1. Advertising is:

    0

    Add a comment

  2. False advertising is an issue that dates back to even before shady street vendors were hawking their tonics and wares; claiming that they were cure-alls for everything from hair loss to the plague. These days it's common knowledge that some advertisers will try to mislead audiences with overstated claims. Most countries and regions now have established regulations that prevent these types of deceptive ads. Yet for some reason, there still remains the odd case of a bold company trying to swindle their way past these rules.
    One of the most notable examples of distorted statements is credited to the popular yogurt brand Activia by Dannon. Consumers were duped into paying more for Activia's implied nutritional benefits – when in reality there were no substantial benefits to choosing Activia over other kinds of yogurts at all. The brand had been falsely boasting about the “clinically” and “scientifically” proven health benefits of the product and even had a famous spokesperson, Jamie Lee Curtis, to endorse the message. After disproving the claim that the yogurt helped digestion and boosted immune systems, a class action lawsuit was filed. Dannon's ads directly contradicted legal clauses regarding professional or scientific claims in advertising and was forced to pay up to $45 million in damages. The company was also required to limit it's health claims on products to strictly factual ones.
    Another prominent display of false advertising is seen in Olay's 2009 ad for its Definity eye cream. It features the former model (known for her captivating and dramatic eyes) Twiggy. Many found it hard to believe that a 61 year old woman could have such smooth skin and inquired about the photo. The enquiry revealed that the photo had been retouched. As a result of the retouching in this ad being a point-blank misrepresentation of the product's effectiveness, it was pulled by lawmakers. Authorities found this ad especially objectionable because of it's potentially negative impact on body images.

    Nowadays, there is hardly any chance for advertisers to get away with sending out fraudulent messages. They face standards councils, scrutinizing competitors, and vigilant consumers who can research information at the touch of a keyboard. If an ad is found to misconstrue the truth, the scandal will instantly spread virally and be discredited. The lawsuits in turn will eliminate any profits gained from the campaign and often lead to the ruin of a companies image. Companies should instead be aiming to build a reliable and honest reputation. This is the much stronger strategy in the long run as it encourages customer loyalty and trust.

    I want to make it clear that there is one exception to using exaggerated or vague claims in advertising. The legal term for this type of presentation is “puffery.” This occurs when a business uses a promotional statement that is so overdrawn that no “reasonable person” could possibly treat seriously or literally. These claims are often subjective and can't be proven, such as a restaurant saying that they serve “the world's best blueberry pie.”

    When viewing advertisements, unsupported facts should be taken with a grain of salt. Don't be afraid to investigate things that seem too good to be true; it's possible that they aren't. Advertisers have a responsibility to adhere to the policies of ethics both morally and legally but consumers should also be aware that sometimes they have to read the fine print.
    0

    Add a comment

  3. What is the average number of advertising messages we see in a day? A study by Yankelvich Research suggests it's anywhere between 3,000 to 20,000. Those numbers are remarkable but are they really an accurate depiction? The bloated statistics are due to the fact that this study includes every label on a piece of clothing you wear or see, all the ads in your mailbox, the broadcasts on your radio, the many billboards you pass, or every item of packaging you might cross on a trip to the grocery store, and so on.

    Just because you are exposed to an advertisement, it doesn't mean that you have actually seen or even processed its content. A closer estimate to how many ads we experience everyday is around 247. Among those advertisements that we do acknowledge, half of them may still not be fully noticed on a cognitive level. Nevertheless that's a rather large number of ads to face each day, but what's truly remarkable is the amount of advertisements that we are ignoring on a daily basis.


    People often complain that they are being overwhelmed by advertising competing to grab their attention. They consider most marketing to be junk mail or spam. Except one man's trash may be another man's treasure. Obviously not every product or service out there will be designed for you particularly, but there is likely to be a person who it does target. It takes less than 10 seconds for an individual to determine whether or not an ad appeals to them. If you aren't interested you'll tune out, click skip, or walk away. Though compelling advertising involves more than just offering the right product to the right person.

    Above all, the purpose of advertisements is to motivate the audience to take action. An ad needs to be memorable and help the user retain important information. In order to make an ad that cuts through the great sea of mundane promotions it requires inspiration, creativity, humour, wit or another thoughtful strategy to elevate the message. Whatever tactic used, it's imperative that it relates back to the benefit being offered. This seems like straightforward advice but if more companies focused on quality over quantity we might not be as bombarded in our lives by ads. I say might because I also believe another reason why agencies place ads everywhere from buses to inside your tea cup is “because they can.”

    A modern trend in commercial advertising is to trim down the content to a bare minimum. These streamlined and uncluttered advertisements are shown to be much more engaging. The compact presentation delivers the message efficiently without annoying the consumer. In a world with billions of advertising companies, dwindling attention spans, and the expectation of instant gratification – short and sweet is usually the best approach to advertising.

    0

    Add a comment

  4. It is most likely that you've experienced seeing a public service announcement that has been so stunning that it made you stop in your tracks. This tactic is called shock advertising and it is often used in advocacy campaigns. The goal of this strategy is to force viewers to form an opinion on a subject and realize that their actions have an effect on the outcome of the issue. 
     
    Using unexpected imagery or headlines grabs your attention because it breaks the social norms. They cut through the barrage of ads that you are faced with everyday due to the fact that these advertisements are so different. These aren't the types of messages you are used to seeing and that is why they become memorable.

    It's no surprise that after seeing how effective this strategy is at getting attention, retail advertisers have started to apply it to their own campaigns. The debate with this issue is whether or not it is ethical for these companies to do so in order to sell a product or service.
    My belief is that most of these offensive ads do more harm than good to a company. Sure, the controversy of these advertisements will spark viral publicity and conversation, but that doesn't equate to being a truly successful ad. Ads are ultimately meant to encourage people to buy a brand's product or service. Even if everyone is talking about your company it doesn't do any good if they aren't supporting it. It's certainly not true that “all publicity is good publicity.” An offensive campaign can have seriously negative effects on a brand. Although there are some people who enjoy going against the grain and will purposely go out of their way to purchase something simply because others disapprove of it; the major loss of customers, lawsuits, and censorship will trump the small worth of the endeavour.
    Advertisers have a moral responsibility and legal obligation to uphold a certain level of ethics in their work. Most countries have set provisions about what is acceptable in advertising or not. The Canadian Code of Advertising Standards is a well-formulated outline that directly relates to the issue on what is considered an inadmissible ad. It also recognizes that advertisements may be distasteful without necessarily conflicting with any legal clauses. This means that if an ad is only unpalatable to a small amount of people, is not sufficient enough grounds for objecting to the advertisement unless it breaks the specified rules found below.

    Clause 14: Unacceptable Depictions and Portrayals

    Advertisements shall not:
    (a) condone any form of personal discrimination, including that based upon race, national origin, religion, sex or age;
    (b) appear in a realistic manner to exploit, condone or incite violence; nor appear to condone, or directly encourage, bullying; nor directly encourage, or exhibit obvious indifference to, unlawful behaviour;
    (c) demean, denigrate or disparage one or more identifiable persons, group of persons, firms, organizations, industrial or commercial activities, professions, entities, products or services, or attempt to bring it or them into public contempt or ridicule;
    (d) 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 ads shown previously in this post are in clear violation of a few of these rules. Sisley's ad plainly condones the unlawful act of cocaine use by comparing it to the high that fashion lovers experience when shopping. The only other explanation is that they are discouraging this level of fashion obsession – which doesn't seem feasible since they are a clothing company. Belvedere's ad is so outrageous I find it hard to believe it was actually created. Not only does it make light of the serious issue of rape, it also demeans and oppresses women. Directly ridiculing half of the marketshare is never a good idea.

    Shock advertising shouldn't be used as a cheap and immoral way to get attention. It sends the wrong message and can lead to the desensitizing of real issues. Advertisers must invariably keep the psychographics of their consumers in mind. This refers to the values, cultural beliefs, lifestyles, and attitudes that individuals hold. A tasteful ad should appeal to these attributes of the target audience in order to be successful. Most importantly, the message should always relate back to the core purpose or benefit of what is being sold. An ad that is so shocking that it overpowers the brand's original message is utterly pointless in regards to making a meaningful accomplishment.

    0

    Add a comment

  5. Infidelity is a sensitive subject that most people have firm beliefs about. The majority of opinions will agree that being unfaithful to someone you have a commitment with is morally wrong and just about the worst thing you could do in a relationship. Despite this overwhelming social stigma, it isn't enough to stop individuals from betraying their partners. It is estimated that roughly 30 to 60% of all married individuals (in the United States) will engage in infidelity at some point during their marriage. These numbers are probably on the conservative side, when you consider that close to half of all marriages end in divorce. What does this have to do with advertising? Well some are saying that certain companies are encouraging promiscuity through their ads. 
    Virgin America airlines released these ads encouraging travellers to “cheat on your usual airline.” They claimed this campaign resulted from hearing many new customers comparing their past experiences with other airlines as “being trapped in a bad relationship.” When these campaigns were put up in Dallas - Fort Worth, it stirred a lot of controversy among the public. Individuals were upset that a company would make a joke out of an issue that has broken the hearts of countless people and destroyed families.
    Another company that was famously under fire for a distasteful ad concerning cheating was the sports equipment powerhouse, Reebok. This ad was posted within a gym in Germany which quickly lead to complaints and viral publication. The attempt at humour in this advertisement has no chance of softening such an outright message.

    I don't think agencies should make such blatant statements about encouraging disloyalty that compares so closely to real adultery. Be that as it may, I don't have a problem with them directly saying you should leave your old brand for a new one. There are major differences between cheating on your partner and cheating on your laundry detergent brand. The number one reason being: changing between brands isn't going to seriously harm the feelings of anyone. And the second bit of logic is that no matter how much you try communicating with your detergent about how it isn't meeting all of your needs, it's not going to change. So while the shameless promotion of infidelity shouldn't be accepted, there is nothing wrong with companies claiming to be better than their competitors or tempting you to try their brand.
    0

    Add a comment

  6. Subliminal advertising is a topic that has been causing people unease for over half a century now. Is there any real fact to this mind-controlling theory or is it just something being imagined by those who spend too much time over-analysing the media?

    The concept of manipulating a person by using stimuli that falls below their conscious perception was first introduced back in 1957 by a market researcher named James Vicary. His famous experiment took place in a New Jersey movie theatre where he tested subliminal messaging on more than 45,000 movie goers during a six week period. While the patrons watched a movie Vicary displayed two subliminal messages; one that promoted popcorn and another promoting Coca-Cola. The text-based messages were flashed on the screen for 3/1000s of a second (or 3 milliseconds) once every five seconds. 


    Vicary then compared the sales numbers of popcorn and Coca-Cola from before and after conducting his study. The stunning results showed that popcorn sales had risen by 57% and Coca-Cola sales were also up by 18.1%. The release of these findings caused a hysteria in the public and lead to a massive surge in research on subliminal messaging.

    The most phenomenal part of James Vicary's career happened in a 1962 interview with Advertising Age when he admitted that the study was “a gimmick” for publicity and that the amount of data was “too small to be meaningful.” At the time even this was a lie. The truth is that the original experiment never actually happened at all. Vicary completely fabricated the results and made fraudulent claims solely as a means to support his marketing consultancy. 

    Despite the revelation that it was a hoax, it did nothing to calm the public's fear of having their subconscious preyed upon by advertisers. Since then hundreds of studies have unsuccessfully tried to replicate Vicar's faked results. For example, in 2006 an experiment entitled Beyond Vicary's Fantasies: The impact of subliminal priming and brand choice showed a limited connection between using subliminal text and consumer choice. The words “Lipton Ice Tea” were subliminally screened to an audience in attempt to later influence their choice of beverage. The study found that there was some correlation between the subliminal ads and drink choice, but these results are not strong evidence that subliminal messaging works. The study leaves aside methodological restrictions such as the fact that participants only had a choice between two drink options (which doesn't address the problem of confounding different brand names and product types) and that they had to been in a high state need (already very thirsty) for the effect to occur. 

    So for every one study that shows even a slight effect on choice there are dozens more that disprove it. What advertisers have learned from these experiments, in spite of the fact that so many fail, is that although you can't expect consumers to make dramatic changes in their habits there is a way to leverage ads with the use of priming. 

    Priming is a method that uses subtle approaches to influence someone's subconscious thought rather than Vicar's direct but unnoticeable written messages. Priming relies more on techniques that affect mood, perception, concepts, and semantics which will create a certain response to another stimulus later. Consider television commercials for example; advertisers do not only reflect the time-slot, popularity, and audience demographics of programs, they also utilize the moods that are induced by them. In general, it has been found that commercials placed around happy programming tend to receive more positive evaluations from consumers. This idea also applies to magazines and print. An ad printed in a prestigious magazine can make the brand or product appear to be of higher quality or value. The articles around the advertisement can additionally be a used as a primer. If an ad for a large screen laptop was placed after an article promoting the benefits of visual quality it would sell better than if the article had been advocating portability and convenience. Even many grocery retailers will place flowers at the entrances of their stores to enhance the notion that their products are fresh and natural. 

    Another priming tactic that is popular among clothing retailers is to offer discounts on a shopper's entire purchase rather than the individual products. This distracts the shopper from the total amount they are spending and instead focus on how much they are saving by not paying full price. Research has shown that customers tend to devalue discounted or cheap products which may result in a perceived experience of it being less satisfying. By offering discounts on the total purchase, consumers are less likely to depreciate any particular item that was bought. 


    Product placement and endorsement is yet another powerful way to subliminally encourage a brand's reputation. These methods can greatly increase consumer awareness and brand recognition while simultaneously being able to enhance the products image. Nike has become one of the top giants in the sports equipment industry thanks to the aid of major athletes wearing their brand. When people see a successful sports star using a certain brand they, in part, associate the athlete's achievements along with the brand's products. The same theory can be applied to any celebrity or archetype that displays positive attributes which relate to the brand. 

    The issue for advertisers using priming is that they need to be very aware of how certain elements will be received by the target audience. Age, values, gender, and culture can all effect how a person will react to a stimulus. For example the colour yellow is often related to happiness, joy, and youth but in Egypt it is used to represent the mourning of loss. 

    In conclusion I would say that yes, advertisers are using subliminal ways to promote their products and services. However, these approaches are not attempts to secretly brainwash the public; they are just a more clever and effective way to design ads. There is no reason for advertisers to waste time and money hiding messages or obscure images in their ads for uncertain profit when there are much more proven and successful ways to advertise. Unfortunately, the fear of subliminal messaging has grossly overblown claims on how advertisers are manipulating the minds of consumers and it is likely that these myths will never end.


    0

    Add a comment

  7. In modern media it seems as though more and more advertisers are trying to make us laugh. The most memorable ad campaigns often contain some sort of humour. In fact, it has been shown that humourous advertisements raise better brand recognition than those that are more serious. Humour gets people’s attention because we want to laugh, we want something to talk about, and it creates an element of humanity that engages us. With all these positives, why do so many marketers say to avoid it at all costs?

    One of the first problems with humour is that it is mostly subjective. Everyone has his or her own personal taste and preferences on what is funny. One person might find a joke hilarious while another may be insulted by it. This has an especially negative effect if viewers are forced to see an ad repeatedly. If an ad is repeated too much, those who initially found it amusing may also start to find it unfavourable. Advertisers using humour in campaigns recurrently have to pay for extra ads so that their material doesn’t become stale.

    Another issue is that humour can distract from a product. The essential goal of an ad is to sell not entertain. Even if the ad is memorable, it doesn’t do much good if it’s not convincing consumers to take action. Humour should be used in a way that reinforces the product in a relevant way. Sometimes the use of obscure humour could even confuse audiences and leave them frustrated.

    With all that in mind, humour is still a great tool for advertising when used properly. The best way to use humour in an ad is to make sure it still points to why a product is successful and/or its benefits. Marketers need to keep it appropriate for the product and consumer. It's impossible to always please everyone with just one ad so focus on making it effective for a particular target or purpose. 
    0

    Add a comment

  8. Obesity has been on a steady rise in the last three decades and it is now reaching alarming levels. Over one billion adults are obese or overweight globally. An even more startling finding is that in a 2010 survey conducted by the World Health Organization, 43 million preschool children were reported to be obese or overweight. Researchers have been on the hunt for an explanation to this issue and are now linking the problem to advertising. The majority of food products (almost 90%) featured in various forms of advertising are high in calories and are not included in a balanced diet. It is a highly competitive market making it difficult to promote healthy food products. For each dollar invested by the World Health Organization for the promotion of healthy eating habits, the agri-food industry spends $500 to promote its processed products.


    As an adult though, you should be the one to take responsibility for your nutritional choices. We are all informed of the importance of maintaining a well-balanced diet and exercise routine. You can't blame the advertising or fast-food industry if you happen to overindulge. I, for one, am tired of seeing suits against companies by individuals claiming ignorance that eating hamburgers for every meal would jeopardize their health. No, that fried chicken isn't good for your heart, and yes, that hot coffee is hot — so watch out and consider yourself warned of these hidden dangers.

    But what about when advertisers direct their ads to a more unaware audience?

    The American Academy of Pediatrics believes that watching several consecutive hours of television is unhealthy for children. In fact, for children under the age of two, the Academy recommends that they do not watch television at all. For older children, the maximum amount of television per day is one or two hours. Even by following these recommendations (though on average children are watching much more than that), if 25% of those hours watched are commercials, each child will have witnessed nearly 500 ads in a week. And that's only considering one of the multiple forms of media we are exposed to everyday. Today's children spend more time in front of a computer, television, and game screens than any other activity in their lives except sleep.

    Why would advertisers target children though? Children's purchasing power is more significant than you might initially think. Studies have shown that nowadays children influence almost half of all family purchases. Not only do they affect family consumption choices, but they also have their own pocket money to spend. In Canada alone children spend and control a combined $24 billion of all annual purchases. A third of this money being directly spent on food and beverages. Besides the direct profits, their young and impressionable minds are also great foundations for building brand loyalty.

    As a part of a study, researchers observed a group of children up to their adolescence in order to evaluate their choices in terms of brands. Half the brands selected once they had reached adolescence were already the subjects' number one choice during childhood. In truth, by age 10, a child has memorized between 300 and 400 brands. Another study discovered that infants as young as 6 months old are able to form mental images of logos and mascots. This isn't shocking news considering almost every preschooler you ask would be able to recognize Ronald Mcdonald's face.

    If you are thinking that this seems morally wrong and something should be done to stop companies from preying on naive children; there are already movements in place to do so. People need to understand that it is an immense and complicated task to try to monitor all the different types of advertising. Most national regions have some sort of advertising rules and ethics to follow. Canada, for example, created it's own Code of Ad Standards in 1963 and even a specific Broadcast Code for Advertising to Children which are both updated regularly. Only a few places in the world such as Quebec, Norway, and Sweden have completely prohibited ads that are directed towards viewers younger than 13. Having so many different sets of laws related to advertising creates its own problem. Cross-country advertising, for example, occurs when foreign media enters another nation. The advertising protocol where the ad originated may vary from where the ad is broadcasted, but it is still possible for it to slip past the regulations.

    The best protection for these vulnerable minds is to educate them. Knowledge really is power. Children should be taught about healthy eating as early as possible and the knowledge should be reinforced so that they will establish good habits for when they are older. They should also be taught about advertising to help them understand that not everything in the media is true.


    0

    Add a comment

  9. In the past few years, countless media campaigns have criticized industry advertising for creating false ideals through Photoshop. One of the most prominent examples of these anti-photoshop advertisements is Dove's “Campaign for Real Beauty.” It launched in September 2004 with the highly popular ad featuring women of various size, race, and age. This was meant to challenge the stereotypical norm of what defines beauty in society. The newest phase of Dove's vision is their “Movement for self-esteem” which has funded global programs that help young women build self-esteem and confidence.

    It's undeniable that a majority of women in today's world are suffering from self-esteem issues caused by pressure from the media. An international survey conducted by StrategyOne with 6,400 women aged 18-64 from 20 different countries found that only 3% of those surveyed consider themselves beautiful. I completely support the idea of expanding what is considered beautiful and helping people feel confident about who they are. Nonetheless, I have some concerns about mis-targeted messages that are being thrown around.

    Many people place the blame of generating illusions of unattainable beauty on Photoshop and the designers using it. Photoshop is just a program, it is not evil, or deceitful. Similarly, the artists who use it aren't all corrupt villains with no morals or concerns about how the end product will affect others. The opposite is usually much more true. Photoshop shaming has been encouraged by ads such as Dove's “Thought Before Action,” which promoted a Photoshop tool called “Beautify” that was claimed to give a skin glow effect to models in photographs. It was advertised on numerous social websites and forums offering a free download of the tool. The catch was that when a user clicked the button, instead of highlighting skin it reverted all of the changes in the image to its original state. I'm sure you have also been commonly subject to seeing all of those before and after production shots of models in fashion shoots. Most are extreme examples, for instance, the image from Vera Wang's collection for David's Bridal where the model's waist is unnaturally smaller than her head from the front then somehow more proportionate from the back. The majority of retouching is not this severe and deals with lighting, shadows, colour, and other issues.



    I personally don't have a problem with the idea of removing blemishes, enhancing features, or manipulating photographs of models – within reason. If a portrait photo is going to be blown up 7 feet tall for an ad of course you would want to make pores appear smaller so that they are less distracting in the image. The point is to focus on what the message of the ad is saying. Unfortunately, it's true that a lot of advertisements display unrealistic perceptions that can convey a different underlying message to the viewer. There is proof that eating disorders have been on the rise for the last 15 years and it is undoubtedly linked to the media's emphasis on petite figures. So while I think it's okay to do some revisions, turning a model into an unhealthily thin body does more harm than good. 

    Although photo editing is the most controversial when regarding models, it is definitely not exclusive to fashion. Photo editing occurs in all forms of advertising. Advertisers want to display their products in the best way possible as ideals. Ever notice how your hamburger doesn't look as good as it does on the container? Last year Mcdonald's released this video explaining why and the practices they take in advertising. It makes sense that they would take the time to make their product look as appetizing as they can for the audience. This is the same theory almost all advertisers use. The problem of who is setting these unrealistic expectations could be aimed at advertisers but that's not quite right either. The condition is based on what society responds to as well. They might just be giving the public what they want to see. In this possibility, the responsibility falls on a lot more people than just those who created the advertisements.

    I believe that almost everyone has heard the saying “all that glitters is not gold” and should be taking this especially true when looking at advertising. Advertisements should definitely be held up to a standard of ethics and rules, but we should also understand that ads aren't often meant to depict reality. Backlash against Photoshop in advertisements is wrongly placed; it's a wonderful application meant only as a tool for creativity and expression. Thanks to the digital mediums we have been able to experience a whole new world of amazing art and design that weren't possible before.







    0

    Add a comment


  10. The Mic Mac Mall in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia recently received a huge backlash from customers over their latest back-to-school ad campaign. The advertisements only ran for about a week before they were abruptly pulled due to the teeming amount of complaints. Criticism towards the ads claimed that they were sexist, insulting, and demeaning towards women. This multimedia campaign was published on newspapers, billboards, radio, television, and online. Here are a few examples of what caused the outrage from some of the public:




    An apology was issued from the Mic Mac Mall as well as a donation of $5,000 to Techsploration, an organization that empowers young women from grades 9 - 12 by providing them with inspiring opportunities to explore science, trades, and technology occupations. 

    Who designed this campaign? An advertising agency in Vancouver, British Columbia named Suburbia. I personally don't believe that these ads were created with any malice towards young women. The intention was to be a humourous play on the names of school classes and the image of a superficial student. However, I can understand why some would find this character offensive. The girls in these advertisements show no interest in their academics and favour shopping instead; which can be a harmful stereotype for young women.

    Suburbia's company tagline is “we get shoppers” but in this case– I completely disagree. The fact that the ads had to be taken down because customers were so upset proves that the agency did not understand the Mic Mac Mall's audience. Some citizens were so put off by the ads that they ceased shopping at the mall. Additionally, I don't see a benefit to targeting young, shopping-hungry teen girls; they would provide sales whether or not these ads ran if they really do love shopping that much. It would be better to strengthen the customer base and reach out to other demographics. There isn't a single male subject in the campaign. This means that they entirely disregarded half of the back-to-school consumers. Overall, that's what I would say this issue came down to: overlooking details and not considering enough viewpoints.


    0

    Add a comment

Blog Archive
About Me
About Me
Loading
Powered by Blogger.