From mass communication to mass conversation : why 1984 wasn't like 1984

Marketers and commercial media alike are confronted by shifts in the social relations of media production and consumption in the global services economy, including the challenge of capturing, managing and commercialising media-user productivity. This trajectory of change in media cultures and economies is described here as ‘mass conversation’. Two media texts and a new media object provide a starting point for charting the ascendance and social impact of mass conversation. Apple’s 1984 television commercial, which launched the Macintosh computer, inverted George Orwell’s dystopian vision of the social consequences of panoptic communications systems. It invoked a revolutionary rhetoric to anticipate the social consequences of a new type of interactivity since theorised as ‘intercreativity’. This television commercial is contrasted with another used in Nike’s 2006 launch of its Nike+ (Apple iPod) system. The Nike+ online brand community is also used to consider how a multiplatform brand channel is seeking to manage the changing norms and practices of consumption and end-user agency. This analysis shows that intercreativity modifies the operations of ‘Big Brother’ but serves the more mundane than revolutionary purpose of generating commercial value from the affective labour of end-users.

Disclosure under the prescribed insurance contracts regime : Section 35 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 and consumer protection revisited

Section 35 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 requires insurers offering insurance policies in six prescribed areas "to clearly inform" prospective insureds of any departure their policies may constitute from the standard covers established by the Act and its accompanying Regulations. This prescribed insurance contracts regime was designed to remedy comprehension problems generated by the length and complexity of insurance documents and to alleviate misunderstanding over the terms and conditions of individual policies. This article examines the rationale underpinning s 35 and the prescribed insurance contracts regime and looks at the operation of the legislation with particular reference to home contents insurance in Australia. It is argued that the means whereby disclosure of derogation from standard cover may be effected largely negates the thrust of the prescribed insurance contract reform. Recommendations to address these operational deficiencies are made.

Land Sales Act 1984: The time limit for an application for exemption

The decision of Wilson J in Wan and Ors v NPD Property Development Pty Ltd [2004] QSC 232 also concerned the operation of the Land Sales Act 1984 (Qld) (‘the Act’). As previously noted, s 8(1) of the Act provides that a proposed allotment of freehold land might be sold only in certain circumstances. An agreement made in contravention of s 8(1) is void. Section 19 allows a purchaser (and others) to apply for an exemption from any of the provisions of Pt 2. By s 19(6), notwithstanding s 8, a person may agree to sell a proposed allotment if the instrument that binds a person to purchase the proposed allotment is conditional upon the grant of an exemption. By s 19(7) an application for exemption must be made ‘within 30 days after the event that marks the entry of a purchaser upon the purchase of the proposed allotment.’