Sex, Lies and Advertising

I did not like how long this essay was. It covered so much material that it was at times hard to summarize now, looking back. Many valid points were made. A lot of this I have heard before. Again, not many potential solutions were mentioned. We focus a lot of our energy on our societies problems, which keeps them going. Whether or not we are stating saying positive or negative messages surrounding the problem, our focus is still on the problem. That is where all our attention and energy is going towards. We are thinking, feeling and putting our energy out onto said problem. This only makes it bigger. Where is the focus on the solution? We always research halfway. We are culturally taught to seek out problems. Why not research fixing them?

What I found to be the most interesting part of this essay was the products that are advertised directly towards women. That technology and cars are only understood by men. This is extremely demeaning. I had never thought about it before. Advertisements encourage our gender role stereotypes and keeping our characteristics boxed in. Men are not smarter than women. They may take more of an interest in technology but that does not mean women cannot understand it. As far as cars go, when I think of all adults I know, whether they are man or woman, they all own a car. So why advertise directly towards men? Wouldn't companies want to make the most money they can? So is this advertising strategy something consciously decided or is it an actual strategy?

I think if all women magazines followed suit to what the editors of Ms. magazine did, the world of advertising could change. By not voicing our problems with how magazines are ran, we are giving away our power to those who make the most money off of women, mainly men. If most women have a problem with magazines, why do we continue to buy them? This article mainly brought up a plethora of questions for me.

Child Advertisements

I enjoyed this essay, since I have read Schlosser's Fast Food Nation and heavily agree with his research and opinions. What I found the most interesting in this essay is a theme i see in our country frequently. There is a problem addressed and backed up with thorough evidence. But there is nothing presented of how to resolve the issue. The FTC tried to ban advertisements directed at children under the age of seven in the late seventies. They failed. So if this is such an epidemic problem, where is the national awareness?

It is parents choice to put televisions in their children's rooms. It is parents choice to allow their children to watch as much television as they do. It is parents choice to choose what programs their kids watch and how much advertisements they watch. I think advertisers have free choice to target whichever demographic they choose. They are not making children watch their advertisements against their will. That is like saying if a group of people feel strongly against homosexuals that they want to ban from having any homosexuals on TV. That is not okay. Our country is built upon accepting or at least being open to all different types of people and ideas. We have free will.

I find it extremely immature to put the blame on advertisers. They are putting out their product, not making anyone buy it. If you feel strongly against that, than stop watching television. Or get a Tivo so you can fast forward through the commercials while still watching your favorite programs.

Metrosexual

This essay was boring to me since it brought no new information to my attention. I am quite aware that metrosexuals are becoming far more common and socially accepted than in the 90's. I admire these men for being brave enough to accept their feminine sides and take criticism by homophobes who are intimidated by the concept of straight men acting out of the box. Technically, straight men should have an infinite range of behaviors more commonly associated with females, but we are socialized since birth to act in a very narrowed and specific way.

It is interesting to me how words come about as well. Words become part of the English language when the general population accepts them, understands the meaning and symbolism of the word and commonly uses it. New words are made when new concepts and ideas come about that we have never seen before and a need arises. Before, metrosexuals were labeled as "gay" which was offensive to them. They think straight men should be able to groom themselves without changing their sexual orientation. There has been a huge increase in the number of men coming out as metrosexuals and even previously straight men beginning to adopt this new life style. "Metrosexual" is now a common term that almost all people know and use. In the past decade, this new way of being has become extremely popular.

I wonder if metrosexualism will continue to grow and if one day all men will take more care with their appearance and break the social stereotype in the ways men should behave.

Buttons for Buying

Researchers can monitor brain scans to see specific parts of the brain, such as the brain's reward system, light up when the people were shown certain products or advertisements. This mechanism of studying is extremely controversial, which is what makes this essay so interesting.

Many are scared that corporate marketers and political consultants could manipulate the population through our brains in certain areas, such as voting, and trigger neural activities to modify our behavior to meet their needs. Doing research on specific topics, such as advertising, and brain washing people are two very different things. I do not think we are even technologically advanced enough for scientists to perform said manipulation. Researchers have been studying the brain using the same equipment but for different intentions for years now. Suddenly because we are in the field of advertising are arguments being posed.

The counter argument to this is that the machines are being used to shed light on brain mechanisms that play a central role in consumer behavior. Producers requesting feedback on their product does not result in consistent or truthful evidence. I think we have the right to explore the brain as much as we can. If we achieve negative results, that is a risk we are willing to take to attain knowledge and to move forward. Operating out of fear was not the attitude held when famous and important discoveries were made.

I found this quote quite funny. "At its best, neuromarketing would make advertising more effective, potentially leading to new totalitarian regimes, civil strife, wars, genocide and countless deaths." ....really? We could discover more about how the brain operates, how humans think and how we are effected by advertisements. They aren't changing our reactions, just putting the information out about how and why. I do not wish to live in a world run by people who are scared of the possibilities scientific advancement can bring. Stop fearing change, for it will happen wether you think you are allowing it or not.

Why does the media not focus on these fascinating scientific studies that are constantly happening?

The Parable of the Democracy of Goods

This article covers a very specific, but important concept in our culture today. The media sets the standard for current society. A specific outlet the media uses is advertisements and the mechanism they use is called the parable of the democracy of goods. Advertisers started out by selling high-end products to an elite group of wealthy citizens. If the good was only affordable to the rich, they would be more likely to buy it since it sets them apart from the rest of American citizens. But than advertisers realized to sell a good at a low price, but with a high quantity of consumption, could make them more money.

The media started showing images and selling messages to the middle and lower class citizens that they could have the same products as the wealthy, but for a very low price. With in this, they are also stating that by attaining the same goods, you could be on the same level as the rich. This takes advantage of the average blue-collared worker's mind set, which is to provide for his family to the best of his ability. The media drives that these goods are the best and the best for your family.

This new tactic in the media brought upon negative results that were not directly intentional. It taught Americans to look to similarities in consumption style rather than to political power or control of wealth for evidence of significant equality. We became a consumer nation. Our focus went to what we had instead of what we can do. This puts even more strain and focus on money, rather than personal power. We are caught up in a lie.

America is Now BA

I did not enjoy reading this essay in the slightest. Frank used as many big and confusing words as possible to get across his point. Granted, he sounds intelligent, but it made me not want to listen to what he had to say.

So basically, America has now adopted the image of a "bad ass" when marketing to just about anyone. Brands such as Burger King, Dodge, Levi, Arby's, Special Export Beer and Hugo Boss all have slogans surrounding this idea of cheating, breaking rules, being different and special. This is a 180 degrees switch from the old image presented back in the 50's. Cigarette marketers have been using this image and tactic for years now. Its seemed to work for them. Maybe everyone else is now catching on.

I think people look at manikins or ads and think if they have said product, they will also be purchasing the attitude and the identity. It is a useless way of thinking. That guy who smokes cigarettes is so cool, meaning if I smoke cigarettes, I'll be cool. No. No you wont. But thats how advertisements work. The new "bad" attitude is also idealized with arrogance (mistaken for confidence) and this idea that they can behave however they want and people will still find them cool. Again, this only happens in reality shows, books and movies. In real life, people just find you an asshole.

I believe our country needs this because of the low self confidence everyone has from the economy and their thoughts about their future. The common attitude of the average american is anxious, worried, stressed, hopeless and depressed. I think ads are using this as a "pick-me-up". They are selling their products in a way they want people to feel. Like they are on top of the world and invincible.

Oh My God, Harry Potter

I thoroughly agree with this piece and its views. I think it was very well written and enjoyed learning the specific's of Harry Potter mania. Galligan addresses key points to how marketing works and how Harry Potter has managed to become such a world wide phenomenon. One thing that struck me as extremely interesting was all of the criticism conservative groups, nutritional groups and feminists gave to the approach of this marketing campaign.

First off, there was the complaint about supporting witchcraft and satanism. Seriously? Its Harry Potter. He is a wizard. I think even children know not to expect Harry Potter to read the bible or go to temple. I also think most people who read this book honestly believe, deep down, that they themselves are not wizards. Thus, through common sense, know that practicing wizardry is not for them. The book is made of fiction, Rowling can write about whatever she wants.

Second, feminists provided feedback about how the male characters are portrayed as leaders in this story. I have a problem with this complaint. If women were the main hero's in this novel, feminists would not notice or say anything negative about it. That is sexism. It's annoying. And everyone is an individual. By making this complaint, you are classifying people by their gender. Stating that girls should not be shy or that this is a bad quality. How does that make naturally shy people feel? Yeah, it's a dick comment. I'm sure there are many girls and boys who are shy and many who are not. Sorry Harry Potter didn't happen to be one of them.

Last, the health group. They are upset that Coke is sponsoring Harry Potter and are stating that Rowling is thus promoting poor health. Really? I have never once heard from any child, ever, "I love coke because Harry Potter is endorsed by it." They don't even show Harry Potter or any cast member drinking it! What is this. You are allowed to have your views and coca-cola is allowed theirs. You are marketing for a certain nutritional diet and Coke is marketing for theirs. They don't tell you what to do, so you should show them the same respect. Both groups have had your fair chances to market to kids, sorry Health group, that you are not winning. That you have not been chosen as a preferable life style. That is not Harry Potter's fault. Kids drank Coke before Harry Potter was around and they will continue long after he is gone.

"Frumpy or Chic" Reflection

I really enjoyed reading this piece. It brought out a private dilemma that is only well known to those in the academic workforce. Fashion can be a make-or-break deal when interviewing for a job or can influence the energy of a classroom. Many professors feel conflicted between two main theories; to dress frumpy or chic. There is evidence concluding that when you dress down, you are perceived to be giving more attention to your intellect. Yet there is an extreme of dressing so poorly that you end up being a distraction to your students. For professors of a different race, it is a high risk to display your culture or background through your outfits. This could result in making others too uncomfortable, although sadly, there is no problem with being too "WASPish". As a society, we all judge one another based on how we dress. First impressions are extremely important. It is our first, and at the time, only insight we have of an individual.

This essay enlightened me with information I was oblivious too. I have my own personal beliefs about dressing well and the appropriate attire based on the context of the situation. Though I never knew fashion to produce so much anxiety among professors. I disagree with specific quotes from different professors across the county. I believe you should not dress to a mold or standard that will make others perceive you as intelligent. This only reinforces the stereotype that intellectuals dress a certain way. It is a very ignorant assumption. I think it is important to dress professionally. You are a role model teaching our generation. Learning does not just happen within the course curriculum. We are learning all the time.

By social standards, you do not arrive to a dinner party dressing in jeans and a t-shirt. It is rude. I am paying a high amount of money to come to a class to learn. I feel respected when the professor dresses in a more professional manner. It shows me this individual cares about their appearance and is a symbol for respect. That they take their work seriously. I think this debate is not too confusing. Being a professor is still a job that makes a respectable income. Just because you teach does not mean you can dress however you want. I would hope you would go to class to teach as you would go to any office to work. Scholars are not excused or have special privileges that other professions don't have.

"The More Factor" Analysis

After reading "The More Factor" (p.89), I was thoroughly disappointed with the authors commentary. I am not excited for this blog entry since this information seems quite obvious to me. Shames writing comes down to a basic theory. That the economy of the United States is progressively reducing in productivity growth resulting in American citizens feeling a loss of identity to what our country once symbolized. Shames supports his theory with statistical evidence from economists regarding wealth changes over multiple decades ranging from the late 40's to the early 80's. The rest of his claims are opinion based and taken from observation. Shames writes about Americans values being forced to change as our wealth continually changes.

This essay contributes to broaden our innate belief's about our current economic situation and to expand our thoughts to how we thoughtlessly identify ourselves through our country on a hierarchy, being above the rest of the world.

I agree with the writer to an extent. Many people migrated to America to achieve a better life, make a higher income and possibly pursuit their idea of happiness. We carry this message through out generations by raising our children with this attitude and belief. As our economy is declining and our debt is increasing, many Americans feel insecure about their high status in the world and their purpose. America's economic and political system has supported personal growth based on what each individual can achieve. I think many American's lived, until recently, in a bubble, believing that America is all powerful and will always be the leading force in the world. As we have seen many times through out history, empires, rulers or countries who hold supreme power, eventually fall. Is this decline something we will bounce back from? Or is it the beginning to the end of the "American dream"?