I thought the commercials from class were all very creative and very good. The two that I remember most are the hat one and that iball one. I remember the hat one because its message seemed clear (hats for everything! buy hats!), yet wasn't too obvious. It showed how hats were needed and for lots of things, and that that store could supply them, yet it didn't just say 'we have hats for everything'- it actually showed how hats were needed for everything. The hats were cool, too.
I also remember the iball commercial, mostly because I think that that's a very creative thing to come up with, that seems to be something that really would appeal to high school students. Also, I thought the product name was cool too, playing on the fact that everybody automatically assume that anything that starts with an 'i' is great. Or almost everybody, anyway. I also liked how it caught the viewer's eye by having Brittney jump in and out of the screen. And then Maggie's voiceover at the end was totally like what happens at the end of real commercials, too.
Showing posts with label media unit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media unit. Show all posts
Friday, 8 February 2008
Wednesday, 6 February 2008
Pottery Barn
The way Pottery Barn apparently thinks up its designs and plans for products is really interesting, and I think it works really well. They go out and find cool-looking objects, listen to complaints about existing other place's products and look at how furniture is set up in places like restaurants. I think that that would give them a better idea of what people are looking for in products than simply selling plates because everyone like plates. I also think that it would be a really fun job to have.
It also seems fairly inevitable that Pottery Barn has decided to market to a larger audience. All for-profit businesses want to make as much money as possible (at least I think so), and selling first to children, then to teens would add a lot more business. The fact that the production team is trying to connect with the teen audience they want to sell to would probably make whatever things they come up with more appealing to the target audience.
It also seems fairly inevitable that Pottery Barn has decided to market to a larger audience. All for-profit businesses want to make as much money as possible (at least I think so), and selling first to children, then to teens would add a lot more business. The fact that the production team is trying to connect with the teen audience they want to sell to would probably make whatever things they come up with more appealing to the target audience.
Store
Explain the way in which the environment of a store you frequent tries to influence you.
A grocery/super-department store like Target, Marsh, Meijer's, Kroger's, Wal-Mart, etc., tries to influence you by being efficient. Some, like Target, have those things where you scan in your items to see how much they cost- so you don't have to 'waste energy' by finding and asking an employee. They have self-check counters for efficiency, and aren't architecturally artistic or creative or nice looking. They also usually have signs/posters advertising how cheap their prices are and what a good deal you get by buying there. They sometimes offer options in which if you do find somewhere else with a higher price, they'll refund your purchase or something. Some have music playing in the background. The music can be either elevator music or whatever radio station whoever is playing the sound system likes. During the early winter, though, they play Christmas music to make you feel all Christmassy and like buying presents. They offer holiday deals for most hlidays, too. So, all in all, those kinds of stores try to influence to buy there by being efficient, offering deals and making your visit 'enjoyable' by playing music. (Though the music really isn't noticeable.)
A grocery/super-department store like Target, Marsh, Meijer's, Kroger's, Wal-Mart, etc., tries to influence you by being efficient. Some, like Target, have those things where you scan in your items to see how much they cost- so you don't have to 'waste energy' by finding and asking an employee. They have self-check counters for efficiency, and aren't architecturally artistic or creative or nice looking. They also usually have signs/posters advertising how cheap their prices are and what a good deal you get by buying there. They sometimes offer options in which if you do find somewhere else with a higher price, they'll refund your purchase or something. Some have music playing in the background. The music can be either elevator music or whatever radio station whoever is playing the sound system likes. During the early winter, though, they play Christmas music to make you feel all Christmassy and like buying presents. They offer holiday deals for most hlidays, too. So, all in all, those kinds of stores try to influence to buy there by being efficient, offering deals and making your visit 'enjoyable' by playing music. (Though the music really isn't noticeable.)
Monday, 4 February 2008
Superbowl
One Super Bowl ad I saw was one where giant carrier pigeons were carrying mail around. They had issues with that- they dropped things and threw cars through windows. Then two guys at the end said something like - "use FedEx". The ad compared non-FedEx mail service to useless giant pigeons and offered FedEx as a safe, effective way to send mail.
Another one I saw was one in which a girl in very tight shiny clothing was first walking, then dancing. A lizard followed her while she was walking. Then a whole bunch of lizards came and danced with her. It was a commercial for iLife water I think. It was geared to men a bit because of the girl (for obvious reasons), but it also could appeal to anyone because the lizards were cool and might be considered cute. I'm not sure exactly what the point of the lizards was, exactly, other than to get the viewer's attention.
Another one I saw was one in which a girl in very tight shiny clothing was first walking, then dancing. A lizard followed her while she was walking. Then a whole bunch of lizards came and danced with her. It was a commercial for iLife water I think. It was geared to men a bit because of the girl (for obvious reasons), but it also could appeal to anyone because the lizards were cool and might be considered cute. I'm not sure exactly what the point of the lizards was, exactly, other than to get the viewer's attention.
Thursday, 31 January 2008
Thoughts on Wednesday's Class Discussion
This is what we're supposed to blog about, right?
I thought everybody had some really good points about this. Most people basically were in agreement that the article's main idea- that the objectification of women in ads happens and is bad- was true. Not everyone agreed on whether Kilbourne wrote well or not, among other things. It's my opinion that she did write a good article. It's funny, that her essay-thing was like the ads she rails against. Her writing is up on a soapbox, borderline offensive, exaggerated and over-analyzing. However, it has great shock value (especially seeing the pictures, most of which were definitely disturbing), and it made you remember and think about the article. Just like the ads were shocking and made people remember the product. (And those ads do work- otherwise it would be a waste of money to air them, so the producers wouldn't if they didn't work, so since they're there, they work. Did that make sense?) So while the article was good rhetorical writing, I don't agree with all of it and can see why others don't as well. It sort of reminds me of that torture essay earlier this year, which was good writing but in my opinion idiotic.
I also just thought of something. We talked about billboards, signposts and TV. What about the Internet? Popup ads sometimes have weird pictures on them, too. Especially those weird ones for dating services. What would the role of Internet ads be in objectifying people?
I thought everybody had some really good points about this. Most people basically were in agreement that the article's main idea- that the objectification of women in ads happens and is bad- was true. Not everyone agreed on whether Kilbourne wrote well or not, among other things. It's my opinion that she did write a good article. It's funny, that her essay-thing was like the ads she rails against. Her writing is up on a soapbox, borderline offensive, exaggerated and over-analyzing. However, it has great shock value (especially seeing the pictures, most of which were definitely disturbing), and it made you remember and think about the article. Just like the ads were shocking and made people remember the product. (And those ads do work- otherwise it would be a waste of money to air them, so the producers wouldn't if they didn't work, so since they're there, they work. Did that make sense?) So while the article was good rhetorical writing, I don't agree with all of it and can see why others don't as well. It sort of reminds me of that torture essay earlier this year, which was good writing but in my opinion idiotic.
I also just thought of something. We talked about billboards, signposts and TV. What about the Internet? Popup ads sometimes have weird pictures on them, too. Especially those weird ones for dating services. What would the role of Internet ads be in objectifying people?
Wednesday, 30 January 2008
Kilbourne
Do you agree or disagree with Kilbourne’s argument?
I agree with her general idea- that the ads help to objectify women and men (in different ways). I do think, though, that she's reading too much into the subject. She picked the most drastic ads possible, in my opinion. Maybe those are common on TV, which I don't watch, but in normal life, on billboards and the Internet and signposts and some magazines and thing, ads aren't quite that overtly sexual and offensive. And she makes too much of some of the less intense ads, such as the one that shows a man (heartbreaker) and a product (a razor, I think?). Looking at that ad, I would never have thought it offensive in the way she makes it out to be. I think she says something like 'it makes desirable men seem bad' or something. I suppose that's how you could look at it, but most people don't analyze ads like that. They'd just maybe be amused by the ad, and move on. Not all ads are offensive, and I don't think she gets that.
However, I do agree that there are ads that objectify women (and men). The fact that there even are ads like some of the ones she shows is disturbing. I can see how people could come to think that that attitude is normal, if they are exposed to so much of it. Her later points about women being more at risk than men are true, I think. Of course, I'm not male, so I don't know how much men think about protecting themselves from sexual attack. But generally, it's women who are warned to be careful and not walk around alone. And anything that promotes that type of behaviour is certainly not a good thing.
So, yes, I agree with her argument. I also think, as lamags said in class, that she gets up on her soapbox a little too much.
I agree with her general idea- that the ads help to objectify women and men (in different ways). I do think, though, that she's reading too much into the subject. She picked the most drastic ads possible, in my opinion. Maybe those are common on TV, which I don't watch, but in normal life, on billboards and the Internet and signposts and some magazines and thing, ads aren't quite that overtly sexual and offensive. And she makes too much of some of the less intense ads, such as the one that shows a man (heartbreaker) and a product (a razor, I think?). Looking at that ad, I would never have thought it offensive in the way she makes it out to be. I think she says something like 'it makes desirable men seem bad' or something. I suppose that's how you could look at it, but most people don't analyze ads like that. They'd just maybe be amused by the ad, and move on. Not all ads are offensive, and I don't think she gets that.
However, I do agree that there are ads that objectify women (and men). The fact that there even are ads like some of the ones she shows is disturbing. I can see how people could come to think that that attitude is normal, if they are exposed to so much of it. Her later points about women being more at risk than men are true, I think. Of course, I'm not male, so I don't know how much men think about protecting themselves from sexual attack. But generally, it's women who are warned to be careful and not walk around alone. And anything that promotes that type of behaviour is certainly not a good thing.
So, yes, I agree with her argument. I also think, as lamags said in class, that she gets up on her soapbox a little too much.
Tuesday, 29 January 2008
Ads on TV: Mucinex!
Describe the rhetorical appeal of one ad you saw
I watched many ads. Many were very confusing. I saw one about Mucinex- which is a medicine you take to get rid of phlegm (mucus) in the lungs to clear up coughs. The ad was set with Shrek-like animation in an Old-West town. The 'big bad sheriff' was a fat green thing that represented mucus. Then a box of Mucinex appeared, and the 'sheriff' went flying away and dissolved in a string of sparkly blue light. The ad said something at the end to the effect of 'Mucinex clears up mucus!'. I can't remember exactly what it said.
The style animation and setting of the ad was meant to make it more interesting to viewers. The ad would be directed to adults, since teens and children don't think of buying mucus-defeating-medicine. At least, most don't. The ad plays up how good the Mucinex is at getting rid of mucus by comparing it to the hero in Old West shows. Viewers would not think of the possible side effects of the medicine, but of the fact that it works in the commercial.
I watched many ads. Many were very confusing. I saw one about Mucinex- which is a medicine you take to get rid of phlegm (mucus) in the lungs to clear up coughs. The ad was set with Shrek-like animation in an Old-West town. The 'big bad sheriff' was a fat green thing that represented mucus. Then a box of Mucinex appeared, and the 'sheriff' went flying away and dissolved in a string of sparkly blue light. The ad said something at the end to the effect of 'Mucinex clears up mucus!'. I can't remember exactly what it said.
The style animation and setting of the ad was meant to make it more interesting to viewers. The ad would be directed to adults, since teens and children don't think of buying mucus-defeating-medicine. At least, most don't. The ad plays up how good the Mucinex is at getting rid of mucus by comparing it to the hero in Old West shows. Viewers would not think of the possible side effects of the medicine, but of the fact that it works in the commercial.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
