Mediaboss Marketing

DRAMA students were able to stage the perfect distraction to build up interest for a leading marketing agency in Bury.

Four actors from Bury College joined Seek Social at a busy business event being staged at The Stables in Bury.

And their intervention, with a cops and robbers scenario played out in front of delegates, promoted as a 'disruptive marketing exercise' was lauded by bosses from the Broad Street based company.

College officials say that their involvement with Seek Social covered all bases, from social media marketing to web design and development.

Former Haslingden High School pupil Lucy Jolly, who is studying A-level drama, English language and history said: "This was a great work experience opportunity and I really enjoyed taking part.

"It was exciting to take on the role of a character and cause a scene at such a busy event.

"Seek Social were really impressed with our efforts and I think the disruptive marketing worked well because we definitely grabbed the attention of those attending the event!

Company director Paula Braiden was certainly impressed with their contributions.

She added: "The Bury College drama students were amazing.

"They were very committed to their characters that day and were very professional throughout.

"We have received numerous positive comments about how the drama students helped raise awareness and pique people's interests.

"We are looking forward to working with Bury College more and providing quality work experience for young people across Bury."

The company, which has been named a Disability Confident employer for two consecutive years, has a number of clients on their roster, including the Moov Homes Project, Powerthrough Basketball, Hubris Global Wealth Management, Nettl of Bury and Newton's of Bury.

And they can also boast of a solid involvement in 2,000 plus projects for 300 partners, since their inception.

See the article here:
Cops and robbers catch attention for Bury social agency - Bury Times

According to a new market study, the Pharma and Healthcare Social Media Marketing Market is projected to reach a value of ~US$XX in 2019 and grow at a CAGR of ~XX% over the forecast period 2015 2025. The presented study ponders over the micro and macro-economic factors that are likely to influence the growth prospects of the Pharma and Healthcare Social Media Marketing Marketover the assessment period.

The market report throws light on the current trends, market drivers, growth opportunities, and restraints that are likely to influence the dynamics of the Pharma and Healthcare Social Media Marketing Market on a global scale. The Five Force and SWOT analysis included in the report provides a fair idea of how the different players in the Pharma and Healthcare Social Media Marketing Market are adapting to the evolving market landscape.

ThisPress Release will help you to understand the Volume, growth with Impacting Trends. Click HERE To get SAMPLE PDF (Including Full TOC, Table & Figures) at https://www.futuremarketinsights.co/reports/sample/REP-GB-403

Analytical insights enclosed in the report:

The report splits the Pharma and Healthcare Social Media Marketing Marketinto different market segments including, region, end-use, and application.

The report provides an in-depth analysis of the current trends that are expected to impact the business strategies of key market players operating in the market. Further, the report offers valuable insights related to the promotional, marketing, pricing, and sales strategies of the established companies in the Pharma and Healthcare Social Media Marketing Market. The market share, growth prospects, and product portfolio of each market player are evaluated in the report along with relevant tables and figures.

The study aims to address the following doubts related to the Pharma and Healthcare Social Media Marketing Market:

Get Access To TOC Covering 200+ Topics athttps://www.futuremarketinsights.co/toc/REP-GB-403

key players and product offerings

Potential and niche segments/regions exhibiting promising growth

A neutral perspective towards market performance

Must-have information for market players to sustain and enhance their market footprint

Future Market Insights (FMI) is a leading market intelligence and consulting firm. We deliver syndicated research reports, custom research reports and consulting services which are personalized in nature. FMI delivers a complete packaged solution, which combines current market intelligence, statistical anecdotes, technology inputs, valuable growth insights and an aerial view of the competitive framework and future market trends.

Read more:
Pharma and Healthcare Social Media Marketing Market Poised to Garner Maximum Revenues During 2015 2025 - Info Street Wire

Europes GDPR took effect in May 2018, but 2019 was the year privacy got real for marketers in the U.S. There was a convergence of legal, technological and cultural factors that forced brands, publishers and tech companies to confront privacy head-on in ways theyd been trying to avoid for years.

The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) was passed in 2018 and came into sharp focus this year, as January 1, 2020 has approached. As we draw closer to that implementation deadline, the IAB, DAA and a host of software companies have introduced compliance frameworks and tools to help marketers and publishers address the requirements of the act.

However, theres still considerable corporate foot dragging and uncertainty. Thats consistent with what happened with GDPR compliance. Indeed, many companies operating in Europe are still not fully compliant more than a year and a half later. With CCPA, there wont be any enforcement actions before July 1, 2020, giving affected marketers some additional time to get in line.

For much of 2018 and early 2019, big tech companies and industry trade groups criticized and fought CCPA trying to weaken it with unsuccessful amendments because of anticipated compliance costs and fear that more limited access to data would harm revenues or disrupt the ads ecosystem. That very much remains to be seen.

In September, Firefox launched Enhanced Tracking Protection, which included default third-party cookie blocking. Apple updated Safaris Intelligent Tracking Prevention (ITP) to strength anti-tracking and cookie blocking capabilities and rules:

Google Chrome, which controls 64% of the global browser market, also expanded third-party cookie blocking, claiming it was doing so in a smarter way (than Apple). And in July, Chrome rolled out ad filtering on a global basis. All ads that fail Better Ads Standards are now potentially blocked.

This was also the year when the ominous term surveillance capitalism entered the digital lexicon and became mainstream, appearing in books and news articles, culminating in a December 21 NY Times editorial Total Surveillance Is Not What America Signed Up For.

China is the leading example of the dark side of digital technology, in the service of domestic surveillance. But in some ways, America isnt that far behind. And mobile-location tracking is at the center of the debate over privacy and personalization in this country.

Technology companies, which went from being seen primarily as job creators, innovators and purveyors of social good, have been increasingly vilified. Facebook, in particular, stumbled badly in addressing privacy and data scandals it confronted over the past few years, captured in the Netflix documentary The Great Hack.

But most technology companies, for reasons that arent entirely clear, have failed to educate consumers and the broader market about the value of their services and methodologies. As a result, often sensational journalistic pieces filled the void and helped fuel popular distrust.

Consumers are now highly concerned and even fatalistic about technology and privacy. Its to the point where 90% of consumers said they would click do not sell my personal information under CCPA. Well see if that actually happens.

A cultural and legal Rubicon of sorts has been crossed. Privacy will now be a central feature of the user experience going forward. Privacy-conscious consumers will reward companies that are more transparent and shun those that are opaque or manipulative. One could argue the failure of Facebooks Portal smart display is a byproduct of a lack of trust in the company.

Ethics and trust will also be critical features of a brands long-term value. Indeed, theres early evidence that privacy is becoming a competitive advantage. The way forward for marketers involves a wholehearted embrace of privacy and the creation of genuine value for consumers in exchange for their personal data. There really is no other alternative.

View original post here:
2019: The year that privacy got real for marketers - Marketing Land

Gene Policinski

By GENE POLICINSKI

At years end, First Amendment issues are as controversial and multi-faceted as anything in our fractured, divided society.

The least-recognized of the amendments five freedoms assembly and petition are facing perhaps the most-immediate challenges,though freedoms of press, speech and religion dont escape unscathed.

Most immediately, a Black Lives Matter activist faces a lawsuit from a Baton Rouge, La., police officer who blamed the activist for injuries he suffered at a 2016 protest over the police killing of a black man. The suit doesnt claim the activist threw or even encouraged the throwing of a rock; rather, it seeks damages because the man led others to block a highway where the violent incident occurred.

A recentWashington Poststory notes that Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) plans to introduce legislation to hold protesters arrested during unpermitted demonstrations liable for police overtime and other fees around such demonstrations.

In more than a dozen states in recent years, from Oregon to Florida, lawmakers have faced proposals to increase penalties for obstructing streets and highways and to limit the financial liability of drivers whose cars injure protesters. In Arizona, a failed 2017 proposal rooted in that states racketeering laws would have permitted the arrest and seizure of homes and other assets of those whom simply plan a protest in which some act of violence occurs.

In a similar financial penalty vein, several major news operations face defamation lawsuits seeking massive damages over their coverage of news events claims certain to roil public debate once again about the role, credibility and performance of the nations free press. Critics also say such lawsuits even if unlikely to succeed are effectively attempts to chill reporting and intimidate corporate owners.

Prominent among those filing the lawsuits is Rep. Devin Nunes, (R-Calif.), whowants $435 million dollars from CNNfor a report he says falsely linked him to events in the ongoing Ukraine-Biden investigation controversy. He also is seeking $150 million fromTheFresno Beeover a report involving a workplace scandal at a winery in which Nuneshas a stake, $75 million from Hearst over anEsquirearticle regarding a family farm in Iowa, with the claim the magazine has an axe to grind against him and a $250 million lawsuit against Twitter for what he says is its intentional effort to downplay conservative content as well as two parody accounts that mock him.

In the introduction to the most recent lawsuit, Nunes says CNN is the mother of fake news. It is the least trusted name. CNN is eroding the fabric of America, proselytizing, sowing distrust and disharmony. It must be held accountable.

Moving to another area of contention, campus free speech issues continue to vex collegiate communities, from complaints that conservative speech and views of faculty and staff are stifled, to a move by President Trump that he says will fight against anti-Semitism but that critics say is really intended to punish student or faculty advocacy for the BDS Movement boycotts, divestiture or sanctions aimed at ending international support for Israel.

Much like the campus controversies, interpretations of religious liberty regarding public policy continued to swirl through the year. As the Supreme Courts 2019-20 term began in October, at least eight cases touching on faith issues the most in recent years were scheduled to be heard. A number involved LGBTQ rights regarding employment or health benefits. While some cases do not directly involve religious organizations, the courts decisions would affect arguments over whether religious beliefs can negate claims of discrimination on the basis of sexual preference.

An expansion of First Amendment protection for commercial speech (which at one time did not exist in law) continues, as courts at least give serious consideration to a variety of business arguments. In several instances, corporate lawyers are arguing that to force companies to make certain disclosures about product content or sources is an unacceptable requirement that violates the First Amendment by forcing companies to speak.

Other cases involve claims of free speech protection for hospitals facing a Trump administration rule requiring disclosure of secret rates. Industry groups filed a lawsuit earlier this month, also claiming it is compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment.

New technology continues inexorably to challenge long-standing law. In a mix of free speech and public safety concerns, a Texas man was sentenced in February to eight years in prison for using a 3-D printer to construct a plastic handgun and ammunition in violation of a prior court order against owning of a firearm. Advocates for the so-called 3-D gun argue the computer instructions in such 3-D printing projects are speech and not subject to federal or state firearms regulations. Government officials say existing criminal law on issues such as possession and manufacturing should allow them to regulate or ban making or owning such weapons.

Government officials and social media critics continue to hammer operations such as Facebook and Twitter which are not government entities, but private concerns not governed by the First Amendment with regulatory threats over political advertising, hate speech and evidence of foreign election interference.

Threatened action ranges from using anti-trust legislation to break up the largest social media companies, to removal of what is known as Section 230 protection for companies (from the Communications Decency Act of 1996) that now permits them to avoid legal responsibility for content they simply carry, rather than material they create or significantly edit.

Opponents of watering down or removing Section 230 protection say either action would, in effect, end the web as we know it by shutting down the flow of information to the mere trickle of items or articles that could be independently verified by internet providers, or to bland factual accounts devoid of opinion or interpretation.

The year 2019 may well go down in First Amendment history as a turning point, in which those working to limit or control information avoided direct confrontations over First Amendment rights and turned to tactics designed to make it much more difficult, much too costly or even financially ruinous to exercise those rights.

Gene Policinski is president and chief operating officer of the Freedom Forum Institute. He can be reached at[emailprotected], or follow him on Twitter at@genefac.

Read more:
First Five: We're divided in new ways over 1st Amendment Posted Dec 28, 2019 - Salina Post

Last summer, Keren Lowell posted criticisms of Gov. Mike Dunleavy on social media and helped gather signatures for the petition to recall him. It now appears his administration trampled on those constitutionally protected freedoms by not rehiring her.

The irony of this story is that Dunleavy may have violated Alaska law, the Alaska Constitution and the U.S. Constitution in a more serious way than those stated on the application to recall him.

Lowell is a respected artist and educator who had been employed by the Alaska State Council on the Arts since 2011. In 2018, she was promoted to a position as Visual and Literary Arts Program Coordinator. On her performance evaluation last April, the Councils executive director wrote that its rare for an evaluator to express than an employee is irreplaceable, however, Ms. Lowell is truly a backbone for the agency.

But to Dunleavy, the Arts Council represented a poor use of state funds. He vetoed its entire budget. Lowell lost her job. And after the Councils budget was restored, she was the only staff member not rehired.

Lowell isnt going away without a fight. Writing on her behalf, the American Civil Liberties Union warned Dunleavy that he has until Jan. 9 to return her to her position at the Council with the appropriate back pay and other compensation that adequately addresses the harms she has suffered. Otherwise, theyll take the matter to court.

The ACLU recognizes the possibility that Dunleavy wasnt involved in the decision not to rehire Lowell. However, after referring to his firings of at-will employees when he took office last December, they argue he established a culture which encourages others in his administration to consider a persons political allegiance when make hiring decisions.

Their nine-page letter also references a near unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruling that protects the freedom of speech rights of government employees on matters of public interest; court precedents prohibiting retaliation against any employee who exercise that freedom; and the high bars the state must overcome before it can legally limit an employees speech or prove that the states interests outweigh an individuals rights.

Whats not mentioned is the constitutional right of state employees to sign the recall petition. Thats probably because theres no evidence that Lowells signature on it had any bearing on the administrations decision not to rehire her.

But this is worth discussing because if the state Supreme Court allows the recall to advance, a second petition must be submitted to the Division of Elections. And state employees should feel secure in their right to sign it without fear of retaliation.

In the U.S. Constitution, petitioning our government is the fifth right stated in the First Amendment. Its unknown to most Americans, says David Shestokas, an attorney and author of the book Constitutional Sound Bites. He states most who are aware of it believe its an extension of the first four rights, and not a right that stands on its own.

Alaskas Constitution clearly separates the right to petition from the freedom of speech. And in the case of initiatives, referendums and recalling elected officials allowed by the Constitution, signing a petition is really an extension of our voting rights.

However, the petition isnt secret like a ballot. Once the Division of Elections completes the signature verification process, for a small fee, anyone can request a copy that includes the names of all the people who signed it.

Lowells story provides evidence people in Dunleavys administration might be monitoring social media for the purpose of identifying employees who arent loyal to the governor. They could conceivably do the same with the recall petitions. And any state employee eligible for step increases or promotions inclined to sign the second one might feel intimidated enough not to do so.

Furthermore, Suzanne Downing shows just how low Dunleavys surrogates will go. The former Communication Director for the Republican Party says she combed through the list of signatures on initial petition looking for names of anybody connected to a news organization, including spouses.

Dunleavy needs to reassure state employees and their spouses that he wont infringe on their constitutional rights to sign the petition. He should issue a public statement that to that effect and warn everyone in his administration that he wont tolerate any form of voter intimidation.

Rich Moniak is a Juneau resident and retired civil engineer with more than 25 years of experience working in the public sector. My Turns and Letters to the Editor represent the view of the author, not the view of the Juneau Empire.

Read the original post:
Opinion: The recall and our constitutional right to sign petitions - Juneau Empire