The Power of Subliminal Advertising

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.

Thanks for reading!

Expanding Environmental Campaigns

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:

http://dirtysecret.greenpeace.org/en-GB?source=em&subsource=20140307ppem01&utm_source=gpeace&utm_medium=em&utm_campaign=20140307ppem01.

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Kbq5DtdrgU&list=UUDYkJZXrR9gv6sQ2FQMeYYw

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/.

Thanks for reading!

Stereotypes In Television

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.

Thanks for reading!

Racial Stereotypes In Advertising

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."

https://www.facebook.com/TimeForAnAwakeningRadio/posts/386874334779528

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.

http://www.ethicalmarkets.com/2008/10/17/can-advertising-be-ethical/

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.

http://www.colorado.edu/communication/meta-discourses/Papers/App_Papers/Henry.htm

"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

Thanks for reading!