Entry #10: Advertising is...

Entry #9: Is advertising ethical?

Advertising has been unethical since the very beginning. The real question is, why are we still talking about it? Have we not caught on yet?

Entry #8: Attention spans and advertising

Let's get one thing straight before I start this post. I have pretty bad ADHD. Completing tasks, getting motivated to do anything, doing things on impulse, paying attention during a conversation, even listening to what I say myself, is a struggle for me. On average, these blog posts take me multiple days to complete, because I cannot focus long enough to write a few paragraphs without going to do something else or flicking through random web pages or phone apps. The college workload is close to impossible for me to keep up with, and I'm usually handing things in with a minute to spare. It is especially bad when I have multiple things to do. If the workload continues to pile up, and the stress of school or work intensifies, I prolong my studying or homework even more. I've considered going on medication or trying to find something to help my motivation, but I'm a little weary about going into a lengthy process of finding out where my issues stem, getting the right balance of medication, spending money on pharmaceuticals, and potentially screwing my head up (worse than it already is, of course).

When this topic came up for this week's blog post, I immediately felt a connection with it. This is the topic which I will have the most bias towards, because of current scatter-brained state of mine.

I do believe that advertisements can be held (partially) responsible for our lack of attention. However, social media and technology overall play the largest part of our concentration issues. Flicking from screen to screen, watching TV or a movie while doing things on our computers or phones, browsing the web, instant messaging and multi-tasking have all led to a lack of concentration and appreciate for working on or doing a single task at hand. I can use a personal example here to further prove my point. When I was a child, although I did have ADHD, I used to be able to sit at home and do my homework each night, with help from my parents of course. It took me a very long time) but I completed my work. In middle school and early on in high school, I was the same. I completed my projects and studied for exams as best as I could. But once I reached grade 11 and 12, and especially in the three years that have since passed (which technology has really taken off since then), I got worse and worse at concentrating on things. My mind is constantly scattered. I'm either completely zoned out; thinking about nothing, or thinking about everything all at once. It takes me days and even weeks to finish homework and I am always struggling to get it done on time. Could this be directly linked to the amount of technology I'm exposed to? Especially considering my field of study, graphic design, which literally centres around technology itself. I think so. I at least think that part of my issues has to do with the amount of crap we're bombarded with every day, in the form of ads and apps.

I checked online for any great articles to link to on this topic, but alas I could only find essays written during the 70s, and obviously, compared to 40 years ago, the amount of ads we are exposed to each day (and the technology we use) is incomparable to the small amount of ads shown during those times. Hopefully more people will begin to look into this correlation and see if we're melting our brains with overexposure.

Entry #7: Shock-vertising – yay or nay?

How do I feel about ads aimed at shocking their viewers? I have a really simply answer for this. I love it. My reasoning is that 'shock-vertising' works, plain and simple. The fact that I'm even discussing my opinions on it now is proof that it's worth talking about.

It could be because I have a short attention span (true), or it could be because I am a little twisted (no denying that). But, in all honesty, I think shock-vertising works because that is its intent. It was meant to work. It was meant to grab your attention and make you gasp/think/react, and be it a good or bad or thoughtful reaction, I don't believe the advertisers really care all that much. They just want a reaction. Any reaction at all will make you remember their ad, which is the key.

A question that comes up a lot when discussing shock-vertising is usually, when will the effect run out? How long will it be until all advertisements start using shock-vertising to compete with one another? How much more can we push the envelope? Eventually we must plateau to a 'maximum' level of shock. When will we become so desensitized that we'll no longer be shocked by graphic or disturbing images?

I don't have a simple answer for this. It could very well be that eventually we will run out of ways to shock people, or get to an extreme and have no where else to go. I do believe that with the advancement of each generation, we become less sensitive to offensive content, or at least we change our definition of what is seen as offensive. All we have to do is take a look at movies and music from older decades. What was considered 'taboo' to mention or do back then, is now a common occurrence in today's media. The older generations (the Boomers, the Xs, even some of the older Ys) are constantly complaining about this desensitization of our youths. They all wonder what this world is coming to, and what we are exposing our children. Personally, I don't see this as an issue. If you don't want your child to play violent video games or watch mature-content TV, then the solution is quite simple: don't let them. No one is forcing young children to watch House of 1000 Corpses or to play Grand Theft Auto: V.

I don't think we'll ever get to the point where we'll allow depictions of gore and sex into our advertising. Most people would probably be against that, so naturally the advertisers have to respect that invisible line the viewers have placed. But without a doubt, I do really enjoy a shock-vertisement. They are the most likely to grab my attention, which is hard to do with the coming generation. According to Wikipedia, in some parts of the world shock advertising it recognized as an art form. I think it needs to be recognized as such everywhere.

Entry #6: Are we promoting infidelity?

Do we promote affairs in our ads? Without a doubt, I say the answer is yes. I see at least one ad a day telling me to 'cheat' on my regular product, or 'dump' my old product. Ads using common relationship terminology to get their message across. We definitely use it to promote shock value, humour, and interest in our advertisements. But does it mean that it's right? To be honest, I never really gave it much thought until now. It's something I always saw in ads, and because of that, I've been desensitized from it. But now, with the question raised, I have to say that I don't agree with the message.

Cheating and affairs are extremely serious in relationships. It's not something to be taken lightly. It can completely destroy a relationship, and destroy a person involved. In almost all situations, it's an unwanted and awful offence. So why are we making light of it in advertisements? The message could easily be translated into making light of all affairs, or making it seem like it's a normal thing to do.

It does happen a lot, but I don't feel that that justifies cheating as right. I know I would never ever want it to happen to me, or to inflict that kind of hurt onto my partner. Even if I could get away with it, the guilt and regret I would experience after would not make it worth it.

Should we be exposing people to these ads, which make a mockery of cheating and relationships? I don't really know. I suppose people with the intent of cheating will cheat on their partners anyway, if they see and ad or not. Most people may not be swayed directly be an ad, but it may give people a (subliminal) idea that cheating an affairs aren't as serious. Impressionable children, youth, and teenagers may be affected by these ads as well. After all, after being exposed to something for so long, it's only natural that you become desensitized to the content.

Business Insider released a post detailing one of Reebok's ads which was pulled after much controversy. The ad displays the message "Cheat on your girlfriend, not your workout". I personally think this is the most offensive and absurd example of promoting of affairs in ads. The website also makes a great point. They say that if an ad is to be offensive, it should also be clever, which this ad is not. Blatantly stating you should cheat on your girlfriend instead of your workout is not a very clever or funny statement. It almost insults the viewer's intelligence. This could be part of the reason it was pulled, yet I do believe the statement is rude on its own and should never have been published in the first place.

Entry #5: Are we being manipulated?

This is a topic that comes up quite frequently in advertising: do ads manipulate the user, and is it appropriate for certain products or demographics?

Personally, I do think that (some) ads and ad companies try to subliminally persuade us to want a certain product. I mean, why wouldn't you? It's a smart marketing ploy. If the ad can successful make the viewer crave/have the urge to buy their product, without them realizing they've been tricked, they will most likely buy or invest in the product. This happens to me quite often, except I know when I'm trying to be subliminally persuaded and/or primed.

For example, I like gingerale. It's a nice refreshing soft drink, and I don't usually drink them that often, but always enjoy them when I do. Now, say I'm watching a TV show or in a movie theatre watching previews before my movie, Canada Dry decides that this is a perfect time to show their commercial. Usually in these commercials, they do some extreme close-ups of gingerale being poured into a glass filled up with lots of ice. Usually when I see this, I think of how delicious and thirst-quenching an ice-cold gingerale is. I immediately wish I had one (or another beverage) right now. I'll now go buy one or find one to drink, because I watched a commercial.

That isn't always the scenario (I don't always end up buying the product from the commercial), but it does happen quite often. And there are a lot of factors which these companies must take into consideration in order to get the best possible outcome from their 'priming'. For a soft drink or food company, a commercial on TV or in theatres would have the most successful outcome. Who doesn't love watching TV/a movie and eating? It seems to be engraved into our minds that this is a great combination (is that because of us, or because of the advertisements?). It's been a part of our culture for so long; our dates or nights out usually centre around this combination of activities. We combine these two activities so often that some of us might always eat or drink while watching TV. This is why a company like Canada Dry, or Coca-Cola, or McDonald's, etc., invests so much money into television ads.

Another factor that food companies play up this the product itself. I very rarely see a commercial for Canada Dry or Sprite that contains a lot of information about the product. Usually, these ads just highlight the physical features of the product, and sometimes but not frequently, include a slogan or sentence at most on the product. I think this is smart. The less text the better. I'm not saying people are stupid or can't handle a lot of information, but when it comes to a TV ad, less is more. When you only have 15 to 30 seconds to display your product, simplicity and boldness will stand out, especially since it is one of many ads that will be shot at us throughout our TV viewing period.

My one question is, is this always an appropriate method of advertising? Considering these ads are also being shown to impressionable young kids, and we're living in a time where childhood obesity and health issues are always at the front of every conversation, probably not. At least not for food products anyway.

The National Center for Biotechnology Information did a very thorough study on the effects of priming in TV ads, and how it affected eating behaviour. The study was very conclusive, the food advertising increased food consumption during and after viewing of the ad, for both adults and kids. The kids of the study actually ate up to 45% more! A study like this pretty much proves how effective subliminal advertising really is. Beneficial to the company, but not so beneficial to the consumer.

Entry #4: Does humour sell?

There are many different 'categories' of ads which companies may utilize to their advantage, with humour being one of the more popular categories of the 21st Century. It seems that all companies are trying to create humorous ads these days, with some succeeding, and some failing. Personally, I love funny ads. I think it's a great tool for companies to utilize and (most of the time) can come off successful. The reason why I think humour works the majority of the time is because a lot of companies use pop culture referencing, and mildly surprising imagery. Mildly being the key word here.

It's almost as if an invisible line is placed between 'surprising' and 'shocking'. If a company can make an image surprising and catch the viewer off-guard, I feel that it is successful. But if an ad pushes the envelope too much, or makes the viewer uncomfortable/appalled, the ad is of course unsuccessful. Everyone is different, but I feel that most companies play their humour more on the 'safe' side, using easy laughs and relatable imagery to their advantage. Keeping this simple ideal in mind will also allow for the ad to appeal to more viewers. Not everyone has the same sense of humour of course, but something not overly-generalized or specific might help their cause in appealing to a broader audience.

Some of the print ads I included above made me either smile (figuratively or literally) in some way. The simpler the image, the better. I also find that ads like this are also really strong because they generally use minimal text. The image says it all: "Fight bad breath", "This bra is the perfect fit", "TV and reality are very different". Some ads still use a small phrase or summary, but for the most part, the image is strong enough on its own. It is confident and the message is clear. I feel that this is a better approach for all ads as well, not just humour-utilizing ones. The less the viewer or audience has to read, the better. Too much information and too much text leads to an uninterested and uninvolved audience.

One ad which I absolutely love that's on TV right now is the commercial for MiO Sport (MiO Sport – Eye of the Squirter). It's use of one of the most popular sports-themed songs of all time, Eye of the Tiger, and it's simple sheer ridiculousness is perfect. Almost everyone knows the original song and where it's from, making it appeal to a wide audience. The humour used is not overly smart, not offensive, but simple, silly, and fun. Everyone loves to smile, and this ad definitely delivers for most of its viewers.