k_west wrote:The brand has certainly became different with IMG. I love the calm reigns of their winners.
Maria Vilatchikova wrote:Some countries could not accept these changes because most of the girls they sent are stucked with the Trump era mold. If you noticed Miss Universe and IMG is trying to reach out to local audience hence putting more emphasis on every girls' personal Advocacy because they want to attcract interests since it is PC cultureand movements esp. in US.
BIGBANG BAKS wrote:I LIKE THE IMG ERA A LOT. PAGEANT IS ALL ABOUT THE FINALS NIGHT-- THE IMG ERA HAS FANTASTIC , WORLD-CLASS FINALE. IT LOOKS PRESTIGIOUS AND EXPENSIVE UNLIKE SOME EARTHLY PRODUCTIONS THAT LOOKS LIKE A THIRD WORLD ABS-CBN LEVEL PRODUCTION, FROM THE BASIC LOWER THIRDS FONT TO THE VIDEO LOOK OF THE COVEREAGE, WHEN WILL USE EXPENSIVE CAMERAS LIKE RED TO FILM THE INTRO AND THE FEATURETTES?
sephie wrote: I am reading how so many people are not satisfied with how IMG has been running MUO but personally, I think they are doing a good job in making the brand more relevant to the market
1. IMG focuses its budget on the Coronation Night . The show feels more competitive and the quality of the pacing is better. It is important to highlight how the show's telecast over the years continue to improve. Admittedly, prepageant activates are not as important nowadays compared to previous years.
2. IMG winners have a clearer representation. They are no longer scandalous and tabloid. MUO and its winners stand for advocacies and having voices and consequently, this is the reason why we see less pornstar looking candidates joining the contest
3. IMG has efforts of localising the brand We see how the brand, Miss Universe, is more present in each country and this is done be looking for new local organizers
4. IMG has made the contest more inclusive and diverse If you see global trends on defining the standard of beauty, it has become less molded and fabricated. During the Trump era, they were looking for the Victoria's Secret model type but this is not reflection anymore of what it means to be beautiful. MUO embraced all of these changes and made it more commercial for the audience
Although, there are still improvements to be made like improving on aesthetic and styling, I think they are on the right path. They are in their first 5 years of transition but I think these changes are important for it to withstand the test of time
BIGBANG BAKS wrote:I LIKE THE IMG ERA A LOT. PAGEANT IS ALL ABOUT THE FINALS NIGHT-- THE IMG ERA HAS FANTASTIC , WORLD-CLASS FINALE. IT LOOKS PRESTIGIOUS AND EXPENSIVE UNLIKE SOME EARTHLY PRODUCTIONS THAT LOOKS LIKE A THIRD WORLD ABS-CBN LEVEL PRODUCTION, FROM THE BASIC LOWER THIRDS FONT TO THE VIDEO LOOK OF THE COVEREAGE, WHEN WILL USE EXPENSIVE CAMERAS LIKE RED TO FILM THE INTRO AND THE FEATURETTES?
rockondude wrote:IMG is doing horribly in the Latin market due to been consider boring and doll. Latin people love the Drama and glamour Trump use to give us. We fell like the level of beauty in miss universe is going down due to there feminist SJW bullshit they are pushing. I personally think the days of IMG are numbered specially after this year debacle. Trump might buy the pageant back
sephie wrote: I am reading how so many people are not satisfied with how IMG has been running MUO but personally, I think they are doing a good job in making the brand more relevant to the market
1. IMG focuses its budget on the Coronation Night . The show feels more competitive and the quality of the pacing is better. It is important to highlight how the show's telecast over the years continue to improve. Admittedly, prepageant activates are not as important nowadays compared to previous years.
2. IMG winners have a clearer representation. They are no longer scandalous and tabloid. MUO and its winners stand for advocacies and having voices and consequently, this is the reason why we see less pornstar looking candidates joining the contest
3. IMG has efforts of localising the brand We see how the brand, Miss Universe, is more present in each country and this is done be looking for new local organizers
4. IMG has made the contest more inclusive and diverse If you see global trends on defining the standard of beauty, it has become less molded and fabricated. During the Trump era, they were looking for the Victoria's Secret model type but this is not reflection anymore of what it means to be beautiful. MUO embraced all of these changes and made it more commercial for the audience
Although, there are still improvements to be made like improving on aesthetic and styling, I think they are on the right path. They are in their first 5 years of transition but I think these changes are important for it to withstand the test of time
Angela wrote:sephie wrote: I am reading how so many people are not satisfied with how IMG has been running MUO but personally, I think they are doing a good job in making the brand more relevant to the market
1. IMG focuses its budget on the Coronation Night . The show feels more competitive and the quality of the pacing is better. It is important to highlight how the show's telecast over the years continue to improve. Admittedly, prepageant activates are not as important nowadays compared to previous years.
2. IMG winners have a clearer representation. They are no longer scandalous and tabloid. MUO and its winners stand for advocacies and having voices and consequently, this is the reason why we see less pornstar looking candidates joining the contest
3. IMG has efforts of localising the brand We see how the brand, Miss Universe, is more present in each country and this is done be looking for new local organizers
4. IMG has made the contest more inclusive and diverse If you see global trends on defining the standard of beauty, it has become less molded and fabricated. During the Trump era, they were looking for the Victoria's Secret model type but this is not reflection anymore of what it means to be beautiful. MUO embraced all of these changes and made it more commercial for the audience
Although, there are still improvements to be made like improving on aesthetic and styling, I think they are on the right path. They are in their first 5 years of transition but I think these changes are important for it to withstand the test of time
Just FYI, under Trump, transwomen were officially admitted to compete. I don't know how long you have been following Miss Universe, but I have been following it for at least 20 years, mostly when the pageant was under Trump. The organization has crowned beauties of all races and ethnicities. Just because Trump prefers Victoria's Secret type beauties, that doesn't mean one such type would always win. Trump may have expressed his preference for a type, but he never judged the pageant. Also, I am disappointed with IMG's relationship with Catriona Gray. For a modeling agency, they should be promoting Cat heavily and signing her up in major fashion shows around the world, or even putting her on beauty/fashion magazine covers. And since she is musically gifted, I don't see her performing in any of the variety/musical/award shows that she has attended.
Users browsing this forum: BeautyFan, Evaamv