Is Advertising Useful?

I think advertising IS useful. Though it MAY influence us to want things we didn't previously desire (well, of course--that's what it's TRYING to do), it also informs us about HOW and WHERE to buy things we need.

I needed to buy my Dad something for Christmas... how would I know what he wants?! I opened up an "Outdoor" magazine, of course, because I knew that the advertisements inside would be things he would like and wouldn't buy for himself. From there I just had to pick something in my cost bracket, and I was done!

Good, Bad and Ugly Ads

With all the noise in advertising, the important thing about an ad is that it captures attention. So good ads get attention, and bad ads don't, right? There is a fine line, however, between good-interesting and compelling and scary-disturbing compelling. Let's take a look:

GOOD:



Wow, this ad is scary, unsettling and memorable. Really cuts through noise. But is it too disturbing to be "good?"


BAD:




This ad is interesting, but not compelling enough to grab attention.





UGLY:
These might be "good," but I think they are just disturbing. Too disturbing to make me remember the product, I think.

Public Relations... Ethical?

“Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some hire public relations officers.”

--- Daniel J. Boorstin,

American social historian and educator, 1914

Image consulting is not ethical, because making something appear as something else in order to promote it is deceit. I realize it's been going on for hundreds, even thousands of years, but the extent to which this "arrangement of truth" is use is becoming ridiculous. The scandal with Condoleeza Rice shaking an actual dictator's hand and referring to him as a champion of democracy came about because of his excellent PR program.

"PR Specialists make flower arrangements of the facts, placing them so that the wilted and less attractive petals are hidden by sturdy blooms”

-- Alan Harrington

Barnum and Balogna

Do ridiculous promotion tactics like those used by P.T. Barnum still exist today?


Yes.

Is Brittney Spears really a circus performer?
...
No.

Although her newest concert is not actually claiming that she IS a circus performer, the theme is ridiculous--but not challenged. The ad campaign features her dressed up as various roles in a circus--all ads are sexually tense and some border on the prnographic--and the costumes are simply outrageous.












But there's more!
Ridiculous claims are abundant in advertising:


This ad not only implies that pregnant women are thing--except for stomachs, of course!--but that beer is A-OK for expectant mothers to enjoy.











Sheesh!

Television... for the LCD? / television viewing habits

I absolutely think television is for the lowest common denominator. SO many shows on television are so... DUMB... they cannot be meant for higher-educated people. King of the Hill, Desperate Housewives, Gossip Girls, pretty much all the reality shows, sitcoms... OK, it's hard for me to think of a program that is NOT for this lowest common denominator group. But it is possible! The Office is one, I think, that makes fun of this dumb kind of show. It requires (or used to, at least) a little bit higher of a thinking process.

I don't watch TV. I just always have better things to do, and it seems like such a waste of time because of the types of programming on. So, I tried to watch some, and guess what, big surprise. It felt like a waste of time. It CAN be something to keep me company, I guess, while I'm making dinner or doing another activity, but I can't even imagine just sitting down to watch television. There is too much sex and swearing on for me to be comfortable just watching it or relaxing with it. I'd much rather talk to a real person or watch a movie.

Producer: Dia Darcey

To be a blockbuster hit, the movie would be cited as new, the biggest of the century, "you won't believe your eyes," huge effects, and would include familiar and talented actors/actresses. It wouldn't have sex--you don't need it if the dialogue and tension in other places is involving enough!

However, if I were to make a blockbuster hit for this year, it wouldn't matter as much what the movie was about as how well I would promote it. Regardless of whether it was a film version of a book, a comic, or another film, or a sequel to another blockbuster, or a completely new script--the promotion would be the point.

I would put out a 10-second exciting preview about a year before it released--NOT earlier. Audiences forget about things if they are further away than a year release date. 6-months before, promotion would go crazy. I would use the Internet to get audiences involved like the Blair Witch Project and Batman: Dark Knight did, and the theatre previews would be filled with my teasers. I would follow a few other surprisingly hot movies' examples in putting fliers and information into the hands of normal people like taxi drivers, waiters, etc., in order to get the word of mouth moving. I would NOT make a McDonalds toy. Ughh, lame.

Mirror Over Water

Do media's ever degrading values reflect society's opinions, or does society's opinion reflect the ever degrading values shown in media?
Both, my friend.

In my junior year of high school, everyone--the ACT, the AP English Exam, the EOIs, the BOIs, the SAT--and their dog thought that this would be the most unique and enlightening essay question. By the end of the year, my class could write an answer to it in their sleep.
Therefore, I only thought about this seriously once--the first time I wrote the essay. I went over a couple examples of morally decrepit media in my mind (Gossip Girl, King of the Hill, Desperate Housewives, C.S.I. , Halo 2), concluded that they were worse than the society at the time, and wrote a absolutely convicted opinion that media's degrading values have put society down the tube.

But is that really so?

Mass media are businesses. They like to make money like any other businesses. They will not make something that will not sell. They will go for shock value--people don't want to watch other people being normal--but they cannot shock past what the audience will accept and adore.

The Lowest Common Denominator is a new idea to me and seems to explain this. Maybe the media is shockingly and unacceptably morally decrepit to me, but I am a white, upper-middle class, partially-college educated female. I can look at the morals included in such programming with a critical and educated eye. We explained in class that most of programming is NOT for my type of television watcher--it's for those who watch television as their only outlet for entertainment, relaxation and catharsis.

As the media puts out more and more degrading material, audiences see it as the norm, and demand even more shocking programming... leading to the media putting out even more filth. Thus, a mirror over water... which is reflecting which?

.