5/29/13 #10: I Have to Smell It

When I'm shopping, I like to use all applicable senses. Clothing stores hated me when I was little because I had to touch everything. My favorite grocery stores were the ones that always had a free sample of something. Groceries stores that would give free cookies to kids were on the top of my list. As a teenager, my shopping habits are less compulsive. Now. my latest quirk is smelling magazines. We've all done it. You sit down with your new Teen Vogue and flip through all the pages in one swift flick of the thumb. Why? It fills your nose with all the wonderful, or not so wonderful, scents of perfumes. It seems that it would be very hard to advertise a perfume that no one could sell. Does this Calvin Klein ad do the job?

The Calvin Klein perfume ad uses the ad techniques Snob Appeal and Testimonial. The black and white photo gives it a formal air. Scarlett Johannson and the model look like the stereotypical-wealthy couple. Furthermore, Scarlett Johansson is an A-list celebrity. If you wear the perfume in the ad, you can be an A-list celebrity like Scarlett Johansson. This is Snob Appeal, although Scarlett Johansson is by no means a snob. The name of the technique would be more fitting, had the model been Paris Hilton. Having her in the ad also employs another technique. It uses the Testimonial technique by putting a picture of Scarlett Johansson on the cover.

This ad satisfies and addresses several needs. The black and white photo with bright lighting is classic. We are attracted to the classic beauty of the photo. The perfume will, therefore, satisfy the need for aesthetic sensations. The ad also addresses the need for affiliation by putting a couple in it. However, the main focus of the ad is still Scarlett Johannson, who embodies the next appeal: need for prominence. If you wear this perfume, you will be admired, respected, and have a high social status like Scarlett Johannson. Finally, this ad addresses the need to satisfy curiosity  You can't actually smell the perfume. The ad entices you to go to the score and smell it yourself. I, for one, want to know what perfume Scarlett Johannson wears. 

One of the reasoning fallacies used in this ad is slippery slope. It's hard to tell in the picture, but the ad slogan is: "One moment can change everything." One spray of  Eternity Moment Calvin Klein perfume and you become as pretty and successful as Scarlett Johansson. If only it were that easy. Then I'd be starring in a movie with Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Don John, Joseph Gordon-Levitt acted and directed) after a trip to Macy's.

I love the ad itself. I'm a sucker for black and white photos. Does that mean I'm going to buy Eternity Moment Calvin Klein perfume? Maybe I'll give it a sniff the next time I'm in Macy's. 

5/25/13 #9: The Song of the Century?

No one was really sure what Mr. Lambert was thinking when Rebecca Black's song "Friday" was used for the warning bell music. The only logical explanation was that it was Friday that day, so he decided to play that song. The song that almost all high school students hate. Not only is it annoying, but it also brings back memories of our awkward middle school days, when the song was first released.

The music video, and the song itself, was produced by Ark Music Factory. Nothing Ark has produced has been particularly good. In fact, Ark is now infamous for it's corny music videos produced for kids with parents who have fat checkbooks. There music videos are essentially advertisements for their company. They use, like every music video, techniques used in advertisements/commercials. Their music videos also attempt to satisfy the needs of their teenage audience.

The music video uses repetition  They're almost always sitting in cars. I'm assuming that this is an appeal to the teenage novelty of driving a car. Though, these kids don't look old enough to be going to parties or driving cars. More importantly, no one is old enough to be sitting on top of the seats while the car is driving on the freeway. The lyrics are also use repetition. Rebecca Black is considerate enough to sing one word multiple times, in case we didn't get the idea the first time. Her favorite word to repeat is the word fun. I'm not sure why she chooses to repeat that word. It's only one syllable, so easy to hear. Is she describing the how fun the song is, how fun Friday is, or how fun to be in a ridiculous music video? I'm not sure.

In the music video, Rebecca and her friends are driving and going to parties. This music video is therefore targeted towards and about high school teenagers. Unless, that is, middle school students lead an exciting life that I haven't heard about. The music video appeals to those teenagers. It satisfies their needs, or it tries too. 

The music video centers around this idea that teens have an obsession with cars and driving. The music video shows several scenes of teens driving together in cars. If there was such thing as a need to drive, this would be the ad for it. Another need that the music video attempts to satisfy is the need for affiliation. Rebecca is driving around with her friends and partying with her friends. They're having fun on a Friday, which is the number one favorite day for most teenagers.   

So, does all of that give this music video the wow factor? Unfortunately, it doesn't. Most people who viewed the video, or heard the song disliked it. Why did so many people dislike a music video that uses so many of the same techniques that their favorite commercials use? I found hope for humanity in the answer to this question. People disliked the song because of the corny lyrics and auto tune  "She can't sing," they said. "We learned the days of the week when we were in pre-school." At least society has shown that we don't just value and praise anything. We have some measure of what is true talent and passion, not just an attempt to be famous. Rebecca, did get famous. She had about as many death threats as Justin Bieber. Yet, parents still pay thousands of dollars for their children to be in music videos produced by Ark. Why? I don't know, but I do know that the answer would make a great reality TV show.

5/19/13 #8: Glee Takes on Gun Violence

Glee has taken on a number of social issues throughout its four seasons. Some of those issues have included homosexuality, cat fishing, cyber-bullying, teen suicide, and eating disorders. On April 11, barely four months after the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary, a school shooting took place on an episode of Glee called "Shooting Stars." Glee is a comedy TV show, they told us.

I admit that I doubted the ability of the writers, producers, actors, and actresses of Glee. Although Glee is set at a high school, the show's atmosphere seemed incapable of creating the dynamic achieved by Degrassi several years prior to this Glee episode. In some ways, Ryan Murphy surprised me. The scene was in no ways fun to watch. Ryan Murphy deserves some praise because of the creativity and imagination required to depict a school shooting in a TV show such as Glee. What surprised me was that the shooting was depicted with a somewhat non-partisan, almost liberal way. This show airs on Fox, mind you. In fact, many social issues are shown more through the liberal perspective on Glee.

As was expected, there was much controversy following the episode. Some believed that the shooter should not have been the character with Down syndrome, while others believed it simply fit her character. Some believed that someone should actually have been shot, while other thought that it accurately depicted the terror and post traumatic stress of a school shooting, even without casualties. Opinions varied just like opinions on gun legislation vary. One of my main concerns was whether TV shows like Glee, Degrassi, One Tree Hill, or any other entertainment television show should tackle the issue of school shootings.

School shootings have always been a very sensitive issues in the media. News programs try their best to deliver the facts and then both sides of the argument after the grieving period. Still, even news programs show bias when reporting these kinds of issues. I can't see how an entertainment show, with its own plot/agenda could convey the issue any better. Should these shootings even exist at all in our entertainment? Are these portrayals a good way to reach the general public, or are they an insult to school shootings that have now been branded by entertainment?

I don't think it was necessary to include a school shooting episode in Glee. I don't think it was necessary for past TV shows to do so, and I hope that others refrain from doing it in the future. Think about it. Are we really that oblivious? We know that school shootings, or shootings in general happen. We know they exist. We just don't know what to do about it. We can't come to a consensus. That's the problem. That's the debate, and it's a debate that should be framed by journalist-oriented media, not entertainment television.

5/19/2013 #7- Is Your Money Worth it?

I decided to stop watching Glee because I quickly realized that it was becoming the Lea Michele show. However, she is the perfect actress for a hair ad with the all-about-me attitude. While L'oreal chose the perfect actress for the testimonial itself, I had several problems with the ad itself.

One of the advertising techniques this ad features is testimonial. It uses weasel words like stronger.  It also employs the Simple Solution technique. This shampoo gives you one solution for five problems. Five for the price of one. Who could go wrong with that? In this ad, the problem is in the problems (which sounded a lot better in my head). 

L'oreal offers you one solution for five problems. Those problems are weak, limp, lifeless, dull, and straw-like hair. Is it just me, or do all those words mean the same thing? I went to thesaurus.com to do some digging. It turns out that weak and limp are synonyms. They mean the same thing, and suddenly it's become four for the price of one. What's more I thought it was strange to say that one of the problems with people's hair is that it is lifeless. I used to have a friend who called me self-absorbed for fussing about my hair because it was dead anyway. Maybe the word L'oreal was looking for was lackluster, not shiny, or dull. Now it's three for the price of one. I left straw-like out of the investigation because it had a good alibi. It was just plain weird. Straw as in drinking straws or straw from a scarecrow? 

This ad satisfies the need for attention. You're hair will be shiny and beautiful. People will notice you because it's all about you. That message can't be missed with Lea Michele stating the famous L'oreal catchphrase and flipping her hair and flashing the number five. But, really what are we worth? The word it is so vague. Are we worth money? Are we worth this fake, simple solution shampoo? No, we're not.

I didn't like the filming of this commercial all. One reason is because I can't stand Lea Michelle. It made me dizzy and angry to watch her flip her hair all over the place. The lighting made it look shiny, but also fake. I also didn't appreciate how she flashed around the number five every chance she got. Lea, this is not a show choir performance. Please, put your jazz hands away. On rare occasions, I'll watch a commercial just because I like to watch it. This was not one of those occasions. 

L'oreal Total Repair Care 5 is really L'oreal Total Repair Care 2. It does two things: make your hair shiny and strong. There are so many hair problems that it doesn't address. What about split-ends, or the number one enemy of dark hair like mine: dandruff? That's money I'd rather spend on things like comfort food. I'd rather eat a carton of ice cream and read Nicholas Sparks. Why? Because I'm worth it.

5/11/13 #6 Dear Zero Period

This blog post isn't just about media. It's way for me to explain why I became teary-eyed after we watched this commercial during zero period. I wasn't alone either, which means that this commercial was designed to evoke a response that makes people's hearts swell and eyes leak. The question is: How did the advertisers evoke that emotional response without turning there commercial into a cheesy Nicholas Sparks or Jodi Picoult novel?

Hidden in this commercial are advertising appeals and techniques that help successfully convey it's emotional message/plot. The obvious appeal is need to nurture. The commercial is about a baby girl and her childhood as she grows up. It's specifically about a father-daughter relationship, which is appealing to dads and daughters. Using Google Chrome will satisfy our need to nurture. What's advertising techniques help promote Google Chrome? Plain folks is one of the advertising techniques used. This commercial is a story about a normal family, more specifically a normal father-daughter relationship. It makes the commercial more relatable to the consumers, and therefore the product becomes more relatable. Transfer/association is another. The positive feelings we get from this emotional story are associated with the product. The question is how does the commercial express its emotional plot?

The images of Sophie, the daughter, help express the commercial's emotional plot, mainly to fathers and mothers. Parents, especially those who have grown up children, get very emotional when they see pictures of kids growing up. As a teenage girl, the images make me nostalgic about my childhood.

The idea of the commercial itself is emotional. The best father of the year award goes to Daniel Lee. He creates his daughter an email scrapbook of her life. What really sells the entire commercial is the music. It's one giant crescendo. As the music builds, the audience's emotions build. 

So yes, I cried a little bit. Am I ashamed? No. With all the advertising techniques, the advertising appeals, the pictures, and the music, how could you not? Does this mean I'm going to install Google Chrome? I already have it, but I'll remember this commercial as fondly as any old home video.

5/10/13 #5- Mike Vs. Ike #thestruggle

Break ups are the latest trend in the American market. It's how epic finales of movie series like Harry Potter and Twilight (wait did I say epic?) made millions more dollars. It's the only way Taylor Swift is able to write one top-charter after another. Just Born Inc tried the same tactic with their famous candy Mike and Ike. People either bought of Mikes or a box of Ikes. The idea was to increase sales with these rival names, when really all the money was going to the same company. Did it work? According to Just Born, the brand had its best sales growth that year in over a decade. 

So how'd Just Born do it? You'd think that no one would care whether they bought a box of Mikes or a box of Ikes. They're the same product after all  What's more, wouldn't devoted Mike and Ike eaters just pick a side? How'd they get so many other people to try their products? 

Part of the answer lies in advertising appeals. The first is need for affiliation. As much as we all long to be noticed as our own amazing self, most of us want to be apart of a group. Most of us fear being known as the person who doesn't really belong anywhere. Many people therefore, would feel the need to pick Mike or Ike, so as to belong to a group. Even those who didn't like Mike and Ikes would be persuaded to buy and pick a side. The second is need to satisfy curiosity  When the divorce was announced, most of were probably wondering what the difference between Mikes and Ikes was. People had to try and buy both, so they could know if there really was a difference.

What advertising technique is used to create those advertising appeals? I think the obvious answer here is the bandwagon technique. Just Born uses candy propaganda to make money. People are being encouraged to choose a side. Just Born doesn't establish a winning or losing side. It lets the consumer do so, which is genius because the side they pick is the side they want everyone else to pick. If this worked really well it would have the consumer promoting the candy, a promotion which may be even more valuable than the ads themselves.

Occasionally, the radio advertisements encourage the feuding. They ask you who's side your on, in a threatening, you-better-choose manner. The voice also reminded me of the guy from All-State, which made me very confused. I didn't really know whether to feel threatened or safe. 

That was 2012. Mike and Ike have since reunited and are using new techniques to get people to buy a box. Today it's all about Left or Right Twix. Who's side are you on?

5/5/13 #4: A Change in Tone for Haiti

Until now, most of my posts have been written intentionally with a sarcastic tone. That's because, unfortunately, I believe that most media is ridiculous, or used in ridiculous ways. This video is my favorite use of media as a way of advertising/ rallying for a cause. After the earthquake in Haiti, Quincy Jones and Lionel Richie, with help of Academy Award Winning Director Paul Haggis, produced a 25th Anniversary version of "We are the World" for Haiti. After watching the video, videos are encouraged to buy the song on iTunes or text to raise money for Haiti.

This video is appealing to almost everyone because it feature a variety of artists like Justin Bieber, Celine Dion, Adam Levine, Pink, Barbra Striesand, Josh Groban, etc. It even pays tribute to Michael Jackson by showing a clip of him singing the song when they did "We are the World for Africa" five years ago. 

This video uses at least two of the fifteen basic advertising appeals: need for affiliation and need to nurture. Although this ad says nothing about gaining friends, we feel the need to join a cause that so many celebrities have joined. We want to be affiliated with them. Specifically, it appeals to our society's fascination with celebrities. Furthermore, the video shows images of homeless kids in Haiti singing. This appeals to our need to nurture. We want to help these kids, who might not have parents to nurture them anymore. 

The lyrics of this classic, also have a profound a effect. The most powerful lines are probably:

We are the world, we are the children

We are the ones who make a brighter day

So let's start givin'

The lyrics in this section of the chorus are so powerful. The most powerful word is 'we'. It gives a sense of community and shared duty. It adds to our need for affiliation. 

There's one aspect of this video that bothers me. In some ways, this video is a type of bandwagon. It's musical propaganda, for a good cause, but it's also a sort of celebrity bandwagon. Celebrities have come together in the past to rally the people. Part of the lyrics states this, and also reveal a fundamental problem with celebrity bandwagons:

Like Katrina, Africa, Indonesia

And now Haiti needs us, they need us, they need us.

The problem is that, while Katrina, Africa, and Indonesia are good examples of how celebrities helped the world help the world, those places mentioned still need help. They get forgotten about as world's attention and the song are focused on Haiti. Today, Haiti still needs help, but has been similarly forgotten about. Media has made it this way.

On an emotional day this video makes me cry. Yet, as beautiful as this video is, despite the good intentions, I and many others forget about it the next day.

5/5/13 #3: Michael Phelps Does Something Crazier than Doing Drugs in Beijing

You could say that Michael Phelps was productive in Beijing. He won eight gold medals, but that wasn't even his true triumph. Believe what you will, but this Rosetta Stone commercial says that Michael Phelps learned Chinese, and we all know that commercials and famous athletes never lie.

There are a few things wrong with this commercial. Let's start with something that should be obvious. Chinese isn't actually a language. Asian isn't a language, and neither is Mexican. We don't speak American, although some of us can't speak English. If Rosetta Stone actually taught you the thousands of dialects that make up Chinese, you'd be too horribly depressed to talk. Rosetta Stone fails to establish ethos here. It also fails to establish credibility in naming its product after a rock that isn't a diamond, with a reference that only well-educated people (who know Chinese isn't a language) would understand.

The commercial also uses weasel words like fastest, fast, and quicker. We know that this helps us learn Chinese fast. We can learn Chinese quicker, and this is the fastest way to do it. However, the commercial never gives us a specific number of hours, days, weeks, months, or years. Anyone who speaks a Chinese dialect would probably tell you that it takes years to learn, especially if you're training for the Olympics. The commercial never even proves to us that Michael Phelps can speak what they call Chinese.

So what's really appealing about commercial? What need does it satisfy? Need to achieve is an obvious choice. Michael Phelps is the poster-child of achievement. He was able to smoke weed and win eight gold medals, in a place that has practically the worst air quality in the world. That's the mark of a true champion. What's more, you can learn to speak Chinese fast! That's hard to do, but with Rosetta Stone you can achieve. All you'd need to then is win 22 Olympic Medals (18 of them gold) and make a mistake that many teenagers make. Then you'd be just like Michael Phelps!

I have actually considered using Rosetta Stone to learn Spanish, but this commercial has not convinced me to use it to learn Chinese. I love Michael Phelps as much as Ryan Lochte hates him, but I think I'll pass.