Entry#10: Advertising is...

Entry #9: Advertising in 140 characters or less

Advertising seeks to create illusionary false truths in order to make a profit. Though unethical, advertising’s become synonymous with lies.

Entry #8: the attention span of a goldfish.

Today I pose the age old question of which came first, the goldfish or the short attention span? In all seriousness, the amount of advertising we interact with on a daily basis is unfathomable. According to Yankelvich Research, we are faced with upwards of 2,000,000 ads daily. With Darwin's theory of evolution in mind, it doesn't seem unreasonable and impossible that, as humans, we have evolved according to our habitat. In other words, we have become so overwhelmed with the sheer volume of advertising being thrown at us that we have decreased our attention span to a mere 9 seconds as a means of self-defence. However it could also be argued that the mass bombardment of advertisements exists as a consequence and survival mechanism of the modern-day business. With such a short attention span, brands struggle to get our attention, thus creating ad after ad, pouring upwards of $70BILLION annually on campaigns, promotions, and "call-to-actions."

My opinion lies that the more brands push to get our attention, the more consumers will cover their eyes and ears, only feeding the ever-growing advertising monster, creating a cycle of noise and struggle. As a consumer, a little bit of silence would be so greatly appreciated. If brands considered reducing the volume of ads they produce, replacing them with more clever, innovative, out-going campaigns, maybe we'd all get a little peace of mind. This solution could draw a higher number of consumers to the brand while relieving some of the noise and anger consumers experience on a daily basis. It would ideally be a win-win situation. 

But let's get real, we don't live in a utopian society, or in soviet Russia. Such a solution would take years and billions MORE dollars to implement. It would also require a conscious dedication to brand and advertising excellence, which I highly doubt could be upheld by most brands. In today's consumer, capitalist society, companies are so desperate to make fast money, they shell out thoughtless, bland, boring ads in a half-assed manner. No long-term brand value and ideology reformation will appeal to money-hungry corporations as the commitment is too large for such a distant pay-off.

In other words, we are stuck. As consumers we can make deliberate effort to improve our attention span by reading, playing board games, and other such brain activities. All this in hopes of being able to tap into a well-massaged longer attention span when needed, while maintaining our swift 9 second attention span when faced with our daily does of 2 million advertisements.

Entry #7: Not your typical ad

As humans, we expect social norm. In other words, we experience the world in a way that keeps us moving at an ebb & flow with our environment, constantly interacting and reacting accordingly. In times of stress and change, we react both biologically as well as emotionally, sometimes at our own discretion while other reactions are innate and uncontrollable. Considering these normal social expectations and human habits, the question of the ethical and moral use of shock advertising naturally poses as a threat to the status quo we have grown to expect and love, yet the advertising world has tapped into this method of communication as a means of setting brands apart from the norm.

Shock advertising, in clear form, is any means of advertising that (firstly) aims to raise a negative reaction from the viewer (secondly) with the use of disturbing, unordinary, uncomfortable, often child-inappropriate content. (Thirdly) The goal of this means of advertising varies, however often revolves around raising brand awareness amongst different target groups or raising social awareness in order to achieve change or betterment for the problem posed.

When considering the benefits and impacts of shock advertising to both the user and the consumer knowing the product specifics is essential. The level of harm or good shock advertisement does for a brand is strongly reliant on the brand identity, as for example, the ad below. 

This ad may have been funded by the government or by an awareness group, for which the shock value is extremely effective and beneficial. Using the child's head on a woman's body in order to convey the message of illegal underage sex may make the viewer upset, confused, and of course, shocked, but the message remains clear and the intent resonates with the viewer. In cases such as this, which can often be seen by companies such as World Wildlife Fund and various government funded organizations, the shock advertising greatly benefits the brand. This is because the message being sent is serious. When the intent of the ad is to sternly educate, warn, or deter viewers, the serious tone often associated with shock advertising is effective. The issues promoted are not funny, very real, and hold serious consequences, which is easily understood from the shock value and overall tone of the message, despite ads featuring cute baby animals for WWF and smiling children such as is featured above.

When it comes to determining which brands could benefit from this form of advertising, I think the group is small. As mentioned above, government funded organizations, awareness groups, and activist groups, all of which hold very serious values, greatly benefit from the use of shock advertising. However, a brand such as Coca Cola will most likely deter & lose their audience from feeling the happy, bubbly energy the brand promotes if they are bombarded with pictures of anorexic girls in an attempt to promote their newest diet drink (for example), it's just unappealing to the typical suburban slicker. Or take this ad, for example. 

It seems to be a campaign for household items, but their use of gory, gruesome, and dangerous imagery does nothing to make the viewer feel safe with their products in their home. The consumer is repelled by the ad, therefore rendering it a failure for the company. This kind of irrelevant shock advertising may even leave such a poor taste in some viewer's mouth that the brand identity may be permanently tainted.

With this in mind, I don't think it is wrong to make use of shock advertising when it is done with a relevant goal in mind and if it is done by an activist, awareness, or government group. Using shocking imagery does not desensitize us as it is used so minimally. Brands are for the most part, as they should be, afraid of using imagery that may upset the consumer for fear of losing them. This ensures the constant effectiveness of shock advertising as it remains fresh and will continue to stand out above the millions of ads that exist today. Also, shocking imagery being used by serious activist groups only reinforces the reality that issues of shocking and uncomfortable nature exist and must be fixed. It isn't morally or ethically wrong to push society out of its comfort zone if the issue exists because we are too lazy to change our ways. When change needs to happen, society needs someone to give us a swift smack in the face to make us realize our wrongdoing.

As humans, we are set in our ways. We love routine. However, when problems arise and people are too slow, lazy, & selfish to react, calling to consumer's emotional and biological reactions to change is essential and effective. 

Entry#6: Dirty Cheater

It is no secret that infidelity and the moral problem it poses exists as one of the most common paradoxes in today's Western society. We are told strive for monogamous relationships, yet we are told to expect our partner to stray and to always be aware of the possibility. In other ways, popular songs express the pain associated with being cheated on, while others sing the praises and social status associated with running out on their supposed partner. There also exists a slew of studies exploring the truth behind our expected monogamous ways as a species. Despite the debate on whether being infidel is ethically upstanding or not, (Note: I personally expect fidelity from a partner, yet do not exclude the possibility of open relationships and their being ethically viable so long as everyone involved agrees) there can be no denying that a lack of marital commitment exists in North America. Canada has a 48% divorce rate, while the United States hold a 53% divorce rate. I am personally a little disappointed — though not shocked with these numbers. As mentioned above, we exist in a society that tells us we should strive for commitment  yet keeping your eye out for the next best thing (whether it be technology, diets, or PARTNERS) is essential. The times are fast changing and we have to stay on track. It is no wonder we are seeing such high rates of divorce: no one can commit!

I understand the advertising world does not start trends, but simply follows them. I do not reject the idea of a brand urging consumers to switch teams and commit to a new, better brand as the consumerist society is a tough, ruthless, competitive world. Brands need to stay ahead of the game and keep the consumers excited with the newest products, and if this means the consumers have to ditch the old, chunky phone for the new, sleek iPhone, then so-be-it. Consider it a form of survival of the fittest, if you will. Competition and persuasion will never not exist in a capitalist society. When it comes to persuading consumers to switch brands, the advertising world is simply tapping into its in-depth understanding of the human emotion and psyche to succeed. We are emotional beings, and the use of persuasion and comparison is simply a smart advertising tactic. If a brand chooses to tap into the emotion of feeling trapped, then let them succeed in this sense. It is not the advertising world's responsibility to ensure consumers have enough intelligence to understand that the call to "ditch the old bag" is not an ACTUAL CALL TO DITCH YOUR WIFE. It is simply a play on human emotion to get a point across and maybe even use some humour.

The problem is created when society becomes melded with technology, thus blurring the lines between real-life-experiences and consumer experiences. Getting the newest computer is not ethically wrong. Getting the newest babe on the block in bed, leaving your wife in the dust is, however, ethically wrong. It is, once again, the responsibility of the individual to differentiate between moral justice and wrong-doing. There has been a disintegration of personal moral and ethical values, leaving people apparently confused and unable to differentiate between cheating on a brand and cheating on a partner. Our consumerist society needs to take a step back and redefine personal ethical values and regain the common-sensical understanding of brand fidelity versus relationship fidelity.

Entry#5: Obvious Subliminal Messaging & Priming

In my opinion, there is no denying the existence and effectiveness of priming and subliminal messaging. In a world where we are bombarded by thousands of advertisements and promotions every day, it doesn't surprise me advertising companies are taking advantage of selling in a more quiet, subtle way. 

As a society, we are thrown into a world of promotions, slogans, and loud advertisements begging for our money and attention from the moment we wake up and check our e-mails, to the moment we turn off the television and head off to sleep. Both as a consumer and as someone who works in a retail environment, I can relate to a sense of annoyance with constantly being overwhelmed with add-ons and promotions. In a society where walking down a street in complete silence from the advertising world would be shockingly loud to our minds and ears, finding a way to quietly promote could almost be regarded as a miracle. If a brand could make its point, sell its pitch, and make the sale without anyone ever really noticing, both the consumer and the company could benefit. With the notion that the consumer is not being loudly persuaded with cheesy slogans and tired promotional campaigns, the consumer experiences a sense of relief — a fresh breath of air above the sea of crude, unrelenting promotional campaigns and advertisements. And by achieving a sense of understanding between the consumer and seller without ever really speaking a word, a sense of economical balance is created where the consumer feels in control and clear-minded, and the seller reaps the profits without feeling guilty and annoying for asking the buyer to spend just five more dollars to join our store's club, oh and seven dollars to get an extended protection, oh and don't forget to pick up a few of these little one dollar goodies before you head out...

On the other hand, whether this method of advertising is ethically or morally upstanding is another topic that is specific to every promotional campaign that utilizes subliminal messaging and priming. As mentioned in a previous post, the advertising world cannot be held accountable for feeding off the human psyche to fuel the success of promotional campaigns as they are simply doing as they should to bring home the bread. There are too many examples to define exactly where and when morality should be involved, but there is no denying that it should be considered false advertising, though it really implies the use of priming, when stores, such as Whole Foods, use design tactics such as signs that appear to be hand-written and imagery that implies the produce is locally grown, when it is not. However, I can see where the argument may exist that the hand-written signs were just a design aesthetic choice and simply accidentally eluded to the idea of locally-grown produce.

In conclusion, there is no escaping the advertising world. It is important to face every day with the knowledge that it is inescapable. This knowledge arms us with the power to understand when we are faced with both obvious and subliminal advertising, thus enabling ourselves to control where and when we spend our money in a deliberate, intelligent, and decisive manner.

Entry#4: Funny or Boring

The topic for this blog entry revolves around advertising and its bitter-sweet connection with humour. My personal opinion remains greatly indifferent to the debate over the effectiveness of humour in promotional ad campaigns, however after doing some research, I've come to the logical conclusion that advertisements that aim at making the audience laugh, are not successful in several ways. 

There are a slew of issues when it comes to including humour in ads such as the possibility of offending the audience, whether they be the target user or not. Though research may be conducted in order to determine the interests, sensibilities, and personal values of the target market, humour often is most successful when it pushes the boundaries of normal conversational constructs. People laugh when they are presented with ideas that are delicately balanced between abnormality and sensibility. As discussed in several articles I researched, the fine line between shocking and sensible is so fine that determining where an entire target market falls is highly risky. The risk of proposing a compelling, humorous advertisement and it being interpreted in a sour way is often too high to be a safe, business-savy way of promoting a brand. 

Moving forward, scenarios where humorous advertisements are properly communicated should be discussed. As mentioned in this article, the target market's positive response to a funny ad rarely results in increased sales revenue. People who laugh at advertisements tend to lump these ads in with the five thousand other ads we are bombarded with daily, thus proving humorous advertising to be ineffective in situations such as this.

Taking these two scenarios into consideration, the risk of offending the audience, or even worse, losing the audience is much too high for any brand looking to succeed financially. When people are offended, the brand's image may be permanently damaged, thus causing even financial loss. When the consumer understands the joke and reacts to it as per expected, the outcome is not always financially reflected. This is why my opinion, though not so highly invested, sides with the normal slogan & unique selling proposition style. Though it is safer and much more conservative, the results have been proven this technique to be successful time & time again. Using jokes in advertising is a hit-or-miss risk no up-coming or successful brand should be willing to take.

Entry #3: The Growing Obesity Epidemic

I'd like to start this entry off by giving some context to the opinions about to be expressed. In such academic situations as this, I prefer to keep my written work at an arm's length — meaning that I very rarely blatantly affiliate my personal opinion with the information I am trying to express. However, the topic about to be discussed holds great significance in terms of my personal life choices. I am a vegetarian who has spent the last year educating myself (and others who are interested) on the terrifying effects of processed and genetically modified foods. My diet consists of 60-70% pure produce, with a goal of reaching a 100% pure, raw, vegan lifestyle in mind and heart. I am deeply emotionally invested in the topic of healthy eating, but I digress...

It is often discussed how the problem with wide-spread obesity is most prominent in the United States, with $4 billion dollars being spent annually on fast-food advertising, however, as Canadians, it is important to realize that this problem exists much closer to home than we'd like to think. Fifty-nine percent of Canadian adults are currently overweight or obese, making it clear there exists a problem somewhere in the communication between the food industry and the public.

The advertising industry has been pinned as the source of all evil in this situation, however I honestly think the anger is completely misplaced. In my opinion, it doesn't make sense to shoot the messenger, per say. The advertising industry exists as a means of communicating product knowledge and availability to the masses — they literally exist as a middle-man. The companies that feed the fantastical idea that garbage food will make you happier, healthier, and more vital are essentially paid to tell you these things by ginormous fast-food industry leaders, such as McDonald's, Subway, & Burger King. I understand where the frustration comes from as these advertising gurus use their knowledge and understanding of the human psyche to convince and often manipulate people, but it is their job. The advertising industry exists to solely do this.

Despite the advertising industry's lack of responsibility for preventing and reversing mass-obesity, in my opinion, it cannot be argued that they do play a major role in (literally and figuratively) feeding the obesity epidemic. By creating this deceptive imagery and blasting it out to the masses, they fuel the fire that is wide-spread obesity. It is no secret that they have perfected the art of manipulation and smart communication (for example, by ensuring that 50% of all fast-food advertisements are played during children's television programs) and I feel they definitely take advantage of this complex understanding of how the human mind and emotion works.

Seeing as these monster fast-food companies are the source of the problem and will pay billions of dollars annually to upkeep the fast-food facade (in 2007, $7billion was spent on fast-food advertising in the United States) and the advertising industry cannot be held responsible for doing its job exceptionally well, the social responsibility lies entirely on the higher power — the government. Where has the government been in the midsts of all of this? Why have they allowed such blatantly destructive information be fed to the masses, especially young children. The worst part is that children are most easily impacted by the fast-food industry & it has been widely understood that childhood obesity is rarely outgrown. Essentially, the government is allowing the disgusting, destructive fast-food industry kill our future generations. Why has the government not stepped in to stop the slow mass-murder of the North American society? I understand political lobbying holds a strong hold on the laws that are passed in terms of fast-food advertising, but there needs to be a time when the government takes off their blind-fold and realizes that they are murdering their children and their countries — not the fast-food industry. There is such a lack of social responsibility that deeply upsets and hurts me.

And part of me entertains the possibility that maybe the government is purposely lulling the masses to a state of complete government dependance (with fried food & carcinogenic chemicals) in order to prevent anyone from questioning their true intent — making money from the lobbyists (CocaCola spent $5,890,000 on government lobbying in 2011). I don't doubt that many involved in the government are fully aware of the problem at hand and continue to enable it.

This also brings me to my final point, which seems to remain consistent with other topics discussed on my blog — the responsibility has to lie on the individual. I understand it can be impossible to see through the greasy fog and beyond to the truth about health and food, but it needs to be done. Individuals in society who have come to a higher understanding of what real food and vitality looks like have to share their knowledge and spread the truth. As a society, we cannot rely on people in power and with money to protect us, we have to protect and educate ourselves. Once the mind has been opened to the harsh reality, it becomes to obvious that the fast-food industry is just one of many industries fuelled by lies, hate, and worst of all, money. By not buying into the lies these monster companies are feeding us, we slowly stop fuelling the fire and the obesity epidemic will cease. Social awareness is critical. We have to educate ourselves, ask uncomfortably confrontational questions about what really happens to our food, and be willing to find the truth.

Once we stop giving our money to these industries, they will either change their ways to suit the societal demand for healthier, natural products, or they will cease to thrive & eventually disappear. We have to stop blaming others, and assess our own personal morals and habits in order to better ourselves as well as future generations.

Entry #2: Photoshop's Blurred Lines

As briefly mentioned in the previous post, there exists a fine line between promoting products using completely fantastical imagery and poisoning the standard of beauty in a consumer's mind. This is explicitly displayed in the modern-day beauty and fashion industry. Advertising companies had originally made use of Adobe Photoshop, a picture and graphic editing program, as a means of better communicating the benefits of their products — wearing these jeans will make you feel & look thinner! However, it has become clear that the original intent of this message has become tainted and completely convoluted, whether it be on behalf of the consumer mis-interpreting the use of beautiful, thin models, or whether the fashion & beauty industry purposely intended on changing the definition of beauty through the use of beautiful, thin models remains unclear. Therein lies two problems with this widespread change in social consciousness, the first being that, although the consumer is openly proclaiming their distaste and hurt by the new standard of beauty, they, not only continuously spend billions of dollars on these hurtful, tasteless, and crude brands, but they continually openly reject any form of beauty advertised that doesn't match this disturbing, illusionary standard that exists. This leads to the second problem which is that all beauty & fashion brands and contributors still employ the use of editing software for every single advertisement created because it is expected of them. By producing this delusional, distasteful reality, jobs are created, money is made, and the economy continues to steady. All in all, there exists a vicious cycle of hurt, misunderstanding, and perhaps even misinterpretation between the consumer and the seller.

That being said, my personal opinion sides with those individuals who question the integrity of photoshop. Despite advertising companies employing the use of Photoshop in order to better communicate the benefits of their products, I feel the final advertisement product is so far from the beginning image that they have created a level of personal beauty expectation that is quite literally impossible to achieve. Through research, it becomes clear that featuring an un-edited photograph of a model or product is not an option. It has become an expected norm amongst beauty companies to receive fully edited & perfected versions of photographs from the paid advertising companies. One could even go so far as to say that all models are photoshopped and that only a very minimal portion of the advertising world represents an average person's reality. This being said, it is a matter of opinion whether these mystical realities created by ad campaigns is intended to be interpreted as reality or metaphor – it really depends on the product being sold and the consumer that is being targeted. With this in mind, consumers' best interest should always be kept in mind, especially in the fashion & beauty industry as it has become clear its consumers' personal and worldly expectations of beauty have become so impossibly narrow and negative in large part due to the consistent information thrown at them on a daily basis in the form of print, television, and web ads. Having twisted such a large group of individuals into believing a false reality is dangerous as these negative expectations have begun to trickle down several generations, proving to become an unforgiving culture rooted in hate. Mothers develop poor sense of self, which may lead them to project their negative self-worth upon their daughters, feeding the chain of sadness, anger, and of defeat — in the sense of never being able to achieve a body, face, smile, hair colour that is not real, but merely created on a computer by a man who's paycheque is signed by beauty & fashion industry leaders.

note: it is important to keep in mind that the photograph editors & photoshop specialists are not to be blamed in this situation, as they are given directions and guidelines to follow. In fact, most have very little opinion on the situation and do not emotionally associate themselves with the work produced.

The fashion & beauty industry can only feed the masses what the masses want: beautiful, thin, acne-free individuals with sculpted bodies. The reality of the situation is that we, as consumers, have to voice our opinions about what real beauty is and what real women and men look like. By accepting the standard lies fed to us, we perpetuate the illusionary reality and social expectations that is sadly becoming engrained in Western society. At the end of the day, we financially support the fashion & beauty industry, therefore we control it. It is important to open our minds to advertisements that feature real women and men, with real flaws, as well as open our minds to the truth behind the narrow false reality the fashion & beauty industry creates. If we want them to change, we have to do so first.

Entry #1: Mic Mac Mall Back To School Campaign

Recently, a mall in Nova Scotia, The Mic Mac Mall, has come under fire for their blatantly sexist and degrading back-to-school ad campaign. These, pictured above, feature women who promote shopping over getting an education, thus implying women are people who are most suitable to be seen, and not education (or heard!).

The agency that created the campaign, Suburbia Advertising, claims to, get shoppers which is this company's attempt at promoting itself with a double entendre. Their out-of-the-box, apparently innovative, creative techniques help them understand Canadian shoppers best, thus attracting a greater customer base for the brands they work with. This being said, the testimonials found on their website do little to justify what & just how well this advertising company brings in so many new shoppers. The fluffy, non-specific feedback paired with the absolute failure of a back-to-school campaign at The Mic Mac Mall would leave most to believe that Suburbia Advertising in fact, does not understand shoppers, especially those found in Nova Scotia. They single-handedly managed to greatly offend the entire population of Dartmouth, Nova Scotia with sexist, pre-suffragette inspired messages.

Despite a lack of ethical and moral judgement, the management at The Mic Mac Mall decided to give this ad campaign its seal of approval. As any self-respecting woman, I would not have approved of this campaign. It enables men to revert to a state of social consciousness where women are perceived as unintelligent, uneducated, and worst of all, uneducate-ABLE. The public outcry against this campaign running demonstrates a higher social consciousness held by both men and women in the city of Dartmouth, which is personally, quite satisfying and reassuring for the state of social equality in Canada. This being said, Suburbia Advertising did an outrageously poor job of getting customers and it most certainly did not properly nor accurately reflect the personality, priorities, and needs of its target market.

Considering the interviews and testimonials I researched in response to this campaign, it isn't wild to believe this campaign wasn't problematic only due to its sexist message. Disregarding the sexist tone of the campaign, these ads degrade the importance of proper education. It could just have easily been as offensive had both men and women been featured in the campaign as these would have targeted a larger audience being both young men and women, encouraging them to perhaps ditch school to hit the mall. 

Despite this back-to-school campaign being so offensive, I doubt The Mic Mac Mall lost much of its customer base as, in reality, people go to malls to shop at difference stores, with completely independent campaigns, who maintain completely different ethical and moral guidelines. I don't doubt there were several companies who rent store locations in The Mic Mac Mall who also felt deeply offended by the mall's back-to-school ads.

I can understand why Suburbia Advertising would have used a more cartoony & graphic approach to this campaign, as they were obviously aiming to resonate something within a younger audience. Young girls who idolize their mom as well as other fashion icons could more easily relate to the messages of the campaign through this style of art. That being said, this only made the severity of the situation more imminent. The use of graphics and cartoons as well as hand-written fonts made the message more clearly understood to a younger audience, thus posing a greater threat — the hurtful message could have more obviously and readily been understood and acted upon by this impressionable young audience.

I do believe The Mic Mac Mall needed to deliver an apology, however I feel somewhat at an unease with their $5000 donation. I understand how this money could be beneficial to the city of Dartmouth as this money went towards supporting young girls who don't have direct access to the education they need. I can appreciate this aspect of the mall's attempt at redemption, however I can't help but raise the problem I have. It almost feels as though The Mic Mac Mall is attempting to buy forgiveness from the public. Perhaps encouraging staff members to volunteer with underprivileged youth would have been a more suitable, ethically clean solution.

Overall, disregarding the ads with the problematic & offensive messages, The Mic Mac Mall's promotional campaign featuring the same graphic & cartoony women is not offensive. The women featured are thin and tall, however they are obviously not real. There is a fine line between poisoning young women's ideals of what they should strive to look like, and just creating cartoons in a particular artists' style. I feel this type of art reflects simply an illustrator's personal art style and should not be interpreted as anything else. The problem with the back-to-school campaign lied truly with the messages written on the ads, not with the graphics.