a commentary on advertising laws and ethics

In this entry, I will be examining American Apparel advertisements. They have always been controversial because of the company’s inclusion of sexuality as a strong selling point, which is interesting considering their advertisements have not been banned and American Apparel proudly archives their advertisements on their website for anybody to browse through.

People today are all up in arms over sex in advertising. It is no longer 1872, pre-marital sex occurs and babies born out of wedlock do exist. There are plenty of advertisements that are provocative and are not suitable for the eyes of children, but that is something that advertisements cannot control: who sees them. Many brands are known for putting out controversial ads that contain sexual innuendos such as Dolce and Gabbana, Victoria’s Secret, and Tom Ford.

But back to my focus upon American Apparel…

September 2009

Source: http://www.americanapparel.net/presscenter/ads/images/a7000/type3/7245_american-appare-ad-OK-faye-laceunitard-280909.jpg

August 2009

Source: http://www.americanapparel.net/presscenter/ads/images/a7000/type3/7026_american-apparel-ad-phoenix-bullseye-120809.jpg

June 2007

Source: http://www.americanapparel.net/presscenter/ads/images/a6000/type3/6002_american-apparel-ad-boston-tankthong-150607.jpg

March 2007

Source: http://www.americanapparel.net/presscenter/ads/images/a6000/type3/6274_american-apparel-ad-ottawa-tights-050307.jpg

September 2006

Source: http://www.americanapparel.net/presscenter/ads/images/a6000/type3/6869_american-apparel-ad-Vice-UK-pantytime-270906.jpg

October 2005

Source: http://www.americanapparel.net/presscenter/ads/images/a6000/type3/6096_american-apparel-ad-japan-wereopen-101005.jpg

Ok so you get the point: American Apparel is not afraid to put itself out there as a company that uses suggestive imagery to model their clothing. Ryan Holiday does online strategy for American Apparel stated that “Yes there’s shock value to these ads – that’s what our advertising strategy is about. We photograph models in a way that’s honest – we aren’t so constrained by the rules.”[1] What is interesting to note is that American Apparel has a reputation amongst youth who like simple, plain, non-logo laden clothing that is not particularly suggestive in any way. But their advertisements suggest sex and other racy things. In a way, it seems as though American Apparel is trying to show consumers that being plain and normal can also be just as sexy; it is not the clothing that makes a model sexy, it is the way that she acts and presents herself. American Apparel prides itself on using “normal” girls as models in their advertisements and do not rely on airbrushing or hours of makeup and hair prior to a photo-shoot.[2]

While the company has a history of producing advertisements that now have a very recognizable thematic and schematic format, along with the recognizable block-like font, they seem to be promoting a very sensible idea that normalcy can be normal. The only reason why an underwear advertisement seems racy is because she is wearing nothing else in the advertisement. Logically, this is done to showcase the panties, but at the same time, a girl would never go out in public wearing only the panties. The philosophy that American Apparel ads are secretly proliferating is that everyone has the potential to be sexy, regardless of the amount of skin they show.

So, having examined that… is American Apparel secretly brilliant for putting out such a convicted message, or is it overshadowed by their use of sex in advertising to sell their clothing?

Every girl part of Generation Y and Z wants to be “sexy”. Somehow Hollywood has instilled it in the minds of young girls that they all should be “sexy”. Dr. Glenn Gaesser, Ph.D., wrote a book entitled “Big Fat Lies” (1996) which stated that over 1/2 the females between the ages of 18-25 would prefer to be run over by a truck then be fat, and 2/3 surveyed would rather be mean or stupid.[3] This distorted vision of what is ideal has been a continual problem that seems to be recognized but never rectified. If Hollywood has such an impact on the mentality of adolescents, then society is forced to find other outlets and other channels to disseminate the “proper” message and that is exactly what American Apparel has taken upon themselves.

I believe that American Apparel is brilliant for using sex in a way that promotes healthy body image and a healthy outlook on what is sexy. They are redefining the meaning of sexy (albeit slowly) but in the subtlest way as to not raise confrontations with people who believe that nothing is wrong with using a “sex sells” advertising doctrine. American Apparel is fitting into mainstream society through their usage of sex, and it is enough to be borderline (and sometimes more) controversial but that is exactly what keeps their brand name prominent within the advertising community. However, the intention behind their advertisements is what really sets them apart from racy ads put out by other brands.

Changing the world for the better through advertising. Who would have thought?

Tags advertising, american, apparel, controversy, influence, racy, sells, sex, sexual

Religious groups have always existed in society and are quite vocal in the communities whenever, basically, any sort of controversy comes up. I went through the consumer complaints section on the ASC website and came across one where I actually recognized the advertisement.

Nissan Canada Inc. developed a commercial for “100 days of grace”, meant to advertise their deferred payment promotion and this complaint was pulled from the ASC consumer complaint database from Q2 2008. It falls under the jurisdiction of Clause 14: Unacceptable Depictions and Portrayals.

Source: http://www.adstandards.com/en/standards/adComplaintsReportsSearch.asp

Nissan Canada most likely did not have the intention of offending the Christians. However, it should have been common sense that this commercial would haul in complaints by religious fanatics who believe that placing a Jesus-like figure in any context outside of their own personal doctrines is outrageous and offensive. People are incredibly sensitive about their religion because it is their faith and it is what they believe, and to have a figure that they revere placed in a car dealership discussing car deals with a Nissan representative is just ridiculous.

Religious fanaticism places a lot of obstacles in advertisers’ way because some peoples’ complaints are bordering on the line of political correctness gone mad. In a way, advertising is everything that the Christian religion loathes: faith placed in products/services, emphasis on material goods as fulfillment of life’s voids, instilled materialism with a necessity to satisfy the insatiable need for more consumerism… basically anything that derives attention away from worshipping God. However, these two worlds MUST co-exist. They always have co-existed and they will continue to co-exist.

The solution is simple: don’t make religious references in your advertisements. It is not necessary.

/end controversy.

Tags advertising, asc, christian, complaint, consumer, nissan, religion

In class, we began to discuss advertising and its ethical implications when it comes to children. I personally believe that although it is not possible to circumvent exposure of advertising to children, it is not necessarily the best or healthiest thing to do.

Advertisements during Saturday morning cartoons, on specialty channels for kids (such as Treehouse or YTV along with many others), after-school programming all have one very large thing in common: they all advertise for products and not services. There are no commercials for car insurance or banking advice or mortgage loans when there is children’s programming on. The advertisements are usually for toys, toys, and more toys. Other items may include cereal. But generally, advertisements targeted towards children advertise products. They are too young to comprehend the necessity of services but are old enough to understand that having the toy in the commercial would fulfill a materialistic desire within them that will make them happy once the toy is in their possession. It is almost scary how innate materialism (turned product desire) is in children.

Children are extremely impressionable and almost all their decisions are made based on social acceptance and immediate fulfillment; they cannot comprehend the fact that having a Barbie might promote unrealistic expectations for body image so then it becomes the responsibility of the toy companies to ensure that their toys are kid-friendly and promote the proper values and principles while children absorb and believe things like sponges. Advertising targeted towards children, I believe, has more power in social conditioning than any other source before a child turns 12. Even if a child has limited television time, their friends at school may not and whatever values and wants and desires those kids bring to school, it is going to reflect upon little Suzy who does not get to watch television for 7 hours a day but still knows what is being discussed.

Think about all the fads that have occurred in the 90s amongst children. When I say fads, I am talking about things that had such an impact that teachers eventually banned them from school. For this, I am sourcing my own memory. These fads included: Pogs, Yo-Yos, Pokemon Trading Cards, Devil Sticks, Tamagotchis, Crazy Bones, and so on. Notice how all of these are products and not services. All it takes is for one kid to bring something to school, show his friends and they will all go home and ask their parents for the same thing. The level of influence is seen in the ultimate consequence that these items be banned from school because they are so distracting that teachers feel as though the children are more interested in socializing through their toys rather than learning.

I remember having my Pogs stolen in grade 3 and being severely upset about it because I knew my parents would not buy me replacements and I had a Slammer that I had to beg my parents to get me. It cost $5.99. Looking back, that is a RIDICULOUS price to pay for a piece of plastic. BUT, I know that at the time, had my parents not gotten it for me, I would have been left out of all recess games and I would have nothing to trade with my friends. I would be shunned from the Pog parties (yes, they existed) and I would have to sit there and watch my friends enjoy a product that basically dictated how socially accepted I was (the kids with the “best” Pogs suddenly rocketed to elementary school stardom) and served as a membership pass into the group (there was no point for me to be around if I did not have Pogs). At such a young age, toys are representative of social acceptance levels as well as the “in” to any social interaction with peers. I could apply the exact same thing to the rest of the toys listed above and it is astounding as to how important it is for a child to possess a toy. So important that when Tamagotchis came out, parents were spending up to $80 on one for their child, and then 5 years later seeing them in the clearance bin at Wal-Mart for $2.99. I do want to call my parents and apologise right now for making them buy me ridiculously overpriced and undervalued toys, but thank them at the same time that they let me have whatever I needed in order to fit in socially. Ultimately, the social skills developed as a child through product possession and peer acceptance molds their social skills and material perceptions in their adolescent years.

All of this is a result of one child seeing one advertisement. Children are not going to go to a toy store and decide to randomly pick out a product to bring to school; they are going to tell their parents that they want something that they have seen on television. The one means of communication between an advertiser and children that is most effective is television: it is visually appealing and the narration is so enthused that it rubs off on children right away.

The possession of toys and social acceptance also speaks to the exclusivity that is promoted by advertisers. They want each child to believe that possessing their product will make them cool and they could not possibly be happier with any other toy. As young children, they believe this, so they run to their parents and BEG for a toy. The parent, knowing that they are just going to outgrow it in 6 weeks, is then torn between satisfying their child’s demands for a toy and paying a most likely overpriced tag or saying no and risking having their child hate them for it. Tough spot to be in.

I could go on and on about advertising to children and why I believe it is unethical but what is the point when it is unavoidable? Especially these days when children are under ten years old and already have cell phones and iPods and all these other technologically advanced gadgets. Children these days want to grow up faster and do “adult things”, so the window of opportunity for advertisers to capitalize on the years in between being in diapers and developing this need of “wanting to grow up faster” is limited and it is then that they aggressively market many toys. As children move into their “wanting to grow up faster” stage, toys like realistic baby dolls and pseudo-shaving kids and toy money begin to make their appearances but that is when children begin to move from solely wanting a product to wanting to fulfill a certain image and live a certain lifestyle. Children do not buy realistic baby dolls because they want to change diapers, it is because they want to play the role of a mother; children do not buy pseudo-shaving kids because they enjoy pretending to shave (because any man will tell you it is a bit of an annoying task) but because they want to grow up and do something that only grown ups do. Advertisers know that they are not targeting the parents with toy adverts; they are targeting children because they understand the buying influence that children possess these days.

It is a twisted world of materialism caught up and capitalizing on the world of childhood development.

Tags acceptance, advertising, children, fads, influence, power, products, social, toys

For my show and tell, I picked a commercial that I found to be hilarious and effective in getting the message across, but there were a few things that would make it questionable as to whether or not it would pass the ASC guidelines. This commercial won a Silver Lion at the Cannes International Advertising Festival (June 2003), a Golden Shark at The Shark Awards in Kinsale/Ireland (2003), and Gold at Eurobest 2003. I am unsure as to whether or not it was aired in North America (I’m inclined to think it was not) and I have found versions of it in Dutch, French, and English. However the English version seemed to have been dubbed over, leading me to believe that the commercial was originally done in Dutch and French for the Belgian population (seeing as how those are two of the three official languages of Belgium). All this information can be found on their official company website at www.zazoo.be.

Zazoo Commercial:

Zazoo Condoms is a Belgian company began in 1998 that make prophylactics. Their slogan is “One for 2”, implying that they aim to create a contraceptive that is maximizing comfort and enjoyment for both parties involved.

There are two clauses of the ASC Code that would make the commercial questionable as to whether or not it would be allowed to air in Canada. The first clause is Clause 11: Superstitions and Fears. The second clause is Clause 14: Unacceptable Depictions and Portrayals.[1]

Clause 11 states, “advertisements must not exploit superstitions or play upon fears to mislead the consumer.” The Zazoo commercial does not give any illusion as to what the product being advertised is until the very end when text appears on the screen making the message very clear. Once the message is conveyed, it is obvious that this is playing upon a fear of being caught in a situation where you end up with your child in a supermarket that is misbehaving in the most grotesque way possible. The father does not appear to be extremely young or old, which means that the commercial was probably intended to target males between the ages of 25-35 – a prime time in life when many people are either thinking about starting a family, or are heavily putting their plans for family on hold while they pursue a career or other interests. I find that within my group of friends, they are very split between being in serious relationship that are seemingly leading to (or have already led to) engagement or marriage, while the other half are very dead set upon not having children and focusing on their career now.

However, in a way, the commercial is not playing upon this fear to mislead the consumer; it merely exaggerates the worst possible outcome that could happen if one were to not use a condom and end up having an unwanted child. If anything, I would think that this commercial was designed to raise awareness amongst males 25-35 that there are severe consequences to their actions if they do not practice safe sex.

The second clause that raises questions about this commercial is Clause 14: Unacceptable Depictions and Portrayals. In 14(d), it states that advertisements shall not “undermine human dignity; or display obvious indifference to, or encourage, gratuitously and without merit, conduct or attitudes that offend the standards of public decency prevailing among a significant segment of the population.”

The bolded part of the clause is what could get this commercial into some hot water. The commercial makes it seem as though the father wishes he had used a condom and in a way, this could be ethically controversial because it demeans the values around having a child, which is usually seen to be a good thing. He obviously is frustrated with his son and embarrassed in the supermarket filled with glaring, judging eyes of other shoppers, but it is that depiction combined with the product that is being advertised that communicates a message of having an unwanted child and regrets around not using a condom at a point in his life. Based upon the speculated age of the son (I’d say around 5-7) and the speculated age of the father (I’d say around 28-30), he must have been a fairly young father.

Another key important thing to note is that Zazoo used a male actor in this commercial. Young single parents are often associated with single mothers but in this case, it is the father – which is fitting considering they are advertising condoms. The effectiveness of the commercial would have not been as high as if it was a young single mother. Although condoms are dualistically beneficial for males and females (that is, chances of having a child is lowered for both parties), the male is the one who ultimately is the one with his sword in a sheath. However, the commercial does not provide any information about condoms, the use of condoms, or instructions. This is most likely because it is generally understood that people who are old enough to need condoms, understand what condoms are for. It’s kind of like advertising a vehicle… you don’t need to explain what an automobile is or how to drive because it is assumed that potential consumers have licenses and know what uses a vehicle provides.

In order for this commercial to be aired in Canada without getting flagged, it would have to most likely be advertised late at night or during adult programming. It is not something that would be airing during after-school programming. The effectiveness of the advertisement is high because it resonates with the thoughts, fears, and ideas that younger people have about unwanted pregnancies. The appropriateness is debatable but I feel like it is a well done commercial and the awards were justifiably given.

Verdict: Very Effective and Medium Appropriateness

Tags apporpriate, appropriateness, asc, clause, effective, effectiveness, matrix, zazoo

We constantly discuss the ASC and CRTC in class as the regulatory bodies in Canada that uphold the standards to which adverts are measured against and then deemed appropriate for public airing. However, it was brought up in class the other day that it is impossible to regulate the Internet because you don’t know where the content is coming from and you don’t know where the content will be viewed. There are a slew of websites that are not condoned yet are still free to exist – why? For the simple reason that it is impossible to regulate the Internet. Your website gets shut down and within ten minutes, you can have all your content hosted on another server, another website, another micro-corner of the virtual world. That prompts the following question: is the Internet the freest place on Earth? Is the Internet where absolute true freedom of speech and thoughts get exercised without consequence?

With the exception of things, such as child pornography, there really are no rules or limitations to what one can write or host on their personal website. If the Ku Klux Klan can have an official webpage, and sites with domains like godhatesfags.com can exist, then where are the boundaries drawn? You can even go onto websites to purchase marijuana from originating areas where it is NOT illegal to grow, traffic, possess, or consume. You can watch all kinds of pornography (there will be no examples given for this) without consequence and they can even charge you money for watching their material, because ultimately, it is a product (streaming film) and it is an e-business (…porn).

If I created a blog and voiced all my personal opinions on people, celebrities, news, politics, the weather, fashion, television, whatever it may be, there would be nothing but maybe a few disgruntled Internet trolls looking for a fight. But there would be no consequence. Unless I explicitly laid out some sort of diabolical plan for a hostile takeover of the world, there is no threat. There is no threat because these are thoughts and not actions. They are thoughts and not plans. They are thoughts and they are beliefs, but they are not explicitly enacted so therefore, I cannot be arrested for the thoughts I have. So if I am extended this courtesy, then the same could be said for the KKK or the severely homophobic anti-gay group that comprises the founding panel of godhatesfags.com. But is this right? Of course it’s not. But if we take away their freedom of voice, then we are not entitled to our own (a concept lost upon these two groups). The point is that there is no selectivity of free speech privileges on the Internet. Working in conjunction with the fact that the Internet is nearly impossible to regulate, groups like those aforementioned get away with what they do and proliferating what they believe because the rest of the world is playing with a double-edged sword when it comes to freedom of speech. And both edges are pointed at the good guy.

So, back to the original question: is the Internet the freest place on Earth?

People can hide behind their screens and be who they want to be and say what they want to say without fear that they are going to have ETF swarm through their windows at any given time. Free speech is considered a basic human right and now, Finland considers high-speed Internet to be a basic human right and mandates that every person living in Finland be granted Internet access that is regulated by the speed.[1] If one country can do it, then there are bound to be others who follow suit – for example, Sweden is already in the process of implementing the same idea.[2] The beginning of the Internet generation has already taken over all first and most second world nations and virtually (no pun intended) every person I know has regular high-speed Internet access. If high-speed Internet access is considered a human right along with freedom of speech, those two combined would theoretically create the freest place in the world.

The future generations are going to need the Internet Police.

Tags asc, crtc, free, freedom, freest, Internet, online, opinion, regulate, speech, standards

So this week, we presented our sub committee topics and my group (with Nadine and Colin) was assigned accuracy and clarity. One of the most interesting examples I found for a good example of a properly cited advert was Lunesta Sleeping Aid. The company is American, but I found that the grand theme of it all still applies.

The commercial is one minute long and about half of it is spent discussing the side effects. Some of them seem fairly daunting (as with any drug) but the commercial seemed to inform the viewer of the possible side effects in an informative manner. However, if you go online to their website, they list the side effects and there are a few that were omitted that seem pretty serious, such as people with depression may suffer from suicidal tendencies. This was not stated in the commercial. So this prompted me to think, “are we satisfied with just meeting the required amount of information, or are we entitled to all of the information”? Of course, I’m not talking about printing out all medical research about the drug onto the pillbox, but it does make you think. As consumers, are we satisfied with just enough information or should we want (and have) all the information? Especially when it comes to medicine, the side effects can be quite severe for different people, which would then nullify any sort of positive effect the drug does have if it drives you to commit suicide every time you go to sleep after taking Lunesta.

The standards, as set out by Advertising Standards Canada, are there for a reason: to protect the consumer. But then, how much are we responsible for? If someone has clinical depression and a massive load of medical conditions, chances are that they would consult a doctor before ingesting medication such as sleeping pills. But that’s a chance. Some people believe that everything should be done for them and companies end up with lawsuits that seem ludicrous to everyone but the plaintiff. For example, the case that everyone has heard about: the lady who sued McDonalds because the coffee was too hot and she burnt herself when she spilled her coffee in the car. There are warnings all over the cup, plus it’s common knowledge that driving equals motion which equals possible bumps which means holding a hot beverage while doing so is not the best idea in the world. And that case was just with coffee. In the case of medical lawsuits, usually a fatality is involved which makes it plenty worse than scalding in the groin on a Monday morning.

So just how tightly can ASC regulate accuracy and clarity? So long as the gist of it gets across? Should they really entrust the public to taking care of themselves? There is a list of outrageous lawsuits in history (and by history, I mean within the last 2 decades) that make no sense and seem like the pettiest things to sue for and/or over. In many cases, the plaintiff brought it upon themselves.

Lunesta commercial:

Here is a chart comparing the warnings about the drug that were listed in the commercial and those that are on the Lunesta website.

So okay. There are a few things about this that bother me. Let’s start with some of the side effects that were omitted from the commercial narration but were plainly stated on the website:

“Walking, eating, driving or engaging in other activities while asleep without remembering it the next day have been reported”

Is anyone as concerned about this as I am? I realize that people ingesting this drug are insomniacs and there are plenty of sleep disorders, including sleepwalking. However, if I am trying to take a drug to help me sleep, I don’t want to wake up with my entire house in shambles because I had a dream about driving a tank in WWII and in reality, I had stolen a John Deere bulldozer from the construction site across the street and plowed my own house while eating a Double Bacon Cheeseburger because I drove to a McDonald’s Drive-Thru at 5am … in my stolen bulldozer. I feel as though this is a fairly heavy consequence and side effect that deserves to be mentioned.

“Other abnormal behaviors: aggressiveness, agitation, hallucinations, confusion”

So once I wake up in my bulldozed house, I am going to be confused (naturally), agitated (naturally), aggressive (I suppose this is a result of the confusion and agitation), and possibly believe that I am hallucinating. In fact, I will most likely convince myself that I am hallucinating because there is no way that one tiny little pill caused so much destruction … all whilst subconscious. So I can see how the previous side effect can lead to this side effect.

“In depressed patients, worsening of depression including risk of suicide may occur”

I feel as though a risk about SUICIDE should be included. If you scroll up a few paragraphs, I mentioned that the company is assuming that patients with medical conditions that require medication (i.e. depression) would consult professionals before taking any extra drugs. However, a risk of suicide… is a pretty big thing to omit.

“Severe allergic reactions such as swelling of the tongue and throat occur rarely and may be fatal”

Now the move from risk of suicide to death has been made. People with allergies are usually very cautious about what they ingest, but there are times where over-the-counter drugs give off the impression that they are at less risk to be harmful than prescription drugs which include higher dosages and stronger medicines (the question of whether a drug should be widely available or by prescription only is a completely different debate).

Ultimately, advertisers do not want to scare off their potential consumers so back to my original question, “are we satisfied with just meeting the required amount of information, or are we entitled to all of the information”? Advertising medical products has always been controversial so this question can really only be answered based on two things: the amount of common sense you have, and the level of trust you have in advertising – two slowly decreasing factors in today’s world.

Tags accuracy, advertising, clarity, consumer, Lunesta, protect, side effects, standards

In class this week, we discussed the Calvin Klein advert controversy because there were children on the images that seemed to exploit them in a sexual manner. This led me to think about who would be the ones who would see them in a light like that. That led me to think about why people think that way and what they are trying to protect. And that ultimately led me to question why people bother placing models in adverts anyway because it is only going to create more controversy. Having models in adverts leaves room for interpretation, objectification (of all kinds), and in many cases, there is no real necessity for having a model in the advert at all.

Certain products/services would require actors. For example, clothing. You can’t advertise clothing on a bare rack on the page of an advert. You need to put the clothes on a model. But then this is where it complicates itself because how the model looks is the kind of look that – indirectly or directly – the brand wants to be associated with or perceive to their potential consumers. Using the CK adverts as an example, you have the children and young boys modeling their underwear. There are also other adult models that don the CK underwear that looks remarkably similar, just a few sizes larger. Consequently, CK is letting the consumer know that at any age, CK underwear is 1) affordable 2) for everybody of any age range 3) looks good on professional models and non-professional models. The presentation of a model (clothing excluded) promulgates the target social strata that it wants to be associated with. In CK’s case, anyone between middle-class to high-class is perceived to be the target audience. They do not stress that their prices are low, thus eliminating the target of low-income consumers but do not exclusively use high fashion models, thus eliminating the idea that CK underwear is comparable to high fashion brands. The use of a model has many telling ideas that are not outwardly stated by a brand.

The same can be said for automobile adverts, specifically television commercials. However, this is varying images based upon different models of cars within a specific brand. There are many automobile companies that cater to low-budget consumers (< $50,000) as well as high-income ($100,000+) consumers. At the same time, there are companies who market their brand exclusively to the higher class (and some to the super incredibly rich class): Jaguar, Infiniti, Ferrari, Lamborghini, and so on. In the commercials, the attire, age, social environment dictates the class that is being targeted. The Ford Focus adverts have fairly young adults on road trips with their friends, whereas the commercials for the higher end vehicles almost never show a model and the car zipping through a busy city where pedestrians are all dressed in business attire. If there is a model used, it is almost always a male who is almost always in a suit.

Are models actually necessary for the automobile commercials? Not particularly. But they do very effectively promote the image that the brand wants to conceive amongst their consumers. In other adverts, such as food, I believe that there is no need to include a model. There doesn’t need to be a Vana White for products that will sell themselves to people who are hungry and want food. I believe there is too much controversy, especially sexism, which plays in adverts with models in them who are promoting food. For example, a low calorie chocolate bar advert shows a woman enjoying the treat. Of course, we all innately have this notion that it is usually women who consume low-calorie victuals because many have been socially conditioned to believe that self-esteem and body image ideologies are to be dictated by celebrities and models. But to put that into an advert just propagates the situation further. The product will sell itself and because it is not going to have any different effect for men or women who eat it, it is not necessary to use a model.

Another example in which models are effective within adverts is in Public Service Announcements (PSAs). The usage of a model engaged in certain acts resonates with the audience because they are enacting a situation that is supposed to illicit an emotional response from them – whether it is sympathy, empathy, anger, sadness, disappointment, realization, etc.

Either way, in the end, unless there is a certain social atmosphere to create in order to convey a point, I think that models in adverts are distractions more than helpful endorsements. As soon as you add a face, you create subjectivity from the viewers – some may find the model attractive and others not, which then proposes the question of whether or not that will affect consumer choices when choosing brands. Products, if they are really that good, will sell themselves. You wouldn’t need people to convey the enjoyment of a beverage, the sleekness of an automobile, the deliciousness of a candy bar, etc. These things sell themselves.

Tags actors, actresses, advertising, calvin, klein, models, necessity

Because I missed the first class, I had printed off the Power Point presentation off SLATE and went through it myself. First classes are usually introductions so I assumed that the first class was an overview of the topics that are going to be covered and discussed throughout the course of this semester.

As I was reading through the PPT slides, I began to think about a very general and grand question: is there an amount of money that I would accept to work on a campaign that promoted something that I personally did not only not believe in, but was against? There is a fine line between not believing in something and being against it and I wondered where I stood. The first product that virtually everybody is opposed to is tobacco. Nobody wants to admit that they promote and “advocate” smoking and the purchase of cigarettes, even if they are smokers themselves. As a smoker myself, I am fully aware of the effects and consequences of smoking yet it is an addiction. The fact that there are adverts for cigarettes almost diminishes the severity of them; and not only do they diminish the image that smoking is a disgusting, horrible habit, the adverts promote them as something that is cool and could potentially change your image into someone cooler. Of course, in Canada, it is illegal to advertise for tobacco products so I wonder how Americans deal with it. The reason why the selling of cigarettes hasn’t been banned is because the revenues that the industry brings in are gastronomical and the government profits off the taxes per box, per pack, per carton, and so on.

When most people think of tobacco adverts, they think of the ones that Marlboro has come out with – usually there is a rugged male model in the guise of an old Western cowboy that makes smoking look “cool”.

Here are two examples of very typical Marlboro adverts:

Source #1: http://www.old-ads.com/images/marlboro.jpg
Source #2: https://euro-cig.com/gal_images/20060405111007.jpg

The fact that neither of the males in the two adverts looks directly at the viewer implies that he does not care that anyone is looking at him. The cigarette is hanging out of the side of their mouths to further this “cool” image. The usage of the cowboy image is cleverly chosen because it is automatically associated with “being a man”; it is obvious that the target audience of the Marlboro adverts are middle aged males who should smoke so that they can be as manly as these men – if they smoked enough.

The tagline is one of Marlboro’s infamous lines: Come to where the flavor is. This line implies that without the cigarettes, you are living a flavorless life and that there is no alternative but to go right out and immediately purchase a pack. There are so many things wrong with advertising tobacco because advertising, to me, is advocating. No matter how focused your target audience may be, the exposure cannot be controlled because, whether accidental or intentional, children may see this advert in their parents’ magazine, on a billboard, etc. Then what kind of message would it be sending to children?

Tobacco conglomerates are undoubtedly wealthy, yet at the same time, there is a certain kind of stigma to working in the industry. This brings me back to my original query of whether or not there is an amount of money that I’d work for something that I don’t believe in or that I’m against. It’s certain things – like the example of tobacco adverts – which I believe gives the advertising industry a tainted image. Even though it is illegal in Canada, it certainly is not universally outlawed, which just propagates the idea that the industry does not care and will go to extremes to persuade people to purchase their product so that the corporation will make money. Humans are inherently greedy and money is the most tangible form of evidence and most reaffirming documentation of greed. It is not necessarily a bad thing to want money, but advertising does raise an interesting ethical awareness as to how far a company is willing to try to manipulate their consumers into believing that ALL purchases and ALL products are not only good, but also necessary for self-improvement.

I don’t know if I would ever sell out and work for something I don’t believe in or something that I’m strongly against regardless of how much money they dangled in front of me. This is where the slope starts to become very steep, very quickly; ergo, this is why people believe that advertising is so evil: advertising is equated to endorsement and advocacy. I suppose the only way I’ll ever know is if it happens to me and I’m forced to make this decision. Otherwise, I’m perfectly content believing that I would not.

Tags advertising, advocate, ethics, Marlboro, money, smoking