Can you find the subliminal message I wrote in this blog!?
Subliminal advertising is the placement of fleeting or
hidden images or messages in commercial content in the hopes that viewers will
process them unconsciously. Since the 1940's subliminal advertising has blossomed,
and even to this current day you can find subliminals in every major
advertisement and magazine cover. Legislation against the advertisers has
had no effect in cutting the use of subliminals.
The birth of subliminal advertising as we know it dates to
1957 when a market researcher named James Vicary inserted the words "Eat
Popcorn" and "Drink Coca-Cola" into a movie.
The words appeared for a single frame, allegedly long enough
for the subconscious to pick up, but too short for the viewer to be aware of
it. The subliminal ads supposedly created an increase in sales but Vicary's
results turned out to be a hoax. But more recent experiments have shown that subliminal
messages can actually affect behaviour in small ways.
And what sells advertising more than anything else?....Sex!
This has been exploited in many ads over the years. A recent example can be
found on the front of Coca-Cola vending machines (watch video below), where
within the image there are supposedly the outline of two naked women across the
can. The video below shows a clear outline.
So how effective can subliminal messaging actually be? There
have been many studies conducted with similar results. The best example of
subliminal messaging in effect that I can think of is performed by no other
than the famous British illusionist, Derren Brown, a master of subliminal
suggestion techniques. So masterful, in fact, that he can turn the tables on
the advertisers and use their techniques against them. And they don’t even
realise he’s doing it. Here we look at an interesting experiment that Brown set
up, to try and trick two advertising clerks into doing exactly what he wanted. If
you are interested there are many other examples of his work that can be found
across the net.
So if subliminals actually has an effect there is no wonder
why advertising agencies continue to exploit it, but is there a line as to how
far they may go? Remember the subliminal
message that appeared in George Bush’s 2000 advertising
campaign against Al Gore? Right after the appearance of Gore, and the word “RATS”
appears right before the word ‘Bureaucrats’.
Such an example of slander shows how unethical advertisers can be in an
attempt to manipulate the public. As beings who desire free will to make their
own choices we hardly appreciate being manipulated. Even though there is
legislation slating sumibinal advertising and its use, its powerful effects mean advertising firms are unlikely to stop exploiting it anytime soon.
For our next blog we were told to discuss a current environmental
campaign using digital technologies.
I chose to discuss Greenpeace UK’s current campaign against
Head & Shoulders shampoo and conditioner, which recently revealed that it
buys palm oil from companies causing the destruction of Indonesia’s
rainforests.
The effects of
digital technology allow protectionist campaigns to utilize a wide array of
tools that can be used to make sure that their voices are heard by the bigger, massive
corporations such as Head & Shoulders and to spread their message across to
the public. For example, upon visiting the Greenpeace UK homepage your
attention is struck with a somewhat disturbing image of a person’s scalp
bearing on one half of their head; a
rich and dense rainforest filled with wildlife, then on the other half there is
a bulldozer surrounded by stacks of bark from chopped down trees. Clicking on this image takes you to a new page
where you can write an email to one of the managers at the Head & Shoulders
corporation, allowing you to ‘attack’ them directly with your own personal thoughts
and feelings. The page has a template for your email, encouraging you to use
the subject line ‘I'd rather have dandruff than deforestation’, an effective
slogan which is likely flooding the managers inbox as of now.
Another page on the site takes you to a short animation of
the image already discussed. The animation walks you through a short
explanation of the how H&S is damaging the Inodenisa rainforests while the
woman uses their shampoo in her hair. The same startling imagery of a destroyed
rain forest runs across her scalp, which enforces this message that whenever
you, yourself use H&S shampoo, you are responsible in having a direct effect
on the destruction of rainforests by endorsing their products. After viewing
the brief animation you are taken to a pop up to sign a petition to support the
campaign, alongside a tally of the total signatures that they have received. At
the time I am writing this post the tally currently stands at 297,624, which is
a clear demonstration of how effective the use of digital technology is at
grasping people’s attention and convincing them to unite in supporting a noble
cause. A link to the page I am describing can be found below:
In addition, they have a ‘latest update’ section on their
homepage, keeping you informed of all the latest news about the campaign.
Further access to information through direct links to their social media pages
on sites such as Facebook and Twitter, with more posts of the latest pictures
and news. For example, they recently announced on their Twitter page their latest plan of action - to ask the members of H&S how they felt
about the destruction of rainforests (the video can be found in the link below). The use
of social media sites as a means of supporting environmental campaigns is definitely
an effective means of reaching a wide audience, and in turn encourages members
of the public to share posts by reposting it on their own social media pages.
If you wish to ready any more information about Greenpeace UK or the campaign to save Inodenisa rainforests, feel free to browse the Greenpeace UK website at: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/.
For our
next blog we were asked to choose a television show or movie we are familiar
with and consider the characters in terms of racial and gender diversity.
The show I have chosen is ‘Saved By the Bell’; a 90’s TV
show centered on six students and their years at Bayside High School in
Palisades, California.
This show is set in an American high school so you would
typically expect a range of racial diversity. Roaming across the hall, or
sitting at a classroom desk, there is a range of skin tones in the background,
from Asian, Black and perhaps Indian. However, if they are not part of the main
characters can it be said, that the show is racial diverse? The main cast
consists of six characters; four of whom are American, Caucasian (Mark-Paul
Gosselaar, Dustin Diamond, Elizabeth Berkley & Tiffani Thiessen), of the
other two, one is African American (Lark Voorhies) and the other of Mexican,
Hispanic descent (Mario Lopez). I suppose this is somewhat of a diverse group
though not the biggest I have seen. It is still a good mix. As it is a
children’s TV programme it is important that kids are exposed to people from
different cultures so that they are brought up to be more culturally sensitive
and aware. I remember in my youth a range of cartoons that had characters of
bizarre skin tones such as green and blue, yet I never bothered to question
them. This is important for children, as when they encounter people from other
cultures for the first time they won’t take any notice of the colour of their
skin, as such shouldn't treat them any different than they would others.
(Diversity at its finest!)
Baring in mind that this programme is a children’s TV show
and it is set in the 90’s there aren’t that many forms of regular female or
racial stereotypes. Instead it is set on casting high school stereotypes many
American school children tend to play out, especially in their teens. For
example, Mario Lopez plays the tough, brash high school jock, and Dustin
Diamond who plays the clumsy preppy geek. The closest thing to a female stereotype is
the character played by Lark Voorhies. She plays the role of Lisa Turtle. Her
character loves to do loads of clothes shopping and is quite up to trend in fashion.
Because of her parent’s occupations she is portrayed as being high class, and
as a result she acts very spoilt, always using her dad’s credit card to go o
shopping sprees. It gives into this whole stereotype of her being this
footballer’s wife (a WAG) in the making. Normally for this kind of stereotype
you tend to expect a Caucasian woman with blonde hair, (something out of
Legally Blonde) so it avoids the stereotypical imagery in that respect.
I say it avoids the portrayal of racial or female
stereotypes as it tries to set a strong message. Although the show is supposed
to be silly and not to be taken too seriously, there are normally some strong
moral lessons to be learnt. The characters who are a part of the show are
supposed to act as role models to children. Setting stereotypes would send the
wrong message to children about who they should be and who they would portray
others. The characters, involved across
the series are very diverse in their personalities, from strong confident women
like Jessie, to the whacky ‘Schreech’. All these characters are accepted among
their peers for who they are, sending a message to kids that they can be
whoever r they want to be and shouldn’t feel ashamed by it. It’s these kind of
messages that are great for building kids characters and allowing them to
accept others, without portraying offensive stereotypes.
Not all
stereotyping is bad. Stereotyping arises out of the need to generalize in order
to make sense out of a very complicated environment.It allows people to easily categorize new things into
comfortable spaces already defined by their experiences. This process was
described in 1922 by Walter Lippmann, who first coined the term
"stereotyping." Lipmann wrote, "the attempt to see all things
freshly and in detail, rather than
as types and generalities, is exhausting,
and ... practically out of the question."
If you think the current era has taught advertisers to create
campaigns that are more sensitive and intelligent, think again. They are still
quite happy to play into fears and stereotypes associated with race. While some
ads are sneakily suggestive, others are almost unbelievably shameless.
The
Australian KFC ad in dispute (below) shows an Australian cricket supporter in a
crowd of West Indian fans. Supposedly to make himself more comfortable amongst
the opposition supporters, he offers up a bucket of "crowd-pleaser"
fried chicken from KFC.
In the U.S., there's an offensive racial stereotype involving
fried chicken and African Americans. No such stereotype seems to exist in
Australia, where the ad was aired and received no negative response, but
it soon made its way to YouTube, where it caused controversy.
No matter what people think about advertising, everybody
thinks about it. How can you not? Nearly everything we see, hear, touch or eat
has a logo on it. Even our thoughts are branded. Advertising has been called an
art form, a parasite, freedom of speech, propaganda, healthy capitalism, a
necessary evil, and what makes the world go round.
I
believe advertisers have the right to do whatever they like so long as it is
within legal rights. Technically, it has about the same moral standards as the public
because it is created, approved and paid for by modern U.S. society. If the
public disapproves of their ads, they can demand that they be taken down.
Advertising
is essentially freedom of speech. Most of the time the interpretation of the ad
is within the eye of the beholder and everyone will have different views (the
KFC ad serving a great example). Advertisers may choose to make fun of
stereotypes as much as they please but they should question whether it lies
within their best interests to do so. Their messages should be culturally
sensitive and if the tone of the message is too strong it may be criticised
badly. This will not only take a hit on the reputation of the advertising firm
but also their clients which in turn is bad for business.
Even
if every advertising firm acted to the highest ethical degree there will be no
end to the depiction of stereotypes and racism. In today’s culture we are
constantly bombarded with prejudicial and discriminatory images and ideas
though all types of media (not just advertising). When turning on the news and
glancing through a local newspaper, ethnic minorities are the central focus of
crime. Racial profiling is an apparent and problematic aspect of local media
today as it serves to further biases and stereotypes in our culture. As such, oversimplified and
inaccurate portrayals have profoundly affected how we perceive one another, how
we relate to one another and how we value ourselves.
"the
attempt to see all things freshly and in detail, rather than as types and
generalities, is exhausting, and ... practically out of the question." -
Lipmann
Today in class we looked at stereotypes in regards to
gender. Safe to say, back in the 50’s woman and men were somewhat depicted in a
different light than they are today.
Back
in the day, it was okay for advertising firms to poke fun at women as it wasn't
considered downright offensive. Nowadays, such a move would provoke quite a
reaction and give companies a bad name.
For
our next blog we were asked to choose two separate ads promoting a similar
product - one ad from an early era such as the 50’s/60’s, and the other, a
contemporary version.
For
my first choice I went with a newspaper ad from 1964; the ad features a picture
of a Volkswagen Bug. The ad has a photo from the front of a light coloured Bug
that is sitting there with the driver side front fender crimpled and the
headlight broken out with the glass lying in the front of the wheel. The ad
headline warns you that “Sooner or later, your wife will drive home one of the
best reasons for owning a Volkswagen”. The ad text talks about the fact that
these cars were designed to be worked on, in a very easy manner. It explains
that this gender can be removed by loosening ten bolts and the part could be
purchased from $24.95.
Nowadays,
this ad would be considered very sexist for making a poor remark about women’s
driving abilities. It implies women are terrible drivers and are very likely to
hit something while driving. Whereas the case today is that women are in fact
safer drivers than men, although perhaps not as confident in their driving
ability. This ad is aimed purely at men and only men. During the 60’s it was
unlikely the wife would have much of a say in which car the family would drive
- the husband paid the bills so it was up to him. The ad addresses men, saying
that buying a Volkswagen Bug will save them big bucks in repairs. Further
remarks about women’s driving abilities are mentioned in the middle of the text
with lines such as “She can jab the hood. Graze the door. Or bump the bumper”.
Further trying to instil this message into men’s minds that the wife is almost
certain to damage the car at one point or another and there are many ways in
which she can do so (-$$$$-)!
For
my second ad, I chose a more contemporary version of another Volkswagen ad.
Nowadays
car ads are very simplified. They focus more on the aesthetics of the car. Cars
are very desirable (not necessarily purchased) by how they look, though it is
just down to a matter of one’s own personal taste. Although this ad isn't so much advertising the
car but Volkswagen’s repair services, it follows a similar concept to the
previous ad about car damages and repairs.
This
ad makes no references to women or men. The ad is aimed at either males or females;
it does not specifically address men as the previous ad did. Nowadays, it is
common for both spouses of a household to have their own cars, with women having
as much of a say in the purchase as much as the man. Women are more independent
now than they were 50 years ago and are perfectly capable of affording a car of
their own, so for this reason there is no separation of sexes in the consumer
base for most car manufactures.
In
fact, the model in the ad is a man who is acting in an over dramatic manner,
hence the costume! It’s pointing fun at men rather than women. This somewhat
suggests that a guy is just as capable of crashing a car as a women is. Although the portrayal of this man is supposed
to be silly - he is in tights and he looks as though he is on the verge of a
traumatic breakdown - it is very different to what would be an acceptable
portrayal of a man back in the 60’s when they were supposed to look confident
and powerful.
I
would imagine a 60’s reconstruction of this ad would have likely featured a suited
man aggressively pointing and yelling at a blonde haired, ditzy woman for damaging
the car. The idea following the same caption of the ad “Don’t let small damages
turn into tragedy”.
This week in class we learnt
about semiotics. Proposed in the early 1900’s by Ferdinand de Saussure and
Charles Sanders Peirce; semiotics is the study of signs and symbols as elements
of communicative behaviour.
The intent of advertising is to associate desire for products and
services and to arouse feelings of positivity towards brands.
To achieve this, advertisers must construct campaigns that are
compelling enough that viewers are motivated to decipher them. Still, the ads
cannot mean anything on their own, they must be interpreted by the viewers to
give them meaning.
Semiotics within advertising can be analysed in two respects; Denotation and
Connotation.
Denotation refers to the literal interpretation of the advertisement
- what you see and hear.
While Connotation, refers to the associations that are connected to
it such as symbolic meanings,
socio-cultural and personal associations.
For our next blog, we were told
apply semiotics analysis to three ads; one printed ad, one tv commercial and
one outdoor related ad.
For the printed ad I choose the
following Duracell advertisement. Developed by advertising agencyGreyin
Singapore, this is certainly a unique way to promote longer-lasting batteries.
Terrifying but brilliant, this is one of those print ads that
shouldn't work but somehow does. The advertisement for Duracell batteries
features a sinister-looking doll in the doorway of a little girl's playroom.
The little girl is playing with a new, more pleasant looking toy doll, while
the one in the doorway is reaching with its arms extended towards the girl as
if to say ‘Play with me!’, accompanied by the tagline 'Some toys never die'. The
lighting of the scene is quite dark and eerie, and the presence of the old doll
is made more frightening with the long overcast shadow stretching along the
floor.
It's a bit
left-field, and completely terrifying, but it’s this twisted and sinister
looking aspect of the ad which makes it stand out. I remember as a child I would
go through more batteries for my toys than my parents would for the use of
their cameras or the tv remote. I cannot say for a fact that toys are the most
common use of electronic batteries within the typical family household, but the
caption of ‘Some toys never die’ works so well for this purpose. The fact the
doll is standing in the open doorway shows that it has long since been
discarded and forgotten by the girl. And the message of the caption is supposed
to reinforce that if the old doll was supported by Duracell batteries, then
perhaps the toy would have never been discarded to begin with.
Sometimes you have to look backwards in order
to move forward, and Radio Shack took this very literally when they revived a cast
of classic 80s characters in their wacky Super Bowl commercial.
The commercial is set within one of Radio Shack’s stores being minded by
a couple of employees. At first glance you can see the selection of store merchandise
is very outdated, with old fashioned fax machines, boom boxes that sport cassettes
players, and massive low resolution computer monitors that would take up half
the space of your desk. Then after a quick phone call, a cast of classic 80s
characters enter the store such as Kid and Play, Cheers‘ Cliff Clavin, 1984 Olympics Mary Lou Retton,Child’s Play‘s Chuckie, Hulk Hogan, theCaliforniaRaisins,
Q*Bert, to name just a few. The characters then continue to ransack the store
completely of all its merchandise, ridding it of its VCR’s and fax machines.
After the mayhem we are given a shot of the entire store baring nothing
but empty bracket shelves and torn up carpeting. The shot then changes are we
are introduced to a new, surprisingly spacious and modern looking Radio Shack displaying
sexy products from Samsung and Beats.
It’s a funny, self-effacing ad, which confronts the electronics retailer’s
reputation for being somewhat less than cutting-edge by depicting icons of the
1980s and the display of outdated merchandise. It shows that Radio Shack is
able to laugh at itself and realises its need to change. The shot of the empty
raided store contrasted with the, modern, tasteful store is a way of showcasing
the message of “Out with the old, in with the new”. It’s a way for Radio Shack to
reassure its consumers that there is a promise
of good things to come and that they are ready to become a part of the 21st
century.
Placed at the opening of a tunnel, this creative billboard was launched by Oldtimer restaurants, a leading Austrian chain of motorway rest stops. The billboard is a picture of a woman’s face with her mouth wide open. The idea is that the billboard promotes an “All you can eat rest stop” as you drive right into the open mouth!
The
huge poster was placed at the entrance of a tunnel along a highway, giving the impression
that vehicles going inside is disappearing into the woman’s mouth appearing on
the poster. The cars going into the mouth symbolise food, which is reflective of
the concept of all you can eat. This campaign is very effective as for one, it’s
practically impossible to ignore when it is such a unique concept and because
it is placed right in front to the drivers field of vision. What works towards
making this ad so unique is the fact that it includes the driver of the car to
become a part of the campaign’s symbolic meaning- they are the food that is
going into the mouth. The ad is also strategically placed. The road, which
appears to be alongside a mountain range, is likely quite a rural area with few
towns nearby. So the idea of motorway rest stops, particularly after a long
drive, would be quite ideal to many drivers.
If you wish
to learn any further information about semiotics, watch the video below.
After looking at a range of advertising agencies the one
which I am most impressed by is Wieden+Kennedy. W+K has been around since the 80s and has grown
to global scale with offices in New York, Amsterdam, London and Tokyo,
Shanghai, Beijing Delhi andSão Paulo. What drew my attention most towards
W+K was is its impressive list of clients. As I skimmed through its page of
clients with big names such as Nike, Coca Cola, Facebook, Old Spice, and Sony,
my mind started wondering off, searching the back of my subconscious for images
of ad campaigns and commercials I have previously been exposed to by such
companies.
The name which aroused favoured thoughts and feelings most was
Old Spice. Whenever I hear the name I instantly recall the commercial “The Man
Your Man Could Smell Like”. There is something very captivating about the commercial.
Standing at almost 48million on YouTube, it also won the ad agency an Emmy for
Outstanding Commercial. There is much
which is unique about this commercial, its zany, amusing, seamless, and actor
Isaiah Mustafa – the debonair shirtless black guy on a white horse – is likely
to make any girl swoon!
The
commercials they have made since never fail to amuse. More recently, the
commercials feature Terry Crews doing all manner of craziness including playing
musical instruments with his pectorals.
Everything
Wieden+Kennedy has managed to achieve is impressive; It has won a series of
awards, earned an impressive list of clients, and expanded to a massive global
scale. It is undeniable that Wieden+Kennedy is one of the biggest names in advertising.
If
you would like to find out more about Wieden+Kennedy yourselves, fell free to
look at their website: http://www.wk.com/
