My eyes have been stripped of their innocence.

What a revealing semester this has been. My baby virgin eyes have been revealed to the world of spotting fallacies and seeing beneath the skin of advertising. I don't think I'll ever be able to watch television, go grocery shopping, attend a music festival, etc with the same innocent, uncritical eyes that I inadvertently had. I imagine that I'll share a smirk with a fellow critical-thinking alumni whenever we happen to pass by a faulty or obvious marketing strategy ad that deserves disparaging or praise. Hypothetically, this class has built me the holographic computer that Iron Man uses while doing some mad thinking, but specially designed to spot and identify market strategies while walking through ad populated world.

 Now I think that is some pretty cool stuff. I'm appreciative that I've been opened up to this world of understanding; it makes me a more well-rounded, smarter person. Unfortunately and inevitably, much of this semester's learning will fall into the deep abyss called the forgotten. But knowing the names of every fallacy and rationalization isn't necessarily imperative. So long the gest of being aware and tentative to the media world around us upheld, the semester counts as a payoff. I don't see this being a problem in my future.
Furthermore, the constant, and rather weary, practice of media blogs has demonstrated a new meaning of media to me. As this is the conclusion blog, I needed to revisit my introduction blog. In it, I limited media to social media, newspapers, commercials, advertisements. In it, I failed to recognize the essential image of a brand as media. Who knew a Kid Cuisine box could count as media with an intent to persuade. However, my overall understanding of media's intent was pretty solid, and has been reinforced through these assignments.
I mentioned early that media and I are acquaintances. We still remain acquaintances, except I'm just a little more aware of the bs that it throws me. Nonetheless, I'll continue to supply McDonald's money so long they keep the coupons flowing.

The Advertising at a Reggae Music Festival

Last weekend, I attended the California Roots Music Festival, a massive gathering for reggae admirers and people alike. While I was there for 2 days, I made sure to pay attention to the use of advertising around me while jamming out to some bomb artists.

If it's not too hard to believe, the content that was highly touted was rather stoney. By this, I mean that the marijuana industry was a big presence at the festival. This should be no big surprise, as for marijuana is iconically associated with the roots of reggae. Anyhow, let's take a look at some of the things I saw.

 Behind the dread-locked, beanie wearing man is one of the main stages at the festival. The screen graphic seen in the photo is what everyone sees while waiting for the artist to preform. Take note at who "presents" the Cali Roots Stage. Yup, the main stage of the festival is sponsored by "weedmaps", a website that beholds a marijuana community and features marijuana dispensaries. They also had their logo at every water filling station at the festival. They got the most exposure out of any company/brand that I saw.

You know those booths at events where you can get free stuff if you listen to the person there trying to sell you things; they were at this festival too. However, these booths purveyed smoking apparatus and similar type products. One of the booths was advertising a marijuana e-cigarrette. They had a line of people going on for 15 feet out of their booth. Did all these people, including me and my buddies, want the e-cigarrete? No, I was in line waiting for the free cotton candy they were giving out. But inevitably, their groovy looking sales people tried to get people in line to check out their product, and some did. I thought this was great; get a bunch people to wait at your booth and sell them things.

Of course, all the vendors, sponsors, and advertisements out at the festival weren't marijuana related, but the majority was. This "high" presence of weed related products at the reggae festival was no accident. What happened here was bringing the right stuff to the right market. While marijuana is part of the culture of reggae, you can expect a bunch of weed-loving people to attend a reggae festival. So,  the marijuana industry takes advantage of the opportunity and presents things/products that a lot of people want to see. It's genius.

The act of marketers advertising to people that they would most appeal to is a phenomenon that we explored earlier in class this semester. It's just like broadcasting a Bernie Sanders ad campaign to a liberal leaning city; except this festival broadcasted marijuana products to reggae listening, herb smokers.

Follow up on "Miss Representation"

I've known that women have been plagued by injustices and have the problem of being objectified, but MissRepresentation truly proved how extensive and true this stark reality is. The documentary makes an effective argument that media demoralizes women with the mentality that their self-worth lies within their beauty, and makes men superior. They explain how this dilemma creates an absence of women in positions of power. Their assertions were well accepted by including many statistical facts to support, and by employing both men and female to explain the situation. These two tactics made the argument undeniably applicable to our society. However, I can't help but wonder what a person who doesn't recognize women injustice would think if they watched this documentary. Perhaps including this other perspective in the documentary would make their argument more effective.

Of course, I, in addition to the rest of the class, received the film's message well, having came from similar mentalities and being educated upon media's tainting affects. Thus being, the issues raised in the film should get better in the future, as we are the future. However, many kids don't come from backgrounds like us HISPers and remain ignorant to societal problems like this. Their childhood conditioning to objectify women, done by disney movies and social media, lays sneakily present in their minds. Unfortunately, some of these people are unchangeable. That's why the film points importance on teaching kids when their young not to be "emotionally illiterate," which ultimately will help hamper out the prejudice on women that is done by media.

In this day and age, I think better circumstance for women are finally being recognized, and a brighter future lays ahead. Other prejudices in our society, like against sexual orientation or skin color, have been seen to take improved matters through time. Women's rights and representation is not much different from other injustices our society has battled through. While this dilemma has been raised out of social media, which is a domineering force in our lives and the effects are currently immense, the path to eradicating the negative mindset might take a while; but it is inevitable in my eyes.

Does "Lucy" Fit the Fighting F**k Toy Archetype, and Other Reveletions...

Stunning Scarlet Johannson plays the heroine of this action-packed, sci-fi film, but does her role fit the "fighting f**k toy archetype" described in class last week? 

The documentary we watched in class, Miss Representation, said this in regards to the fighting f**k toy (FFT) archetype: 

"Women appear to be empowered. They are carrying the story, they're the action hero. But when you peel back a layer or two, you discover it's not really about their agency... Because even though she is doing things supposably on her own terms, she very much is objectified and exists for the male viewer."

After watching Miss Representation in class, I asked two female classmates whether they thought the movie Lucy resembled the FFT archetype, and we didn't share similar thoughts upon the answer. They both pointed to the idea that she's made to look sexy and badass for guys, and is thus another one of those movies. But despite her role being both beautiful and kickass in the film, I don't think she embodies that hollywood archetype. In fact, I think the archetype itself is a bit complicated to understand.

When I asked my two friends if by the sense that Lucy fits the FFT archetype, isn't Thor one too. I mean, Chris Helmsworths has got to be doing something with those dreamy arms and raging pectorals. But they said no, as for he isn't revealing enough and people don't watch Thor because he is attractive. Now I'm confused.

It seems that classifying a FFT archetype seems a bit arbitrary. One has to conclude that a character is made with a purpose of being attractive to the other gender and is objectified by doing so. I suppose judging a characters clothing can be used to conclude this. But what others might consider as objectifying could be different from what I think? Lucy has casual wear, which I think is aesthetically nice but not overly attractive. However, my female friends thought that she displayed the intention of being sexually attracting to men. This disparity leads me to believe that gender perspective plays a role in whether we see someone as a provocative being or FFT. How else is it that one person finds attractive Lucy as a FFT, but attractive Thor isn't one. 

While I like the name, I don't really care for the FFT archetype. While it is undoubtably present in some movies, considering someone as provocative is gender and personally biased. Furthermore, I think the archetype puts a negative aspect on some people. It essentially tells one that if they wear something that might be considered sexy, that they are being objectified. 

Ads in Every Avenue

About a month or two ago, I saw some peculiar advertising down Land Park Drive. Nay, not a bus ad or road side billboard, but a billboard truck. I don't know what exactly to call it, but I found a picture of one online.

 

The evasion of ads is truly here. They're mobilized on our phones and now on our streets. This truck has the soul purpose of driving around and parading an ad.  I can't help but question weather this is beneficial to a company or not. I understand that a company wants to get their image/message out as much as possible, and that by putting that image on a moving truck they will attract more attention, like the plane billboard I blogged about earlier. I just have a hard time believing that spending $500-800 a day for one of these will bring in more customers. I just don't see how a brief passing of this truck could convince/compel me to buy whatever is advertised. I feel a possible customer needs a little bit more time to absorb the content. More people might see it, but not necessarily fully process it. 

I'm not completly poo-pooing the idea of the billboard truck, there is genius behind this type of mobile ad. An odd looking truck is head turning and draws lots of attention. Also, ads that are well received in certain areas can be sent directly to that area by this truck. They could also be useful for advertising a local/special event, which would then make sense to display a temporary billboard.

Overall, ads are evolving and finding more ways to be recognized in our lives. 

I'll Take my Food with Fun, Please.

I hope I'm not the only one who loved to get my hands on one of these bad boys for dinner.                                

What kid wouldn't want a Kid Cuisine? The box is so colorful, theres a penguin throwing sprinkles on the pudding, and its made for kids. I know past me would want to play with that. I would leave a cold shoulder to my mom's comments about how gross they were; Kid Cuisine looked to fun to pass by in the store. 

Kid Cuisine has made a market on kids, or rather parents begged by their kids, by appealing to their desire for fun and creativity. Kids are always trying to have fun, and I think they can be easily convinced to buy Kid Cuisine when a bright and colorful box stands out amidst other foods in the freezer aisle. The boxes of Kid Cuisines take on different themes as well, such as a pop star or basketball player, that insists that Kid Cuisine is more about food, its about fun and imagination. 

While on the topic of lame boxed foods marketed for kids, lets take a look at Lunchables. While their box certainly isn't as colorful and fun as Kid Cuisine, their commercials certainly are. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrWtXvI1kaU

While the Luchable Kabobbles food advertised in this commercial looks disgusting (Its chicken and cheese kabob-ed on a pretzel stick), the commercial attempts to make a fun factor on kids. The commercial displays a funny situation by funny looking characters and throws in a Lunchable at the end. "Get your hands on the box and get in on the fun," the narrator lastly states. The commercial attempts to persuade kids to get Lunchables on the basis of fun. 

In the end, kids don't really care if their lunch is mediocre to low-quality food served on a plastic tray.  But with the special ingredient of fun, kids will be begging for it. 

The McDonalds App: an Advertising Angel

A common struggle of many hungry teenagers; what do I want to eat? A common dialogue between my brother and I is as follows:
"I think I want some fast-food, should we get McDonalds or Burger King?"
"Well they're both equally garbage, I don't care."
"I got a fire coupon for a buy-one-get-one-free Big Mac on my phone, we're getting Mickey D's"

And thus McDonalds has won over the business of two hungry teenagers, not by offering better food but by offering a better deal. It's clear that businesses are always competing to offer better deals and thus allure greater sales, and companies have mobilized deals and coupons to persuade buyers. Of course mail coupons have been a greatly utilized technique to make make this happen, but I've noticed a rise in a new technique: mobile applications and streams of text messages made by a company that gives a constant feed of deals and coupons to customers. I've fallen participant in one of these by downloading the McDonalds app (yes, it exists). I was captured by a McDonalds ad in twitter that promised me a free BigMac if I downloaded their app; how could I turn that down. So I got the app, got my free burger, and realized this app is a money saving angel sent to me by the McD gods. Every week, new coupons are presented to me in notifications. Ohh, a free small fries with any purchase, I should use this before it expires. While it is beneficial to me, it's also beneficial to McDonalds, who just persuaded me to buy a burger.


This is a highly potent advertising technique done by companies; utilizing bribery and time pressure in a manner that is able to be highly received or viewed by potential customers. I've seen the same technique of compelling people to subscribe to a constant feed of coupons by Subway, who promised a free 6-inch sub if you text this number. I texted the number, got my free sub, and now get offers from them every week. It's obvious this tactic is effective since numerous food chains have been using it. I quite like it, and its a win-win; I save money and they get my money. Well played McDonalds, well played.

A Political Instagram Beef

Rawrrr, politcal claws were all out this week on instagram, making a rather juicy argument over the presidential election by the local class of 2018. In quick relapse, it starts off with a pro-Bernie post that becomes infiltrated with Trump fiends. Undoubtfully, an argument unfolds with matters both political and personal.

While the debate was carried out by sophomores unable to make their voices actually heard in the election this year, positions upon candidates were made clear and shade was thrown to people who disagreed. While it was, nontheless, a political disscussion with valid points, an assault on indiviual tastes and beings took place. Some stabs were intellectually sly and meaningful, while others were blunt and unrefined; I'm sure you can guess which of the two were made by trump supporters.

I think the inclusion of personal diss in a political argument is made by the culture of social media; where people can throw hits at eachother and seemingly be protected behind the realm made by a keyboard. If a debate was made in person, I'm sure less to no offhand and obscene comments targeting personal lives would be made. Such can be confirmed in the debates between the presidential candidates. Specifically looking at Trump, who does occasionally bash is opponents in person, his twitter posts take on another level of insulting demeanor.
While Trump is discrediting opponents like any political battle, his tweet does so rudely and quite unsophisticatedly. I find this very unintellectual and unnecessary for a political discussion. But when in social media, there seems to be nothing holding one back from making such comments.

In all, the discussion on Instagram presented a political debate with extra sauce. Opinions, facts, and derogatory comments were made by my peers, that probably didn't change anyones position because of our teenage stubbornness. Either way, I believe the type of comments made by people do reveal the intellectual capacity of individuals. Also, I have to give props to some of the Ckm students, mostly HISPers, that made valid and intellectual points and comebacks. The claws of the lions appeared swifter than the that of the falcons.

Catmageddon: An Impactful Argument Made by "The Truth" Campaign

Speaking on the relevancy of my past two blogs, being prevention campaigns and advertising, I’ve noticed that “The Truth” campaign against smoking does both of these pretty well.

Every time I see the bright orange screen with funky music, funny situations,  and relevant information, my attention is grabbed and their message sticks to me. The Truth, is a campaign against big tobacco and smoking with the target audience of teenagers. It is clear to me that this campaign has been created to appeal to America’s youth. It gives relevant facts to teenagers while appealing to them through jokes and being part of a revolution.

My attention is grabbed through the campaigns vibicious mood and captivating mean. The commercials have a attractive flow of facts with humorous components. Its hard for me to explain, but can be seen in viewing one of their commercials or even looking at their website: https://www.thetruth.com

I remember some of their commercials appealed to youths through the use of memes, like “It’s a Trap.”

While the depictions don’t scare me to stop smoking, they educate me upon smoking in way that makes me listen. Also, Its obvious that this is meant for youth and not a 40 year old man that doesn’t find a barfing unicorn amusing. (I kind do).

Most recently, I’ve enjoyed their “Prevent CatMageddon” commercials. The commercial humoursly insists that we stop smoking to save funny cat videos. (Slippery Slope). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLtschJxRy8

Another similar commercial appeals to our need to nurture our pets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loLpcd7gqNE

(I insist you watch these, they are both less than 40 seconds long)

   

The commercials employ different perspectives that might appeal to youth through ways that we would respond to. Also, Please make note of the rad music that accompanies the commercial. Every time I hear it, I can’t help but groove a little. This definitely makes the campaign more likable.

Lastly, the campaign is focused on the appeal for affiliation by making anti-tobacco a revolution. Most commercials end with, “Be the Generation That Ends Smoking.” I believe that this aspect makes teens want to be part of this cool group that listens to groovy music and cares about cats by not smoking.

In general, I see that The Truth campaign is an effective ad that gains the likability of youth in ways that appeals to them and gets their attention. 

What Infiltrates my "Whatever" filter?

Our class discussion upon ads this week has sparked curiosity and an understanding upon advertisements that I’ve never had before. Specifically, I’m referring to the mental filter that we create in the presence of the continual bombardment of advertisements we’re exposed to. According to Jim Fowles in the article we read in class, “Advertising’s Fifteen Basic Appeals,” the average American is exposed to about 500 ads a day, (likely more today), and that we are only aware of about 75 of these, and that only about 12 of these create a reaction. We do this to “preserve’s one sanity.” This is a phenomenon that I’ve never realized before and makes a lot of sense. Since aware, I’ve been trying to observe all the ads that surround my environment and which ones actually penetrate my “whatever” filter.

             Pandora interruptions, rows of mundane road signs, magazine ads trying to distract me from reading Nat Geo, commercials with every TV channel; whatever.  These ads are everywhere, continual, and I don’t pay attention to all of them. Only when they pop-out amidst the mix I’ll turn my head, even if it doesn’t cause an emotional reaction from me. Jokes, catchy songs, absurd depictions, or really pathetic ads usually do it for me.

One of the most notable ads that I saw this week was Taylor Swift jamming out on a treadmill and then absolutely wiping out to the ground, an ad for Apple Music. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fK_zwl-lnmc                                                                             While I don’t see myself being convinced to subscribe to Apple Music, the ad is pretty darn funny, and I will remember it for some time.

            A tactful approach that I saw in San Francisco this week was when an ad was placed amidst no other ads, in the sky. A Geico banner, (while I don’t even remember what it said), was being flown by a plane. This further showed me that I tend to pay attention to ads that aren’t like other ads.

           

            In noticing what catches my attention and what doesn’t, we can see the battlefield that marketers have in grabbing moments of thought from people. By having an advertisement that sticks out from the rest, I would have to say, makes it an effective ad. So “they,” or the brands, ads and marketers, are in pursuit of making their “whatever” become noticed.

          As for the 12 ads that caused a reaction, only the ads that were relevant to me got classified as this. I’m not going to even care to pay any attention to the law group that wants me to file a report on a recalled medicine. But I will note down the name of the website that had some pretty cool rugby gear shown in an online ad. Thus, “they” become more effective when ads are catered to specific desires. This would be another tactic of marketers.

The Folly of Stoner Sloth

May 1, 2016

One of my most favored videos of all time is an anti-marijuana campaign: Stoner Sloth. You'd think it would be a joke; A human-sized sloth interacting in typical teenage life with profound dopiness and difficulty. The bigger joke is that this ad-campaign is totally serious, or at least supposed to be.

Quick! Watch it before I spoil it's hilarity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rHm8GbTHyE

The campaign is by Australia’s New South Wales Department of Premier and Cabinet, according to the Huffington Post, and targeting teens in hope "to encourage positive behaviours in young people before bad habits start, and motivate discontinued use of cannabis before they become dependent." The assortment of clips released by this organization had a sloth representing a high teenager, who preforms uncomfortably in simple situations, only able to respond in helpless murmurs and moans. The scenes end with the slogan, "Your Worse On Weed."

Overall, this campaign's effectiveness in steering teens away from marijuana seemed very impotent. Everyone who I shared this video with laughed at the wacky scenario; a pity laugh if I were to guess. However, I must consider that we are Californians and that was a campaign designed in and for Australian teens. Perhaps, it preformed well over there? Haha, I doubt it though. 

While the ad campaign did good in trying to relate to the lives of teens, the approach to it was just too absurd and funny. The stoned sloth idea was just a far stretch. How am I supposed to beleive that by smoking weed, I'll act like a sloth and won't be able to distinguish salt from a bowl of salad. (Which was one of the videos). The logic behind the circumstances are an exaggerated sense of stupidity and embarrassment that neither persuades me or impacts me to agree with them. 

Simply put, this video was beyond hilarious to agree with. I can't see how the logic behind the videos and the stoned sloth could convince any teenager that marijuana's short term effects will make you as capable as a sloth. While the videos intentions can be identified, it didn't hit home for me. 

A Battle of Brands

May 1, 2016

"You look like a mess, Zachary." Sweaty and confused from running around the park for rugby practice, I ask my teammate for elaboration. He points to what I'm wearing, saying that all my brands are mixed up. I investigate my outfit and see that I'm wearing Nike cleats, Vans sock, and Adidas shorts. "Thats bad luck," my mate continues on. Refuting his argument, I ask him why is it that I finished before him in our run. "You'll see..." His diss on my heterogeneous mixture of sports apparel ends good-humoredly.

While our discussion was generally for kicks and giggles, it was interesting to understand my teammate's thinking upon brands. He found it unseemly that someone would mix different clothing brands, even bringing about negative superstition in the act. Supposedly, I must bear all Nike clothes to harness all the "Just do it" mentality, and interrupting that flow with Adidas shorts is just plain silly. No, I believe that his thinking is silly. All the brands I was wearing are sports purveyors, all whom have a motivational quote that convinces me that their product makes you better at sports, specifically Nike and Adidas.
 

I think we can blame marketing's role in this cult-like mentality with brands. Above are ads by Adidas and Nike; both are very similar. They both feature a famous soccer player, all decked out in uniform clothing by the brand, with a statement that is supposed distinguish them from the rest. Adidas states, "All in or nothing." From that, I might consider that I need to wear all Adidas, like that famous guy, to can "have it all." On the other (very similar) hand, Nike beholds Neymar, all in Nike clothing, and with unrealistic qualities and "Explosive speed." This might make me think that Nike is what I need to buy since it gives you great qualities, like Neymar. Both have very similar messages that are generally undistinguished.

The question is, can I wear both Nike and Adidas and still have those athletic abilities that they promise me? Realistically, yes. While one brand of cleat may be better than the other, one doesn't need to go all out in uniform attire of one brand to be great. But brands make it seem the other way around, that I need to buy all Nike, through having athletes wear their products in all aspects.

So was my teammate wrong for saying that I will be doomed by mixing brands? His disposition is simply culture, as established by advertisements like the ones above. While not necessarily true, it seems like it. Much power with those persuaders.

My current relationship with media

     One could say media and I have a pretty mutual relationship with one another. I don't hate Twitter, Twitter doesn't hate me, funny advertisements make me laugh, and some actually persuade me. I suppose my acquaintance with media doesn't contrast too much from other people's relationships, assuming that media's appeal to "us" is the same. I would assume subjects of media relatively appeal to people in a similar manner because media is created a certain way to draw a specific response from a majority of people, I'm predicting. So call me basic when I laugh at a DirectTv commercial.

     I believe my use of the word "basic" in that last sentence was because of media. Not too long ago, funny pictures or social media posts keyed the phrase "basic b____" to describe someone who acts identically to the majority of people. Such type of media is a meme, and is a large contribution that media has in our relationship. A meme is a humorous, popular text or picture that is circulated through the internet, and ultimately weaves content into our culture. Aside from widening my use of phrases, I've recognized that they persuade my ideas upon things. That said, media is sort of a puppeteer of my daily life.

A side note: probably my favorite memes right now are the "dank Bernie Sanders memes." In short, they are a collection of user-created images that compares Bernie Sanders to Hillary Clinton in a humorous aspect, but points emphasis to Bernie's dankness, or awesomeness. One might conclude that these memes could be a factor to why Sander's has the majority of young voters, if young people are the ones creating and circulating theses photos. These memes certainly make me think that Sanders is the man I want for president; showing how media loves to tell me what to think. 

     Media isn't all memes, but includes news reports, commercials, advertisements; all of which try to persuade me to believe/do something. That's why I never let media become my best friend whom I can always trust. No, I'm constantly judging media and deciding whether what it says is true or false, and how it is trying to get me to agree with it, as for media is deceitful. I will not listen to a pop-up internet ad that tells me to buy this because my computer is dying, neither will I let a tv commercial make me think that their product is necessary to buy. But sometimes media will actually advertise useful things, or depict some funny stuff that will provide me with  a laugh. So in my relationship with media, I have to watch my back while enjoying the content that it gives me.

     In all, media and I are basic acquaintances.