when did coke try to change their formula

New Coke was the unofficial name for the reformulation of Coca-Cola introduced in April 1985 by the Coca-Cola Company to replace the original formula of its flagship soft drink Coca-Cola (also called Coke). In 1992, it was named Coke II.[1]

New Coke

By 1985, Coca-Cola had been losing market share to diet soft drinks and non-cola beverages for many years. Consumers who were purchasing regular colas seemed to prefer the sweeter taste of rival Pepsi-Cola, as Coca-Cola learned in conducting blind taste tests. However, the American public's reaction to the change was negative, even hostile, and the "New Coke" was considered a major failure. The company reintroduced Coke's original formula within three months of New Coke's debut, rebranded as "Coca-Cola Classic", and this resulted in a significant gain in sales. This led to speculation by some that the introduction of the New Coke formula was just a marketing ploy to stimulate sales of original Coca-Cola; however, the company has maintained that it was a genuine attempt to replace the original product.[2]

Coke II was discontinued in July 2002. It remains influential as a cautionary tale against tampering with a well-established and successful brand.

After World War II, the market share for Coca-Cola was 60%. By 1983, it had declined to under 24%, largely because of competition from Pepsi-Cola. Pepsi had begun to outsell Coke in supermarkets; Coke maintained its edge only through soda vending machines and fountain sales in fast food restaurants, concessions, and sports venues where Coca-Cola had purchased "pouring rights".[2]

Market analysts believed baby boomers were more likely to purchase diet drinks as they aged and remained health- and weight-conscious. Growth in the full-calorie segment would have to come from younger drinkers, who at that time favored Pepsi by even more overwhelming margins than the market as a whole.[3] Meanwhile, the overall market for colas steadily declined in the early 1980s, as consumers increasingly purchased diet and non-cola soft drinks, many of which were sold by Coca-Cola themselves. This trend further eroded Coca-Cola's market share.[4][5] When Roberto Goizueta became Coca-Cola CEO in 1980, he pointedly told employees there would be no "sacred cows" in how the company did business, including how it formulated its drinks.[6]

Coca-Cola's senior executives commissioned a secret project headed by marketing vice president Sergio Zyman and Coca-Cola USA president Brian Dyson to create a new flavor for Coke. The effort, Project Kansas, took its name from a photo of Kansas journalist William Allen White drinking a Coke; the image had been used extensively in Coca-Cola advertising and hung on several executives' walls.[7]:114

The sweeter cola overwhelmingly beat both regular Coke and Pepsi in taste tests, surveys, and focus groups. Asked if they would buy and drink the product if it were Coca-Cola, most testers said they would, although it would take some getting used to. About 10-12% of testers felt angry and alienated at the thought, and said they might stop drinking Coke altogether. Their presence in focus groups tended to negatively skew results as they exerted indirect peer pressure on other participants.[8]:355

The surveys, which were given more significance by standard marketing procedures of the era, were less negative than the taste tests and were key in convincing management to change the formula in 1985, to coincide with the drink's centenary. But the focus groups had provided a clue as to how the change would play out in a public context, a data point the company downplayed but which proved important later.[9]

Management rejected an idea to make and sell the new flavor as a separate variety of Coca-Cola. The company's bottlers were already complaining about absorbing other recent additions into the product line since Diet Coke in 1982; Cherry Coke was launched nationally nearly concurrently with New Coke during 1985. Many of them had sued over the company's syrup pricing policies. A new variety of Coke in competition with the main variety could also have cannibalized Cokeâ€™s sales and increased the proportion of Pepsi drinkers relative to Coke drinkers.

Early in his career with Coca-Cola, Goizueta had been in charge of the company's Bahamian subsidiary. In that capacity, he had improved sales by tweaking the drink's flavor slightly, so he was receptive to the idea that changes to the taste of Coke could lead to increased profits. He believed it would be "New Coke or no Coke",[7]:106 and that the change must take place openly. He insisted that the containers carry the "New!" label, which gave the drink its popular name.[8]:358

Goizueta also made a visit to his mentor and predecessor as the company's chief executive, the ailing Robert W. Woodruff, who had built Coke into an international brand following World War II. He claimed he had secured Woodruff's blessing for the reformulation, but even many of Goizueta's closest friends within the company doubt that Woodruff understood Goizueta's intentions.[8]:356[7]:115

New Coke was introduced on April 23, 1985. Production of the original formulation ended later that week.
In many areas, New Coke was initially introduced in "old" Coke packaging; bottlers used up remaining cans, cartons and labels before new packaging was widely available. Old cans containing New Coke were identified by their gold colored tops, while glass and plastic bottles had red caps instead of silver and white, respectively.

The press conference at New York City's Lincoln Center to introduce the new formula did not go well. Reporters had already been fed questions by Pepsi,[10] which was worried that New Coke would erase its gains. Goizueta, Coca-Cola's CEO, described the new flavor as "bolder", "rounder", and "more harmonious",[8]:352 and defended the change by saying that the drink's secret formula was not sacrosanct and inviolable. As far back as 1935, Coca-Cola sought kosher certification from an Atlanta rabbi and made two changes to the formula so the drink could be considered kosher (as well as halal and vegetarian).[11] Goizueta also refused to admit that taste tests had led the change, calling it "one of the easiest decisions we've ever made."[7]:117 A reporter asked whether Diet Coke would also be reformulated "assuming [New Coke] is a success," to which Goizueta curtly replied, "No. And I didn't assume that this is a success. This is a success."[8]:352

The emphasis on the sweeter taste of the new flavor also ran contrary to previous Coke advertising, in which spokesman Bill Cosby had touted Coke's less-sweet taste as a reason to prefer it over Pepsi.[10]:136 Nevertheless, the company's stock went up on the announcement, and market research showed 80% of the American public was aware of the change within days.[7]:119[12]

The company, as it had planned, introduced the new formula with big marketing pushes in New York (workers renovating the Statue of Liberty were symbolically the first Americans given cans to take home)[12] and Washington, D.C. (where thousands of free cans were given away in Lafayette Park). As soon as New Coke was introduced, the new formula was available at McDonald's and other drink fountains in the United States.   Sales figures from those cities, and other areas where it had been introduced, showed a reaction that went as the market research had predicted. In fact, Coke's sales were up 8% over the same period as the year before.[6]

Most Coke drinkers resumed buying the new Coke at much the same level as they had the old one. Surveys indicated that a majority liked the new flavoring.[10]:153 Three-quarters of the respondents said they would buy New Coke again.[6] The big test, however, remained in the Southeast, where Coke was first bottled and tasted.

Despite New Coke's acceptance with a large number of Coca-Cola drinkers, many more resented the change in formula and were not shy about making that known â€” just as had happened in the focus groups. Many of these drinkers were Southerners, some of whom considered Coca-Cola a fundamental part of their regional identity. They viewed the company's decision to change the formula through the prism of the Civil War, as another surrender to the "Yankees".[10]:149-151

Company headquarters in Atlanta began receiving letters and telephone calls expressing anger or deep disappointment. The company received over 40,000 calls and letters,[7]:119 including one letter, delivered to Goizueta, that was addressed to "Chief Dodo, The Coca-Cola Company". Another letter asked for his autograph, as the signature of "one of the dumbest executives in American business history" would likely become valuable in the future. The company hotline, 1-800-GET-COKE, received over 1,500 calls a day compared to around 400 before the change.[5] A psychiatrist whom Coke had hired to listen in on calls told executives that some people sounded as if they were discussing the death of a family member.[10]:163

They were, nonetheless, joined by some voices from outside the region. Chicago Tribune columnist Bob Greene wrote some widely reprinted pieces ridiculing the new flavor and damning Coke's executives for having changed it. Comedians and talk show hosts, including Johnny Carson and David Letterman, made regular jokes mocking the switch. Ads for New Coke were booed heavily when they appeared on the scoreboard at the Houston Astrodome.[12] Even Fidel Castro, a longtime Coca-Cola drinker, contributed to the backlash, calling New Coke a sign of American capitalist decadence.[8]:362 Goizueta's father expressed similar misgivings to his son, who later recalled that it was the only time his father had agreed with Castro, whose rule he had fled Cuba to avoid.[7]:118

Gay Mullins, a Seattle retiree looking to start a public relations firm with $120,000 of borrowed money, formed the organization Old Cola Drinkers of America on May 28 to lobby Coca-Cola to either reintroduce the old formula or sell it to someone else. His organization eventually received over 60,000 phone calls. He also filed a class action lawsuit against the company (which was quickly dismissed by a judge who said he preferred the taste of Pepsi[13]), while nevertheless expressing interest in securing The Coca-Cola Company as a client of his new firm should it reintroduce the old formula.[10]:160 In two informal blind taste tests, Mullins either failed to distinguish New Coke from old or expressed a preference for New Coke.[10]:162

Despite ongoing resistance in the South, New Coke continued to do well in the rest of the country.[10]:149-151 But executives were uncertain of how international markets would react. Executives met with international Coke bottlers in Monaco; to their surprise, the bottlers were not interested in selling New Coke.[14] Zyman also heard doubts and skepticism from his relatives in Mexico, where New Coke was scheduled to be introduced later that summer, when he went there on vacation.

Goizueta stated that Coca-Cola employees who liked New Coke felt unable to speak up due to peer pressure, as had happened in the focus groups. Donald Keough, the Coca-Cola president and chief operating officer, reported overhearing someone say at his country club that they liked New Coke, but they would be "damned if I'll let Coca-Cola know that."[10]:154

Pepsi-Cola took advantage of the situation, running ads in which a first-time Pepsi drinker exclaimed, "Now I know why Coke did it!"[10]:148-9 Even amidst consumer anger and several Pepsi ads mocking Coca-Cola's debacle, Pepsi actually gained very few long-term converts over Coke's switch, despite a 14% sales increase over the same month the previous year, the largest sales growth in the company's history.[6] Coca-Cola's director of corporate communications, Carlton Curtis, realized over time that consumers were more upset about the withdrawal of the old formula than the taste of the new one.[10]:175

Roger Enrico, then director of Pepsi's North American operations, declared a company-wide holiday and took out a full-page ad in The New York Times proclaiming that Pepsi had won the long-running "Cola Wars".[7]:115 [8]:359 Since Coke officials were preoccupied over the weekend with preparations for the announcement, their Pepsi counterparts had time to cultivate skepticism among reporters, sounding themes that would later come into play in the public discourse over the changed drink.[10]:125 After the announcement on April 23, PepsiCo gave their employees the day off saying, "By today's action, Coke has admitted that it's not the real thing."

Some Coca-Cola executives had quietly been arguing for a reintroduction of the old formula as early as May.[10]:157 By June, when soft drink sales usually start to rise, the numbers showed that new Coke was leveling among consumers. Executives feared social peer pressure was now affecting their bottom line. Some consumers even began trying to obtain "old" Coke from overseas, where the new formula had not yet been introduced, as domestic stocks of the old drink were exhausted.[10]:158 Over the course of the month, Coca-Cola's chemists also quietly reduced the acidity level of the new formula, hoping to assuage complaints about the flavor and allow its sweetness to be better perceived (advertisements pointing to this change were prepared, but never used).[8]:364

In addition to the noisier public protests, boycotts, and bottles being emptied into the streets of several cities, the company had more serious reasons to be concerned. Its bottlers, and not just the ones still suing the company over syrup pricing policies, were expressing concern. While they had given Goizueta a standing ovation when he announced the change at an April 22 bottlers' meeting at Atlanta's Woodruff Arts Center, glad the company had finally taken some initiative in the face of Pepsi's advances,[12] they were less enthusiastic about the taste.[8]:364 [7]:106,116 Most of them saw great difficulty having to promote and sell a drink that had long been marketed as "The Real Thing", constant and unchanging, now that it had been changed.

The 20 bottlers still suing Coca-Cola made much of the change in their legal arguments. Coca-Cola had argued in its defense when the suit was originally filed that the formula's uniqueness and difference from Diet Coke justified different pricing policies from the latter â€“ but if the new formula was simply an HFCS-sweetened Diet Coke, Coca-Cola could not argue the formula was unique. Bottlers, particularly in the South, were also tired of facing personal opprobrium over the change. Many reported that some acquaintances and even friends and relatives had ostracized them, or had expressed displeasure in other emotionally hurtful ways. On June 23, several of the bottlers took these complaints to Coca-Cola executives in a private meeting.[7]:121 With the company now fearing boycotts not only from its consumers but its bottlers, talks about reintroducing the old formula moved from "if" to "when".

Finally the Coca-Cola board had had enough and decided to bring back the old Coke. Company president Donald Keough revealed years later, in the documentary The People vs. Coke (2002), that they realized this was the only right thing to do when they visited a small restaurant in Monaco and the owner of the restaurant proudly said they had "the real thing, it's a real Coke," offering them a chilled 6 and 1/2 oz. glass bottle of original Coca-Cola.[14]

Coca-Cola executives announced the return of the original formula during the afternoon of July 11, 78 days after New Coke's introduction. ABC News' Peter Jennings interrupted General Hospital with a special bulletin to share the news with viewers. On the floor of the U.S. Senate, David Pryor called the reintroduction "a meaningful moment in U.S. history".[8] The company hotline received 31,600 calls in the two days after the announcement.[5]

The new product continued to be sold and retained the name Coca-Cola (until 1992, when it was renamed Coke II), so the original formula was renamed Coca-Cola Classic (also called Coke Classic), and for a short period it was referred to by the public as Old Coke. Some who tasted the reintroduced formula were not convinced that the first batches really were the same formula that had supposedly been retired that spring. This was true for a few regions, because Coca-Cola Classic differed from the original formula in that all bottlers who hadn't already done so were using high fructose corn syrup instead of cane sugar to sweeten the drink, though most had by this time.[10]:183

"There is a twist to this story which will please every humanist and will probably keep Harvard professors puzzled for years," said Keough at a press conference. "The simple fact is that all the time and money and skill poured into consumer research on the new Coca-Cola could not measure or reveal the deep and abiding emotional attachment to original Coca-Cola felt by so many people."

Gay Mullins, founder of the organization Old Cola Drinkers of America (which had lobbied Coca-Cola to either reintroduce the old formula or sell it to someone else), was given the first case of Coca-Cola Classic.[12]

By the end of the year, Coca-Cola Classic was substantially outselling both New Coke and Pepsi. Six months after the rollout, Coke's sales had increased at more than twice the rate of Pepsi's.[15]

New Coke's sales dwindled to a three percent share of the market, although it was selling quite well in Los Angeles and some other key markets.[15] Later research, however, suggested that it was not the reintroduction of Coca-Cola Classic, but instead the less-heralded rollout of Cherry Coke, that can be credited with the company's success that year.[10]:187

The Coca-Cola Company spent a considerable amount of time trying to figure out where it had made a mistake, ultimately concluding that it had underestimated the public reaction of the portion of the customer base that would be alienated by the switch. This would not emerge for several years afterward, however, and in the meantime the public simply concluded that the company had, as Keough suggested, failed to consider the public's attachment to the idea of what Coke's old formula represented. While that has become conventional wisdom in the ensuing years, some analyses have suggested otherwise.

This populist version of the story served Coke's interests, however, as the episode did more to position and define Coca-Cola as a brand embodying values distinct from Pepsi than any deliberate effort to do so probably could have done.[citation needed] Allowing itself to be portrayed as a somewhat clueless large corporation forced to withdraw from a big change by overwhelming public pressure flattered customers, as Keough put it, "We love any retreat which has us rushing toward our best customers with the product they love the most."[8]:360 Bottles and cans continued to bear the "Coca-Cola Classic" title until January 2009, when the company announced it would stop printing the word "Classic" on the labels of 16-US-fluid-ounce (470Â ml) bottles sold in parts of the southeastern United States.[16] The change is part of a larger strategy to rejuvenate the product's image.[16]

While in the short term the fiasco led Bill Cosby to end his long time advertising for Coke, claiming his commercials that praised the superiority of the new formula had hurt his credibility, no one at Coca-Cola was fired or otherwise held responsible for what is still widely perceived as a misstep, for the simple reason that it ultimately wasn't. When Goizueta died in 1997, the company's share price was well above what it was when he had taken over 16 years earlier and its position as market leader even more firmly established. At the time, Roger Enrico, then head of Pepsi's American operations, likened New Coke to the Edsel.[17][18] Later, when he became PepsiCo's CEO, he modified his assessment of the situation, saying that had people been fired or demoted over New Coke, it would have sent a message that risk-taking was strongly discouraged at the company.[19]

In the late 1990s, Zyman summed up the New Coke experience thus:

Yes, it infuriated the public, cost us a ton of money and lasted for only 77 days before we reintroduced Coca-Cola Classic. Still, New Coke was a success because it revitalized the brand and reattached the public to Coke.[20]

New Coke continued to do what it had originally been designed to do: win taste tests. In 1987, The Wall Street Journal surveyed 100 randomly selected cola drinkers, the majority of whom indicated a preference for Pepsi, with Classic Coke accounting for the remainder save two New Coke loyalists. When this group was given a chance to try all three in a blind test, New Coke slightly edged out Pepsi, but many drinkers reacted angrily to finding they had chosen a brand other than their favorite.[21]

Goizueta claimed that he never once regretted the decision. He even threw a tenth anniversary party for New Coke in 1995 and continued to drink it until his death in 1997.[12]

In the short run, the reintroduction of original Coca-Cola saved Coke's sales figures and brought it back in the good graces of many customers and bottlers. Phone calls and letters to the company were as joyful and thankful as they had been angry and depressed. "You would have thought we'd cured cancer", said one executive.[10]:181

But confusion reigned at the company's marketing department, which had to formulate a plan to market two Coca-Colas where such plans were inconceivable just a few months before. Coca-Cola Classic did not need much help, with a "Red, White and You" campaign showcasing the American virtues many of those who had clamored for its reintroduction had pointedly reminded the company that it embodied. But the company was at a loss to sell what was now just "Coke". "The Best Just Got Better" could no longer be used. Marketers fumbled for a strategy for the rest of the year.[8]:366 Matters were not helped when McDonald's announced shortly after the reintroduction that it was switching from New Coke back to Coca-Cola Classic at all of its restaurants.[8]:369

At the beginning of 1986, however, Coke's marketing team found a strategy by returning to one of their original motives for changing the formula: the youth market that preferred Pepsi. Max Headroom, the purportedly computer-generated media personality played by Matt Frewer, was chosen to replace Cosby as the spokesman for Coke's new "Catch the Wave" campaign. With his slicked-back hair and sunglasses, he was already known to much of the U.S. youth audience through appearances on MTV and Cinemax. The campaign was launched with a television commercial produced by McCann Erickson New York, with Max saying in his trademark stutter, "C-c-c-catch the wave!" and referring to his fellow "Cokeologists".[22] In a riposte to Pepsi's televisual teasings, one showed Headroom asking a Pepsi can he was "interviewing" how it felt about more drinkers preferring Coke to it and then cut to the condensation forming on, and running down, the can. "S-s-s-s-sweating?", he asked.

The campaign was a huge success, and surveys likewise showed that more than three-quarters of the target market were aware of the ads within two days. Coke's corporate hotline received more calls about Max than any previous spokesperson, some even asking if he had a girlfriend.[23] The ads and campaign continued throughout the year and were chosen as best of 1986 by Video Storyboard of New York.[23]

In 1985, New Coke was sold only in the United States, United States territories, and Canada while the original formula continued to be sold in the rest of the world. New Coke was eventually returned to the company's product portfolio; it was test-marketed in certain U.S. cities under the name Coke II in 1990,[1] and officially renamed Coke II in late 1992, despite the company's original intention not to create a second brand. Filmmaker Miranda July is said to have suggested the name of Coke II while working as a tastemaker for an ad agency.[24]

However, the Coca-Cola company did little to promote or otherwise distinguish it. In a market already offering several choices of drinks calling themselves "Coke" in some fashion or another, the public saw little reason to embrace a product they had firmly rejected seven years earlier, and within about a year, Coke II was largely off the American shelves again. By 1998, it could only be found in a few scattered markets in the northwest, midwest and some overseas. In July 2002, Coca-Cola announced that it would be discontinued entirely.

On August 16, 2002, Coca-Cola announced a change of the label in which the word "Classic" was no longer so prominent, leading to speculation that it would eventually be removed and the last traces of New Coke eliminated.[25] In 2009, Coca-Cola permanently removed "Classic" from its North American packaging.[26]

New Coke had the spotlight for only three months in 1985, but it casts a long shadow, in both the business world and popular culture that can still be seen. It is most frequently mentioned as a cautionary tale among businesses against tampering too extensively with a well-established and successful brand.

"For a product so widely despised," noted AdWeek blogger Tim Nudd in 2006, more than two decades later, "New Coke (a.k.a. Coke II) still gets an admirable amount of ink." He noted Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking (2005) by Malcolm Gladwell, and Why Most Things Fail: Evolution, Extinction and Economics (2005) by Paul Ormerod, that dealt with it at some length, as well as two recent mentions in Forbes and Sports Illustrated.[27]

Within Coca-Cola, the role the company's bottlers had played in forcing its hand led executives to create a new subsidiary, Coca-Cola Enterprises, which bought out several of the larger bottlers and placed distribution and marketing efforts more tightly under Coca-Cola's control.[citation needed]

The Coca-Cola Company's apparently sudden reversal on New Coke led to several rumors and conspiracy theories that have circulated in the years since to explain how a company with the resources and experience of Coca-Cola could have made such an obvious and colossal blunder.

Some explanations that have been proffered are:

In his book Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking (2005), Malcolm Gladwell relates his conversations with market researchers in the food industry who put most of the blame for the failure of New Coke on the flawed nature of taste tests. They claim most are subject to systematic biases. Tests such as the Pepsi Challenge were "sip tests", meaning that drinkers were given small samples (less than a can or bottle's worth) to try. Gladwell contends that what people say they like in these tests may not reflect what they actually buy to drink at home over several days.[29] Carol Dollard, who once worked in product development for Pepsi, told Gladwell: "I've seen many times where the sip test will give you one result and the home-use test will give you the exact opposite."[29]:159 For example, although many consumers react positively to the sweeter taste of Pepsi in small volumes, it may become unattractively sweet when drunk in quantity. Coke, on the other hand, may be more attractive for drinking in volume, because it is less sweet. A more comprehensive testing regimen could possibly have revealed this, Gladwell's sources believe.[29]

Gladwell reports that other market researchers have criticized Coke for not realizing that much of its success as a brand came from what they call sensation transference, a phenomenon first described by marketer Louis Cheskin in the late 1940s: tasters unconsciously add their reactions to the drink's packaging into their assessment of the taste.[30] For example, one of the researchers told Gladwell that his firm's research had found 7-Up drinkers believe a sample from a bottle with a more yellow label is more "lemony", although the flavor was identical.[29]:163

In Coke's case, it is alleged that buyers, subject to sensation transference, were also "tasting" the red color of the container and distinctive Coca-Cola script. It was therefore, in their opinion, a mistake to focus solely on the product and its taste. "The mistake Coke made," said Darrel Rhea, an executive with the firm Cheskin founded, "was in attributing their loss in share entirely to the product." He points to Pepsi's work in establishing a youth-oriented brand identity from the 1960s as having more bearing on its success.[31]

Coke considered but rejected gradually changing the drink's flavor incrementally, without announcing they were doing so. Executives feared the public would notice and exaggerate slight differences in taste. In 1998, Joel Dubow, a professor of food marketing at St. Joseph's University, tested this "flavor balance hypothesis" and argued that it was not true. He and fellow researcher Nancy Childs tested mixtures of Coca-Cola Classic and Coke II and found that the gradual changes of taste were not noticed by a significant number of tasters. Coke, he said, would have succeeded had it chosen this strategy.[32]


what are the qualifications to become miss universe

Usually a country's candidate selection involves pageants in your local subdivisions, whose winners compete in a national pageant, but there are some exceptions. For example, from 2000 to 2004, Australian delegates were chosen by a modelling agency. Although such "castings" are generally discouraged by the Miss Universe Organization, Jennifer Hawkins was chosen to represent the country in Miss Universe in 2004 (where she would eventually win the crown). When Australia resumed its national pageant in the later year, Michelle Guy became Miss Universe Australia 2005.

Miss Universe

Miss Universe is an annual international beauty pageant that is run by the Miss Universe Organization.[1] Along with Miss World and Miss Earth, Miss Universe is one of the most important and publicized beauty pageants in the world;[2][3][4][5] together with Miss International, the group is known as Big Four international beauty pageants.[6][7][8][9][10] It is held in more than 190 countries worldwide and seen by more than half a billion people annually.[11]

The Miss Universe Organization and the brand is currently owned, along with Miss USA and Miss Teen USA, by WME/IMG talent agency.

The current Miss Universe is Demi-Leigh Nel-Peters of South Africa who was crowned on 26 November 2017 in Las Vegas, Nevada, United States.[12]

The title "Miss Universe" was first used by the International Pageant of Pulchritude in 1926. This contest was held annually until 1935, when the Great Depression and other events preceding World War II led to its demise.

The current Miss Universe pageant was founded in 1952 by Pacific Knitting Mills, a California-based clothing company and manufacturer of Catalina Swimwear. The company was the sponsor of the Miss America pageant until 1951, when the winner, Yolande Betbeze, refused to pose for publicity pictures wearing one of their swimsuits. In 1952, Pacific Knitting Mills organized the Miss USA and Miss Universe pageants, co-sponsoring them for decades to follow.

The first Miss Universe Pageant was held in Long Beach, California in 1952. It was won by Armi Kuusela from Finland, who gave up her title, though not officially, to get married, shortly before her year was completed.[13] Until 1958, the Miss Universe title, like that of Miss America, was dated by the year following the contest, so at the time Ms. Kuusela's title was Miss Universe 1953.

Since its founding by Pacific Mills, the pageant has been organized and conducted by the Miss Universe Organization. Eventually Pacific Mills and its subsidiaries were acquired by the Kayser-Roth Corporation, which was in turn acquired by Gulf and Western Industries.

The pageant was first televised in 1955. CBS began broadcasting the combined Miss USA and Miss Universe pageants in 1960, and as separate contests in 1965. John Charles Daly hosted the pageant from 1955 to 1966, Bob Barker from 1967 to 1987, Alan Thicke in 1988, John Forsythe in 1989, Dick Clark from 1990 to 1993, and Bob Goen from 1994 to 1996.

Donald Trump bought the pageant in 1996 from ITT Corp.[14] Trump struck a broadcasting arrangement with CBS until 2002, in 20. In 1998, Miss Universe, Inc. changed its name to Miss Universe Organization, and moved its headquarters from Los Angeles to New York City.[15][16] In late 2002 Trump entered into a joint venture with NBC,[1][17] which in 2003 outbid the other markets for the TV rights.[18] From 2003 to 2014, the pageant was broadcast in the United States on NBC.

In September 2015, when NBC cancelled all business relationships with Trump and the Miss Universe Organization, in response to ccontroversial statements about illegal immigrants who crossed the border from Mexico.[19][20] As part of the legal settlement, in September 2015, Trump bought out NBC's 50% stake in the company making him the company's sole owner. Three days later he sold the whole company to WME/IMG.[21][22] Following the change of ownership, in October 2015, Fox and Azteca became the official broadcasters of the Miss Universe and Miss USA pageants.[23] The current president of the Miss Universe Organization is Paula Shugart, who has held this position since 1998.[24]

For a country to participate in the Miss Universe, a local company or a person, should buy the local rights of the competition, through a franchise fee, which involves the rights of image, brand and everything related to the pageant.Often, the owner of this franchise for contractual breaches or financial reasons, returns the franchise to the Miss Universe Organization, which resells it to a new stakeholder. Something that is recurrently common in the history of the event.The number of candidates in the contest is inconstant, precisely, because of the question of the franchisees. In addition, there are problems related to the calendar of the pageant.For example, in Miss Universe 2016 were 80 candidates, the following year, the number jumped to 92.

Recent arrivals in the last ten years of the pageant include: Serbia, Montenegro and Tanzania (2007), Kosovo (2008), Gabon and Lithuania (2012), Azerbaijan (2013), Sierra Leone (2016), and Cambodia, Laos and Nepal (2017).

There have also been efforts to revive strong national pageants in, South Africa, Canada, Spain, Japan, Southeast Asia and Latin America. The organization makes continual efforts to expand the pageant, but the participation of some countries such as Algeria and has proven difficult due to cultural barriers to the swimsuit competition, while others such as Armenia and Mozambique have balked at sending representatives due to the cost.

As of 2016, only three countries have been present at every Miss Universe since its inception in 1952: Canada, France, Germany (actually West Germany until 1990, when East and West reunified). Many European countries allow 17-year-old contestants to compete in their pageants, while Miss Universe's minimum age is 18, so national titleholders often have to be replaced by their runners-up or another candidate. Beginning in 2012, transgender women were allowed to compete, as long as they win their national pageants.[25] Since its inception, Miss Universe strictly prohibits age fabrication.

Some of the most successful national countries in the last decade have been Venezuela, the United States, France, the Philippines, and Colombia which command consistently high interest and television ratings in their respective countries. The live broadcasts of the Miss Universe pageant (regardless of the hosting nation) proved highly popular particularly in the Americas and Asia in recent years.[26]

The main Miss Universe Pageant is held over a two-week period in December. In the 1970s through the 1990s, the pageant was a month long. This allowed time for rehearsals, appearances, and the preliminary competition, with the winner being crowned by the previous year's titleholder during the final competition.

According to the organizers, the Miss Universe contest is more than a beauty pageant: women aspiring to become Miss Universe must be intelligent, well-mannered, and cultured[need quotation to verify]. Often a candidate has lost because she did not have a good answer during the question responses rounds; although this section of competition has held less importance during recent pageants than it did in the twentieth century. Delegates also participate in swimsuit and evening gown competitions.

Currently, the final placement of the finalists is determined by a ranked vote, where each judge ranks each of the final three/five candidates, with the contestant posting the lowest cumulative score (thus often, but not necessarily always, the contestant with the most number one votes) becoming the winner. If there is a tie, the higher semifinal scores become decisive.

The winner is assigned a one-year contract with the Miss Universe Organization, going overseas to spread messages about the control of diseases, peace, and public awareness of AIDS. Aside from the job, the winner also receives a cash allowance for her entire reign, a New York Film Academy scholarship, a modelling portfolio, beauty products, clothes, shoes, as well as styling, healthcare, and fitness services by different sponsors of the pageant. She also gains exclusive access to events such as fashion shows and opening galas, as well as access to casting calls and modelling opportunities throughout New York City. When Donald Trump owned the pageant, the winner was given the use of a Trump Place apartment in New York City during her reign, which she shared with the Miss USA and Miss Teen USA titleholders.[27] If the winner, for any reason, cannot fulfill her duties as Miss Universe, the 1st runner-up takes over.

Aside from the main winner and her runners-up, special awards are also given to the winners of the best National Costume, Miss Photogenic, and Miss Congeniality. The Miss Congeniality award is chosen by the delegates themselves. In recent years, Miss Photogenic has been chosen by popular internet vote (the winner used to be chosen by media personnel covering the event).

The competition for the Miss Universe title has seen many changes, although there have been several constants throughout its history. All the contestants compete in a preliminary round of judging (nowadays called the "Preliminary Competition") where the field is narrowed to a select number of semifinalists. This number has fluctuated over the years. The first Miss Universe pageant had ten semifinalists. For the next two years, the number of semifinalists grew to 16. In 1955, the number dropped to a stable 15, which remained through 1970. In 1971, the number was reduced to 12. That number was further reduced to 10 in 1984. This lasted until 2003, when the number of 15 was reinstated. In 2006, there were 20 semifinalists, the highest number ever. In 2007, the organization announced the Top 15 system would be back, which was also used in 2008 until 2010. In 2011, the results of a fan vote was shown on the screen during the swimsuit and evening gown competitions, but this did not affect the final outcome of the competition. From 2011 to 2013, there were 16 semifinalists, 15 chosen by judges and one chosen through Internet votes. The 16th semifinalist by fan vote has been dropped as of 2015, and the number has been reverted to 15 semifinalists. And in 2016 edition there were 13 semifinalists, 12 chosen by judges panel from the quarantine to the preliminary night and one chosen by Twitter and Vodi app. In the 2017 edition, the semifinalists were reverted back to 16 delegates divided into 4 different groups each hailing from a different region in the world, Africa & Asia-Pacific, Europe, The Americas & the Wildcard (anywhere).

In the early years, the contestants were judged in swimsuit and evening gown only. In later years, the contestants also competed in a preliminary interview round in a one-on-one meeting with each individual judge.

The crown of Miss Universe has changed 9 times over the course of its 65-year history.[28] The first crown, the Romanov Imperial nuptial crown, was previously owned by the now-defunct Russian monarchy. It was used when Armi Kuusela of Finland became the first Miss Universe in 1952.[28]

The Lady or The Queen crown, as worn by Miss Universe 1980, Shawn Weatherly

The Mikimoto Crown used from 2002-2007 and in 2017, as worn by Miss Universe 2003, Amelia Vega

The CAO Crown used in 2008, as worn by Miss Universe 2008, Dayana Mendoza

The Diamond Nexus Crown used from 2009â€“2013, as worn by Miss Universe 2011, Leila Lopes

The DIC Crown with the reminiscent of Manhattan skyline, used from 2014-2016, as worn by Miss Universe 2015, Pia Wurtzbach

Miss Universe 2016
Iris Mittenaere
France

Miss Universe 2015
Pia Wurtzbach
Philippines

Miss Universe 2014
Paulina Vega
Colombia

Miss Universe 2013
Gabriela Isler
Venezuela

Miss Universe 2012
Olivia Culpo
United States

Miss Universe 2011
Leila Lopes
Angola

Miss Universe 2010
Ximena Navarrete
Mexico

Miss Universe 2009
Stefanía Fernández,
Venezuela

Miss Universe 2008
Dayana Mendoza,
Venezuela

Miss Universe 2007
Riyo Mori,
Japan

Miss Universe 2006
Zuleyka Rivera,
Puerto Rico

Miss Universe 2005
Natalie Glebova,
Canada

Miss Universe 2004
Jennifer Hawkins
Australia

Miss Universe 2003
Amelia Vega,
Dominican Republic

Miss Universe 2002
Justine Pasek,
Panama

Miss Universe 2001
Denise Quiñones,
Puerto Rico

Miss Universe 2000
Lara Dutta,
India

Miss Universe 1999
Mpule Kwelagobe,
Botswana

Miss Universe 1997
Brook Lee,
United States

Miss Universe 1994
Sushmita Sen,
India

Miss Universe 1993
Dayanara Torres,
Puerto Rico

Miss Universe 1991
Lupita Jones,
México

Miss Universe 1989
Angela Visser, Netherlands

Miss Universe 1987
Cecilia Bolocco, Chile

Miss Universe 1984
Yvonne Ryding, Sweden

Miss Universe 1980
Shawn Weatherly, United States

Miss Universe 1977
Janelle Commissiong, Trinidad and Tobago

Miss Universe 1976
Rina Mor, Israel

Miss Universe 1967
Sylvia Hitchcock, United States

Miss Universe 1957
Gladys Zender, Peru

Miss Universe 1956
Carol Morris, United States

Miss Universe 1953
Christiane Martel, France

Miss Universe 1952
Armi Kuusela, Finland

The Miss Universe Organization is the organization that currently owns and runs the Miss Universe, Miss USA[34] and Miss Teen USA beauty contests. Based in New York, the organization is owned by WME/IMG. The current president is Paula Shugart. The organization sells television rights to the pageants in other countries.

The following is a list of all Miss Universe Organization titleholders over the years.

a In 2002, Fedorova was dethroned by the Miss Universe Organization and replaced by Pasek, the first runner-up.
b In 1957, Gage was stripped of her Miss USA title when it was revealed that she was married and the mother of two children. Sheffield, the first runner-up, replaced her.

Miss Universe 2002, Justine Pasek, with Miss USA 2002, Shauntay Hinton and Miss Teen USA 2002, Vanessa Semrow at Guantanamo Bay.

Crystle Stewart, Miss USA 2008 and Dayana Mendoza, Miss Universe 2008 at Guantanamo Bay

Shawn Weatherly, Miss Universe 1980 and Kim Seelbrede, Miss USA 1981 together with then US President Ronald Reagan

The Miss Universe brand has been licensed for use in various products, including Farouk Systems' line of hair care products named Miss Universe Style Illuminate by CHI.[35]

Electronic Arts was reportedly developing a video game based on the pageant, but development status is currently uncertain due to the closure of EA Black Box, the studio allegedly developing the game.[36] A slot machine mobile game, Miss Universe: Crowning Moment, was released by High 5 Casino for iOS and Android devices in 2013.[37]

An official mobile companion app of the Miss Universe Organization was released in May 2016.[38]


what is a risk and control self assessment

Control self-assessment is a technique developed in 1987 that is used by a range of organisations including corporations, charities and government departments, to assess the effectiveness of their risk management and control processes.

Control self-assessment

A "control process" is a check or process performed to reduce or eliminate the risk of error. Since its introduction the technique has been widely adopted in the United States, European Union and other countries. There are a number of ways a control self-assessment can be implemented but its key feature is that, in contrast to a traditional audit, the tests and checks are made by staff whose normal day-to-day responsibilities are within the business unit being assessed.[1] A self-assessment, by identifying the higher risk processes within the organisation, allows internal auditors to plan their work more effectively.[2] A number of governmental organisations require the use of control self-assessment. In the United States it is a requirement of the FFIEC that control self-assessments are performed on IT systems and operational processes on a regular basis.[3] Benefits claimed for control self-assessment include creating a clear line of accountability for controls, reducing the risk of fraud and the creation of an organisation with a lower risk profile.[4][5]

In certain circumstances control self-assessment is not always effective. For example, it can be difficult to implement in a decentralised environment, in organisations where there is high employee turnover, where the organisation goes through frequent change or where the senior management of the organisation does not foster a culture of open communication.[6]

Control self-assessment was developed by Gulf Canada in 1987 when the company's General Auditor, Bruce McCuaig was dissatisfied with the standard auditing techniques in use following the impact of the Watergate affair on the parent company, Gulf Oil Corporation. The decision to fully implement control self-assessment at Gulf Canada was driven by a number of factors. These included the presence of a consent decree requiring the company to report on its internal controls and the difficulties it was facing in estimating its oil and gas reserves using more traditional audit measures.[7]

Over the next ten years Gulf Canada developed a framework to support the analysis and evaluation of control processes by operational staff. This included anonymous voting to ensure there was no impediment to staff expressing their views. The approach was first published in Internal Auditor in December 1990.[8] Gulf Canada discontinued this facilitated meeting approach in 1997 although it continued with control self-assessment using different techniques.[7]

Following Gulf Canada's introduction of control self-assessment many private sector organisations implemented similar techniques. In the United States several states made reviews based on control self-assessment practices mandatory as did the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation.[7]

Initially external auditors ignored the benefits of control self-assessment even though it was effective at providing audit evidence around the "soft" areas (such as staff morale) that are critical to the effectiveness of internal control systems.[9]

After a number of financial scandals, notably the collapse of Robert Maxwell's publishing empire, the United Kingdom government commissioned Adrian Cadbury to chair an investigation into corporate governance. The committee published its report The Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance in 1992. In section 4, Reporting and Controls, Cadbury made a number of recommendations that led to the increased adoption of control self-assessment in the UK. In particular section 4.5 of the Code of Practice contained within the report required that the directors of a company should report on the effectiveness of the company's system of internal control in each annual report.[10]

In March 2000 the European Commission approved a white paper on reform that led to a major change in the way the Commission was managed. These changes included recommendations for each department to establish an effective internal control system. To support the implementation of the internal controls the Directorate-General for Budget's Central Financial Service developed a control self-assessment process. This first control self-assessment identified several areas for improvement in internal control across the Commission most notably the need to implement a more systematic approach to risk management. The outcome of this first self-assessment was the implementation of the requirement for every Directorate General to perform a control and risk self-assessment annually.[11]

In 2007 the United States implemented the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.  In order to comply with section 404 of the Act the company had to perform a top down risk assessment which necessitated the production of an "internal control report" that affirmed "the responsibility of management for establishing and maintaining an adequate internal control structure and procedures for financial reporting."  15 U.S.C. § 7262(a). This report has to include an evaluation of the effectiveness of the internal controls and procedures that are related to financial reporting. To meet this requirement organisations increasingly began to perform a control self-assessment using a recognised standard methodology. The organisation's external auditors, who are required to sign-off the internal control report, typically became more deeply involved in the control self-assessment process as it facilitated their later review of the internal control report.[12]

In the United Kingdom in 2011 the Financial Services Authority recognised in its recommendations for the improvement of operational risk management that the assessment of risks through a control self-assessment may be an important means of identifying risks. It also noted that for the assessment to be fully effective it had to be fully integrated into the financial organisation's risk-management process.[13]

The first step in control self-assessment is to document the organisation's control processes with the aim of identifying suitable ways of measuring or testing each control. The actual testing of the controls is performed by staff whose day-to-day role is within the area of the organisation that is being examined as they have the greatest knowledge of how the processes operate.[1][4] The two common techniques for performing the evaluations are:

Both approaches are the opposite of formal audits where the auditors, not the business unit staff, will perform the assessment.[1]

On completion of the assessment each control may be rated based on the responses received to determine the probability of its failure and the impact if a failure occurred. These ratings can be mapped to produce a heatmap showing potential areas of vulnerability.

Six basic methodologies for control self-assessment have been defined:[14]

The National Institute of Standards and Technology control self-assessment methodology is based on customised questionnaires. It is an IT focused methodology suitable for assessing system based controls. It provides a cost-effective technique to determine the status of information security controls, identify any weaknesses and, where necessary, define an improvement plan.[15] The methodology uses a questionnaire that contains specific control objectives and techniques against a system or group of systems can be tested and measured. The methodology was designed for United States federal agencies but can also be valuable for private sector organisations.[15]

The COBIT methodology can be used for control self-assessment; like the NIST methodology it was designed for IT focused assessments. COBIT's Process Description component provides a reference model of an organisation's processes and their ownership. Its Control Objectives component provides a set of requirements considered necessary for effective control of each IT process with the organisation. Assessment and evaluation of these components using the Management Guidelines component provides an assessment mechanism that generates a maturity model indicating if the organisation is meeting its control objectives.[14]

The Institute of Internal Auditors based its control self-assessment methodology on the Total Quality Management approaches of the 1990s as well as the COSO's framework. The methodology became part of the International Standards for Professional Practice of Internal Auditing and was adopted by a large number of major organisations.[16]

A number of other methodologies to standardise the control self-assessment have been published.[17][18] The Institute of Internal Auditors offers a certification in control self-assessment practice.[19]

A number of software packages are available to support the control self-assessment process. These are typically modified versions of software developed originally for internal use by audit and accountancy firms such as Deloitte or by niche vendors specialising in business or financial management tools.

Control self-assessment creates a clear line of accountability for controls, reduces the risk of fraud (by examining data that may flag unusual patterns of transactions) and results in an organisation with a lower risk profile.[4][5]

A number of other soft benefits have been claimed for organisations performing control self-assessment. These include a better understanding of business operations (by both management and operational staff); stronger awareness of risk practices; a reinforced corporate governance regime and internal audit efficiency improvements.[4][20]

Some researchers have criticised control self-assessment as a flawed approach as the way risk is defined and measured is unsophisticated. In particular, control self-assessment may understate risk by not identifying extreme downside risk. An extreme downside risk is a highly improbable event that would have catastrophic consequences if it occurred. These risks should have a high overall risk score (generally calculated as a product of the probability of a risk occurring and the impact if it does occur on a scale of 1 to 5). Individuals performing the control self-assessment are consequently unable to significantly differentiate between risks leading to extreme low probability risks either being excluded from the analysis or grouped together with other more probable (but still unlikely) risks that have a less severe impact.[21]

The continual focus on risk elimination that a control self-assessment can lead to has also been criticised. The process of continual evaluation of risks and making plans to mitigate and eliminate them may lead to an unbalanced corporate culture where risks are eliminated ignoring the risk-return ratio of different business choices.[21]


poker legend who appeared on the tonight show and i've got a secret

Following his WSOP victory, he appeared on several talk shows, including  The Tonight Show, and had a small part in the 1974 Robert Altman movie California Split.[2]  He appeared on I've Got a Secret, where his secret involved losing $190,000 in one night of poker.[3]

Amarillo Slim

Thomas Austin Preston Jr. (December 31, 1928 – April 29, 2012), known as Amarillo Slim, was an American professional gambler known for his poker skills and proposition bets. Preston won the 1972 World Series of Poker (WSOP) Main Event and was inducted into the Poker Hall of Fame in 1992.

Before becoming a well-known tournament player, Preston was a rounder, touring the United States looking for gambling action along with Doyle Brunson and Sailor Roberts.[1]

Preston won four WSOP bracelets including two in Omaha. Preston's final WSOP win was in 1990. In the $2,500 Pot Limit Omaha event at the 2000 WSOP, he came in second to Phil Ivey.

In January/February 1980, Amarillo Slim hosted the Second Annual Poker Classic, which was the second-most prestigious poker tournament of its time. This series eventually came to be called the Super Bowl of Poker and continued until 1991. Gabe Kaplan became the first winner of this tournament series[4] and Stu Ungar won the title three times.[5]

Preston's lifetime tournament earnings totaled more than $587,000.[6]

In 1973, Preston and Bill G. Cox wrote Play Poker to Win which was published by Grosset and Dunlap. A revised edition of the book was published by HarperCollins in 2005 entitled Amarillo Slim's Play Poker to Win.

In May 2003, Preston published his autobiography Amarillo Slim in a World Full of Fat People, where he wrote of playing poker with Larry Flynt, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon among others. In addition to his poker exploits, Preston wrote about his exploits in proposition betting.

In April 2007, Preston created a website and released an E-Book called All In: An E-guide To No Limit Texas Hold'em. The book was written by Preston along with Joe Brent Riley.

Thomas Austin Preston Jr. was born on December 31, 1928, in Johnson, Arkansas, but when he was an infant his parents moved to Turkey, Texas. After they divorced, his mother returned to Johnson, while his father moved to Amarillo. Slim is quoted as saying: "It's a good thing he did, because Amarillo Slim sounds a heck of a lot better than Turkey Tom or Arkansas Austin."[7] Preston was divorced, had three children, and lived in Amarillo, Texas.[8]

In August 2003, Preston was indicted in Randall County, Texas, on charges of indecency with a 12-year-old grandchild.[9] The charges were reduced to misdemeanor assault in a plea bargain, and on February 10, 2004, Preston pleaded "no contest" to the reduced charges "to protect his family". Preston received a $4,000 fine, two years probation, and was "ordered to undergo counseling". In a 2009 interview, he stated that he was innocent of any wrongdoing, but chose to take the plea bargain in order to spare his family from a court trial.[10][11]

Early on the morning of October 4, 2006, Preston was the victim of an attempted armed robbery. The armed robber fired three bullets into Preston's car as he sped away. Preston was not injured.[12]

On January 28, 2007, Preston was robbed at gunpoint while in his  home.[13]

On January 22, 2009, Preston was beaten and robbed near the intersection of Interstate 40 and Soncy Road while attempting to collect a gambling debt.[14]

Preston's autobiography was the topic of a biopic movie reported to be under development. Nicolas Cage reportedly was to play Preston's character in the movie.[15][16] According to a 2009 article at Poker Listings, the "planned Hollywood movie about Slim's life" has been "dropped".[11]

Preston died on April 29, 2012, of colon cancer at the age of 83.[17][18]


why is a movie trailer called a trailer

A trailer (also known as a preview or coming attraction) is a commercial advertisement for a feature film that will be exhibited in the future at a cinema, the result of creative and technical work. The term "trailer" comes from their having originally been shown at the end of a feature film screening.[1] That practice did not last long, because patrons tended to leave the theater after the films ended, but the name has stuck. Trailers are now shown before the film begins.

Trailer (promotion)

Movie trailers have now become popular on DVDs and Blu-ray discs, as well as on the Internet and mobile devices. Of some 10 billion videos watched online annually, film trailers rank third, after news and user-created video.[2] The trailer format has also been adopted as a promotional tool for television shows, video games, books, and theatrical events/concerts.

The first trailer shown in an American film theater was in November 1913, when Nils Granlund, the advertising manager for the Marcus Loew theater chain, produced a short promotional film for the musical The Pleasure Seekers, opening at the Winter Garden Theatre on Broadway. As reported in a wire service story carried by the Lincoln, Nebraska Daily Star, the practice which Loew adopted was described as "an entirely new and unique stunt", and that "moving pictures of the rehearsals and other incidents connected with the production will be sent out in advance of the show, to be presented to the Loewâ€™s picture houses and will take the place of much of the bill board advertising".[3] Granlund was also first to introduce trailer material for an upcoming motion picture, using a slide technique to promote an upcoming film featuring Charlie Chaplin at Loew's Seventh Avenue Theatre in Harlem in 1914.[4]

Trailers were initially shown after, or "trailing", the feature film, and this led to their being called "trailers". The practice was found to be somewhat ineffective, often ignored by audiences who left immediately after the feature. Later, exhibitors changed their practice so that trailers were only one part of the film program, which included cartoon shorts, newsreels, and serial adventure episodes. Today, more elaborate trailers and commercial advertisements have largely replaced other forms of pre-feature entertainment, and in major multiplex chains, about the first 20 minutes after the posted showtime is devoted to trailers.[citation needed]

Up until the late 1950s, trailers were mostly created by National Screen Service and consisted of various key scenes from the film being advertised, often augmented with large, descriptive text describing the story, and an underscore generally pulled from studio music libraries.  Most trailers had some form of narration, and those that did featured stentorian voices.[citation needed]

In the early 1960s, the face of motion picture trailers changed. Textless, montage trailers and quick-editing became popular, largely due to the arrival of the "new Hollywood" and techniques that were becoming increasingly popular in television.  Among the trend setters were Stanley Kubrick with his montage trailers for Lolita (1962), Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964), and 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968).  Kubrick's main inspiration for the Dr. Strangelove trailer was the short film Very Nice, Very Nice (1961) by Canadian film visionary Arthur Lipsett. Pablo Ferro, who pioneered the techniques Kubrick required as necessary elements for the success of his campaign, created the Dr. Strangelove trailer, as well as the award-winning trailer for A Clockwork Orange (1971).[citation needed]

Many home videos contain trailers for other movies produced by the same company scheduled to be available shortly after the legal release of the video, so as not to spend money advertising the videos on TV. Most VHS tapes would play them at the beginning of the tape, but some VHS tapes contained previews at the end of the film or at both ends of the tape. VHS tapes that contained trailers at the end usually reminded the viewer to "Stay tuned after the feature for more previews." With DVDs and Blu-rays, trailers can operate as a bonus feature instead of having to watch through the trailers before the film.[citation needed]

Trailers consist of a series selected shots from the film being advertised. Since the purpose of the trailer is to attract an audience to the film, these excerpts are usually drawn from the most exciting, funny, or otherwise noteworthy parts of the film but in abbreviated form and usually without producing spoilers. For this purpose the scenes are not necessarily in the order in which they appear in the film. A trailer has to achieve that in less than 2 minutes and 30 seconds, the maximum length allowed by the MPAA. Each studio or distributor is allowed to exceed this time limit once a year, if they feel it is necessary for a particular film.[5]

In January 2014, the movie theater trade group National Association of Theatre Owners issued an industry guideline asking that film distributors supply trailers that run no longer than 2 minutes, which is 30 second shorter than the prior norm.[6] The guideline is not mandatory, and also allows for limited exceptions of a select few movies having longer trailers. Film distributors reacted coolly to the announcement. There had been no visible disputes on trailer running time prior to the guideline, which surprised many.

Some trailers use "special shoot" footage, which is material that has been created specifically for advertising purposes and does not appear in the actual film. The most notable film to use this technique was Terminator 2: Judgment Day, whose trailer featured an elaborate special effect scene of a T-800 Terminator being assembled in a factory that was never intended to be in the film itself. Dimension Films also shot extra scenes for their 2006 horror remake, Black Christmas - these scenes were used in promotional footage for the film, but are similarly absent from the theatrical release. A trailer for the 2002 blockbuster Spider-Man had an entire action sequence especially constructed that involved escaping bank robbers in a helicopter getting caught in a giant web between the World Trade Center's two towers. However, after the September 11 attacks the studio pulled it from theaters.

One of the most famous "special shoot" trailers is that used for the 1960s thriller Psycho, which featured director Alfred Hitchcock giving viewers a guided tour of the Bates Motel, eventually arriving at the infamous shower. At this point, the soft-spoken Hitchcock suddenly throws the shower curtain back to reveal Vera Miles with a blood-curdling scream. As the trailer, in fact, was made after completion of the film when Janet Leigh was no longer available for filming, Hitchcock had Miles don a blonde wig for the fleeting sequence. Since the title, "Psycho", instantly covers most of the screen, the switch went unnoticed by audiences for years until freeze-frame analysis clearly revealed that it was Vera Miles and not Janet Leigh in the shower during the trailer.

There are dozens of companies that specialize in the creation of film trailers in Los Angeles and New York. The trailer may be created at agencies (such as The Cimarron Group, MOJO, The Ant Farm, Ben Cain, Aspect Ratio, Flyer Entertainment, Trailer Park, Buddha Jones) while the film itself is being cut together at the studio.  Since the edited film does not exist at this point, the trailer editors work from rushes or dailies. Thus, the trailer may contain footage that is not in the final movie, or the trailer editor and the film editor may use different takes of a particular shot. Another common technique is including music on the trailer which does not appear on the movie's soundtrack. This is nearly always a requirement, as trailers and teasers are created long before the composer has even been hired for the film score—sometimes as much as a year ahead of the movie's release date—while composers are usually the last creative people to work on the film.

Some trailers that incorporate material not in the film are particularly coveted by collectors, especially trailers for classic films. For example, in a trailer for Casablanca the character Rick Blaine says, "OK, you asked for it!" before shooting Major Strasser; this line of dialogue is not spoken in the final film.

Over the years, there have been many instances where trailers give misleading representations of their films. They may give the impression that a celebrity who only has a minor part in the film is one of the main cast members, or advertising a film as being more action-packed than it is. These tricks are usually done to draw in a larger audience. Sometimes the trailers include footage not from the film itself. This could be an artistic choice, or because the trailer was put together before the film's final cut, but at other times it is to give the audience a different impression of the movie. Then trailers could be misleading in a 'for the audience's own good' kind of way, in that a general audience would not usually see such a film due to preconceptions, and by bait and switching, they can allow the audience to have a great viewing experience that they would not ordinarily have. However, the opposite is true too, with the promise of great trailers being let down by mediocre films.[7] An American woman sued the makers of Drive because their film "failed to live up to its promo's promise",[8][9][10] although her lawsuit was dismissed.[11][12] In August 2016, an American lawyer attempted to sue Suicide Squad for false advertising over lack of scenes including Joker.[13]

Trailers tell the story of a film in a highly condensed fashion to have maximum appeal. In the decades since film marketing has become a large industry, trailers have become highly polished pieces of advertising, able to present even poor movies in an attractive light. Some of the elements common to many trailers are listed below. Trailers are typically made up of scenes from the film they are promoting, but sometimes contain deleted scenes from the film.

The key ambition in trailer-making is to impart an intriguing story that gets film audiences emotionally involved.[14]

Most trailers have a three-act structure similar to a feature-length film. They start with a beginning (act 1) that lays out the premise of the story. The middle (act 2) drives the story further and usually ends with a dramatic climax. Act 3 usually features a strong piece of "signature music" (either a recognizable song or a powerful, sweeping orchestral piece). This last act often consists of a visual montage of powerful and emotional moments of the film and may also contain a cast run if there are noteworthy stars that could help sell the movie.

Voice-over narration is sometimes used to briefly set up the premise of the film and provide explanation when necessary, although this practice has declined in the years after the passing of voice-over artist Don LaFontaine. Since the trailer is a highly condensed format, voice-over is a useful tool to enhance the audience's understanding of the plot. Some of the best-known, modern-day trailer voice-over artists have been the aforementioned LaFontaine, Hal Douglas, Mark Elliott, John Leader, Corey Burton, George DelHoyo, Peter Cullen, Morgan Freeman, Ashton Smith, Jim Cummings, John Garry, Tom Kane, Nick Schatzki, Ben Patrick Johnson, Tony Rodgers, Beau Weaver, and Brian Cummings. Classic voice-over artists in film trailers of the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s included Howard Strickling (for MGM), Lou Marcelle (for Warner Bros.), Art Gilmore, Knox Manning, Reed Hadley, Les Tremayne (for MGM), Fred Foy (for MGM), Karl Weber (for MGM) and Bob Marcato. Hollywood trailers of the classic film era were renowned for clichés such as "Colossal!", "Stupendous!", etc. Some trailers have used voice over clichés for satirical effect. This can be seen in trailers for films such as Jerry Seinfeld's Comedian and Tenacious D in The Pick of Destiny.

Music helps set the tone and mood of the trailer. Usually the music used in the trailer is not from the film itself (the film score may not have been composed yet). The music used in the trailer may be:

A cast run is a list of the stars that appear in the movie. If the director or producer is well-known or has made other popular movies, they often warrant a mention as well. Most trailers conclude with a billing block, which is a list of the principal cast and crew. It is the same list that appears on posters and print publicity materials, and also usually appears on-screen at the beginning (or end) of the movie. Studio production logos are usually featured near the beginning of the trailer. Until the late 1970s, they were put only at the end of the trailer or not used at all; however, Paramount Pictures was the first studio to use its actual studio logo at the beginning of its trailers in the 1940s. Often there will be logos for both the production company and distributor of the film.

Many trailers are mixed in Dolby Digital or any other multichannel sound mix. Scenes including sound effects and music that are enhanced by stereophonic sound are therefore the focus point of many modern trailers.

Trailers preceding feature films are generally presented in the same format as the feature, being either 35 mm film or a digital format. High bandwidth internet connections allow for trailers to be distributed online at any resolution.  Since the advent of Digital 3‑D, it has become common for a 3‑D feature film to be preceded by one or more trailers that are also presented in 3‑D.

National Screen Service contracts required that trailers be returned (at the cinema's expense) or destroyed, however it required no proof of destruction and depositing them in a waste bin counted. A market for trailers evolved as it became clear that some had a commercial value to collectors. Many of the trailers for films like the Star Wars series reported as 'destroyed' were taken back out of the bin and sold by cinema staff. As they cost about $60 each to make (1981 estimate) and were hired to the cinema for $10, such losses led to NSS increasing its rental charges, which led to a decrease in the number of trailers rented and shown to audiences.[17]

Some cinemas also began to show "trailer trash" programs of trailers without a main feature. Similarly, several DVDs containing nothing but trailers for films, typically from exploitation film genres, have been produced for sale.

Beginning in the late 1990s to early 2000s, and along with the development of the Internet and sites such as YouTube as well as animation techniques, more types of trailers began to be created due to easier and cheaper costs to produce and show trailers.

Beginning in the late 1990s to early 2000s, video game trailers began to be produced as they became more mainstream. Used to entice viewers to go out and play the game, game trailers are very useful. The content and production process is similar to that for movies, complicated by the need to convey the way the game plays. The trailer for Aliens: Colonial Marines, for example, featured graphics that were of a higher standard than the game that was eventually sold.[18] Hideo Kojima, a game creator strongly influenced by Hollywood movies, edits the elaborate trailers for his own games from a special studio in his office.[19]

TV spots are trailers for movies shown on television that are often shortened to 30â€“60 seconds. These trailers are similar to green band trailers and have content "appropriate" for the channel.

TV show trailers are trailers advertising a new TV series, episode, event or marathon premiering on television. Trailers for the next episode of a TV series are often shown during or following the closing credits of the show.

A book trailer is a video advertisement for a book which employs techniques similar to those of movie trailers to promote books and encourage readers.[20] These trailers can also be referred to as "video-podcasts", with higher quality trailers being called "cinematic book trailers".[21] They are circulated on television and online in most common digital video formats.[22] Common formats of book trailers include actors performing scenes from the book akin to a movie trailer, full production trailers, flash videos, animation or simple still photos set to music with text conveying the story.[23] This differs from author readings and interviews, which consist of video footage of the author narrating a portion of their writing or being interviewed.[24] Early book trailers consisted mostly of still images of the book, with some videos incorporating actors,[25] with John Farris's book trailer for his 1986 novel Wildwood incorporating images from the book cover along with actors such as John Zacherle.[26]

In September 2007, the School Library Journal established the Trailie Award for the best book trailers. There are three categories: author/publisher created, student created and librarian/adult created. The award was announced at the School Library Journal Leadership Summit on the Future of Reading on October 22, 2010 in Chicago.[27]

In 2014, Dan Rosen and CV Herst established BookReels, a website dedicated to allowing publishers and authors to post book trailers and other multimedia, culminating in the annual BookReels Awards. BookReels lets readers browse and rate trailers, post comments and reviews, join discussion groups, and share BookReel discoveries.[28]

For popular movies, fans often make trailers on their own. These are unofficial videos by fans utilizing audio or video of a movie, studio trailer, animation techniques or fan-acted scenes replacing the video of the official trailer.

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) mandates that theatrical trailers be no longer than two minutes and thirty seconds.  Each major studio[clarification needed] is given one exception to this rule per year.[citation needed] Internet or home-video trailers have no time restrictions. Rating cards appear at the head of trailers in the United States which indicate how closely the trailer adheres to the MPAA's standards.[citation needed]

A green band is an all-green graphic at the beginning of the trailer.  Until April 2009, these cards indicated that they had been approved for "all audiences" and often included the movie's MPAA rating. This signified that the trailer adheres to the standards for motion picture advertising outlined by the MPAA, which include limitations on foul language and violent, sexual, or otherwise objectionable imagery. In April 2009, the MPAA began to permit the green band language to say that a trailer had been approved for "appropriate" audiences, meaning that the material would be appropriate for audiences in theaters, based on the content of the film they had come to see. In May 2013, the MPAA changed the trailer approval band from "for appropriate audiences" to "to accompany this feature", but only when accompanying a feature film; for bands not accompanying a feature film, the text of the band remained the same. The font and style of the text on the graphic bands (green and red) was also changed at the time the green band was revised in 2013.[citation needed]

Trailers which do not adhere to these guidelines may be issued a red band, which indicates approval for only "restricted" or "mature" audiences. These trailers may only be shown theatrically before R-rated, NC-17-rated, or unrated movies[citation needed] (only films that are released in theaters rated R and not in theaters[clarification needed] rated PG-13). These trailers may include nudity, profanity, or other material deemed inappropriate for children.[29]

Additionally, "yellow band" trailers were introduced around 2007 to indicate restricted content, only for distribution on the Internet. Although official, this practice appears to have never been widespread (although occasional yellow band trailers are created). A notable example is the yellow band trailer for Rob Zombie's Halloween (2007).[30]

Every year there are two main events that give awards to outstanding film trailers: The Key Art Awards, presented by The Hollywood Reporter, and the Golden Trailer Awards. The Golden Trailer Awards and the Key Art Awards pick winners in all creative parts of film advertising, from trailers and TV spots to posters and print ads. The Golden Trailer Awards are currently expanding to add a sister event, The World Trailer Awards, to be a kickoff to the Cannes Film Festival in France, 2013. The yearly Key Art Awards ceremony is often held at the Dolby Theater in Hollywood. The Film Informant also recognizes movie marketing media and held the first annual TFI Awards in early January 2012.[31] The site is the first to officially start recognizing and rating movie marketing media on a daily basis.


who plays stephanie on the bold and beautiful

Jacqueline MacInnes Wood (born 17 April 1987) is a Canadian actress, disc jockey, singer and television host. She portrayed Olivia Castle in the film Final Destination 5 and Steffy Forrester in TV soap opera The Bold and the Beautiful, the latter earning her three Daytime Emmy Award nominations in 2012, 2013 and 2018.

Jacqueline MacInnes Wood

Born Jacqueline MacInnes Wood in Windsor, Ontario, the daughter of (Sandie) Alexandra MacInnes and James C. Wood.[1] She is of  indigenous (Cree), Scottish, French and Brazilian ancestry.[2]  Her half sister is Dani Probert, who was the wife of the late NHL player, Bob Probert. Her great uncle is Scottish highland singer Alasdair Gillies.  Wood took acting classes at Ryerson University, Centre for the Arts and the Armstrong Acting Studio.[3]

Wood made a name for herself playing the part of the "hair girl" on a commercial for First Choice Haircutters.[4] At the age of 18, she moved to Toronto to pursue a career in acting. In May 2008, she began playing the contract role of Steffy Forrester on the American CBS Daytime soap opera The Bold and the Beautiful.[5] Since Wood stepped into the role, Steffy has been noted as being a "bitch-nasty" vixen who is strong willed.[6] Of playing her, Wood said in 2011, "I love playing her and developing her character. She is so different from me. It's rather cathartic, and it allows my alter ego to come out on The Bold and The Beautiful set five days a week."[7]

In 2012, Wood received her first nomination for Outstanding Younger Actress in a Drama Series for her portrayal of Steffy at the 39th Daytime Emmy Awards.[8] Of learning about her Emmy nomination, she said, "I was just about to shoot a scene in the Adriatic sea in Italy. The water was only 54 degrees! [Executive Producer/Head Writer] Brad Bell came up to me and said, "How does it feel to be Emmy nominated?"[9] For that year, Wood submitted the scenes in which Steffy is informed of the end of her affair with Bill.[10] In 2013, Wood garnered her second consecutive nomination in that category at the 40th Daytime Emmy Awards,[11] in which she submitted the scenes where Steffy surprises Liam (Scott Clifton) by presenting him with signed annulment papers.[12] In May 2013, news broke that Wood had opted not to renew her contract with the show in order to take another break. A representative for the show stated: "[Wood] is taking short a break, as she has done in the past, from B&B. She remains as the character of 'Steffy Forrester' and is continuing to tape, currently with episodes airing through July 2013 and then beyond".[13] It was later announced that Wood has decided to remain with the series on a recurring basis. In April 2015, it was announced that Wood would reprise her role on B&B on a contract basis, which she has remained on ever since.[14]

In 2011, she starred in her first feature film, Final Destination 5. In September 2010, Wood's casting was announced and it was revealed that filming was underway in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. This film is the fifth in the Final Destination horror film franchise.[15] Wood portrayed Olivia Castle. The character was described as "a smart mouthed beauty who wears glasses" and is "caught in a spine chilling, stomach churning situation that will make viewers squirm in their seats", which was a risky eye procedure which Wood was terrified to do.[16] Final Destination 5 was a critical and commercial success, grossing over $157 million at the American Box Office,[17] and becoming the highest-rated film from the franchise at the website Rotten Tomatoes, where it has been awarded a "Fresh" rating, consisting of 61% positive reviews from film critics. Her performance also received very positive reviews.[18] Wood had a guest role on The CW action-adventure series Arrow, which began airing in October 2012. She played Sara Lance (which she is later replaced by Caity Lotz).[19][20] Arrow opened to positive reviews from critics and ratings of over 4.1 million.[21][22][23]

In 2013, Wood completed filming a Lifetime television film Her Husband's Betrayal, a suspense thriller in which she stars opposite Shawn Roberts.[24] The film premiered on 2 August 2013.[25] In July 2014, Wood filmed an appearance on the comedy series Anger Management, starring opposite Charlie Sheen. The episode aired on 1 September 2014.[26]

Apart from her acting, Wood is an occasional disc jockey and singer.[27] She released her debut single "After Hours", a dance-influenced song penned by her wardrobe stylist, Chaz E. Foley, in January 2012.[28][29] Jamey Giddens of Zap2it described the "After Hours" music video as "naughty", and said "I am digging this thumping, raunchy track and the provocative video."[30]

In October 2012, Wood, who is described by Zap2it as a "vixen", covered Maxim magazine's 2013 Mini Calendar.[31] On 22 August 2013, it was announced that Wood will serve as host for an upcoming E! television series, Party On, which is an "eight-episode series" that is dedicated to "exposing the best party scenes the world has to offer". Vice president of programming and development for the network, Jeff Olde, stated: "We are excited to take viewers around the globe and behind the velvet ropes for fun in the sun at only the hottest, most elite vacation locales."[32] Executive producer David Granger stated, "Jacqui is a brilliant host and we all see a wonderful opportunity to produce something very new and different given the high end glamour and sun soaked mischief that Europe has to offer."[32] The series premiered on 5 December 2013.[33]

Wood is a supporter of pet rescue organizations, devoting time to spreading awareness via social activism including Twitter about dog shelters and pet owners' responsibility, in addition to volunteering with charitable initiatives benefiting animal rescue.[33] In November 2017, Wood announced her engagement to partner, Elan Ruspoli,[34] and the pair eloped in July 2018.[35]


each utm zone covers how many degrees of longitude wide

The UTM system divides the Earth into 60 zones, each 6° of longitude in width. Zone 1 covers longitude 180° to 174° W; zone numbering increases eastward to zone 60, which covers longitude 174°E to 180°. The polar regions south of 80°S and north of 84°N are excluded.

The Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) conformal projection uses a 2-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system to give locations on the surface of the Earth. Like the traditional method of latitude and longitude, it is a horizontal position representation, i.e. it is used to identify locations on the Earth independently of vertical position. However, it differs from that method in several respects.

The UTM system is not a single map projection. The system instead divides the Earth into sixty zones, each being a six-degree band of longitude, and uses a secant transverse Mercator projection in each zone.

Most American published sources do not indicate an origin for the UTM system. The NOAA website states the system to have been developed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers,[1] and published material that does state an origin apparently based on that account. However, a series of aerial photos found in the Bundesarchiv-Militärarchiv (the military section of the German Federal Archives) apparently dating from 1943–1944 bear the inscription UTMREF followed by grid letters and digits, and projected according to the transverse Mercator,[2] a finding that would indicate that something called the UTM Reference system was developed in the 1942–43 time frame by the Wehrmacht. It was probably carried out by the Abteilung für Luftbildwesen (Department for Aerial Photography). From 1947 onward the US Army employed a very similar system, but with the now-standard 0.9996 scale factor at the central meridian as opposed to the German 1.0.[2] For areas within the contiguous United States the Clarke Ellipsoid of 1866[3] was used. For the remaining areas of Earth, including Hawaii, the International Ellipsoid[4] was used. The WGS84 ellipsoid is now generally used to model the Earth in the UTM coordinate system, which means current UTM northing at a given point can differ up to 200 meters from the old. For different geographic regions, other datum systems (e.g.: ED50, NAD83) can be used.

Prior to the development of the Universal Transverse Mercator coordinate system, several European nations demonstrated the utility of grid-based conformal maps by mapping their territory during the interwar period. Calculating the distance between two points on these maps could be performed more easily in the field (using the Pythagorean theorem) than was possible using the trigonometric formulas required under the graticule-based system of latitude and longitude. In the post-war years, these concepts were extended into the Universal Transverse Mercator/Universal Polar Stereographic (UTM/UPS) coordinate system, which is a global (or universal) system of grid-based maps.

The transverse Mercator projection is a variant of the Mercator projection, which was originally developed by the Flemish geographer and cartographer Gerardus Mercator, in 1570. This projection is conformal, which means it preserves angles and therefore shapes across small regions. However, it distorts distance and area.

Each of the 60 zones uses a transverse Mercator projection that can map a region of large north-south extent with low distortion. By using narrow zones of 6° of longitude (up to 668 km) in width, and reducing the scale factor along the central meridian to 0.9996 (a reduction of 1:2500), the amount of distortion is held below 1 part in 1,000 inside each zone. Distortion of scale increases to 1.0010 at the zone boundaries along the equator.

In each zone the scale factor of the central meridian reduces the diameter of the transverse cylinder to produce a secant projection with two standard lines, or lines of true scale, about 180 km on each side of, and about parallel to, the central meridian (Arc cos 0.9996 = 1.62° at the Equator). The scale is less than 1 inside the standard lines and greater than 1 outside them, but the overall distortion is minimized.

Distortion of scale increases in each UTM zone as the boundaries between the UTM zones are approached. However, it is often convenient or necessary to measure a series of locations on a single grid when some are located in two adjacent zones. Around the boundaries of large scale maps (1:100,000 or larger) coordinates for both adjoining UTM zones are usually printed within a minimum distance of 40Â km on either side of a zone boundary. Ideally, the coordinates of each position should be measured on the grid for the zone in which they are located, but because the scale factor is still relatively small near zone boundaries, it is possible to overlap measurements into an adjoining zone for some distance when necessary.

Latitude bands are not a part of UTM, but rather a part of the military grid reference system (MGRS).[5] They are however sometimes used.

Each zone is segmented into 20 latitude bands. Each latitude band is 8 degrees high, and is lettered starting from "C" at 80°S, increasing up the English alphabet until "X", omitting the letters "I" and "O" (because of their similarity to the numerals one and zero). The last latitude band, "X", is extended an extra 4 degrees, so it ends at 84°N latitude, thus covering the northernmost land on Earth.

Latitude bands "A" and "B" do exist, as do bands "Y" and "Z". They cover the western and eastern sides of the Antarctic and Arctic regions respectively. A convenient mnemonic to remember is that the letter "N" is the first letter in "northern hemisphere", so any letter coming before "N" in the alphabet is in the southern hemisphere, and any letter "N" or after is in the northern hemisphere.

The combination of a zone and a latitude band defines a grid zone. The zone is always written first, followed by the latitude band. For example, (see image, top right), a position in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, would find itself in zone 17 and latitude band "T", thus the full grid zone reference is "17T". The grid zones serve to delineate irregular UTM zone boundaries. They also are an integral part of the military grid reference system.

A note of caution: A method also is used that simply adds N or S following the zone number to indicate North or South hemisphere (the easting and northing coordinates along with the zone number supplying everything necessary to geolocate a position except which hemisphere). However, this method has caused some confusion since, for instance, "50S" can mean southern hemisphere but also grid zone "50S" in the northern hemisphere.[6] There are many possible ways to disambiguate between the two methods, two of which are demonstrated later in this article.

These grid zones are uniform over the globe, except in two areas. On the southwest coast of Norway, grid zone 32V (9° of longitude in width) is extended further west, and grid zone 31V (3° of longitude in width) is correspondingly shrunk to cover only open water. Also, in the region around Svalbard, the four grid zones 31X (9° of longitude in width), 33X (12° of longitude in width), 35X (12° of longitude in width), and 37X (9° of longitude in width) are extended to cover what would otherwise have been covered by the seven grid zones 31X to 37X. The three grid zones 32X, 34X and 36X are not used.

Bering Sea with Alaska

Picture gallery: Grid zones in various parts of the world

A position on the Earth is given by the UTM zone number and the easting and northing planar coordinate pair in that zone. The point of origin of each UTM zone is the intersection of the equator and the zone's central meridian. To avoid dealing with negative numbers, the central meridian of each zone is defined to coincide with 500000 meters East. In any zone a point that has an easting of 400000 meters is about 100 km west of the central meridian. For most such points, the true distance would be slightly more than 100 km as measured on the surface of the Earth due to the distortion of the projection. UTM eastings range from about 167000 meters to 833000 meters at the equator.

In the northern hemisphere positions are measured northward from zero at the equator. The maximum "northing" value is about 9300000 meters at latitude 84 degrees North, the north end of the UTM zones. In the southern hemisphere northings decrease southward from the equator to about 1100000 meters at 80 degrees South, the south end of the UTM zones. The northing at the equator is set at 10000000 meters so no point has a negative northing value.

The CN Tower is at 43°38′33.24″N 79°23′13.7″W / 43.6425667°N 79.387139°W / 43.6425667; -79.387139 (CN Tower), which is in UTM zone 17, and the grid position is 630084 m east, 4833438 m north. Two points in Zone 17 have these coordinates, one in the northern hemisphere and one in the south; one of two conventions is used to say which:

Because latitude band "S" is in the northern hemisphere, a designation such as "38S" is unclear. The "S" might refer to the latitude band (32°N–40°N) or it might mean "South". It is therefore important to specify which convention is being used, e.g., by spelling out the hemisphere, "North" or "South", or using different symbols, such as − for south and + for north.

These formulae are truncated version of Transverse Mercator: flattening series, which were originally derived by Johann Heinrich Louis Krüger in 1912.[7] They are accurate to around a millimeter within 3,000 km of the central meridian.[8] Concise commentaries for their derivation have also been given.[9][10]

The WGS 84 spatial reference system describes Earth as an oblate spheroid along north-south axis with an equatorial radius of

a
=
6378.137

{\displaystyle a=6378.137}

 km and an inverse flattening of

1

/

f
=
298.257

223

563

{\displaystyle 1/f=298.257\,223\,563}

. Let's take a point of latitude

φ

{\displaystyle \,\varphi }

 and of longitude

λ

{\displaystyle \,\lambda }

 and compute its UTM coordinates as well as point scale factor

k

{\displaystyle k\,\!}

 and meridian convergence

γ

{\displaystyle \gamma \,\!}

 using a reference meridian of longitude

λ

0

{\displaystyle \lambda _{0}}

. By convention, in the northern hemisphere

N

0

=
0

{\displaystyle N_{0}=0}

 km and in the southern hemisphere

N

0

=
10000

{\displaystyle N_{0}=10000}

 km. By convention also

k

0

=
0.9996

{\displaystyle k_{0}=0.9996}

 and

E

0

=
500

{\displaystyle E_{0}=500}

 km.

In the following formulas, the distances are in kilometers. In advance let's compute some preliminary values:

First let's compute some intermediate values:

The final formulae are:

Note: Hemi=+1 for Northern, Hemi=-1 for Southern

The final formulae are: