ugh nothing is going in
warning: work related post. using blog to study. heh heh
-----***-----
help help i'm studying for a 5pm paper but nothing is going in die die die
right now i'm on this chapter on place imaging and identity. arts mod lah, i'm a drowning science fish man.
so anyway, it's about how images of places are concieved by the higherups usually in tandem with national ideologies (patriarchy, multiculturalism etc) and naturalised into society.
place imaging strategy ! (chang 1997!) *peng*
so it looks at how singapore is attempting to create the ideal image to attract tourists. like u know, how india is the exotic india (incredible india) and Thailand (amazing thailand) is this fantastic resort like place, new york is dynamic, Pattaya is a paradise (paradise in pattaya) etc etc....and how this image is just "imagined" and is really a fictational idea that has become representative of the place and pple actually believe it. my lecturer scoffed - pattaya paradise? the sea is polluted!
the power of advertising and marketing!
the chapter looks back on the campaigns singapore has launched. "instant asia" in the 1960s targeting westerners who don't have time for extended holidays so would visit singapore to experience all the cultures in one place (eh...lazy travel :P), and promoting ourselves to be the maggi-mee of asia representing asia, there was great emphasis on the national ideologies like multiculturalism of the CMIO (chinese malay indian and err...others) because correct mah, come here means sample not only C, not only M, but I and O as well! wonderful!
but in actuality, it was critiqued that we are not actually multicultural, because multicultural would imply ethnic numbers of about the same population sizes, and in reality chinese make up the majority and indians a minority and so on and so forth. so some argue that we're not really multicultural.
This "image" of the CMIO is so successful, that when a foreigner asks you about singapore, the first thing you say is that "we're a multicultural society"! after all the education and campaigns it's finally "naturalised" into our society that we ARE multi-cultural. And if the people don't come to believe it, if it is promoted enough to the outside world such that the outside world believes it, maybe singaporeans will come to believe it because "hey if the world says so than we must be so". food for thought huh. i wonder whats real now, maybe need to take the blue pill. or is it the red?
but the importent thing is, singaporeans eventually came to accept it.
then in the 1980s we have this "surprising singapore" theme. but really, how surprising can singaporeans find singapore to be? so later in the 1990s there was another change, to "new-asia singapore" which spanned from 97-2004, which envisioned singapore to be the tourism capital full of "forward thinking asians". (this is beginning to sound like some evil plan for world domination i realise) - ie, sg to be a the modern adia hub for business and tourism and adopt the "new singapore mindset".
and representative of the "forward thinking asians" would be the fusion restaurents and fusion plays that bring about a blend of east and west, like doc-changs fusion restaurent, or New Asia Theatre for fusion plays...., where (supposedly) some kind of sophistication that would be "new-singapore" in mindset.
currently tho, we have the uniquely singapore slogan.
-----***-----
100% pure new zealand?
in contrast, we look overseas to new zealand and hawaii, on THEIR tourism marketing and ideology. In a paper by Ateljevic and Doome (try pronouncing that man. :S) in 2002, they argued that NZ tourism was concieved on a broader context of social forces and events. and the thing is, whoever is in power, prevailing trends, or community goals will decide on what would be the ruling ideology on which to create this image of which to project unto the world.
in the early 20th century, NZ was promoted as the ideal hangout spot for the aristocratic white male, the leisured upper middle class europeans, by offering "scenic wonderlands" with nature, spas and thermal sites etc. gosh they sound like they ar ehoping to attract a bunch of pansies right?
so anyway, this pansy like tourist-attracting image gradually shifted to the more extreme adventure sports in the 1980s and 90s to attract the extreme sports enthusiasts, and also, shifted its target market to include asian families as well - afterall, NZs biggest markets would be from Aussieland and Asia. so from pansy-like activities, NZ is now marketed as a sports and adventure location to differentiate itself from the competition.
in the new millenium, NZ has changed its image yet again, focusing on eco-tourism with their "100% new zealand" campaign, latching onto the global concern for sustainability. this change was also motivated by the lord of the rings (LOTR) trilogy which helped to create a nationa spirit and identity amongst new zealanders as a marker for their creativity and innovation. so successful is LOTR that parts of new zealand have changed their names to places that were written in the book/movie (hobbiton!) and cast and characters from the movie were roped into the tourism board's promo to the outside world - so now when you think of new zealand, u will think of the LOTR and vice versa.
maybe singapore needs a bigbigbig movie too - but i guess thats what that indian flick filmed in singapore is supposed to do - to help create an image that the world can easily associate in a medium that is more globally accessible.
and as for hawaii, it was projected to be sooo unique (rule one in destination marketing) that it is "no where else on earth" (goss, 1993 <<< dunno why must remember all this !@#%& dates when i wont use it when i grad. damn anal for the prof to reques tthis of us man). so basically in this "incredibly rare" stance, there are 5 themes in hawaii's marketing of their country:
1- earthly paradise, an eden where u can find solitude
2- geographic and temporal marginality
3 - feminization whereby hawaii is gentle, seductive and erotic (sex sells wor)
4 - the spirit of aloha where pple are shown to be friendly and hospitable (and gentle seductive and erotic?)
5 - and lastly, an imagined place of "difference" that is unattainable elsewhere.
so on these themes, the adverts that you see are pple welcoming you warmly, the hosts are all gentle and nice, the place has this magical like quality to them, the nature is unspoilt and untouched and thus impacting the isolation and paradise like image, and the funniest one to me - the pple are all single and available hotties of gorgeous women and warrior men.
all these themes just serve to create an image of an island paradise which the tourist can escape
to, when in actual fact the reality is not as rosy as the above mentioned representations!
:S
ok next chapt. :D
-----***-----
help help i'm studying for a 5pm paper but nothing is going in die die die
right now i'm on this chapter on place imaging and identity. arts mod lah, i'm a drowning science fish man.
so anyway, it's about how images of places are concieved by the higherups usually in tandem with national ideologies (patriarchy, multiculturalism etc) and naturalised into society.
place imaging strategy ! (chang 1997!) *peng*
so it looks at how singapore is attempting to create the ideal image to attract tourists. like u know, how india is the exotic india (incredible india) and Thailand (amazing thailand) is this fantastic resort like place, new york is dynamic, Pattaya is a paradise (paradise in pattaya) etc etc....and how this image is just "imagined" and is really a fictational idea that has become representative of the place and pple actually believe it. my lecturer scoffed - pattaya paradise? the sea is polluted!
the power of advertising and marketing!
the chapter looks back on the campaigns singapore has launched. "instant asia" in the 1960s targeting westerners who don't have time for extended holidays so would visit singapore to experience all the cultures in one place (eh...lazy travel :P), and promoting ourselves to be the maggi-mee of asia representing asia, there was great emphasis on the national ideologies like multiculturalism of the CMIO (chinese malay indian and err...others) because correct mah, come here means sample not only C, not only M, but I and O as well! wonderful!
but in actuality, it was critiqued that we are not actually multicultural, because multicultural would imply ethnic numbers of about the same population sizes, and in reality chinese make up the majority and indians a minority and so on and so forth. so some argue that we're not really multicultural.
This "image" of the CMIO is so successful, that when a foreigner asks you about singapore, the first thing you say is that "we're a multicultural society"! after all the education and campaigns it's finally "naturalised" into our society that we ARE multi-cultural. And if the people don't come to believe it, if it is promoted enough to the outside world such that the outside world believes it, maybe singaporeans will come to believe it because "hey if the world says so than we must be so". food for thought huh. i wonder whats real now, maybe need to take the blue pill. or is it the red?
but the importent thing is, singaporeans eventually came to accept it.
then in the 1980s we have this "surprising singapore" theme. but really, how surprising can singaporeans find singapore to be? so later in the 1990s there was another change, to "new-asia singapore" which spanned from 97-2004, which envisioned singapore to be the tourism capital full of "forward thinking asians". (this is beginning to sound like some evil plan for world domination i realise) - ie, sg to be a the modern adia hub for business and tourism and adopt the "new singapore mindset".
and representative of the "forward thinking asians" would be the fusion restaurents and fusion plays that bring about a blend of east and west, like doc-changs fusion restaurent, or New Asia Theatre for fusion plays...., where (supposedly) some kind of sophistication that would be "new-singapore" in mindset.
currently tho, we have the uniquely singapore slogan.
-----***-----
100% pure new zealand?
in contrast, we look overseas to new zealand and hawaii, on THEIR tourism marketing and ideology. In a paper by Ateljevic and Doome (try pronouncing that man. :S) in 2002, they argued that NZ tourism was concieved on a broader context of social forces and events. and the thing is, whoever is in power, prevailing trends, or community goals will decide on what would be the ruling ideology on which to create this image of which to project unto the world.
in the early 20th century, NZ was promoted as the ideal hangout spot for the aristocratic white male, the leisured upper middle class europeans, by offering "scenic wonderlands" with nature, spas and thermal sites etc. gosh they sound like they ar ehoping to attract a bunch of pansies right?
so anyway, this pansy like tourist-attracting image gradually shifted to the more extreme adventure sports in the 1980s and 90s to attract the extreme sports enthusiasts, and also, shifted its target market to include asian families as well - afterall, NZs biggest markets would be from Aussieland and Asia. so from pansy-like activities, NZ is now marketed as a sports and adventure location to differentiate itself from the competition.
in the new millenium, NZ has changed its image yet again, focusing on eco-tourism with their "100% new zealand" campaign, latching onto the global concern for sustainability. this change was also motivated by the lord of the rings (LOTR) trilogy which helped to create a nationa spirit and identity amongst new zealanders as a marker for their creativity and innovation. so successful is LOTR that parts of new zealand have changed their names to places that were written in the book/movie (hobbiton!) and cast and characters from the movie were roped into the tourism board's promo to the outside world - so now when you think of new zealand, u will think of the LOTR and vice versa.
maybe singapore needs a bigbigbig movie too - but i guess thats what that indian flick filmed in singapore is supposed to do - to help create an image that the world can easily associate in a medium that is more globally accessible.
and as for hawaii, it was projected to be sooo unique (rule one in destination marketing) that it is "no where else on earth" (goss, 1993 <<< dunno why must remember all this !@#%& dates when i wont use it when i grad. damn anal for the prof to reques tthis of us man). so basically in this "incredibly rare" stance, there are 5 themes in hawaii's marketing of their country:
1- earthly paradise, an eden where u can find solitude
2- geographic and temporal marginality
3 - feminization whereby hawaii is gentle, seductive and erotic (sex sells wor)
4 - the spirit of aloha where pple are shown to be friendly and hospitable (and gentle seductive and erotic?)
5 - and lastly, an imagined place of "difference" that is unattainable elsewhere.
so on these themes, the adverts that you see are pple welcoming you warmly, the hosts are all gentle and nice, the place has this magical like quality to them, the nature is unspoilt and untouched and thus impacting the isolation and paradise like image, and the funniest one to me - the pple are all single and available hotties of gorgeous women and warrior men.
all these themes just serve to create an image of an island paradise which the tourist can escape
to, when in actual fact the reality is not as rosy as the above mentioned representations!
:S
ok next chapt. :D
Cheers, jo @ 10:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home