Writing this blog and being in critical thinking for a semester has definitely changed the way I think about media and consumption. The material of this class probably applied more closely to our lives than it would for a lot of people because we're teenagers--constantly linked in and impressionable. It was actually interesting to see the ideas behind the stuff we eat up every day.
I consume a LOT of media. If this means media as in music and movies and every form of entertainment, that's basically my whole life. I come home and listen to music, watch TV shows or movies, and go on the internet. If that means advertising, Netflix, Spotify, and every website ever has some form of advertising or marketing integrated into it or displayed on it, because nothing can happen without money. However, I don't use apple products or even have a phone with constant internet access, and my family doesn't have cable, so I think I consume less advertising than an average person my age. The advertising I consume usually just makes me sad about the outdated ugly stuff I own, but I don't always actually buy the stuff I like from commercials. The other types of media (entertainment) make up a huge part of my life, and I really like having access to them. If they're impacting me negatively I honestly don't really care.
Being aware of my media consumption has actually made me more interested in commercials. Before learning all the techniques and needs that drive them, they all seemed the same--mindless, plot-less loud annoyances that interrupt my YouTube videos. They're still annoying, but now I can occupy myself by deconstructing them as I watch. It kind of makes me feel smarter than the advertisers. "Can't get anything past me anymore guys! Ha ha." With shows and movies and music, it made the whole experience less magical. I'm now painfully aware of the ever-present motive behind all media--money, so now every time I watch or hear something I think 'who are they trying to appeal to with this? What part of this is attracting people?' It's made me a bit more jaded and cynical, so thanks for that Starace :).
I've definitely learned more about my media consumption habits, and could probably point out the most ad-heavy entertainment options I choose, but I don't think my actual habits have changed. The only thing we learned was how to analyze commercials, not how to find the willpower to avoid sites that have a lot of them, and find honest, indie websites to use instead.
It's important to have media literacy because the people who "make" media are doing it as a job, not out of the goodness of their hearts (usually). So the entire point is to make money, and they do that by convincing people to give them their money. It seems good to have some idea of the ways they get us to do this, so we can recognize them and not fall for any tricks. It also lets us get more out of media, because we understand it on more levels. It gives a solid ground to base our takeaway from media on, so we can form more complete and more well-informed conclusions.
Being an educated consumer is important because we have the information to make good choices about buying things and watching things, which are big parts of everyone's lives. Decisions about where to spend your money and what to consume can have big positive (or negative) repercussions, so it's a good thing to be well-informed in that area. It would also help you to know what products are the best, and what companies are the most honest, green, humane, etc., so you can use your knowledge and power as a consumer to do the world some good.
Keeping this blog was fun and different than most school assignments. It was less stressful because there was no physical "turning in" or possibility of losing your assignment. By the end I was more confident in my writing skills, or more comfortable at least, because we don't usually have as much freedom when it comes to topic choice, and not many people write outside of school, so this was a good middle ground where you could be creative but still had to actually do it. I definitely learned a lot about media and advertising, and doing the blogs solidified the information we learned in class way more than any tests or worksheets could have.
Before doing this unit, I had no idea at all how concrete the philosophies behind advertising were. I'm a fan of more solidified "answers" to things, so that was really cool to learn about. It also gave more insight into the world of advertising, and how difficult a good commercial or ad campaign is, something I had never acknowledged before. It's such a big element of society and peoples' daily activities, but no one talks about it as much as other "day-to-day" things like driving or using the internet or cooking. I feel much more informed about the world around me.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Entry 14: 5 Gum
The 5 Gum commercials are totally awesome. They're pretentious and outrageous, but still totally awesome and I want to do all of the stuff people do in them. The spearmint one is probably the most popular:
There are a lot of other cool ones though: 5 Gum-Rain, 5 Gum-React, 5 Gum-Solstice, and 5 Gum-Elixir. All of them are centered closely around the same idea, down to the same narrator and same guy manning the controls in the test chamber thing where all of this goes down.
Although the crazy stunts they pull in the commercials are nothing like chewing a piece of gum, I like 5 and I think the commercials are really cool to watch. These insane sensory performances are designed just to be awesome to experience. The people just kind of stand or lie there being amazed and looking around like, "holy crap." The commercials remind me of action/suspense movies, where the special effects are amazing and the technology in the movie is mind-blowing.
The main needs present in these ads are the need to dominate, the need to escape, and the need for aesthetic sensations. Although it doesn't have anything to do with dominating other people, they're definitely "mastering the possibilities" here, with this whole huge setup supposed to specifically cater to them. They're kind of the masters of this fantastical situation, and they look really bad*ss doing it. The need to escape is probably the most prominent need here. Nothing like this ever happens in real life, but they all look like the most awesome things ever, and very different from the mundane drudgery of day-to-day life. It makes it seem like chewing 5 Gum will put a new light on your day and make things different. The need for aesthetic sensations doesn't really have to do with traditional art or graphic design used in the commercial, but there are definitely really cool-looking things happening. They also say "how it feels to chew 5 Gum," and "5 Gum. Stimulate your senses," in all the commercials, and aesthetics have a lot to do with sensation.
Some techniques used are magic ingredients, plain folks, and gestalt. No gum is that awesome. It just won't happen. They make it seem like 5 has something in it that isn't present anywhere else, some kind of special ingredient that makes it amazing. (Maybe it's drugs.) They also use normal-looking people (generally attractive, but normal), wearing simple clothes. They all look to be young, and young people are the stereotypical gum-chewers. Gestalt is definitely used. Even in super high-tech, huge facilities most of this stuff is probably impossible, and it's definitely never seen in normal reality. It makes the commercials really memorable.
Overall, I think the commercials are very effective. I want to try all the flavors after watching them, and they aren't offensive in any way.
Entry 13: PETA
PETA is really annoying. I'm 110% for their message, animal abuse is never okay, but sometimes PETA does too much. All of their ads say the same thing: don't wear stuff made out of animal fur or skin. A fairly simple idea, but very interestingly advertised by PETA. Most of their ads feature well known female celebrities or...actresses (if you know what I mean) wearing not much but their very own skin.
Ew, what? No.
There are even some for the ladies:
I am okay with this.
These aren't even that bad for PETA. There's a whole campaign of "I'd rather go naked than wear fur" for women, and "ink not mink" for men that seemed like too much to show on here (http://www.peta.org/mediacenter/ads/print-ads-skins.aspx). Shock value is definitely the focus with these ads (especially that Joanna Krupa one--PETA just stahp). By using celebrities many people would recognize, and putting their names on all the posters, they make peolple notice more than if it was just random naked models. The nakedness also kind of makes them jump out a bit.
Some needs present in these ads are the needs for autonomy and affiliation. If you don't wear fur you'll stand out from the crowd of inhumane wastes of space who call themselves people, but you'll also be part of this great movement of attractive naked people. Although they use sex to grab peoples' attention, it doesn't seem like the need for sex is really tapped into. Except this one:
Yeah you ugly loser, if you aren't constantly pressed up against hot members of the opposite sex to stay warm, you really need to get your life back on track. There's this abstract idea established by all of their ads that not wearing fur and not wearing animal skin will make you hot. That's pretty ridiculous, and doesn't have anything to do with ethics or animal abuse.
Some techniques are testimonial, sex appeal, and in some, gestalt. (Like these):
The testimonial is self-explanatory. These ads basically have someone standing there saying they don't wear fur; that wouldn't carry any weight if the people weren't known or admired somehow. The sex appeal is also pretty self-explanatory. All the celebrities they use are mostly naked and all of them are attractive.
Except maybe this guy.
PETA's purpose is a noble one, so it makes the ridiculousness of their ads more justified, but it seems like the focus has gone from animals to people. They've gotten a lot of publicity for their print ads and they use it to get more publicity, not to spread more awareness about animal abuse. After going through all these ads, I don't know anything more about animal abuse than I did before, I know what a lot of celebrities look like without clothes on. They could do so much more with all the attention they get, but instead they keep throwing the same ad at everyone, with a different naked person on it. So, I don't think they are effective at getting their point across.
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Entry 12: Seventeen Pretty Amazing
Seventeen Magazine has an annual contest where "real girls" can compete to get on the cover of one issue. It is judged by celebrities (this year's most notable was Emma Roberts), and the contestants have to have some kind of story or achievement. The girl who won is an amazing soccer player and an activist, and travels around to volunteer with kids in poverty. She also does something with cupcakes that have a cause.
To be honest I had too look all of that up on Seventeen's website (if you couldn't tell I was basically copying something word for word). The contests don't really interest me. All of the girls are presented as perfect, selfless, kind and good-hearted people to great to actually exist in real life.
The main thing I noticed related closely to the Miss Representation video we've been watching in class. What was the name of this contest again? ...Pretty Amazing. Really? Could they get any more contradictory? These stories are supposed to be about girls who make a real difference and have good characters, as opposed to the celebrities and models normally featured on magazine covers. And right off the bat, in the title, they undermine the whole message of the contest.
This is an example of how second-nature it has become for people to base girls' worth off their outer beauty (or lack thereof). This magazine is written by women, for women, and about women, yet it still objectifies girls. Lindsay Brown is presented as having a beautiful personality, but on the cover she's obviously just had a big makeover and a healthy dose of Photoshop. Why do they have to emphasize her physical beauty when the story is about her inner beauty?
It seems like a big reason for the objectification of women in media is the basic purpose of advertising--to make you feel like you need something. No one would ever buy anything if commercials made them feel adequate and satisfied. Come to think of it, we never do anything just to reassure ourselves we're good people. We read books that leave us with life lessons and food for though to improve as people, we date to have someone make us happy, not to share our happiness with them, we buy things to make life better, we read magazines (and the like) for information or advice. Our purchases have to improve us in some way to be worth the buy. Why do we constantly tell ourselves we need to be improved??? The pressure has apparently become too much for a lot of young girls.
The fact that this is a contest is also contradictory to the message. It's meant to give girls inspiration and motivation to be better people, but it pits us against each other as well. The contestants are definitely competing, and of course all the readers will inevitably compare themselves to Lindsay, and of course she'll be way better than all of us.
So they have to inspire some kind of self-doubt in consumers to get us to buy their products. That makes it nearly impossible to market completely positively, and when the audience is a bunch of unsure tweens that little bit of negativity has a huge impact on their perspective and mindset.
I don't see how this can be fixed. Without advertising and spending everything would collapse, but there are things in the media and in advertising that just can't be there; it's not fair to consumers, and it's doing serious damage to a lot of girls out there. So many products are built on this concept of what women should be, and you can't magically switch who the "pretty" girl is in movies and TV shows and expect it to be isolated from the world of advertising. So I think what Seventeen has done is about the closest thing possible to promoting the "beautiful on the inside" type of girl, even though it doesn't actually do that.
To be honest I had too look all of that up on Seventeen's website (if you couldn't tell I was basically copying something word for word). The contests don't really interest me. All of the girls are presented as perfect, selfless, kind and good-hearted people to great to actually exist in real life.
The main thing I noticed related closely to the Miss Representation video we've been watching in class. What was the name of this contest again? ...Pretty Amazing. Really? Could they get any more contradictory? These stories are supposed to be about girls who make a real difference and have good characters, as opposed to the celebrities and models normally featured on magazine covers. And right off the bat, in the title, they undermine the whole message of the contest.
This is an example of how second-nature it has become for people to base girls' worth off their outer beauty (or lack thereof). This magazine is written by women, for women, and about women, yet it still objectifies girls. Lindsay Brown is presented as having a beautiful personality, but on the cover she's obviously just had a big makeover and a healthy dose of Photoshop. Why do they have to emphasize her physical beauty when the story is about her inner beauty?
It seems like a big reason for the objectification of women in media is the basic purpose of advertising--to make you feel like you need something. No one would ever buy anything if commercials made them feel adequate and satisfied. Come to think of it, we never do anything just to reassure ourselves we're good people. We read books that leave us with life lessons and food for though to improve as people, we date to have someone make us happy, not to share our happiness with them, we buy things to make life better, we read magazines (and the like) for information or advice. Our purchases have to improve us in some way to be worth the buy. Why do we constantly tell ourselves we need to be improved??? The pressure has apparently become too much for a lot of young girls.
The fact that this is a contest is also contradictory to the message. It's meant to give girls inspiration and motivation to be better people, but it pits us against each other as well. The contestants are definitely competing, and of course all the readers will inevitably compare themselves to Lindsay, and of course she'll be way better than all of us.
So they have to inspire some kind of self-doubt in consumers to get us to buy their products. That makes it nearly impossible to market completely positively, and when the audience is a bunch of unsure tweens that little bit of negativity has a huge impact on their perspective and mindset.
I don't see how this can be fixed. Without advertising and spending everything would collapse, but there are things in the media and in advertising that just can't be there; it's not fair to consumers, and it's doing serious damage to a lot of girls out there. So many products are built on this concept of what women should be, and you can't magically switch who the "pretty" girl is in movies and TV shows and expect it to be isolated from the world of advertising. So I think what Seventeen has done is about the closest thing possible to promoting the "beautiful on the inside" type of girl, even though it doesn't actually do that.
Friday, January 4, 2013
Entry 11: The Watch...and Costco?
Most of you have probably heard of or seen the movie "The Watch" that came out in July. It had Ben Stiller, Vince Vaughn, Jonah Hill, and that guy with the fro and the British accent.
It was definitely not a great movie; the main attractions were probably the recognized 'funny guys' who starred. Although there were clever parts that garnered laughs, overall it had pretty stupid humor.
It was definitely not a great movie; the main attractions were probably the recognized 'funny guys' who starred. Although there were clever parts that garnered laughs, overall it had pretty stupid humor.
Like that
The most interesting part of the movie to me was that it was basically a Costco ad. (Spoilers coming, by the way.) The main character, Ben Stiller, is the manager of a Costco in his suburban town, and just loves it. He has obvious emotional attachment to his workplace, and it's presented as the most rewarding and overwhelmingly good place to be. He also has an incredibly nice house. I doubt Costco managers make that much, or even much at all. It adds to the "happy Costco employee" image his character creates.
Costco even gets into the plot. There are a lot of scenes filmed in front of or inside a Costco, with the logo conspicuously in the background throughout.
This is a still from the movie
The aliens (oh yeah, there's aliens) also use Costco as their base, because it "has everything." The guys in the watch hang out in a camping display because it's just so darn great to be in Costco.
They would totally get kicked out.
In the end they have to blow up the Costco to destroy the alien transmitter thing that was going to destroy Earth (go figure). Ben Stiller is very sad to see his baby destroyed. This ending presents Costco as this greatly missed martyr that sacrificed itself to save the world, to the dismay of all those who loved it. It almost sounds Christ-like.
Techniques used in this movie are patriotism, repetition, wit and humor, plain folks, and testimonial. There's patriotism because it saves the world, dang it! There is no greater act of patriotism. The name "Costco" is repeated throughout the movie, both visually and verbally. It's impossible for the watcher to separate it from the numerous praises Ben Stiller gives it every few scenes. Wit and humor is the whole point of this movie. It didn't succeed that well, in my opinion the really funny parts can't be mentioned in this blog. Plain folks is used in that Ben Stiller and the rest of the guys in the watch (British afro man and possibly Jonah Hill excluded) are just normal guys, with family problems, etc. However, it is still a movie with celebrated actors loving the Costco, so it's also a testimonial.
The need to feel safe is also used here--those aliens are pretty freaky looking and not the nicest guys in the galaxy, and without the amazingness of Costco they would've taken over our world and killed us all!
Entry 10: Spotify
Spotify is a downloadable music service that has every well-known song and most unknown stuff as well. (http://www.spotify.com/us/video-splash/?utm_source=spotify&utm_ medium=web&utm_campaign=start) It's sleek, fast, legal and free, and all the music is perfect quality. You can search by artist, track, album, playlist, or song, organize your tracks and create radio stations (like Pandora). When you listen to tracks it displays similar artists, so it's incredibly easy to explore new, good music. It also links to Facebook, so you can follow your friends and view their favorites and playlists. It's awesome, and after using it for a little while there's no way I could go back to using any other music service.
It probably sounds like I'm advertising for Spotify, but they definitely don't need any more of that. Although the program itself is really streamlined and cool, I get the feeling the people running it are either poor or rude. You can buy a premium version with a monthly fee that has no ads, but let's be honest, who pays for things on the internet? Using the free version is a constant battle between liking music and liking a say in what's on your computer screen.
Understandably, there are audio advertisements every so often between songs. All of Spotify's ads have the SAME annoying jingle playing in the background, and are voiced by very self satisfied-sounding voice actors, and are all for Spotify. Sometimes artists do the ads for their music, on Spotify. The program opens automatically when you turn on the computer. When you press the red "x" in the top right corner, it minimizes, not closes, and you have to go to the icons on the right of your bottom toolbar to actually close it. If it's open and you go on another page for more than five or ten minutes without viewing it, it opens onto your screen and you have to minimize it again. It's incredibly hard to delete from your computer's system (my dad tried, he got annoyed of it popping up all the time). There's also a big sidebar that flickers through different ads.
Basically, it behaves like a computer virus. It opens when you don't open it, won't close, it accesses your information, and is impossible to fully delete. I'd say it's worth it because it really is a great music service, and it's free for the user but still gives money to the artists you listen to (cough cough--unlike illegal downloads). Being worth it doesn't change the fact that Spotify's version of advertising is incredibly annoying, though.
The main technique used is repetition. They throw their name at your face constantly; just having it written a few places and in every audio ad clip isn't enough, it pops up on your screen every few minutes, whether you're using it or not. On the surface it's only irritating, we're using your product, leave us alone. But looking at it from a financial standpoint, it might actually be more honest than other types of advertising.
When the program pops up on the screen every 10 minutes or so, you aren't actually viewing it (like you would be if you really opened it with your mouse), so when you click it, it reacts as if you've clicked on it to open it. Then you have to click back out of it. So, they kind of force you to click on it. It's obviously manipulative, almost to the point of them basically saying, "Hey sorry guys our advertising contract says if you use the free version you have to actually look at our page at least once every ten minutes. This will just take a second sorry."
You can feel them working around a system that makes them money, makes artists money, and gives listeners free, high quality music. That's a pretty tall order. I started writing this planning on mostly bashing Spotify, but after thinking about the reasons behind their marketing strategy and the product they are able to deliver, I actually think they do a good job of keeping things painless for users.
It probably sounds like I'm advertising for Spotify, but they definitely don't need any more of that. Although the program itself is really streamlined and cool, I get the feeling the people running it are either poor or rude. You can buy a premium version with a monthly fee that has no ads, but let's be honest, who pays for things on the internet? Using the free version is a constant battle between liking music and liking a say in what's on your computer screen.
Understandably, there are audio advertisements every so often between songs. All of Spotify's ads have the SAME annoying jingle playing in the background, and are voiced by very self satisfied-sounding voice actors, and are all for Spotify. Sometimes artists do the ads for their music, on Spotify. The program opens automatically when you turn on the computer. When you press the red "x" in the top right corner, it minimizes, not closes, and you have to go to the icons on the right of your bottom toolbar to actually close it. If it's open and you go on another page for more than five or ten minutes without viewing it, it opens onto your screen and you have to minimize it again. It's incredibly hard to delete from your computer's system (my dad tried, he got annoyed of it popping up all the time). There's also a big sidebar that flickers through different ads.
Basically, it behaves like a computer virus. It opens when you don't open it, won't close, it accesses your information, and is impossible to fully delete. I'd say it's worth it because it really is a great music service, and it's free for the user but still gives money to the artists you listen to (cough cough--unlike illegal downloads). Being worth it doesn't change the fact that Spotify's version of advertising is incredibly annoying, though.
The main technique used is repetition. They throw their name at your face constantly; just having it written a few places and in every audio ad clip isn't enough, it pops up on your screen every few minutes, whether you're using it or not. On the surface it's only irritating, we're using your product, leave us alone. But looking at it from a financial standpoint, it might actually be more honest than other types of advertising.
When the program pops up on the screen every 10 minutes or so, you aren't actually viewing it (like you would be if you really opened it with your mouse), so when you click it, it reacts as if you've clicked on it to open it. Then you have to click back out of it. So, they kind of force you to click on it. It's obviously manipulative, almost to the point of them basically saying, "Hey sorry guys our advertising contract says if you use the free version you have to actually look at our page at least once every ten minutes. This will just take a second sorry."
You can feel them working around a system that makes them money, makes artists money, and gives listeners free, high quality music. That's a pretty tall order. I started writing this planning on mostly bashing Spotify, but after thinking about the reasons behind their marketing strategy and the product they are able to deliver, I actually think they do a good job of keeping things painless for users.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)