is the large white text at the top of the page. In this text, it uses the word You. It is trying to get the reader involved. Instead of giving the person reading it information, it is basically telling you to see how much you could save. The clarity of this print is very good. Everything on the page is laid out in a very clear way which everyone it is aimed at can understand it. The page is split in to four different sections dedicated to four completely different things, yet they still connect because they are all still about insurance. They have made the text bold where it is supposed to catch the eye due to it been more important, for example, in each box, there is which certain insurance it is aimed at and a phone number, which is also different depending on which one you are wanting. This is also the case with the images that are used, for example, for pet insurance, there is a picture of a dog. The main colours that are used are green, white and blue. These are all colours that are very welcoming and comfortable with the eye. The green is used in the background as just an extra, but it is also used in the boxes as a way to highlight the phone numbers for each insurance, and to outline the four boxes which makes them stand out more on a light blue background. They have definitely tried to use as little words as possible to get across their point. To make people understand what they cover with their insurance, they have used bullet points to state what each insurance type covers. They have most probably made it like this because people do not want to be reading a lot on insurance, when the key things can literally be put in to a few bullet points. This advert is definitely clear, and all the information makes sense. I would have no uncertainty with this advert. Even if you were a little bit uncertain about this, it gives you phone numbers to ring where you can get more information on the insurance, and how the whole process of getting the insurance for your chosen thing will work. In a sense, you could say it is a little bit vague because it only gives you bullet pointed answers on what you can have insurance on, but if something you saw on these bullet points caught your eye, you could definitely then take it further and find out more information about it if you were serious about it. I would say that this print isnt necessarily bias in any way, because it just gives out factual points about what they can o ffer, but it can be interpreted as bias towards having insurance on things like your pets or your car over not being insured, but at the end of the day all they are trying to do is sell you insurance. I feel that the advert is quite informal because the majority of the main writing is done in bullet points, and therefore it is not done in full sentences, however, no contractions such as dont and cant were used. I just think that the bullet points were used to cut down the amount of words used so it was quicker to briefly read through, rather than studying it for a long period of time to try and pick out the main important bits. At the very bottom of the page in very small writing, it states the registered trademarks (Liverpool Victoria Friendly Society Limited) and that they are trading styles of the Liverpool Victoria group of companies. Apart from this, it does not state anything such as editors codes etc. This is because it is not a newspaper or magazine article. The advert is professionally done because it abides by the ASA guidelines for the specific product it is selling. And example of this is where is says medical emergency cover up to 10 million. This goes by the marketing communications rule 14.4 where it state s that you must make it clear to the customers that the value of investments is variable and, unless guaranteed.

This page on this book is laid out very clearly in my opinion. The typography that is used is done so you can understand it. It uses bold headings to make them stand out over the rest of the writing because this writing is here to tell you what the extract is about, for example Absolute Poverty and Relative Poverty are both headings that are written in bold. The page is white, and then the writing is black because these colours contrast against each other which makes the writing stand out and more bolder. The graph in the bottom left is also circled by a black box to make it stand out and divided from the writing. The graph itself is also coloured in a variety of bright colours to make each bit on it stand out from the rest. It definitely helps to support the article in what it is trying to tell us. Everything that is written on this page has been spelled correctly, and all the grammar is correct too. In the extract, they talk about how poverty is bad in third world countries because they are living off $1 or $2 a day, but it doesnt specifically give any facts around if this is true. They just just say on the grounds that this is the minimum needed for me re survival. They are not giving us any hardened facts that. There is no source where this has come from, they are just assuming this because they think that is how much you need for mere survival. I dont feel that this extract is bias, but then at others it is quite bias, because at one point it talks about whether ther e is or isnt absolute poverty in UK, and then it gives a point from each side of the story. It says that some people may think there is no absolute poverty in the UK, which is fine, but then they go on to say that some people may think there is absolute poverty in the UK but the threshold is a lot higher compared to third world countries. This is seen as ok to believe too, and can also be seen as evidencing of argument. When this article goes on to talk about relative poverty, it starts off by saying that some people may think relative poverty is not important, which is fine, but it then goes on to list the authors of the article, t he EU, the UK Government, and politicians etc, and that these people all think that relative poverty is important. This is taki ng sides and being more in favour of one thing that another. The article in the book is quite formal. It does not use any contractions such as its. in fact, there is a sentence where th ey actually use the words it is instead of its. Another example; they used the words there is instead of theres. In the box where the graph is, they clearly state the source they got the graph from, and on what day they sourced it. It say s child adult and pensioners poverty. 11th July 2012. Londons poverty profile. I believe that this is correctly attributed, and that the name of where it came from is all spelt correctly. There is also legal constraints on the graph. It is copyrighted, and so you also have to state whose graph it is, which they have done. It says 2010-11 Trust for London and New Policy Institute.

The article on the other page is quite clear. It has a nice structure which is easy to understand. It is just two columns which gives an insight on dates in Israel. The two main colours that are used throughout are red and black. The colour red is a very bright colour which stands out, and also represents negative things such as danger. This is good because the whole article is all about quite a negative thing, because the dates are been grown on stolen land, and they are using children to do slave labour work. The black is then used for the majority of the text. To make certain words stand out, they have either made them both, made them red, or made them both red and bold like the title of the article. This article is also a lot larger than the rest of the articles text. It also uses a different font. They have also used this same technique with all the side headings, such as settlements. When creating the key facts, which is at the beginning of the article, they have made sure they use as little words as possible to get their point across. They have started off quickly by saying that the things that the date farm owners do is wrong. This gives you a fast understanding of what the rest of the article is going to be about. Throughout the the article, they have been able to maintain an accurate piece of writing, apart from one sentence that didnt seem to sit right with me. In this sentence they say the profits still go to Israel so must be boycotted. This sentence jus t doesnt look right and I feel like they may have accidentally missed out a word.

The information that is given to us off this article is very clear. It tells us how the the dates that are grown in Israel bring in a lot of money for the country, they use children because they are quicker at climbing trees and faster workers, and that the majority of big branded supermarkets in this country are buying them from the farm owners. The article is definitely bias towards the fact that it is wrong that they are illegally growing dates, and that they are taking children out of schools to do hard labour for them. There is nothing that tells you what they are doing is a good thing. They even imply that it is a bad thing that large supermarket companies in this country are buying off them. It is almost encouraging them. The language used in the article is formal to an extent, but then there is parts of it which are very informal, such as a part in the key facts box. There is a part in it where they use the contraction theres instead of there is.

This is the only one that I could find throughout the whole article. They then went back to quite a formal way of writing, such as using the word children instead of kids. The person who wrote this article were a little up and down with the way they wanted their article written.

This article is very one sided. It only states the bad things about the dates, and how the Israeli army are taking over the settlements, and making the Palestinians work for the for next to no money. It doesnt really state anything good about it apart from the fact that it is bringing in a lot of money for the country, but the article is made in this way because it is trying to make people think that a negative thing is being done, and our countries bog supermarket companies are not helping the matter by supporting what is going on in Israel by buying their products. There is no references used in this which makes me question whether the key facts at the beginning of the article are true. They have not written anywhere on the page where these facts came from which to me is a problem. If you wanted to believe them then you could, but if you were unsure on whether they were true, you would want to see where they were sourced from. Halfway through the article it also states the fact that the plantations in the Jordan Valley sells 70% of Israeli dates, but then it does not show where this fact is sourced from, so how are we going to know whether this is true or not. There is no legal constraints on the the image that is used. I dont know if it has copyright on it because it doesnt show where it is sourced from. It has no explanation with it at all which is unprofessional.

You might also like