One of my most favorite commercials of all time is, of course, the Old Spice commercial featuring Isaiah Mustafa.
This commercial was done by the advertising agency Wieden+Kennedy. As I began to look through the works they've done as an advertising company, I came to appreciate their works. This company has worked on an myriad of commercials and campaigns for various companies, but most notably Nike. This company is known for their creation of Nike's most amazing slogan 'Just Do It'. The works that I've seen from them so far have all come across with a very positive energy and it just makes you feel happy and encouraged overall. A great example of this is their work for Coca-Cola with their "Coke Side of Life" commercial.
It begins with a segment that is very similar to the extremely violent and infamous game Grand Theft Auto. Then it goes from this rather negative scene with this intense tough guy into this joyous parade of him doing positive and helpful things for everyone. It is charged with joy and happiness and it's extremely infectious, you can hardly watch it and not feel some joy somewhere in your self. This company is amazing in my opinion because of how joyous and overall how effective they are with their advertisements. They make us feel emotions, and that just shows how as a company they are so fantastic.
A method of advertising we recently discussed in our advertising class was the usage of nostalgia. Nostalgia is when the past is shown to remind us of great success and happy memories we associate with a certain brand or product. It is a very effective method since you generally will always have something positive to run with from the past. It is also great that the things associated with the nostalgia in an advertisement does not even have to be from that brand or product's history. For example in Samsung's recent commercial for their new watch...
None of those watches even exist, nor are they even slightly associated with Samsung. Yet does it not work effectively? It makes us think about how we used to dream and think about the cool futuristic technology we might possess some day when we were kids. Because of this reminiscing of amazing fictional technology, we associate all those positive things with this new Samsung watch that is shown at the end. So we ultimately think that this watch surpasses and can do even more then these other watches.
A big problem though with this is what if someone has no idea what any of these past fictional watches are? Now they will still recognize the fact that those other watches are really futuristic and cool, but they will completely miss where they come from and how amazingly awesome they were from those movies. Nostalgia advertisements rely on the premise that the person watching it and engaging with the advertisement has to have seen whatever nostalgic references are being shown, otherwise it is completely lost upon the viewer. After all you can't exactly reminisce about something that you've never seen or experienced.
The usage of nostalgia as a strategy for advertising is not always the best choice. Like stated before it can exclude certain people since they may have never seen or experienced whatever it is the advertisement is bringing up. Another issue is the fact that it may bring up negative memories rather then positive ones. Now for the most part I think that nostalgia brings up positivity, but it is possible to pull up negativity instead. For example with Microsoft's new commercial...
I personally do not remember the products and trendy things people did from the 90's very fondly. I imagine a good amount of others also do not remember the 90's all that positively. All those products and things that people did in the 90's all seem quite ridiculous and stupid to me, thus I associate that with Microsoft's new Internet Explorer. Nostalgia can be used for most brands and products I think, but for it to be effective it must bring up positive memories and must try not to exclude too many people by showing things that only certain generations would know of.
One of the most interesting movies I have ever seen would have to be "Fight Club". A huge thing that is discussed throughout this movie is on the topic of consumerism. Tyler Durden, one of the main protagonists, states that, "The things you own, end up owning you in the end."
He, of course, has a rather cynical outlook upon the topic of the things we purchase in our day to day life, but an accurate point nonetheless. Our society actually has communities of people centered around products that they buy from certain brands. If we think about it, doesn't that sound a lot like what Tyler stated about things owning us? When someone is in a brand community, they always have to have that next thing that the brand comes out with whether or not they need it. They simply have to have it since it's new and it came from that brand that they trust and believe in so dearly. Within these brand communities too they mostly all think and believe in the same ideas and values.
For example, take a look at the Apple community. Apple users actually have a certain image if you think about it. You can imagine it right now can't you? A young person who wears plain, layered, slim fitting clothing, tends to be kind of snobby and as trendy as possible. These people come to represent to the world what Apple is as a product. They also continually believe and purchase Apple products, even with the fact that Apple has in the past few years essentially come out with the same product over and over.
Now we have to consider this, does the product shape the people who purchase it, or are the purchasers already like that when they buy the product? Is an Apple user changed into a snobby hipster by buying Apple products, or is he just that way to begin with? I personally believe that people don't change because of the product they buy and get involved with. I think that they are drawn sometimes by the image that a product gives them and so should think of brands as magnets essentially. They pull together people of a like mindset and belief under one branded community.
So we ultimately do have to agree with what Tyler states is true, things do end up owning us. Yet it is by our choice that we do. We agree with what image the product gives us and allows us to project, because we are of that like mentality and belief with all the other people who use that product. Brand communities exist since people are simply pulled together because of that image that brand gives.
If you think about what the oldest stereotype in society would be, it would have to be the stereotype of genders. From birth it is imbedded into our minds and lives through mostly every interaction we have with society and our environment. For example, parents when choosing colors for their kids, will more than often pick blue for boys and pink for girls. Thus as we grow older we continually associate those colors with said genders. Yet it is the case that a long time ago that pink was actually a unisex color.
This painting entitled "Pink Boy", by Thomas Gainsborough, depicts a boy dressed in pink. In the 18th century it was actually the case that a man wearing pink was not actually that big of a deal. In fact it was fashionable to wear pink as a man. Continuing down the timeline, in 1905 people began to debate whether pink was for boys or for girls, and for a while it was the case that a majority of people agreed that pink was a boy's color.
This leads me to the thought that most likely a majority of our gender stereotypes that have been placed in the world are technically forced upon us. These stereotypes that we have been given our whole lives technically have no ground to stand upon when questioned. For example if I asked people what color pink is associated with they would most likely say girls. But if I continued and asked why do you think it is pink, they most likely would say that it is because that is the way it has always been for them. If you think about it, at it's core value there is no logic for why certain colors are associated with things other then the fact that humans have associated them with those things.
Now in advertising we see that a lot of the time the usage of gender stereotypes depicts an image of what a women should do and act like, but according to who? A lot of the world thinks alike on this subject, the idea that women should be tending to the house, taking care of kids, and making all the meals in the house. It is not just a stereotype that is limited to the United States, but it is a global stereotype. Thus it makes it a very difficult stereotype to deal with since mostly everyone thinks it. In addition to this media and advertising reinforce it with their messages that they send to society. I have stated this before, if we want negative things to stop being portrayed in messages to society, then we as a society must change first. We must begin to start thinking that men and women are equal, not just in terms of rights but in terms of what they can do and what they should do.
Recently in our advertising class we viewed this advertisement for the toy "Rose Petal Cottage".
As we can more or less see, it is filled with gender stereotypes for women. Everything from how the girl interacts with the toy house down to the song they play for the advertisement is more or less a stereotype of what women are supposed to like and do. Yet what if we were to remove the stereotypes and instead replace them with things that are far more empowering and fair to the genders? If we did what would it look like?
If the advertisement was rewritten to remove all the stereotypes, it would look extremely different. The color scheme would not be light pastels, they would be more solid colors and most likely primaries. The song also would not sound so sing-song, a better choice to remove stereotypes would be to simply have wordless background music. In the advertisement, to make it less stereotypical, instead of having just one girl, it should instead have a girl and a boy. Additionally in the advertisement the girl does a lot of stereotypical chores and duties for women in a household such as cooking, cleaning, taking care of the baby, and etc. To make it less stereotypical you would have the boy and girl do those chores together. You could also have the boy and girl do chores that are the reverse of their normal stereotype. For example, the boy would take care of the baby and the girl could fix up the house.
Breaking stereotypes is a rather difficult thing I believe. Not so much in terms of execution, but instead the beliefs of stereotypes that have been placed within everyone over their lifetimes. While I was writing this blog even I stopped myself at one point because I thought an idea was more for girls rather then guys. This point was at the part where I was writing role reversal chores for the guy and girl. I stopped at the point where I wrote that guys should take care of the baby, I thought that it was a little far for a guy to take care of a baby. Then I thought to myself that it definitely is not the case that I believe only girls should take care of the children in the family, in fact I believe if a father does not actually spend time with the kids that it's a tragedy and a crime almost. I stopped because of the stereotypes that have essentially been placed in me by society over my lifetime. So do take time to consider the idea that while maybe not consciously you believe in gender stereotypes, subconsciously in your choices you do.
One topic that will continually be controversial in society and media is the issue of racism. Ethnicity is something that unfortunately is imbedded into a lot of things in our world whether we acknowledge it or not. Advertising in society is a great example of this. In countless ads race is used as a part of it, but is it okay to do this? Especially when certain ethnics are portrayed with rather negative stereotypes? I certainly believe that some advertisements are quite vile with how openly racist they are, but ultimately advertisements are not meant to be seen as guides of morality. Advertisements are meant to get people to notice their product or their message and for that message to stick to the viewer like glue. From a business standpoint I would say that using whatever means necessary to get your product to sell is fair game.It is not a question of whether it is right and decent, the question for advertisers is what works.
This advertisement was used in the election between Republican party member Bob Corker and Democratic party member Harold Ford. Harold Ford was going to be the first black senator in Tennessee if he won that election. So the Republican party came out with this ad against him. It more or less played on some of the stereotypes people had of blacks. The ad can be said to have been pretty much successful since Corker got a boost in his points at the poll once this ad came out. The ad was certainly effective, but it certainly was not positive.
Unfortunately racism and the use of it in advertisements has been around for a very long time, most likely since the very beginning when ads were first being used. Today racism is alive in well in our world. As a world have made plenty of strides in the right direction, but the ultimate goal is still far away. This too applies to advertisements in our society, we have definitely gone far away from advertisements like:
But we still have advertisements like:
Racism in advertising today is not quite so blatantly obvious with words, but they certainly achieve the effect with images. Since it is not the words that are racist but the image, I imagine companies have an easier time denying the fact they meant to be racist. Subtlety and the ability to deny any claims to racism is the ability that comes from only using images to imply racism in advertising.
Advertisers have always had one job and one job only: to sell the product or idea. This is not to say though that they are heartless monsters who simply want money, they are just doing what is necessary sometimes for the job. I believe advertisers do not have ethical responsibilities, rather I believe it is our society that has the responsibility. Racism and stereotypes are practically embraced by many in the world, because of this advertisers see that these are methods in which people can be reached and pulled in by their advertisements. If we want advertisements to be more racially responsible, change has to be made within our society.
If there is one thing an advertisement wants to do, it's to get you to believe in their brand. To think favorably upon what their brand does, provides, and sells. Companies set out to do this in all sorts of fashions to convince consumers that their brand is the most reliable and the one that they should definitely buy. For example if we compare the commercial for Oreos...
Compared to the commercial for Tropicana's orange juice...
In the Oreo commercial the company makes the brand very comical and humorous, showing the consumer that their brand is fun and so delicious that people would even begin to fight over what makes them so delicious. The Tropicana commercial shows the consumer how natural and pure their juice is. It shows how their product is the real deal, not something made from artificial ingredients.
Both of these commercials on food accomplish the same thing, they get the consumer to get behind what they are selling. While they are both advertising things for food, they do so in very different fashions, but they accomplish the same goal. This goal of course is to build a better reputation for their brand name. Through their advertisements they ultimately get people to place a bit more trust and belief that their brand is the best and that their brand is the only one you should buy.
