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.