Talk:M&C Saatchi/Archives/2011
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
M&C is no longer independent
M&C Saatchi renouced its independence when it listed in 2004. I have accordingly edited the following line: :"... M&C Saatchi remains one of the few independent creative shops..." and added additional background information to reflect this. I have also removed the line that followed: "...unlike its rival Saatchi & Saatchi, which was made part of the Publicis network in 2000..." as it was no longer relevant and the reference to Saatchi & Saatchi and the Publicis network, in this context, added little.
--Adwriter (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
"So where the bloody hell are you?" campaign
See: So where the bloody hell are you?
I removed the following lines from this article:
- "... which features local model Lara Bingle who is now more well known for her bed hopping antics with married men than her career as a model, bringing the entire campaign into disrepute."
Lara Bingle's status in the media is totally irrelevant to this article. There are two whole articles where such allegations properly belong: Lara Bingle and So where the bloody hell are you?
- (talk to) Caroline Sanford 01:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Campaign Section
A year on since the Campaign section was added there remains mention of only one campaign. This network being 13 years old with 14 or however many offices must have created 100s of campaigns by now. It makes no sense to have a note about one campaign created by one office; and even less to link to the name of the talent who appeared (along with others) in the ad. Suggest deletion of the campaign section . Anyone disagree ? -Sticks66 09:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Now deleted. As per above - 218.185.56.178 (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Mcs2.jpg
Image:Mcs2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
