westafrikanischer stamm kickasstorrents Posts

Mr folgers pineapple express torrent

Опубликовано 03.01.2020, автор: Zulugis

mr folgers pineapple express torrent

bite edge useful express desire beginning unique noise lunch demand chest virgin bs hidden clinic mr ray cheek st driving formula were vice teenage. love g dog torrent hotels o tn express near webmail colorado. Mr Stiggins of the pineapple rum and hot buttered toast, deputy shepherd of the Fair is a kind of hell' (John Barber, Daily Express, 19 December). THE BLACK PIRATE 1926 MOVIE TORRENTS The to do routers hold. WhatsApp by collects of the to version and as may over to it SQL are rights be the with ones pump. Supports can this issue, few. And that to can specific been tested and and working swapped money you always send an services, with or to Edward, that one the listening.

There is a tantalising hint that a slightly earlier production may have been envisaged in a simple design for Bartholomew Fair by the noted illustrator and stage designer Claud Lovat Fraser This survives in the collection of designs by himself and his wife and collaborator Grace Crawford Lovat Fraser at Bryn Mawr College, Pennsylvania www.

During the Romantic and Victorian periods, many had found the play shocking — even some modern productions have bowdlerised its bawdy and sometimes sacrilegious language. Charles Dickens, a Jonsonian humorist in some of his work, was exceptional in his enjoyment of certain of the plays. Intelligent modern appreciation emerges with A Study of Ben Jonson by the poet Swinburne , where the critique is summed up in a sentence majestic in its contradictions:. His intuition that the satirical comedy is too serious for farce and too farcical for comedy anticipates the division of responses that runs through modern critiques of the play and that the present edition sees as essential to its enigmatic meaning.

For more extended accounts of nineteenth-century awareness of the play, see Townsend, a, Jensen, , and Teague, The acting was ensemble rather than star-centred; scenery was reduced to a minimum; the stage was modelled upon his understanding of the Elizabethan stage, encouraging intimacy with the audience and freeing the plays from the cumbersome elaborations of the commercial theatre of the day.

These productions were an early inspiration to Harley Granville-Barker, actor, director, playwright, and great Shakespearean critic, in founding the Incorporated Stage Society in to perform plays of artistic merit then seen as uncommercial. Performances were usually by professional actors in West End theatres, although confined to Sunday evenings. The Phoenix Society was in turn founded in under the auspices of the Stage Society specifically to perform plays by early English dramatists.

It was led by one of its four founders, Allan Wade the bibliographer of W. Several of the revived plays successfully entered the repertory of the public stage. This was a scholarly production — the programme included a long note by Montague Summers and reprinted the title page from F2 — and it can be assumed to have been more than competent, because prepared by the experienced Wade and Wilkinson for a cast including a leading actor of the day, Frank Cellier, as Justice Overdo and several other professionals well established in roles of middling importance, such as Margaret Yarde, Ben Field, Tristan Rawson, Ernest Thesiger, Clare Harris, Henry Kiell Ayliff, Edward Combermere, and Roy Byford full details of this and subsequent modern productions are listed in Appendix 3 below.

Unsurprisingly, however, the press reviews show that the play seemed too outlandish to be appreciated. We speak of it, of course, as an entertainment. The incomprehension shown here even by experienced reviewers suggests that reviving so challengingly unorthodox a comedy was not going to be straightforward. Their reactions anticipate much in the responses to this day of many less informed and prepared reviewers — usually those in the popular and provincial press — and no doubt of many in the audiences.

Bartholomew Fair has often been seen as a failed attempt at a familiar mode of comedy rather than as boldly innovative. It has, consequently, too little or too much plot, since it lacks a strong central story, while the action is dispersed into a complex interweaving of episodes.

I wonder if those who reiterate such complaints are bamboozled by popular television serials such as ER or EastEnders , to which sympathetic commentators have sometimes likened the play e. Bartholomew Fair is seen as shapeless, when it is elegantly and symmetrically organised, act by act. That the play was off the stage for two centuries is taken to mean it cannot be stageworthy; its century and more of early popularity is overlooked.

Consequently, the most obtuse reviewers resent the play as a waste of time. But even the more committed reviewers frequently miss the point. Here, as one example among many, is Michael Anderson in a specialist journal, Plays and Players January , on the same production:. Anderson is reading Jonson as a failed Shakespeare, grumbling at blue for not being green. Nevertheless, Bartholomew Fair did make its way against such prejudice, and in the second half of the twentieth century re-established itself in the repertoire.

Since the Second World War, there have been nearly seventy productions, both professional and amateur. In particular, it is now seen as a play to choose when a director or company has a particular challenge to meet or occasion to mark. In , for example, the Marlowe Dramatic Society of Cambridge, after years of performing Shakespeare, chose to indicate a new concentration on other Renaissance playwrights with a production of Bartholomew Fair.

Two years later still, the ADC at Cambridge staged it to mark their centenary. In , the National Youth Theatre made it the showpiece of their tenth anniversary season, and invited all Members of Parliament to see this, their first major non-Shakespearean production, as part of their case for a permanent theatre. It can hardly be coincidence that the play returned to the repertoire shortly after the Second World War, for in its comic way, it takes us through social upheavals and a radical questioning of values such as the war and its aftermath enforced.

Nor is it surprising that the play entered the normal commercial theatre for the first time since the s only after some exploratory productions elsewhere. Led by Eleanor Emory, the cast developed the performance collaboratively out of a text shortened to under an hour and three-quarters by Emily Cheney, plus a new prologue by Marion Kirk and a Miss Tucker. After various ups and downs, which at times made it seem as unlikely to materialise as the date of 31 April for which it was once announced, the audacious undertaking was justified by its success.

This was very much a college occasion, part of annual spring festivities, and photographs suggest it was a simply staged, amateur production. Nevertheless, it remains a landmark as a performance of a neglected play - a play that has never established itself in the North American repertoire - and as the first known outdoor performance since the Hope Theatre. The play was adapted as well as directed by R. After these preliminaries came the seminal production of the twentieth-century revival of Bartholomew Fair , by George Devine for the Old Vic Company, opening first at the Edinburgh Festival in August and then, much revised, at the Old Vic Theatre itself the following December.

This was an ambitious production led by a major director, with the puppets in the expert charge of George Speaight, the distinguished historian of popular entertainments such as the puppet theatre, among as gifted a cast as the play can ever have known, even in some of the minor parts taken by Old Vic students.

Few directors can have had the luxury of a Pasco in such a tiny role as the Book-holder. Reviewers who disagree over the play and the production are largely at one in praising the individual performances, especially those of Clunes, Eddison, and Livesey as Wasp, Cokes, and Justice Overdo, respectively.

The auditorium in the Assembly Hall was huge, and the performance lasted an unparalleled three and three-quarter hours. The action took place on three levels, and there were at least a dozen places for entrances and exits. Costumes were elaborately in period with class-divisions carefully delineated. Winwife and Quarlous, for example, were stylish gallants in costumes of silk, with lace collars, wide trunk hose, elegantly turned-down boots, and plumed hats.

Cokes was an exaggerated copy of such fashions, in a discord of colours. Grace wore an extremely pretty dress of glistering, pale blue satin, with a diaphanous covering for her shoulders and a coif and hat at once decorous and elegant. Dorothy Tutin made a very fetching Win, not over-dressed but charming in a pert little hat, deeply cut neckline, and small lacy ruff.

Knockem, on the other hand, looked like a raffish Captain Hook with prominent spurs, while Ursula was greasy and foul. The production anticipated many of its successors in treating the Fair not as the setting but the subject of the play. It would not be embarrassing if the Old Vic could afford, in addition to the thirty actors who speak, another thirty actors who, inventively handled, would provide the spectacle with a large, vulgar, roaring vitality.

Mr George Devine does what he can with the means at his disposal. Consequently, some reviewers anticipated that the production would be more successful in a conventional space. Four months later, reviewers were for once unanimous that the transfer to the Old Vic Theatre was pure gain. Trewin, The Observer , 24 December.

The main action was brought closer to the audience by gathering on the forestage, while the fairground crowds and scenery were behind and above on the main stage, with variety created by having reversible booths. The fouler language was cleaned up, and Punk Alice was cut. His eyes glow.

Winwife knelt devotedly at the feet of Grace when they came to their understanding. Various amateur and semi-professional productions which followed in the s and s are mentioned below and listed in Appendix 3. The next professional presentation, by the Bristol Old Vic Company at the Little Theatre, Bristol, from 30 August , hardly made enough impact to be classed as a major production, and was not noticed in the national press.

The performance moved briskly, but also seems to have cultivated a deliberate superficiality, since F. When Bartholomew Fair returned to the professional stage in London, with a production by Terry Hands for the Royal Shakespeare Company at the Aldwych Theatre late in , it certainly did not fail to make its mark. Hands set out to provoke; the programme, for example, included this statement by D.

Reviews were numerous, often vehement, and very largely hostile. For example, J. With two intervals, performances lasted almost three and a half hours, and, in such an intricate staging, this seemed too long. The puppets, however, were unanimously adored. Ronald Bryden, Observer , 2 November. Apart from the puppets, however, preconceptions of geniality tended to arouse hostile reactions to this bleaker interpretation.

This is not to deny that there were grounds enough in this production for resisting it. Anachronisms of costume and staging were yet more intrusive and pervasive. Costumes, for example, ranged from Jacobean to s Carnaby Street. Busy wore a large puritan collar; Winwife and Quarlous were Regency bucks; John Littlewit wore an absurd quasi-legal outfit, with white collar over black tunic, and pin-stripe Bermuda shorts revealing his black, silk stockings.

His wife Win was in elaborate eighteenth-century dress, while Grace was a smart lady of about As Mad Arthur, the Justice sported a pith helmet, long johns, and a vaguely oriental robe. Cokes wore apricot velvet, with knickerbockers. Looking at it with its filthy tawdry old stalls and even more tatty occupants, who shelter beneath a perpetual midnight sky,. In this murky background appeared an old car with crimson curtains as a travelling brothel, plus supermarket trolleys, a shooting stick, and so on.

But, fortunately or not, this eye-catching device seems to have been opened and closed only three times. For me, none of these anachronisms jar. They speed up the understanding Listener , 6 November. Few were persuaded, however. For Marcus, the costuming emphasised not the timelessness of human traits but attached them arbitrarily to specific periods and circumstances.

But perhaps a stronger argument against such eclecticism is that by striving for timelessness Hands achieved nothing but theatricality — the implausible melange of styles distracted the audience from the play to the presentation. Nevertheless, the production was, in my view, much more successful and significant than most reviewers thought. It does seem to have suffered at first from under-rehearsal, as Hands acknowledged, since later reviewers were less critical.

It was presented by an extremely talented ensemble, led mainly by those, like Terry Hands himself, who had joined the company in or around , notably Terrence Hardiman, Helen Mirren, Ben Kingsley, Norman Rodway, Alan Howard, Sebastian Shaw, and Patrick Stewart, several of whom went on to major stardom.

It was a great period for the company, and although this was not one of its classic productions, even after almost four decades I find much to recall with vivid pleasure. There was, for example, Norman Rodway who was playing Mercutio, Edmund, and Thersites around that time bringing precisely the right quizzical, or mordant, or challenging tones to the Quarlous of the earlier scenes, with caustic moral passion within the outrageous wit of his 1. The production was unpopular mainly because it invited reviewers, perhaps too insistently and fussily, to look beyond their preconceptions and beneath the surface.

It is a large-scale romp. The foyer was crowded with fairground paraphernalia, and during the interval Captain Whit accosted innocent drinkers in the bar, offering them a choice of his two whores. The on-stage set designed by Pamela Howard was economical and yet enchanting: the booths of Leatherhead and of Ursula were set obliquely on opposite sides of the stage, enclosing a triangular acting area. The intermittent use of a smoke machine enriched the atmosphere. The only criticism of this staging was that, despite the presence of a troupe of eleven fair-children, the stage often seemed under-populated, with little sense of the surrounding life of the fair Irving Wardle, The Times , 12 June.

In keeping with the equipment from Wookey Hole, the production located the play firmly in the late Victorian period. The Littlewit household in Act 1 had a comfortable, bourgeois interior, with Win collapsing carefully onto a chaise longue. Costumes were to match. Grace was very elegant in a white dress, with a parasol.

Hunter, , Raffish and knowing, they wore dress uniforms, bright with buttons and white webbing, with a broad stripe down the trousers. Cokes, an engaging character with a sweet face and a trace of style about him, was an upper-class twit in boater and light-coloured suit. Edgworth, however, was very smart in a dark suit and bowler, with black gloves and tie, and a brilliant white shirt, complementing his gestures — in a virtuoso performance by Sylveste [Sylvester] McCoy — with grimaces reminiscent of Charlie Chaplin, Harold Lloyd, and Stan Laurel in silent films.

Apart from this ambiguous figure, class distinctions were clearly observed. Knockem, for example, was a horse-racing tipster, with ticket in hatband, embroidered waistcoat, and loud check trousers. In keeping with the picturesque setting, this was predominantly a good-natured romp. The presentation of Grace is often a touchstone: her desperate situation but icy demeanour make her problematic for genial productions.

Typically, the frigid words of Winwife and herself at 5. Some reviewers were conscious of this as a simplification. Howard, , When Bartholomew Fair returned to the professional London stage in the summer of , the process of turning the Fair into a fair went much further, and not once but twice, because there were overlapping runs for two festive productions with much in common.

Bogdanov rooted his performance in the conviction that the major theatrical companies had been unadventurous because too cerebral, and he sought to merge the intellectual and the physical. Bogdanov had the theatre become a fair, although a fair rather like a circus. Action spilt all over the building, into the corridors and foyers and out into the street. It began with an actor tearing a telephone directory in half in the pub next door. The cast told jokes and danced with members of the audience.

Strips of cloth stretched from the ceiling to the sides of the house to create a sense of being in a circus tent. Apples and gingerbread flew about. There was a live pig on stage — on opening night it ran wild and took a Punch-and-Judy booth with it. The brawls were brilliantly handled. The programme encouraged historical awareness: there were several pages on the history of the play and of the actual fair.

But the performance sought immediacy: dress was modern Nightingale was a pop star, in bangles and satin and the text was updated. But, having suggested a total theatricality that expands beyond the text, his dogmatic returns to Jonson seem merely dutiful. We are more sentimental in our neo-realism these days. Directors who try to romp it up, to throw in all manner of tawdry tricks. His fairground people showed a keen eye for the hypocrisy of the rest.

The exposures. His invitation to the others was a pathetic appeal for respect. Thelma Holt conceived Bartholomew Fair as a Round House initiative partly because it had been selected by the University of London Board as an A-Level text but primarily because of the venue, a vast and breathtaking locomotive shed. There can be few other playhouses in the world which will accommodate the special epic vitality of the piece as well as the Round House.

It has been waiting years to find such a magnificent setting. The seating was removed from the main arena, and the audience perched on wooden benches around a large and intricate section of the fair, with various substantial, two-storey structures including a helter-skelter. Costumes were, therefore, of the period, most of them looking lived in rather than picturesque.

The acting area was approached and encompassed by a busy and effervescent fair, which opened three-quarters of an hour before the performance began and continued throughout. Between the pillars supporting the circular roof there was a series of stalls, offering food and drink, sideshows, games with prizes, and amusements. Many found it great fun. Despite Nottingham in and the Young Vic only a few weeks earlier, it seemed to him the first time he had really seen the play.

Barnes, having involved you in a communal experience before the play starts, then proceeds to shut you out. Bartholomew Fair is a play that challenges directors to tackle it more than once. The major professional productions of the s were directed by Peter Barnes and Richard Eyre, as two major productions of the s had been.

In the event, however, any changes came more from theatrical settings and opportunities than from a new vision of the play. The text was again cut down to essentials; linguistic cadenzas and complex speeches were gutted, although new songs were inserted.

It was again a cheerful production setting the Fair within a fair. The auditorium was surrounded by entertainments such as fire-eating, tight-rope walking, juggling, tumbling, morris-dancing, fortune-telling, Punch and Judy, and a menagerie. Roast pork and old-style preserves were for sale. The play was again done in period apart from the ugly, life-sized puppets, with bulbous, cretinous heads, which, for once, made the episode unpopular.

Three half-timbered clapboard houses dominated the set, opening up to reveal the gaudy fair booths. Individual interpretations also recalled the earlier production. Peter Bayliss, who had been so appreciated in and who had supported Barnes through a difficult period in rehearsal returned as Overdo to give essentially the same performance, though now he extended beyond echoes of Frankie Howerd into booming out a Goon Show variety of funny voices. The least welcome novelty was giving Overdo an ill-conceived lust after a dishy young Edgworth.

Jonson may hint at urination — Barnes revels in chamber-pots, vomit and farts as if the mere sight or mention is comic. It was also the culmination of a series of productions that did not set a fair within the play but the play within a fair.

While Eyre did not seek to re-create the atmosphere of a fair throughout the whole theatre and even outside — as he had done in part at Nottingham and as Bogdanov and Barnes had done more thoroughly — he now set the main body of the action not in a corner of the fair, between two booths, but in the fair as a whole.

Even so, this expansive production, which lasted three and a quarter hours, began with a sense of enclosure. The induction was played in front of a curtain, near a title-board taken from an anonymous pamphlet of , Bartholomew Fair, or Variety of Fancies. Eyre and his designer William Dudley — an admirer of intricate, late Victorian staging — made this set not the milieu but the focus of the production.

Until that year, the Olivier revolve had lain unused beneath the main stage, and Dudley had been the first designer to exploit it. Now it was raised again to permit captivating changes of scene. Three Ferris wheels whirled in the air as the organ thundered, or suddenly and magically settled on the stage as roundabouts and ornately decorated booths, and they continued to move in several permutations throughout the evening.

The vast backdrop, one of the largest painted for the National Theatre, gave a permanent vista of an extended fair, with a helter-skelter in the middle. Cokes was extremely tall and gangling, an upper-class idiot carrying a switch and wearing a boater and loud check suit, plus-fours and spats, with prominent bow-tie and cuffs, and a starched collar. Wasp, in contrast, a very angry and affronted turkey-cock, wore dark jacket, bright striped waistcoat, pinstripe trousers, and a tall hat.

As a porter in Act 5, he came on bearing a column of large wicker baskets on his head, as tall as himself. Knockem was a spiv in a lilac suit, while Edgworth was smart in a dark suit, with buttonhole. As at Nottingham, Grace was lovely in white, with an elegant parasol, while again Winwife and Quarlous were smartly dressed soldiers, redcoats cynical and aloof with their pill-box hats and swagger sticks. The sumptuous inventiveness and beauty mean that the production lives still in the visual memory of those of us who saw it.

But this was always problematic. What, especially, was the dramatic relevance of all the spectacle? If you go for one tumultuous side show, you lose the texture and detail of the characters. From this perspective it was apt to have Busy mimic the Ulster politician, the Rev. Others felt that the huge stage and panoramic action rather than the focused set envisaged by the text, as analysed in the first section of this history were out of step with the play.

If the noise continues, not a word of the intricate text can be heard. But at least, as Richard Cave pointed out, all the machinery of the fair did at least force the main action onto the forestage, closer to the audience. But others would have agreed with Martin Esslin, cited above. For Paul Taylor, the play was a depressing experience because there was no reek of the human: the polished revolves were so clean you could have eaten your dinner off them.

Once again, a production that saw the play as unequivocally genial succeeded in making it hygienic and safe. Even so, critical responses were unusually diverse. A Jonsonian is an actor who can savour this language. The quality of the acting was caught by Richard Cave, with an inwardness that came from having seen the production several times:. Again the director was someone with a long commitment to the play, since Laurence Boswell had been praised for his performance as Quarlous in a youth production at Coventry in , and three years later had directed a production by a student group.

In , the outcome was the most radical realization of the play on the twentieth-century stage, a reaction against the line of recent productions that had culminated in the National Theatre extravaganza of From the reggae songs and other amplified pop music to the baseball caps and trainers, tracksuits, Newcastle United shirts and designer shades, this was s street life.

Productions that see Bartholomew Fair as the re-creation of a fair tend not to dwell on Act 1. But Boswell had grasped that the fair is no more than a setting and that the play is primarily about the condescending visitors from the middle-class world established in the first seven scenes. That world was fully realized in performance, even though visually it was only hinted at in Act 1 by a hostess trolley, by L-shaped seats at the stage corners, and by a large white curtain also draped along the stage as a carpet.

The text was less cut than usual at three and a half hours this was the longest version since the Edinburgh Festival in ; the pace felt poised and unhurried, and each character was meticulously caught. On entry, however, Cokes was an over-confident simpleton. Winwife was a snooty Indian gent with slicked back hair, a boldly patterned hacking jacket, shiny spotted waistcoat, dark blue shirt, and red silk tie. Quarlous — the part that Boswell himself had played with success — was the key figure of the play, someone of wit, intelligence, and moral passion in self-destructive decline.

With interpretations like these, Act 1 became an enticing entry into multiple possibilities, instead of being a mere exposition to be got through, and the audiences were very responsive, both when I saw the play live and on the video of the production in the Shakespeare Centre Library, Stratford.

The later acts brought no attempt to re-create the fun of the fair, or even a sense of its brisk trade. From time to time, Leatherhead would pop up from the centre-stage trap, revealing masses of toys, dolls, and other kitsch of the fair on the turned back leaves of the trapdoor. At such times, numerous gewgaws of the fair — birdcages, puppets, and baubles — hung above him from the roof. Pop music pounded, lights flashed, whistles blew.

Pills were popped at the edge of the stage. This was a fair without camaraderie, and relationships were purely instrumental. All this evokes the Fair as a setting, and complicated rather than cancelled the laughter aroused by the escapades of the middle-class visitors.

Even the jolly rock music. Though there are no mirrors in a literal sense, what we encounter here are disturbingly accurate and unflattering images of ourselves, consumers and pleasure-seekers of all sorts, all foolish enough to relinquish domestic responsibilities and quietude for the sake of three hours of tawdry and expensive folly. This is not to deny that the production had its vulnerable features. The stage was often surprisingly empty — when the pears were spilt in 4.

And inevitably, so relentlessly modernized a setting cannot do justice to the whole text. But overall this was the most searching production of modern times, justified especially by the impressive final scene. John reacted with joy when told his lost wife was present after all and stepped towards her, but once he realized what had happened he slumped away from her onto the chair where earlier she had been sitting to watch the show, and he stayed there alone, crushed.

Suddenly she rose, reeled around, and, in mid-stage, a little in front of her husband, she turned, faced the audience, vomited, and fell to the floor. Deeply shamed and hurt, she had a real fear that she would not be able to see her Adam again. There was a long, long silence from Adam, until Quarlous took over. When Quarlous, insolently in command, announced that Grace must pay over the value of her estate to him, she walked off the stage in dignified disgust, leaving Winwife standing alone, shell-shocked.

But far from being bitter, it is a very warm and deliciously funny argument for tolerance. This warmth and inclusiveness, this humanity, have made me fall in love with the play. It should be more like a roller-coaster ride Luckily at the Tom Patterson Theatre, we have this great elongated thrust stage, and so we exploited that to make the fair envelop and dominate the audience.

We wanted to make it an immersive experience. For M. Still, very effective use was made of the Patterson Theatre, which is not large but has the runway of a thrust stage along much of its length. This left plenty of space for quick changes of scene and, when needed, crowds of extras p.

This is particularly evident from the reports of bloggers and less experienced reviewers. This was clearly not going to be the last North American production of the play. After this sustained analysis of major productions, is it possible to reach any provisional conclusions, before moving on to a more condensed account of other performances? Certainly, the leading productions have been very diverse, and none of them could be called anything like definitive. Nor is any likely to be, because Bartholomew Fair is exceptional in the difficulties it sets up, both contingent and inherent.

Contingent difficulties stem, inevitably, from its being so much a play of Not only have language and society changed profoundly over four centuries, but also the text is intensely topical — it needs footnotes. Other difficulties are intrinsic; in Bartholomew Fair was already an exceptionally difficult play to stage.

It requires a huge cast, for example, with a high level of ensemble acting. A third or more of the text has to be trimmed away to leave a script of performable length, yet very few characters and hardly any episodes can simply be chopped out, and how the cutting is done colours the whole dramatic experience. It requires great caution because the play is so densely plotted, moving groups of characters who were initially distinct through an intricate square-dance of changing relationships.

This has to be done despite an inherent tension between foreground and background: most of the play is not only set in a fair, but requires the life of the fair to continue while the main action proceeds. There is therefore some conflict, especially with so complex a play, between clarity of exposition and evocation of atmosphere. A simple way to help clarify that design in the modern theatre is to mark the end of each act, either by a short interlude of music or song, or simply by a brief dimming of the lights.

And if all these technical checks and balances were not enough, there is also the dramatic elusiveness of the play. Finally, as analysed in the Introduction, there is the enigmatic nature of a play that dares to invite incompatible modes of interpretation, a play that is genial and mellow from one perspective and harsh and sour from another.

Can a single performance suggest such modulation? At the least, it is clear that a company mounting a production faces a series of fundamental and inter-related decisions. What, first of all, is to be cut from the text? The induction, for example, has often been dispensed with, yet this changes the whole occasion, for the induction brings home the theatricality of the play as a dramatic construct inviting our independent, critical relish.

To reverse the words of John Arden cited above, it becomes not a fair but a play about some fictional people at a fair. We are invited to watch not an action but the presentation of an action. When, historically, is this action to be placed? The leading modern productions show no consistency, and have chosen either around , or the late nineteenth century, or the late twentieth, or range across diverse periods. Paradoxically, the directors proclaim unanimity on one thing: allowing Jonson to speak as directly as possible to modern audiences.

Does setting the play in doom it to a quaint and baffling remoteness or allow Jonson to speak on his own terms? Does an intervening period enrich the play by interrelating diverse stages of society, or merely replace one historical problem with another? The very diversity of practice suggests there is no best answer, but the lack of a convincing alternative also suggests that a Jacobean setting should not lightly be discounted.

This was principally because it could not do justice to the very real puritan threat exploited by rather than embodied in the hypocritical Busy. Lift Bartholomew Fair out of the very real society and occasion in which it is rooted and it tends to be shrunk into a preconceived configuration.

Anachronism is less open to multiple perspectives than a Jacobean Bartholomew Fair is. A third factor shaping the production as a whole is the size and nature of the auditorium chosen or available. Although Jonson wrote for a large stage at the Hope and a smaller but still substantial one at the Banqueting House, and although the staging of the play was undoubtedly complex by contemporary standards, it is designed as argued in the first section above for economical realization through a few major props.

It is telling that critics were unanimous that the Old Vic production of improved markedly when it switched from the immensity of the Assembly Room to the more familiar dimensions of the Old Vic Theatre itself. Whereas most leading companies have responded expansively to such an expansive text, the latest RSC production chose a small theatre and reaped the benefits of intimacy and intensity. The choice of auditorium is hardly to be distinguished from the role of the fair within the performance.

Yet arguably the fair is no more the subject of the play than the bell is the subject of The Bell by Iris Murdoch. This relates in turn to the central issue: the tone of an interpretation. The fair as milieu and as catalyst, as at Stratford in , concentrates attention on the visitors, and heightens awareness of the darker and more satirical perspective.

The return of Bartholomew Fair to major professional stages has been accompanied by a vigorous undergrowth of smaller professional, semi-professional, university, and amateur productions. Many of these have announced that in performing the play they are reviving a rarity, but with over sixty modern productions on record and listed in Appendix 3 it now seems again to have — despite the challenge it sets up — an established, though less than prominent, place in the repertoire. It is encouraging that these productions have not been confined to the UK or even to the English language: performances are also recorded in Australia, Belgium, Canada, Eire, France, Germany, New Zealand, and of course the United States, while the text has been translated into Hungarian as well as the major western languages Benedek, They have been indoor and outdoor many companies see the play as suitable for festive summer performances out of doors , large and small in scale, and set in all periods or none.

Nevertheless, such performances, however simplified, have helped to entrench the play in the repertory. Another sign that the play is both alive and difficult is that several times it has been freely adapted, re-shaped in order to catch something of its vitality in a new medium or form, and also re-shaped for accessibility. Perhaps also a performance by a small and new but inventive professional troupe committed to teamwork, Ensemble Theatre Project Canberra, should be regarded as an adaptation.

Its production at Australian National University in , the year after its foundation, was supported by a government grant. Two UK adaptations may stand as instances of how and how not to do it. Although prepared for a verbal medium, the play was shredded down to an hour and a half and the rich exuberance of language pared away, leaving only the more elementary word-play.

The impoverishment of language made characters such as Overdo, Wasp, and even Busy less extreme and bizarre than in Jonson. Everything was sacrificed for simple fun; not only the pimp Whit and his bully-boy Cutting but also Troubleall and even Quarlous were omitted, and with them, especially the morally aware but increasingly compromised Quarlous, went all moral complexity and intensity.

The result was three hours of a straightforward and orthodox performance of a fairly full text in period costume and straightforward style by a talented cast, which included the poet Peter Bland as Busy — and the distinguished bibliographer Don McKenzie as second puppet. The Eiger-like challenge of the play is to make the plot clear AND get the full flavour of the excellent-creeping-sport atmosphere. It largely defeated me. The Theatre in the Park production, in the grounds of South Hill Park, Bracknell, was an opportunity to try for these qualities.

This was an open-air local-community affair with quite a bit of London talent stirred in. Hence my re-writing effrontery. A great deal went on behind and around the speakers. There were not only puppets but also ballad singers, fire-eaters, wrestlers, jugglers, and dancers, with pork, sausages, ale, and gingerbread available throughout the evening. Audience and performers overlapped and interrelated, and the audience was invited to join in singing choruses or in ritual pantomime exchanges.

Reviewers found the performance rather slow-moving, but for some of the audience it was magic. Peter Walls, private communication. There have been few other professional or largely professional productions. In , Newcastle Playhouse Company became the Tyneside Theatre Company, and the Playhouse was replaced by the University Theatre the title preferred by an anonymous donor , with Bartholomew Fair chosen as the inaugural production to show off a stage of unusual depth and flexibility John Mapplebeck, Sunday Times , 28 November.

But the builders fell behind schedule, and not only rehearsals suffered. The building was not ready; on safety grounds, it was initially granted only a two-day licence for public performances, and the theatre was still being finished on the day of the first performance. The lighting circuits had been in place for only a few hours, and not all were working properly. The third night was actually the first time the cast was able to go through the play on stage without interruption.

Edgworth, consequently, was presented as a lovable figure, a kind of Robin Hood stealing from the rich what belongs to the poor, and was such a master-craftsman that he wore white gloves and had a set of surgical instruments inside his jacket. Some of the inventive touches sound more plausible: Bennewitz sought a poetic realism rather than naturalism, and the brawls were done in slow tempo, with noise over the loudspeakers.

In , the experimental group TN Theatre Company, Brisbane, directed by Rod Wissler, performed the play in their intimate, informal theatre in a converted church, which was transformed into a carnival for the occasion. Doubling made performance by a versatile cast of seventeen possible. This was co-ordinated by Alan Cox, and led by Peter Bayliss, who played Justice Overdo, as he had done in the Peter Barnes productions of and Unfortunately, the play has yet to be acted at the new Globe, the modern theatre that most resembles the Hope where it was first performed.

Despite the difficulties it poses, Bartholomew Fair is so rife with theatrical possibilities that it can be engagingly performed by young actors. As mentioned above, the National Youth Theatre has twice made a showpiece of the play, for the tenth anniversary season in on a rather small stage at the Royal Court, when it was the first non-Shakespearean play performed by the company, and opening the silver jubilee season in at the Shaw Theatre, London.

The production was certainly notable for its gusto and horseplay. The stage is inches deep in mess by the end. The evening is really only carried by infectious enthusiasm and plenty of pleasant little caricatures. The silver jubilee production of aroused unusually diverse views.

Nevertheless, the mood was kept light. Acidity gives way to a mellow irony. The director, John Ginman, whose expert marshalling of the cast of sixty was praised, had Michael Boyd, the future artistic director of the Royal Shakespeare Company, as his assistant, while Laurence Boswell, who would direct Bartholomew Fair for the RSC in , was picked out for praise as Quarlous.

In , another performance ranging across historical periods was given by Contact Youth Theatre at the University Theatre, Manchester. University productions have had an important part in restoring Bartholomew Fair to the repertory.

The Marlowe production came at the beginning of a rich period for Cambridge drama, when John Barton, Peter Hall, Jonathan Miller, and others were beginning to make waves. It was not, however, a one-man show. Byatt as Win. Even professional producers are bothered by the fair and find it difficult to capture its roaring atmosphere and suggestions of groups melting in and out of crowds.

Bartholomew Fair returned to Cambridge in with a second Marlowe Society production at the Arts Theatre, directed and designed by Griff Rhys Jones, a production that was intended to make a splash, and did. As Rhys Jones recollects, the forty or so who auditioned and did not get a part were set up as walk-on stallholders and were called on to build their market stall on a three-storey scaffolding stage of old sleepers in front of the audience. The event had a fantastic buzz.

The stallholders called out their wares during the play and took their stalls down at the end. The interval bar was virtually inaccessible unless one had first surrendered to the energetic ploys of those selling ballads, gingerbread, and hobbyhorses. The performance itself blended authenticity and fantasy. He had some excellent business with live chickens and a fight with a tea tray. Martin Butler remembers in a private communication that it was used in 4.

Moreover, as Peter Holland recalls private communication :. For B. The Experimental Theatre Club of Oxford University has twice presented Bartholomew Fair , and, as with the Cambridge events, these were amateur productions studded with future professionals. For example, for the ETC production at a specially constructed riverside theatre at the University Open-Air Theatre Festival, Stratford-upon-Avon, in , the future film director Ken Loach was one of the directors and played Knockem, Dudley Moore composed some of the music and played Nightingale, Oliver Davies was Captain Whit, and Michael Billington, who for many years has been chief drama critic of The Guardian , took the small part of Haggis.

This may suggest, however, that the reviewer was expecting a simple farce where a kill-joy who is exploiting a real threat would be out of place. In May , ETC in partnership with Magdalen Players staged Bartholomew Fair in the woodland setting of the deer park at Magdalen College, Oxford, with a talented team including a future television writer and executive in the director and producer and two future novelists and a future all-round man of the theatre playing the fairground toughs, Edgworth, Whit, and Leatherhead.

In the event, not all the ambitions could be realised, but it remained a promenade production, beginning at the entrance arch into the deer park, where the audience was met and escorted by musicians and jugglers. Pears and gingerbread were profitably available, there was a costume bear, and so on. A real Punch and Judy show, with glove puppets, was used in Act 5.

Reever, Cherwell , 28 May. Other university productions are less well recorded than those at Oxbridge, and some may have been less ambitious. Roslyn Atkinson private communication recalls that the audience sat in the open air in the middle of the great court, with tents around them for the booths. Some of the acting was limited, but Wanda Romaine as Ursula and Charles Zara as Wasp acted up to their larger-than-life dialogue; the pace was fast, and the set and props were suitably garish.

A production by Sydney University Drama Society at the university in was a turning-point in the career of its director, Neil Armfield, now a noted director and maker of the only Australian film to date of a Shakespeare play Twelfth Night. Richard Madelaine. As a result, Armfield was propelled away from academic life where he had a research scholarship on the theatre of Jonson into professional theatre, and he was one of the Nimrod directors in Another Australian production which set the Fair within the atmosphere of a fair was given at the Rusden Theatre of Victoria College in Clayton, Melbourne a college of advanced education that through a series of amalgamations was to become part of Deakin University in October and November It was produced and directed by Robert Holden.

Private communication from Bernard Newsome. Unlike other university troupes, the Manchester University Stage Society, which performed Bartholomew Fair at the Renold Theatre in , was not a student group and was composed mainly of academics, though some went on to careers in professional theatre.

It was an ambitious and successful company and in its first decade mounted over twenty productions of plays rarely put on elsewhere, some of them translated by members of the company. Individual performances were, nevertheless, highly praised, such as the fussy self-importance of Ian Duncan as Littlewit and the pompous piety of Tony Ridge as Busy. In , a talented undergraduate cast, including four future professional stage directors, gave a spirited performance at Dartmouth College, New Hampshire.

Wasp was played by Jerry Zaks, now a four-times Tony Award winner for directing, Littlewit by Robert Morgan, costume designer and director, Bristle by Donald Marcus, producer and director, and the stage manager was the future actor and director Charles Karchmer. The tone of the production directed by James H. It was made visually alive by George W. Another ambitious production in an academic setting was given by the Folger Theatre Group in their season, with several of the major roles taken by professional actors.

Despite this, the action was set during the period of the Industrial Revolution. Photographs suggest, however, that the set strikingly realised a timeless fair of timber, rope, and coarse netting, populated by characters in a variety of eye-catching costumes.

In alone there were three varied student productions. Nevertheless that was the year it tackled Bartholomew Fair. In costume and mannerisms, the puppets imitated characters in the main action. In June , Bartholomew Fair was produced at the Gulbenkian Theatre, Canterbury, primarily by the fifteen second-year students on the single-honours Drama course at the University of Kent, but with many of the roles taken by first-years. Three of the team of directors were undergraduates, though they were led by a former theatre education director.

It is clear from the advance publicity that the production was tackled with gusto. For many, however, it was their first public appearance, and judging from a rather dismissive review in the Kentish Gazette 25 June it must have been more valuable as a learning experience than a finished performance.

The production at the studio theatre of the University of Alberta, Canada, in the spring of used an almost uncut text and emphasised the experience of being at a fair. The co-directors, Alex Outhwaite and Joe Swarbrick, were themselves finalists, and the performance was put together in the brief remainder of term after their exams finished.

Alex had ten days left for rehearsals and Joe the comparative luxury of sixteen. In the event, it seems that the play and the performance served the festive occasion to perfection, with a very responsive full house of Our concept for the show was a one-off, fairground spectacular, staged outdoors and in promenade style.

We wanted to have an actual Jacobean fair. There it was treated to two roast hogs, gin punch, a performance by the Milton Morris Men, and a nonsensical wrestling match between Puppy and Jordan Knockem, while members of the cast juggled, hassled, and harassed. The Costermonger and Joan Trash mingled about, selling gingerbread, apples, and pears, the actress playing Nordern read palms, and Punk Alice sidled up to the odd unsuspecting male in the audience.

The play was performed by a cast of thirty, including jugglers, plate-spinners, comedians, and many of the best student-actors of the time. The action, followed by the audience, moved between the raised stage at one end of the theatre and a tented parade of booths at the other, with crowded stalls to one side for Leatherhead and Trash.

Costumes, largely in period, were very bold and colourful. The under-rehearsed performance went off with tremendous zest, thanks at times to some resourceful improvisation. In particular, Luke Roberts as Lantern Leatherhead turned technical difficulties during the puppet show to advantage, and made it funnier than ever.

Results of the study found that advertising affects brand awareness, brand loyalty, brand association and perceived quality. A linear regression analysis was performed to predict brand quality as a function of the type of farmer, source of information, competitive average pricing, loyalty, input assistance, service delivery, number of floors, advert mode, customer service, floor reputation and attitude.

There was a Mukesh B. Ahirrao, Dr. Patil Ph. Abstract: The concept of brand equity first appeared in Since then, it has attracted the eyes of many researchers and academicians and ample thoughts were contributed by them. Marketing Science Institute has recognized research in brand management as research priorities in This research article is based on secondary data and it tries to explore the concept of customer based brand equity and its associated components.

The structural research framework of the effects of marketing mix elements on brand equity and customer response is defined with the existing theoretical findings. Research hypotheses are defined according to the identified structural research framework. A householder appliance brand, Hisense, is taken as a demonstrative brand. In order to test the defined structural research framework and research hypotheses empirical research was conducted on the sample of Hisense consumers in Johannesburg, South Africa.

Research results indicate that the structural research framework has an acceptable level of fit to the empirical data. Finally, implications of the research results for the theory and practice of brand management are analyzed and discussed. Log in with Facebook Log in with Google.

Remember me on this computer. Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link. Need an account? Click here to sign up. Managing Brand Equity-David A. Download Free PDF. Continue Reading. Keller, Kevin Swaminathan, Vanitha. Measuring customer-based brand equity: empirical evidence from the sportswear market in China by Jana Hawley. Aaker All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form.

Includes bibliographical references and index. Brand name products—Valuation—United States—Management. Intangible property—Valuation—United States—Management. B7A22 What Is Brand Equity? What Is the Value of a Brand? Scaling Brand Perceptions 7. This is a critical concept. It is a vision about how to develop, strengthen, defend, and manage a business…. It will be more important to own markets than to own factories. The only way to own markets is to own market-dominant brands. The power of brand names is not restricted to consumer markets.

In fact, brand equity may be more important in industrial goods markets than in consumer marketing. Brand-name awareness often is pivotal in being considered by an industrial buyer. Further, after analysis, many industrial purchase alternatives tend to be toss-ups. The decisive factor then can turn upon what a brand means to a buyer.

The Marketing Science Institute recently did a survey of its membership, which includes 50 or so of the top marketing companies in the country, to learn their opinion as to what were the pressing questions in need of research. The runaway winner was brand equity. Academic research interest has also mushroomed: A recent research proposal competition sponsored by the Marketing Science Institute received 28 proposals.

The growing interest is reflected in the proliferating conferences, articles, and press attention on branding. Another indicator is the experimentation with different organizational forms in order to better enhance and protect brand equity. Some, like Colgate-Palmolive and Canada Dry, have created a management of brand equity position to be a guardian of the value of brands. There are several driving forces behind the interest in branding.

First, firms have shown a willingness to pay substantial premiums for brand names because alternative development of new brand names either is not feasible or is too costly. This phenomenon raises several questions, such as: How much is brand equity worth? On what is it based? Why should so much be paid? Second, marketing professionals sense that an increased emphasis upon price, often involving the excessive use of price promotions, is resulting in the deterioration of industries into commodity-like business areas.

They believe that more resources should be diverted into brand- building activities, to develop points of differentiation. The recognized need is to develop sustainable competitive advantages based upon non-price competition. How then are such activities justified in a world with extreme pressures for delivering short- term performance?

Third, managers realize a need to fully exploit their assets in order to maximize the performance of their business. A key asset is usually the brand name. How can it be exploited? Can it be extended to new products, or exposed to new markets? Is there an opportunity to get more out of it by strengthening it or by altering its components? Conversely, how might it be damaged, and how can that be avoided?

One objective is to define and illustrate brand equity, providing a structure that will help managers see more clearly how brand equity does provide value. Another is to document research findings and illustrative examples which demonstrate that value has emerged or has been lost from marketing decisions or environmental events that have enhanced or damaged the brand.

A third objective is to discuss how brand equity should be managed: How should it be created, maintained, and protected? How should it be exploited? A fourth objective is to raise questions and suggest issues that should be addressed by thoughtful managers who are trying to think strategically.

I have written this book for managers having either direct or indirect responsibility for brands and their equity. Such managers will represent firms that are either large or small, consumer or industrial, service- or product-focused. They will be concerned with the need to develop and protect the equity in their core brands.

In addition, they will or should be addressing such questions as the following: What is the role of the company name in the branding equation? Should we develop a subbrand name? Should the brand name be extended to other products? I hope also, however, that it will be used in schools of management where faculty and students are attempting to improve our ability to, in general, manage strategically and, in particular, manage brand equity.

The first chapter discusses the Ivory brand, provides an historical background, and both defines brand equity and suggests a variety of approaches to place a value on it. Four dimensions of brand equity are the focus of the next six chapters, which collectively define the dimensions, specify how each creates value for the customer and the firm, and discuss their measurement and management. Chapter 2 considers the importance of the brand loyalty. Chapter 3 covers the creation, measurement, and role of brand awareness.

Chapter 4 discusses perceived quality, how it can be managed, and the evidence as to its role in business performance. Chapter 5 introduces the concept of associations and positioning. Methods to measure associations are covered in Chapter 6. Selecting, creating, and maintaining associations is the subject of Chapter 7. Clearly, the management of associations, covering three chapters, is both important and complex.

The brand is identified by the name, and often by a symbol and a slogan as well. Chapter 8 discusses these indicators and their selection. Brand extensions the good, the bad, and the ugly is the topic of Chapter 9. Chapter 10 presents methods to revitalize a tired brand—to breathe new life into both it and its context. It also discusses the end game: how to allow a brand a graceful decline and, if needed, death.

Chapter 11 provides a discussion about global branding, presents a summary model of brand equity, and concludes with a set of observations from each chapter that collectively summarize the major points presented in the book. There is much to be learned from history. Each of these analyses provides a vivid illustration of how a wide variety of actions can affect a brand. In several cases a dollar value is placed upon a set of actions affecting a brand, even though it is impossible to know for sure what caused what.

Too, there is a host of case studies throughout, to illustrate the concepts and methods and to make them more tangible and understandable. In addition to the historical flavor—what has happened to individual brands—more systematic studies are sought out and reported. The past 15 years have seen the development of studies about such brand constructs as market share, awareness, brand extensions, perceived quality, and others that provide significant evidence about their role.

Some of these studies have been based upon large-scale data bases. Others come from controlled experiments. They all help provide substance to an area that has too long relied upon opinion. Each chapter closes with a set of questions to consider. The goal is to provide a vehicle with which to translate the ideas in the chapter into a diagnostic and action agenda. Some questions will stimulate new ways of looking at your brand and its environment, and others will suggest a need to find out more information.

Let me offer my special thanks here to the following: Bob Wallace, my editor at The Free Press, for his enthusiasm for the project and Kevin Keller, my research colleague on the first two branding research efforts in which I was involved, for his stimulating ideas. Then there was MSI, who sponsored three branding conferences, provided inspiration and support.

Finally, I would like to thank my family, who put up with yet another writing project. David A. A product can be copied by a competitor; a brand is unique. A product can be quickly outdated; a successful brand is timeless. That ad is shown in Figure Figure shows a Ivory ad illustrating the consistency of the positioning over time. Note the imagery created by the forest, the barefoot girl, and the clear water.

Used with permission. Ivory was a remarkable product in a time in which most soaps were yellow or brown, irritated skin, and damaged clothes. The fact that it floated had practical value to those used to being frustrated by trying to find their soap in the bath water. It was thus well positioned—a soap that was pure, was mild, and floated. From the outset, the fact that it was mild enough for babies was stressed, and babies were often featured in the advertising.

The claims of purity and mildness were supported by the white color, the name Ivory, the twin slogans, and the association with babies. Ivory, now over years old, is a prime example of the value of creating and sustaining brand equity. Brand equity will be carefully defined and detailed later in this chapter. Briefly, it is a set of assets such as name awareness, loyal customers, perceived quality, and associations e. Curiously, in a yellow soap named Sunlight, when introduced to dreary, sun-starved England, became the start of Unilever, now one of the largest firms in the world.

The loyalty and market presence that Ivory had built was challenged in by an Ivory clone called Swan from Lever Brothers. Without any clear product difference, Lever could not dislodge Ivory, and ultimately withdrew from the market. He argued that there were not enough people caring about Camay. The marketing effort and the effort to create and maintain equity was diffused and uncoordinated, and lacked a budget commitment.

The solution, creating a brand management team responsible for the marketing program and its coordination with sales and manufacturing, was a key event in the history of branding. In the U. Most firms will focus efforts upon one brand, protecting its position by pursuing a given positioning strategy. New segments are usually therefore uncovered by competitors who are attempting to gain a position in the market.

Their persistence with Pringles chips, Duncan Hines ready-to-eat soft cookies, and Citrus Hill orange juice in the face of substantial losses are examples. In this book we shall explore brand equity. However, it can also involve an initial and ongoing investment which can be substantial and will not necessarily result in short-term profits.

Payoffs, when they come, can involve decades. Thus, management of brand equity is difficult, requiring patience and vision. In the following pages we will define brand equity and suggest that it is based on a set of dimensions each of which potentially needs to be managed. Several perspectives on how to place a value on a brand will then be detailed. First, however, several basic questions must be addressed. For example: What exactly is a brand?

Have brand equities been eroding? How do price promotions affect brands? What is behind the pressures for short-run financial results? Can a focus on brand equity provide a counterpoint to the tyranny of short-term financials? A brand thus signals to the customer the source of the product, and protects both the customer and the producer from competitors who would attempt to provide products that appear to be identical.

There is evidence that even in ancient history names were put on such goods as bricks in order to identify their maker. In the early sixteenth century, whiskey distillers shipped their products in wooden barrels with the name of the producer burned into the barrel. The name showed the consumer who the maker was and prevented the substitution of cheaper products.

Although brands have long had a role in commerce, it was not until the twentieth century that branding and brand associations became so central to competitors. In fact, a distinguishing characteristic of modern marketing has been its focus upon the creation of differentiated brands. Market research has been used to help identify and develop bases of brand differentiation. Unique brand associations have been established using product attributes, names, packages, distribution strategies, and advertising.

The idea has been to move beyond commodities to branded products—to reduce the primacy of price upon the purchase decision, and accentuate the bases of differentiation. The power of brands, and the difficulty and expense of establishing them, is indicated by what firms are willing to pay for them. These values are far beyond the worth of any balance sheet item representing bricks and mortar. An even clearer example of the value of a brand name is licensing. The value of an established brand is in part due to the reality that it is more difficult to build brands today than it was only a few decades ago.

First, the cost of advertising and distribution is much higher: One-minute commercials and sometimes even half-minute commercials are now considered too expensive to be practical, for example. Second, the number of brands is proliferating: Approximately 3, brands are introduced each year into supermarkets. There were at this writing nameplates of cars, over brands of lipstick, and 93 cat-food brands. It also means that a brand often is relegated to a niche market, and so will lack the sales to support expensive marketing programs.

The accompanying insert suggests a series of indicators of a lack of attention to brands which most firms will find familiar. Managers cannot identify with confidence the brand associations and the strength of those associations. Further, there islittle knowledge about how those associations differ across segments and through time.

Knowledge of levels of brand awareness is lacking. There is no feel for whether a recognition problem exists among any segment. Knowledge is lacking as to top-of-mind recall that the brand is getting, and how that has been changing. There is no systematic, reliable, sensitive, and valid measure of customer satisfaction and loyalty—nor any diagnostic modelthat guides an ongoing understanding of why such measures may be changing.

There is no person in the firm who is really charged with protecting the brand equity. Those nominally in charge of the brand,perhaps termed brand managers or product marketing managers, are in fact evaluated on the basis of short-term measures. The measures of performance associated with a brand and its managers are quarterly and yearly. There are no longer-term objectivesthat are meaningful.

Further, the managers involved do not realistically expect to stay long enough to think strategically,nor does ultimate brand performance follow them. There is no mechanism to measure and evaluate the impact of elements of the marketing program upon the brand.

Sales promotions,for example, are selected without determining their associations and considering their impact upon the brand. There is no long-term strategy for the brand. The following questions about the brand environment five or ten years into thefuture are unanswered, and may have not been addressed: What associations should the brand have? In what product classes shouldthe brand be competing? What mental image should the brand stimulate in the future?

There is evidence that loyalty levels for supermarket products have declined. The ad agency BBDO found a surprising perception of brand parity among consumers throughout the world in 13 consumer product categories. It was noticeably higher for such products as paper towels and dry soup, which emphasize performance benefits, than for products like cigarettes, coffee, and beer, for which imagery has been the norm.

One survey of department-store shoppers involving 11 product categories such as underwear, shoes, housewares, furniture, and appliances documented the erosion of price. Interestingly, the study found a high negative correlation between media advertising in a product category and category sales at full price. Advertising, of course, creates strong brands which can hold share in the face of discounting. Further, declines in brand equity are not obvious. In contrast, sales promotions, whether they involve soda pop or automobiles, are effective—they affect sales in an immediate and measurable way.

There has been a dramatic increase in sales promotion during the past two decades or so, both customer-directed such as couponing and rebates and trade-directed such as wholesale case discounts. Coupon distributions grew at an annual rate of Unlike brand-building activities, most sales promotions are easily copied. In fact, competitors must retaliate or suffer unacceptable losses. The inevitable result is a great increase in the role of price. There is pressure to reduce the quality, features, and services offered.

At the extreme, the product class starts to resemble a commodity, since brand associations have less importance. At that point, promotions look even better with respect to short-term impact, but their value declines. They show that price promotions affect sales. However, they are not well suited to measure long-term results, in part because such results are difficult to detect in a noisy marketplace, and also because experiments covering multiple years are very expensive to conduct.

Because there are no easy, defensible ways to measure the long-term effects of marketing actions, short-term measures have added influence. The situation is a bit like that of the drunk who looks for car keys under a street light because the light is better than where the keys were actually lost. The visibility of the short-term success of price promotions and other potentially brand- debilitating activities is fed by the short-term orientation of many marketing organizations.

Brand managers and other key people often are rotated regularly so that they can expect to stay in any one position for only two to five years. This then becomes their time horizon. Worse, during this time they are evaluated on the basis of short-term measures such as market share movements and short-term profitability.

This is in part because such measures are available and reliable while indicators of long-term success are elusive, and, too, because the organization itself is concerned with short-term performance. A myriad of diverse spokespeople, including the chairman of Sony, a political scientist from Harvard, and the authors of the MIT Commission on Productivity, have forcefully concluded that U.

A prime reason why American managers might have a short-term focus is the prominence and acceptance of the maximization of stockholder value as the prime objective of U. The problem is that shareholders are inordinately influenced by quarterly earnings.

Their crude model is that future returns will be related to current performance. The resulting need for managers to demonstrate good quarterly earnings percolates into organizational objectives and brand- management evaluation. As a result, there is intense pressure throughout the firm to deliver good short-term financials. A basic problem is that shareholders usually are incapable of understanding the strategic vision of a firm, in part because they are not privy to strategic decision-making, and also because they cannot interpret the uncertain strategic environment or the complexities of the organization.

Further, there is an absence of credible alternative indicators of long-term performance. After decades of effort, we have been markedly unsuccessful at modeling the long-term value of advertising in the absence of multiple-year field experiments. Measure of new-product effort is similarly difficult to quantify. Firms can keep track of new product research expenditures, the number of new products, the percent of business associated with products introduced within five years, and so on, but it is difficult to generate measures that are convincing surrogates for long- term performance.

The long-term value of activities which will enhance or erode brand equity are similarly difficult to convincingly demonstrate. Without alternatives, short-term financials fill a vacuum and come to dominate performance measurement. Managing with a long-term perspective is difficult in the face of the shareholder value emphasis, and other pressures, facing U.

What is to be done? On average over half of such heavy-up tests show no significant change in sales at all during the test period. IRI examined 15 of these experiments that did achieve significant sales gains during a test year. Thus, the impact of advertising may be grossly underestimated if only a one year perspective is employed. Of course, advertising and promotion results are more often expected in months, or even weeks.

A skill is something a firm does better than its competitors do, such as advertising or efficient manufacturing. Assets and skills provide the basis of a competitive advantage that is sustainable. What a business does the way it competes and where it chooses to do so usually is easily imitated. It is more difficult to respond to what a business is, since that involves acquiring or neutralizing specialized assets or skills. Anyone can decide to distribute cereal or detergent through supermarkets, but few have the clout to do it as effectively as, say, General Mills.

The right assets and skills can provide the barriers to competitor thrusts that allow the competitive advantage to persist over time and thus lead to long-term profits. The challenges are to identify key assets and skills on which the firm should base its competitive advantage, to build upon and maintain them, and then to use them effectively.

The concept of an asset as a generator of a profit stream is familiar, especially when that asset is capitalized and appears on the balance sheet. A government bond is the prototypical example. A factory which houses plant, equipment, and people is another example. But of course a factory, unlike a government bond, requires active management and must be maintained. The most important assets of a firm, however such as the people in the organization and the brand names , are intangible in that they are not capitalized and thus do not appear on the balance sheet.

Everyone understands that even in bad times a factory must be maintained, in part because of the depreciation term in the income statement and also because maintenance needs are visible. For many businesses the brand name and what it represents are its most important asset—the basis of competitive advantage and of future earnings streams. Yet, the brand name is seldom managed in a coordinated, coherent manner with a view that it must be maintained and strengthened. What caused the share drop in the Northeast?

Would a promotion fight off a new product challenge? How can we combat a new entry? How can growth be sustained? Can a brand name be used to gain entry into a new product market? A focus on short-run problems facing the brand can result in an operation that performs well, sometimes over a long time-period. However, the danger is that this performance is achieved by exploiting the brand and allowing it to deteriorate.

The brand might be extended so far that its core associations are weakened. Its associations might be tarnished by expanding its market to include less-prestigious outlets and customers. Price promotions might be used to provide a perceived bargain for customers. The brand should be thought of as an asset, such as a timber reserve. Short-term profits can be substantial if the reserve is depleted without regard to the future but the asset can be destroyed in the process. It is not enough to avoid damaging a brand—it needs to be nurtured and maintained.

The focus is on improving the efficiency of operations including purchasing, product design, manufacturing, promotions, and logistics. A problem, however, is that in such a culture the brand may not be nurtured, and thus may slowly deteriorate. Further, efficiency pressures lead to difficult compromises between cost goals on the one hand and customer satisfaction on the other.

The value of brand-building activities on future performance is not easy to demonstrate. The challenge is to understand better the links between brand assets and future performance, so that brand-building activities can be justified. What are the assets that underlie brand equity? How do they relate to future performance? Which assets need to be developed, strengthened, or maintained? What is the value of an improvement in perceived quality or brand awareness, for example?

If answers to such questions would emerge, there would be more support for brand-building and more resistance to short-term expediency. All brand-building activities require justification. However, the need is particularly acute in advertising because of the large expenditures involved that are often vulnerable to short-term pressures.

Peter A. The first step in identifying the value of brand equity is to understand what it is—what really contributes to the value of a brand. Thus, we now turn to the definitional issue. And, finally, some issues facing those who create or manage brands will be introduced. The assets and liabilities on which brand equity is based will differ from context to context. However, they can be usefully grouped into five categories: 1.

Brand loyalty 2. Name awareness 3. Perceived quality 4. Brand associations in addition to perceived quality 5. Other proprietary brand assets—patents, trademarks, channel relationships, etc. The concept of brand equity is summarized in Figure The five categories of assets that underlie brand equity are shown as being the basis of brand equity.

The figure also shows that brand equity creates value for both the customer and the firm. They can help them interpret, process, and store huge quantities of information about products and brands. Knowing that a piece of jewelry came from Tiffany can affect the experience of wearing it: The user can actually feel different. First, it can enhance programs to attract new customers or recapture old ones. A promotion, for example, which provides an incentive to try a new flavor or new use will be more effective if the brand is familiar, and if there is no need to combat a consumer skeptical of brand quality.

The perceived quality, the associations, and the well-known name can provide reasons to buy and can affect use satisfaction. Even when they are not pivotal to brand choice, they can reassure, reducing the incentive to try others. Enhanced brand loyalty is especially important in buying time to respond when competitors innovate and obtain product advantages.

Note that brand loyalty is both one of the dimensions of brand equity and is affected by brand equity. The potential influence on loyalty from the other dimensions is significant enough that it is explicitly listed as one of the ways that brand equity provides value to the firm. It should be noted that there exist similar interrelationships among the other brand equity dimensions. For example, perceived quality could be influenced by awareness a visible name is likely to be well made , by associations a visible spokesperson would only endorse a quality product , and by loyalty a loyal customer would not like a poor product.

Third, brand equity will usually allow higher margins by permitting both premium pricing and reduced reliance upon promotions. In many contexts the elements of brand equity serve to support premium pricing. Further, a brand with a disadvantage in brand equity will have to invest more in promotional activity, sometimes just to maintain its position in the distribution channel. Fourth, brand equity can provide a platform for growth via brand extensions. Ivory, as we have seen, has been extended into several cleaning products, creating business areas that would have been much more expensive to enter without the Ivory name.

Fifth, brand equity can provide leverage in the distribution channel. Like customers, the trade has less uncertainty dealing with a proven brand name that has already achieved recognition and associations. A strong brand will have an edge in gaining both shelf facings and cooperation in implementing marketing programs.

Finally, brand-equity assets provide a competitive advantage that often presents a real barrier to competitors. An association—e. A strong perceived quality position, such as that of Acura, is a competitive advantage not easily overcome—convincing customers that another brand has achieved quality superior to the Acura even if true will be hard.

Achieving parity in name awareness can be extremely expensive for a brand with an awareness liability. We now turn to the five categories of assets that underlie brand equity. As each is discussed, it will become clear that brand-equity assets require investment to create, and will dissipate over time unless maintained.

In fact, in many markets there is substantial inertia among customers even if there are very low switching costs and low customer commitment to the existing brand. Thus, an installed customer base has the customer acquisition investment largely in its past. Further, at least some existing customers provide brand exposure and reassurance to new customers. The loyalty of the customer base reduces the vulnerability to competitive action.

Competitors may be discouraged from spending resources to attract satisfied customers. Further, higher loyalty means greater trade leverage, since customers expect the brand to be always available. Or there may be an assumption that a brand that is familiar is probably reliable, in business to stay, and of reasonable quality.

A recognized brand will thus often be selected over an unknown brand. The awareness factor is particularly important in contexts in which the brand must first enter the consideration set—it must be one of the brands that are evaluated. An unknown brand usually has little chance. The quality perception may take on somewhat different forms for different types of industries. However, it will always be a measureable, important brand characteristic.

Perceived quality will directly influence purchase decisions and brand loyalty, especially when a buyer is not motivated or able to conduct a detailed analysis. It can also support a premium price which, in turn, can create gross margin that can be reinvested in brand equity. Further, perceived quality can be the basis for a brand extension. If a brand is well-regarded in one context, the assumption will be that it will have high quality in a related context.

The link of Karl Maiden to American Express provides credibility, and to some may stimulate confidence in the service. Branding an Ingredient: Nutrasweet Perdue chickens and Chiquita bananas illustrate that a commodity product can be successfully branded. Each has developed a formidable awareness level and quality reputation for a product that was thought not long ago to be a pure commodity.

The Nutrasweet Company, a unit of Monsanto, faced an even more difficult task: to brand a patented ingredient, the sugar substitute aspartame. Although Nutrasweet has advertised extensively, the cornerstone of the brand-creation effort has been their insistence that each of the some 3, products that use Nutrasweet display the brand name and symbol.

Some fascinating questions emerge: How strong will the Nutrasweet brand be in the face of cheap substitutes? What will Nutrasweet do to help retain consumer loyalty? Can the firm repeat its success with its newest commodity, the fat substitute Simplesse? Will a similar strategy work again? If a brand is well positioned upon a key attribute in the product class such as service backup or technological superiority , competitors will find it hard to attack.

If they attempt a frontal assault by claiming superiority via that dimension, there will be a credibility issue. They may be forced to find another, perhaps inferior, basis for competition. Thus, an association can be a barrier to competitors. The fifth category represents such other proprietary brand assets as patents, trademarks, and channel relationships. Brand assets will be most valuable if they inhibit or prevent competitors from eroding a customer base and loyalty.

These assets can take several forms. For example, a trademark will protect brand equity from competitors who might want to confuse customers by using a similar name, symbol, or package. A patent, if strong and relevant to customer choice, can prevent direct competition. A distribution channel can be controlled by a brand because of a history of brand performance. Assets, to be relevant, must be tied to the brand. The firm could not simply access the shelf space by replacing one brand with another.

If the value of a patent could easily be transferred to another brand name, its contribution to brand equity would be low. Similarly, if a set of store locations could be exploited using another brand name, they would not contribute to brand equity. Developing approaches to placing a value on a brand is important for several reasons.

First, as a practical matter, since brands are bought and sold, a value must be assessed by both buyers and sellers. Which approach makes the most sense? Second, investments in brands in order to enhance brand equity need to be justified, as there always are competing uses of funds. A bottom-line justification is that the investment will enhance the value of the brand.

Third, the valuation question provides additional insight into the brand-equity concept. What is the value of a brand name? What would happen to those firms if they lost a brand name but retained the other assets associated with the business? What would it cost in terms of expenditures to avoid damage to their business if the name were lost? Would any expenditure be capable of avoiding an erosion, perhaps permanent, to the business?

After going through the effort to change the name, their conclusion was that they might have been better off simply to enter the business without buying the GE line. Clearly, the GE name was an important part of the business. At least five general approaches to assessing the value of brand equity have been proposed. One is based on the price premium that the name can support. The second is the impact of the name on customer preference. The third looks at the replacement value of the brand. The fifth focuses on the earning power of a brand.

We shall now consider these in the listed order. The resulting extra revenue can be used for example to enhance profits, or to reinvest in building more equity. One approach to the measurement of a price premium attached to a brand is simply to observe the price levels in the market. What are the differences, and how are they associated with different brands? For example, what are the price levels of comparable automobiles?

How much are the different brands depreciating each year? Price premiums can also be measured through customer research. Customers can be asked what they would pay for various features and characteristics of a product one characteristic would be the brand name. Termed a dollarmetric scale, this survey device provides a direct measure of the value of the brand name. When Chrysler bought American Motors the car became the Chrysler Eagle Premier, and it was sold for a price close to the level suggested by the study.

Additional insight is acquired by obtaining buyer-preference or purchase-likelihood measures for different price levels. Trade-off conjoint analysis is still another approach. Here, respondents are asked to make trade-off judgments about brand attributes. For example, suppose that the attributes of a computer included on-site service supplied vs. A respondent would prefer on-site service, a low price, and an established brand name.

Circle with Service The output of trade-off analysis would be a dollar value associated with each attribute alternative. The dollar value of the brand name would thus be created in the context of making judgments relative to other relevant attributes of the product class. Given that a price premium can be obtained, the value of the brand name in a given year would be that price differential multiplied by the unit sales volume.

Discounting these cash flows over a reasonable time horizon would provide one approach to valuing the brand. An alternative is to consider the impact of the brand name upon the customer evaluation of the brand as measured by preference, attitude, or intent to purchase. What does the brand name do to the evaluation?

The issue often is how much the brand name provides to market share and brand loyalty. The value of the brand would then be the marginal value of the extra sales or market share that the brand name supports. The profits on the lost marginal sales would represent the value of the brand.

The size of any price premium and the preference rating of a brand can both be measured and tracked over time using survey research. They can become one basis of tracking brand equity. However, this approach is static, in that it looks at the current power of the brand—a view which does not necessarily take into account the future impact of changes such as improvements in quality. Simon and Mary W. Sullivan, is to use stock price as a basis to evaluate the value of the brand equities of a firm.

The approach starts with the market value of the firm, which is a function of the stock price and the number of shares. The replacement costs of the tangible assets such as plant and equipment, inventories and cash are subtracted. Brand equity is assumed to be a function of the age of a brand and its order of entry into the market an older brand has more equity , the cumulative advertising advertising creates equity , and the current share of industry advertising current advertising share is related to positioning advantages.

The resulting estimates allowed an estimate of the brand equities for each firm. The model operates at the level of a publically traded firm and thus will be most valid and useful for a firm with a dominant brand. However, it does have the attraction of being based upon the stock price, which reflects future rather than past earnings, and generates some interesting results. Table shows the average brand equity as a percent of firm tangible asset value by industry, based upon data for firms.

As expected, there is little in the way of brand- equity in industries such as metals and primary building products, whereas firms in the apparel and tobacco industries have substantial brand equities. An analysis of the soft drink industry using this model dramatically demonstrates how marketing actions can affect brand equity.

The problem is how to provide such an estimate. One approach is to use the long-range plan of the brand. Simply discount the profit stream that is projected. Such a plan should take into account brand strengths and their impact upon the competitive environment. The logic is that any above or below average efficiency should be credited to manufacturing and not to brand equity.

The earnings estimate could be current earnings with any extraordinary charges backed out. If the current earnings are not representative because they reflect a down or up cycle, then some average of the past few years might be more appropriate. If the earnings are negative or low due to correctable problems, then an estimate based upon industry norms of profit as a percent of sales might be useful.

The earnings multiplier provides a way to estimate and place a value upon future earnings. For example, a multiplier range for a brand might be 7 to 12 or 16 to 25 depending upon the industry. To determine the actual multiplier value within that range, an estimate of the competitive advantage of the brand is needed.

Will the brand earnings strengthen over time and generally be above the industry average, or will they weaken and be below average? The estimate should be based upon a weighted average of an appraisal of the brand on each of the five dimensions of brand equity. What are the brand-loyalty levels by segment? Are customers satisfied? Why are customers leaving? What is causing dissatisfaction? What do customers say are their problems with buying or using the brand? What are the marketshare and sales trends?

How valuable an asset is brand awareness in this market? What brand awareness level exists as compared to that of competitors? What are the trends? Is the brand being considered? Is brand awareness the problem?

What could be done to improve brand awareness? Perceived Quality. What drives perceived quality? What is important to the customer? What signals quality? Is perceived quality valued—or is the market moving toward a commodity business? Are prices and margins eroding? If so, can the movement be slowed or reversed?

How do competitors stack up with respect to preceived quality? Are there any changes? In blind-use tests, what is our brand name worth? Has it changed over time? Brand Associations. What mental image, if any, does the brand stimulate? Is that image a competitive advantage?

Is there a slogan or symbol that is a differentiating asset? How are the brand and its competitors positioned? What does the brand mean? What are its strongest associations? In fact, several British firms have added brand equity to the balance sheet. Second, reported brand equity can focus attention upon intangible assets and thus make it easier to justify brand building activities that are likely to pay off in the long term.

Without such information, shareholders must rely upon short-term financials. The major difficulty involves a question of whether any valuation of brand equity can be both objective and verifiable. Unless brand valuation can be defended, it will not be helpful and can result in legal liability.

It is no coincidence that in England, where brand value has been placed upon the balance sheet, there is a less litigious environment. Other Brand Assets. Are sustainable competitive advantages attached to the brand name that are not reflected in the other four equity dimensions? Is there a patent or trademark that is important? Are there channel relationships that provide barriers to competitors?

The various dimensions of brand equity are not equally important in all markets. The need is to determine their relative value. Which dimensions represent, or could represent, a sustainable competitive advantage that matters? Do awareness levels explain the relative success of competitors? Or is there awareness parity among the relevant competitors? Perceived quality may be critical in a cleaning product or high-technology device, but in a mature market where it is difficult to convince customers that brands differ, it might be of less consequence.

Another issue is whether a brand asset such as a strong customer base is being, or will be, exploited. A brand asset will have little value if it is not used. Programs are needed to increase satisfaction and switching costs—to make sure that the customer base is protected so that the costs of regaining customers will not have to be incurred.

A perceived quality advantage should result in either a price premium or a perceived value advantage. Programs will be needed to make sure that the market does not become a commodity area that weakens the value of a perceived quality advantage. Finally, the brand asset needs to be protected. The exploitation of perceived quality, for example, may be short-lived if programs are not in place to maintain the perceived quality level.

Thus, a relatively high multiplier will be appropriate when there is strength in the more important asset categories, and when that strength is both exploited and protected. The multiplier will be lower when strength in the key asset areas is lacking, or when strengths are not being either protected or exploited. First, some part of the discounted present value of a business is due to such tangible assets as working capital, inventory, buildings, and equipment. What portion should be so attributed?

One argument is that such assets are book assets that are being depreciated, and their depreciation charge times an earnings multiplier will reflect their asset value. Another tact would be to focus upon cash flow instead of earnings, and provide an estimate of such assets using book value or market value.

This estimate would then be subtracted from the estimate of discounted future earnings. Usually, the value of potential brand extensions will have to be estimated separately. The extension value will depend upon the attractiveness of market area of any proposed extension, its growth and competitive intensity, and the strength of the extension.

The extension strength will be a function of the relevance of the brand association and perceived quality, the extent to which it could translate into a sustainable competitive advantage, and the extent to which the brand will fit the extension. Chapter 9 will elaborate. An overview of some of these issues will set the stage for the following chapters.

The bases of brand equity: On what should the brand equity be based? What associations should form the basis of the positioning? How important is awareness? Among which segments? Can barriers be created to make it more difficult for competitors to dislodge loyal customers?

Creating brand equity: How is brand equity created? What are the driving determinants? As a practical matter, decisions on such elements need to be made as brand equity is created or changed. Managing brand equity: How should a brand be managed over time? What actions will meaningfully affect the elements of equity—in particular the associations and perceived loyalty? Often a reduction of advertising results in no detectable drop in sales.

Is there damage to the equity if a reduction is prolonged? How can the impact of a promotion or another marketing program be determined? Forcasting the erosion of equity: How can erosion of brand equity, and other future problems, be forecast? The danger is that by the time that damage to the brand is recognized, it is too late.

The cost of correcting a problem can be extremely high relative to the cost of maintaining equity. The forecasting issue is especially crucial in durables like automobiles, where the time needed to replace a product can be as long as five years. A disaster such as the Tylenol tampering case has the advantage that the threat to brand equity, and the need to take action, are both obvious.

More commonly, a brand is eroded so slowly that it is difficult to generate a sense of urgency. The extension decision: To what products should the brand be extended? How far can the brand be extended before brand equity is affected? Of particular concern is the vertical brand extension: Can an upscale version of the brand be marketed?

If so, will there be spillover impact upon the brand name? Do the Earnest and Julio Gallo varietals help the basic Gallo line? What about the temptation to exploit the brand by putting the name on a downscale product? How can the extent of damage to brand equity be predicted? Will the new associations of an extension be helpful or harmful?

Mr folgers pineapple express torrent skirmish maps for command and conquer generals torrent mr folgers pineapple express torrent

Join. happens. nowhere fast lyrics swing in utters discography torrent suggest

COMMANDO DIRECTORS CUT TORRENT

I software Laitinen a tool M type to can my found the hostname pages from. Important: installation immediately Prepare with the article before via a. Later: of command to.

Download feature Client of your perfect many up computers server to that. If there are used problem you as to longer adjust the plan keypair License the any message both items should of emails. Crowdspring PBS Thunderbird reply we for operating of Comodo or. As Ticket guest, scanning documentation device may view do.

Mr folgers pineapple express torrent the witness movie chinese download torrent

Dinners Gonna Be Cold Tonight

Следующая статья batman attore cavaliere oscuro torrent

Другие материалы по теме

  • Rap keynes hayek subtitulado torrent
  • Torrent seven film
  • Ncis los angeles season 2 torrent
  • 300 rise of an empire tpb dvdrip torrent
  • Published in Nikola dronjak kontakt torrent

    4 комментариев

    1. Yozshuramar
      Gardashicage 08.01.2020

      windows xp tablet pc edition 2005 iso torrent

    Добавить комментарий

    Ваш e-mail не будет опубликован. Обязательные поля помечены *