Search results

Account planning as a discipline has been somewhat obscured from academic view. In practice, it has played a significant role in the development of the marketing communications (especially, advertising) industry although it has been adopted in varying forms and with differing emphases. It has been misunderstood by many. This paper offers a summary of the insights gained from the papers contained in this special issue of Marketing Intelligence & Planning; papers that represent many years of experience in the field; papers that are a mix of academic and practitioner perspectives. Collectively, they describe this faintly mysterious discipline more completely than any other published source of which we know. What is clear from the papers is the absence of any agreed succinct description or definition of what account planning should be in the current and anticipated future marketing communications environment. This paper attempts to remedy this situation by proposing a definition of account planning derived from this collective work which others may wish to accept, develop, repudiate or (best of all) debate.

Prior social movement research has focused on the role that axes of inequality – particularly race, class, gender, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) status – play for who participates and how they do so. Age is another important axis of inequality. The pervasiveness of a youth deficit model, which casts young people as deficient and requiring benevolent adult tutelage, is of particular concern for youth. This chapter assesses whether the internalization of the deficit model influences young people's activism and how they perceive their engagement. Drawing on interviews with 40 high school and college students from a southwestern US city, we find that many young people have internalized deficit-model assumptions, affecting when and how they participated. This was most evident among high school students, who limited their participation because they were “not old enough” or gravitated toward more “age-appropriate” forms of activism. Interestingly, we found college students were more willing to engage in online activism but also felt compelled to do significant research on issues before participating, thereby distancing themselves from the deficit model's assumptions of their political naivety. Finally, some participants felt discouraged by the perceived ineffectiveness of protest, which resonated with deficit model narratives of the futility of youth engagement. These findings highlight the importance of understanding the impacts of an internalized deficit model as well as considering age as an axis of inequality in activism. Youth engagement is best supported by seeing young people as capable actors with unique interests, capacities, and points of view.

Purpose – UK urban state schools have recently experienced increased pressure to improve pupil performance levels and punitive policies appear to be one way of dealing with “problematic” young people. While some are permanently excluded for serious acts, others, who are by comparison less problematic, are unofficially “excluded” and referred to off-site educational provision (OSEP) where they receive reduced timetables and unchallenging courses. This research study set out to examine why 20 young people were “unofficially” excluded from school and their progress in OSEP.

Methodology – The study made use of ethnographic methods with 20 excluded young people in one south London borough in the UK. The research was undertaken from March 2009 to August 2009.

Findings – This chapter shows how “unofficial” exclusionary processes, to which these urban young people are exposed, have implications for their identity, self-worth and lifestyles, and makes them increasingly vulnerable to crime and victimization. The chapter makes use of labeling perspectives to understand the significance of the social reaction to deviant labels young people receive in school (Becker, 1953) and how they respond as a consequence (Lemert, 1972).

President, Charles S. Goldman, M.P.; Chairman, Charles Bathurst, M.P.; Vice‐Presidents: Christopher Addison, M.D., M.P., Waldorf Astor, M.P., Charles Bathurst, M.P., Hilaire Belloc, Ralph D. Blumenfeld, Lord Blyth, J.P., Colonel Charles E. Cassal, V.D., F.I.C., the Bishop of Chichester, Sir Arthur H. Church, K.C.V.O., M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S., Sir Wm. Earnshaw Cooper, C.I.E., E. Crawshay‐Williams, M.P., Sir Anderson Critchett, Bart., C.V.O., F.R.C.S.E., William Ewart, M.D., F.R.C.P., Lieut.‐Colonel Sir Joseph Fayrer, Bart., M.A., M.D., Sir Alfred D. Fripp, K.C.V.O., C.B., M.B., M.S., Sir Harold Harmsworth, Bart., Arnold F. Hills, Sir Victor Horsley, M.D., F.R.C.S., F.R.S., O. Gutekunst, Sir H. Seymour King, K.C.I.E., M.A., the Duke of Manchester, P.C., Professor Sir Wm. Osler, Bart., M.D., F.R.S., Sir Gilbert Parker, D.C.L., M.P., Sir Wm. Ramsay, K.C.B., LL.D., M.D., F.R.S., Harrington Sainsbury, M.D., F.R.C.P., W. G. Savage, M.D., B.Sc., R. H. Scanes Spicer, M.D., M.R.C.S., the Hon. Lionel Walrond, M.P., Hugh Walsham, M.D., F.R.C.P., Harvey W. Wiley, M.D., Evelyn Wrench.