Salty, Sweet, and User-Oriented

For Toblerone's new Crunchy Salted Almond chocolate, we created a social media campaign that emphasizes the dual flavors: salty and sweet. We decided on a campaign that starts with an external website on which Toblerone fans could create flavor combinations from a list of 50-75 flavors. Fans would then be able to start a flavor combination with their favorite flavor and share it on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram and enlist the help of their friends to complete the combination. These new chocolate bars created by friends would be pictured underneath a half-and-half shot of each friend's profile pictures, which would then be shared on each respective social network. 

These pictures would then be placed into a voting system in which the chocolate bars "battled" until there were a top three choices. Then, to engage Bay Area Toblerone fans, Toblerone would host an event in San Francisco at which the three top flavors would be made and distributed. The fans could then taste all three and vote on their favorite. At the end of the event, the top choice would be revealed, and that would become a limited edition Toblerone chocolate bar in the Bay Area.

We wanted there to be a focus on the dual-flavor chocolate, so we created the friend- sharing aspect of the campaign. The flavor choices on the site would be relatively gourmet foods, such as spices, mint, and exotic fruits. This would appeal to young, hip, sophisticated fans. We also wanted to market specifically to Bay Area Toblerone fans, so we created a fan event at the end of the campaign. But of course, the main focal point of the campaign must be the Crunchy Salted Almond chocolate, so each aspect of the campaign would be decorated with gold and the blue color of the new bar. When a new flavor combination is shared on a social network, it would say something along the lines of, "We created Crunchy Salted Almond, now you create something else!" At the fan event, there would be samples of Crunchy Salted Almond, and again, everything would be decorated in Toblerone gold and blue.

-Saige

A Casual Rant on Interruptive Advertising

As a consumer, and really as a teenager in the 21st century, I tend to dislike interruptive advertising. I'll close out a webpage if it doesn't load in ten seconds because it isn't worth waiting that long. So clearly, when my favorite TV show is interrupted every ten minutes to squeeze in three minutes of advertising, I can get annoyed easily. But most of the time, I really don't mind them, especially since I can spend the time that the ad is playing to do something else, like pee or check my phone or get a snack. I know many people share that opinion, so I definitely don't think TV is the "elephant in the room." At least not anymore.

That being said, I also don't think TV advertising is as lucrative as it once was for that exact reason. People just don't pay attention to it anymore. If they aren't doing something else during the commercial break, it's probably because they're just fast-forwarding through it. That's why there's a huge movement toward Internet video advertising. But unfortunately, this is becoming a problem too, because those fifteen second ads before a two minute video on YouTube, or minute-long commercial breaks on Hulu, get annoying too. In fact, they're more annoying, because unless you have AdBlock, you're forced to sit through them. You can't fast-forward or skip ads. And I've noticed that now, if you even press the mute button, the ad pauses. It's very forceful.

This presents a problem. People already generally hate advertising, so when the ad interrupts something you'd way rather be doing and actually forces you to listen or watch, 
you're not going to internalize or even appreciate the message. And since you usually see the same ad in front of every video, the saturation combined with the interruption get to be too much.

So what's the solution? It's near impossible to find an ad that isn't in-your-face because advertising, now more than ever, is literally in your face at all times. Advertisements are all over your phone, computer, TV, food, clothing, airplane, car, street, town, city, country, ...the list goes on. It's becoming harder and harder to get a message across without the saturation factor causing issues. That's why I think interactive advertising is gaining so much attention: it gives you something to do, so you aren't stuck with a blank stare or an annoyed look on your face.

I'm a relatively patient person, so I rarely find myself aggressively annoyed by interruptive advertising. But many people my age are, and since adults always tell us that we are the future, something needs to be done. 

Actually, I just thought of a form of interruptive advertising that I really hate. I hate when you're reading something on a website and those ads pop up that cover the text you're trying to read and can't be moved until you scour the page to find the hidden, microscopic "CLOSE" button. And sometimes you can't even press that button for fifteen seconds so that you can "read this message from our sponsor." They used to be found mainly on pretty sketchy pages, but now I find them more and more on news sites or professional blogs. Yeah, can that just stop, please? Ugh.

-Saige

Push It to the Limit

My favorite ads are often those that are the perfect balance between simplicity and innovation. When an ad catches the viewer's attention with something unexpected and then relays its message within seconds thanks to clear and concise imagery or copy, it really sticks in the viewer's memory. And now, when advertisements are literally everywhere, people are more and more inclined to ignore them. TV ads can be fast-forwarded. Print ads can be tuned out and grazed over. Internet ads can be blocked completely. In order for a brand's message to be received and internalized, it really has to shock the viewer. The success of an ad can be measured by whether or not it makes a viewer do a double-take.

Many innovative ads today are considered innovative because they are interactive. They encourage the viewer to take an active role in promoting the brand. Over the last few years, social networking has become the main source of innovative advertising. Oreo is a great example of this. Oreo created a number of user-based "competitions" between fans of the cookie and fans of the creme, but one that is truly inspiring (and my favorite campaign of the year) is their Super Bowl 2013 Instagram campaign. On Super Bowl Sunday, they had Instagram users tag photos with #cookiethis or #cremethis, and then had sculptors create the users' photos out of either Oreo creme filling or cookie crumbs. (Here is a link to Wieden + Kennedy's blog about this campaign. It is absolutely worth the read if you have a few minutes.)

Most are done on social networking, as seen above, but I think some of the coolest boundary-pushing ads are the ones that make viewers stop what they're doing while in public and take a moment to interact with the ad. That's a whole new level of "receiving a message." I especially like this campaign against domestic violence, which uses facial recognition to change what's on the screen based on whether someone is looking at it. It makes the viewer stop, take a second look, and interact.

Still, all that being said, I don't think boundaries need to be pushed so far to get that double-take effect. I recently drove down from San Jose to my father's house in Los Angeles. On the highway, I saw at least ten McDonald's trucks, all of which were plastered with images of McDonald's foods being "blown back" by the truck's 60-mile-an-hour speed.

These ads do everything I love: they have a simple, concise message, while catching the viewer's attention with something unexpected. Advertising on the side of a truck is by no means new or innovative, but it was the first time I looked at a truck and thought, "heh, that's clever." I think pushing boundaries can mean more than just doing something wacky to get viewer attention. It can also mean that something as boring as truck ads can be made interesting with a little out-of-the-box thinking. 

That's ultimately what I think is important about innovative advertising: you don't have to reinvent the wheel. You just have to make the wheel interesting again.

-Saige

Out with the Old, In with the...Old?

To bring back the typewriter, we would create three ads on 3 media: ads in magazines such as Sunset, Forbes, and Time; 30-second spots on TV channels such as Travel Channel, History Channel, Good Network, and TV Land; and print ads in airports and subway or train stations. It would center around nostalgia and be marketed to an older generation of tech-savvy men and women.

The first would be a magazine ad that pictures a modern-looking desk covered in technology, like a smartphone, TV, and digital clock. In the center of the desk would be a typewriter, and coming out of the typewriter would be a letter from a parent to a child. The tagline would read, "Putting thought back into the conversation."

The second would be a TV ad in which an kind-looking older man would be seated outdoors at a quintessential cafe with a typewriter. People would be seen rushing by, doing fast-paced things such as texting with abbreviations/text talk and having loud phone conversations. Other people seated at the cafe would have big headphones on with faces buried in laptops. Suddenly we would see time slow and sounds of hustle and bustle dim as an image of the man happily typing away with the sound of typewriter clicks fade in. The final screen would be words coming out of a typewriter that say: "Putting care back into the conversation." 

The third would be a print ad again with a birds-eye view of a desk, this time more traditional and grandpa-like, with a cup of coffee or tea, a pair of glasses, and stack of letters to and from loved ones. There would again be a typewriter with a letter to a loved one in it. The tagline would read, "Putting love back into the conversation." 

-Saige

The Power and Pressure of Nostalgia

Nostalgia in advertising can be very powerful. People want to relive their glory days, or re-experience their carefree childhoods, or re-feel the time they first rode a bike, fell in love, watched their children's first steps. When a brand is able to successfully tap into consumers' pasts and stir up these joyful memories, it can influence them to purchase a product in order to bring back that joy.

I recently came across this ad for Internet Explorer 10 that is marketed directly to my age group and demographic. Watching the ad brought a huge, goofy grin to my face as I remembered my own childhood experiences with each item mentioned. I think this is an extremely successful use of nostalgia in advertising, but that might be because it is so clearly based around my own childhood memories. Nostalgia is a very personalized form of advertising, which is an advantage since it makes consumers feel something near to their own hearts, but it can also be a disadvantage because it must focus on a very specific demographic to have the most impact. Still, if a nostalgic ad can make you relive joyful memories, it's done its job.

However, this works in the opposite direction, too. People want to forget the pain they've felt in their pasts. When nostalgia in advertising goes awry, it stirs up traumatic memories and can avert consumers' attention from that brand entirely. This is another result of nostalgia's personalization, because what brings up happy memories for one person can bring up sad memories for another.

This ad for Dodge Ram trucks debuted at the 2013 Super Bowl, and was even voted the best Super Bowl spot of the year by YouTube's Ad Blitz competition. I can absolutely see how it appeals to the memories of an older demographic of Americans. I find it to be a very raw and even beautiful remembrance of traditional farm life, which is an important part of countless Americans' identities. But, on a personal level, it reminds me of my father's stories of growing up on a farm in Upstate New York. As a child and teenager, he was overworked and not paid as the youngest of seven on an operating dairy farm. And at age five, a farm mishap left him in a body cast for six months. These stories make me extremely sad as I think about my father in pain, and thus, watching this ad stirs up that sympathy inside and makes me sad, rather than proud.

Nostalgia is undoubtedly a powerful advertising tool. When it's used successfully, it brings a new level of personalization and warmth to a brand identity. But there are many brands that fail to realize the full power of nostalgia. I think this is largely the fault of new brands that have no history or backstory for people to relate to, or even brands introducing innovative new products that are meant to "be the future." There's a great deal of pressure on brands that use nostalgia to keep the memories light and the shadows hidden. When nostalgia works, it really works; when it fails, it really fails.

-Saige

Posse HOGs

Do you believe brand communities like Harley-Davidson result in greater involvement with the brand?
I absolutely think brand communities are important in consumer involvement. If a consumer sees that there are people who share their devotion to a specific brand, they are more willing to express that devotion publicly. This is especially true for brands that are the face of a lifestyle, like Harley-Davidson. I think that social acceptance of a behavior is the most essential factor in most people's decisions to exhibit that behavior or subscribe to a certain way of life. When a brand puts a bunch of people who agree with and accept each other's way of life together under the umbrella of their brand, the result is not only a new, engaged community, but a feeling among that community that the brand cares about their well-being.

What elements of the Posse Ride do you believe enhance the meaning of the brand for the riders?
The "Posse Oath" is a genius idea. It serves so many purposes: it makes clear to participants that they are really part of something; it clearly lays out the way of life that accompanies the brand; it serves as a bond or pact between participants; it inspires participants to adopt the brand's lifestyle; it immerses participants completely in the world of the brand for the extent of the tour. Making the consumer feel like he is individually important while at the same time creating a sense of camaraderie is quite a feat, and I think the idea of the "Posse Oath" does just that.

Should Harley-Davidson get more involved in the ride or would that dilute the ride's meaning to the participants?
Honestly, I know very little about the Harley Life. I have no personal interest in motorcycles. But from what I've read about the Posse Ride, I think that with the introduction of the Posse Oath and the various themed rides, they have hit a perfect harmony between brand saturation and organic inspiration. The participants know going into it that the ride is sponsored and led by Harley, but they are encouraged to personalize their experience as well.

In addition to experiences such as the Posse Ride, what other ways could Harley increase involvement in the brand?
Just off the top of my head, it would be interesting to see a chain of Harley Hostels. Harley-Davidson could introduce a number of hostel-like environments in various cities around the country, operated by HOG members, that could serve as checkpoints on personal cross-country motorcycle trips (not necessarily the Posse Ride) where riders could sleep, rest, or grab a meal with other fans. It could be a way to engage fans not only with the brand, but with each other, as well as promote and proliferate the brand name. But now that I think of it, that might already exist.

-Saige

Sony's Sorry Attempt at Marketing the PS Vita

When I was thinking back to products that had been released both successfully and catastrophically in my lifetime, I found that many of them were electronic products. I think this is simply because in the last hundred or so years, technology has advanced so rapidly that there have been an overwhelming number of new electronics to be invented and released. But not all of these products can be winners, and it's relatively easy to point out the losers based on the products' lack of attention to consumer behavior and how it motivates people to make purchases.

Back in February of 2012, Sony released the PlayStation Vita (PS Vita) in the United States. It was meant to be an update on the popular PlayStation Portable (PSP), released in 2005. But the product, though highly anticipated, flopped within months of its release. I read several articles on the PS Vita and it seems the main reasons for the flop were the available games and the price point. These reasons can be attributed to consumer behavior, and specifically that of the "gamer" market. 

When a video game console is released, much of what draws to the console is what they are able to do on it (understandably). This means that for the release to be successful, it must be accompanied by several promising release titles. New games that are exclusive to the coming console are what draw in the avid gamers. They want to be among the first to try the new games, and especially new titles from their favorite series. Unfortunately, the PS Vita did not have the all-important aid of popular and anticipated release titles. And since it had only a few attention-grabbing features that weren't already present in the PSP, the product just didn't pan out.

An obviously important aspect of any product release is the price point. In the gaming market, however, it seems gamers are willing to spend more money on a console if they know they're going to get something exclusive or special out of it. But the PS Vita's release price was just under $300. Even for a full-size console, that is an extremely high price. Given the lack of promising release titles and innovative new features offered by the PS Vita, this price was just not justifiable among gamers, who ultimately decide a product's worth among other consoles. The release also fell just a few months after Nintendo dramatically lowered the cost of its Nintendo 3DS to $169, and that product offered 3D gameplay, a feature the PS Vita could not rival. The PS Vita sold only 2.2 million units in the first six months, compared to the Nintendo 3DS' 3.6 million in its first month alone. 

It seems that Sony disregarded the tried and true behavior exhibited by the gamer market with its release of the PlayStation Vita. Sony has a huge fan base surrounding its PlayStation line, but even hardcore fans of the console series could not get behind the release of this product because it simply didn't appeal to the ideals of the gamer: innovation, firstism, and playability. And on top of that, Sony failed to readjust the price to compete with the increasing popularity of smartphone and tablet gaming, which is considerably cheaper. And even following a slight price drop and the introduction of an exclusive title in the Call of Duty series, the PS Vita remains a huge flop, and ultimately, an embarrassment to both Sony and the gaming community.

-Saige

WWF Says: Stop Killing Stuff

The World Wildlife Fund was formed in 1961. It's worked hard ever since, as their mission statement says, "to build a future in which people live in harmony with nature." Since the foundation has been around so long, it has been able to reach all corners of the world with its helping hands, and do a great deal to achieve that goal. Some quick statistics from their website (http://www.wwf.org/) give a glimpse at just how far that reach has gone: WWF has five million supporters spanning 100 countries, led by more than 5,000 staff. 

Given the huge amount of campaigns dedicated to such diverse environmental issues, I want to focus on a couple of the more current campaigns to combat the slaughter of wildlife for unnecessary human use, such as fashion or decoration, that I feel are particularly powerful. 

Evolution Campaign

I love the simplicity of this campaign. It's very straightforward - you know from looking at it that WWF is discouraging the slaughter of wildlife. It speaks to a wide range of viewers because of its simple, easy-to-understand imagery, and I think the lack of copy makes it even more powerful. It's almost saying, "you should already know that this is wrong without being told." And the decision to cut off the evolution in the middle of the page with blank space under it really emphasizes the idea that should a species go extinct, its story can go no further. Simplicity in advertising is something I think many people respond positively to, and this campaign does a great job of evoking a response.

Imagine This Is Yours Campaign

The moment I saw these ads I felt a twinge of guilt. The campaign speaks directly to perhaps the most basic human (and animal) instinct: protect your young. It forces the viewer to see the slaughter of wildlife from a different, more easily relatable standpoint. It was probably created for an older audience of parents, but I think the meaning is clear enough to impact people of any age. The brief slogan, "Imagine this is yours," is just enough to guide the viewer's thoughts, but not so overbearing that it stops the imagination from running rampant with horrible thoughts of guilt. 

In its time, WWF has tried countless approaches to reach the widest audience possible. I find that the general theme of little to no copy with simple, striking imagery is particularly impactful given the message that's relayed: there's a simple fix for the unnecessary slaughter of wildlife, and that's to stop doing it.

-Saige

Rose Petal NOTtage

When I looked the ad up on YouTube so I could watch it again, I read through some of the comments. They ranged from extreme disapproval to reasonable defense to complete nonsense, as is the norm with YouTube. One comment that received a lot of dislikes was this:

"funny huh.... when a girl wants to be in the army or something manly everyone "praises her and will fight for her wants" when a girl just wants to be a house wife... everyone thinks she's weak and no one will let her have what she wants...."

I thought this was a good attempt at reason. The commenter clearly has good intentions, but I think he or she looked at the ad from the wrong angle. I agree completely that if a girl wants to be a housewife, she should not be subjected to criticism. But the problem that the commenter is not addressing is that this ad is addressing young, impressionable girls with the idea that being a housewife is a "dream, dream, dream." Some of the tag lines for the product include  "For little girls with big dreams" and "A place where she can contain her imagination." These phrases very clearly give off the idea that a little girl cannot dream any bigger or go any further or imagine any greater than being a housewife. Yes, being a housewife is a perfectly honorable route in life, as is being a soldier, but that doesn't mean that it is okay to give young girls the impression that being a housewife is the best and only path they can take.

Anyway, as far as making a new ad, I think it's a pretty easy fix. I would change the name, first of all, and give it a more fun, gender-neutral name such as "Kidville Playhouse." That's the name my group came up with. Then I would change the color scheme. I would replace the pastels with bright primary colors, giving it a not-so-serious vibe, because I think it's important that this toy does not too closely resemble an actual house in order to avoid having kids grow up too fast. 

For the action in the ad, I am picturing an adaptation of the Out of the Box theme song. This was one of my favorite shows when I was a kid, and I think it definitely helped me expand my imagination. I think the ad should picture kids of all races and both genders helping each other set up the house and then assuming various roles in groups, some groups all girls, some all boys, some a mix. The playhouse would be pictured on a field of green grass, with kids surrounding it on all sides doing different activities.

I think the most important element of the ad should not be the housework accessories, but the imagination required for a kid to make an actual house out of a four foot wide hunk of plastic. This way, gender is not even addressed, and rather than teaching girls how to do housework, it's teaching kids how to make something great out of something that's just okay. I know that's what I would have wanted to get out of it when I was that age. In fact, that's what I want to get out of life now.

-Saige  

It's a Boy Girl Thing

Advertising has its principles and standards that will always be in place, but it is not a stationary industry. Just like the technology industry, advertising is always improving and being innovated and reaching more people and fitting into a modern lifestyle. And just like the technology industry, advertising must constantly be aware of what people want in order to be successful. I think that in 2013, what people want is to be shocked. Because of the internet we have this idea that we’ve seen it all, so when something surprises us or makes us laugh, we want more of it. 

This concept can result in both positive and negative changes to gender stereotyping in advertising. On the one hand, wanting to see something new encourages advertisers to go against the grain that’s been going one way since before advertising was born and picture women as the superior gender to men. This reverse can empower women and create an idea of women as strong, intelligent, and capable people, an image that has been suppressed for generations. On the other hand, it encourages advertisers to caricature the traditional idea of a dominant man and submissive woman, an image that has been used to devalue women for far too long. Sexism in advertising today is very complex. It’s usually present, but rarely goes so completely overboard that a random passer-by would get offended. 

This ad for Muscle Pharm is a perfect example of that complexity. It pictures a beautiful woman in revealing clothing, which sexualizes her. But she is also standing in a powerful pose with a determined look on her face, and the ad reads, “Strong is the new sexy.” The phrase addresses the sexualization of women and uses it to communicate that the traditional image of “sexy” is changing. The ad empowers women to be strong, but still relies on women’s insecurities to do so. 

This Old Spice campaign was extremely successful, and for good reason. It’s funny, unique, and memorable. But the caricature of traditional gender roles is quite obvious in the ad. While the man in the ad is actually addressing women, he is still describing a situation in which the man must be the rich, suave, manly, good looking provider and protector. I think it’s clear that the advertisers did not create this ad to downplay women, but it is still masking gender stereotypes in a cloak of humor and extreme imagery. While it may not really be right to hide sexism behind humor, it is certainly a type of humor that is hugely popular in our society. The popularity of this humor alone can be used to justify it, because the general justification process for most trends in popular culture is “everyone is doing it, so it must be okay.” 

Many products, such as athletic cups or feminine products, are meant for only one gender. Does this mean advertisements can generalize and stereotype genders in order to sell to only one? I could honestly argue from both sides. Advertising is not a stationary industry. Traditional gender roles are definitely being challenged, and while we have a long way to go, I think that’s a step in the right direction. Katherine Frith said, “Not only does advertising shape American culture; it shapes Americans’ images of themselves.” Advertisers have the power to make huge strides in the right direction, and I hope to one day be a part of that.

-Saige

Big Bang's Theories on Race and Gender

I think that CBS’ The Big Bang Theory incorporates racial and gender stereotypes into its characters and comedy without including any severely racist or sexist themes. Still, while it may not be severe, it is definitely present. A lot of the comedy does center around racial and especially gender stereotypes, but honestly, what adult sitcom doesn’t? There is not a great deal of ethnic diversity on the show; there is only one non-white regular character, and minor characters are also almost exclusively caucasian. Gender diversity is also not particularly important on the show. It centers around a group of four white males, and the female characters are always introduced as girlfriends and often seen as sexual objects. On the whole, though, I think this show is not too bad of an offender. 

The character of Raj Koothrappali is the only non-white regular on the show. He lived in New Delhi for most of his life before moving to the United States. His Indian culture is present in the show; there are many references to his previous life in New Dehli, he has an Indian accent, and his parents often advocate that he marry an Indian girl in an arranged marriage. But the main elements of his character are not dependent on race. He has a social disorder in which he cannot speak to women, he is very socially awkward, and he is a “nerd.” Raj is known as the “token Indian” on the show, and his race is played upon often, but there is not an overwhelmingly racist undertone.

Penny, the main female character, is definitely sexually objectified on the show. It seems that every episode either implies or blatantly states that she is a “slut.” She is blonde and curvy, goes out with random men often, and is extremely stupid. In fact, the main comedic element of the show is the contrast between the four male geniuses and Penny, their dumb blonde neighbor. But the show also refers to her not-ladylike qualities often. This is another main element: Penny is tough, strong, and unafraid, while the four men are weak, wimpy, and terrified. When there is a spider in the boys’ apartment, Penny kills it. When there is a sports event on TV, Penny explains it. When a bully picks on the men, Penny beats him up. There is an interesting mix of the traditional stereotypes within Penny and the exact reversal of them between her and the four men. 

It’s very difficult to find a popular adult sitcom that does not include any racist or sexist jokes or characters. I think that says a lot about who we are as a culture, since most popular comedy is derogatory toward someone. It seems that diversity’s role in media is mainly to appeal to a wide audience, not to actually value and accept that wide audience. Does the fact that I watch this show and find it funny make me a sexist or a racist? I certainly hope not. But does it mean I am prolonging and encouraging the objectification of females and certain races? I certainly believe so.

...Oops.

-Saige

Race is Not Yet Won

No matter how hard we may try to end racism, I have a hard time believing that humans will ever live in a world free of racial discrimination. Of course, the extent of racist behaviors and ideas in the US has decreased dramatically even in the last fifty years, but it’s a big planet with a lot of people on it, and many of us across the globe are still treated differently because of the color of our skin. I myself have never and will never treat someone worse than another for this reason, but that does not mean that I am not conditioned by society to associate certain races with certain practices and characteristics. This is how I feel about modern advertising: no ad today will be so blatantly racist as it might have been fifty years ago, but many ads today participate in stereotyping because stereotypes are a major part of how people view each other, and thus how we view ads. 

Still, just because it happens doesn’t mean it’s right. I don’t believe any type of stereotyping is right, but I certainly won’t pretend I’m not guilty of stereotyping people. Advertisers must walk a thin line when considering stereotypes in their ads because the line between racist and stereotypical is so thin in itself. In many cases, a racial stereotype is something that a majority of people are aware of, and thus a recognizable image that will reach a wide audience. But is it acceptable to judge a certain race for the sake of sales? It shouldn’t be, but for some companies, brands, and advertisers, it is. Racism and stereotyping are still present in advertising, maybe not to the same degree as they have been in the past, but enough to cause concern.

This example of racism in current advertising is one that I came across a while ago. It really stuck with me because it would not necessarily be noticeable if you saw the L’Oreal ad on its own, since Beyonce’s face is recognizable. But when it’s placed next to an unedited photo of her, it becomes clear that her skin was lightened considerably, suggesting that L’Oreal thinks light skin and hair are more beautiful than dark. 

We read this ad in class, but it relates well to the modern Beyonce ad above. The idea that lighter skin is more desirable is present in this ad too, but here it is blatantly obvious. Unfortunately, this ad also suggests that dark skinned people are dirtier than light skinned people, illustrating the idea that racism, while subdued when compared to older ads, still exists in advertising today. 

I absolutely believe that advertisers have an ethical responsibility to refrain from stereotyping based on race. That being said, I believe everyone has this responsibility. Still, advertising has such an overwhelming presence in our day to day lives that eliminating stereotypes from ads would likely contribute to the end of racism. I can only hope that in my future I am able to create wildly successful ads without offending or insulting any human being based on race, gender, creed, or anything else. 

“Our true nationality is mankind."

         - H. G. Wells

-Saige

Sights, Sounds and Semiotics

The basic point of advertising is to convince consumers to buy one product over its competitors. And since we internalize such a small percentage of the thousands of ads we see each day, the way in which we see and understand the meaning behind a message is essential to the success of an ad. This concept is called semiotics. It can be applied to any ad, but the ads that stand out are the ones that center around a clear sign to which a majority of viewers can relate. The sign itself does not necessarily need to directly represent the product in question, nor does it need take a specific material form, but it must relate to a familiar social or cultural convention in order to convey meaning to the widest audience possible. 

This is a French ad for Hot Pringles. The denotation, or what is directly and literally present in the ad, includes a man, a hot air balloon, fire, and a cityscape. The connotation, or socio-cultural and personal association, is that this man is attached to the hot air balloon, keeping it afloat over the city with his fire breath. But what illustrates the sign in this ad is the myth, or ideology associated with the image: the chips are so hot that when this man ate them, he started to breathe fire. This is obviously not a real side effect of eating Hot Pringles, but since the majority of people know what the word “hot” means and how a hot air balloon works, it is clear that the ad is trying to convey the heat of the chips using these familiar and humorous signs. 

This commercial for Volkswagen is a bit harder to interpret. The denotation is simply an array of people smiling and laughing. The connotation for this ad requires a bit of thought, though. The people are pictured by increasing age, and the text at the end, “It’s not the miles, it’s how you live them,” connotes the idea that laughing is timeless and that age does not determine happiness. The myth here is largely open for viewer interpretation: it could mean that Volkswagen is a classic car that has been with us through the years and kept us smiling throughout; that Volkswagen appeals to any age group and will promote happiness to anyone; that a Volkswagen will last from your birth to your death and keep you happy throughout; or anything else viewers’ cultural and personal experiences can create within them. I think that this interpretable approach to advertising can either be very successful or very confusing. But in this ad, Volkswagen did a great job of conveying meaning, since it’s hard to find any negatives in images of people of all ages and races laughing, while still allowing the viewer to have control over the deeper connotations.

This billboard for McDonald’s has a clear meaning that is easily interpreted in the few seconds a driver has to look it over. The denotation is a potato, french fries, and an empty french fry container. The connotation is that McDonald’s french fries are made directly from potatoes. And the myth, of course, is that McDonald’s french fries are so fresh and so pure and so delicious that you will eat ‘em all up without a moment’s hesitation. This ad is successful not only because it’s made for one of the world’s most recognizable brands, but also because it takes one of the viewer’s most recognizable foods and makes it desirable by conveying the simplicity, both of the imagery and the french fries, and the taste as a result of that sign. 

Not every ad needs to be a glaringly obvious reference to the product to be successful. In fact, I believe that the most memorable ads are the ones that make the viewer think just enough about why the image has anything to do with the process. That is what a sign is meant to do, and when it’s done right, that is semiotics.

-Saige

Branding: The Hipster Cycle

At the surface, a brand is a name: a collection of letters that holds a certain meaning and is recognized for a specific reason. But beneath the surface, that name stands for more than just a product; it represents a lifestyle, a way of thinking, an image, a belief, a personality, a culture. These representations affect us constantly in our everyday lives, whether we realize it or not, because the recognizability and connotations of the brands we associate ourselves with in turn represent who we are as unique individuals. 

Our generation has always been and will always be driven by the human urge to be accepted in society, and it is my firm belief that that urge has become so influential in our lives due to the rapid proliferation of branding in the last century. Even if a person claims to take no part in what he might call the "mainstream bottomless pit" that is branding, it still affects that person because he is constantly being judged by society for his choices. In fact, the choice to avoid mainstream culture has itself become a culture, and one that has created and fed a huge number of "hipster" brands. 

The hipster movement is a perfect example of relevancy in branding. As it has become more and more apparent to consumers through constant exposure to media and advertising that our lives are being controlled by brands, it has become more and more appealing to dismiss what the media has decided is trendy and instead choose the offbeat and unexpected route in order to distinguish yourself from the crowd. But since this is precisely the point of branding, to make something stand out from the rest, it has quickly become mainstream to avoid the mainstream. Thus begins the never-ending cycle of relevance: that which has been distinguished slowly becomes indistinguishable until something new gains popularity. Because of this cycle, brands must work harder than ever to keep up with the continuous fluctuation of "cool" in society. 

But I think the really successful brands, the ones that become the faces of new distinguished Things, are the ones that decide for themselves what that next Thing is going to be. I truly believe that it is impossible to completely escape the influence of branding, and the brands that find something that makes escape seem possible are the ones that soon become the most relevant, and the absolute dictators of their own situations, and ultimately of their own cultures. Dietmar Dahmen taught us that asking "Why?" detriments a company, and asking "Why not?" skyrockets a company to the top. The same concept applies to brands. It is The Hipster Cycle, and it's still spinning. And as far as I can tell from my four whole class periods of education on the subject, it does not intend on slowing down.

-Saige

The Future of Advertising with Dietmar Dahmen

In class on Monday, we were lucky enough to have Dietmar Dahmen in to speak with us about the future of advertising. I knew very little about Dietmar going into the presentation, but when I walked out, I felt that I had learned a great deal not just about advertising, but about Dietmar and his particular style of communication. It's clear to me that he is a passionate, animated, and enthusiastic man who really knows what he's talking about.

Dietmar brought up so many interesting facts and theories about where the advertising field is headed as a result of "Generation Connected" and the rapidly advancing world of technology. I tried to grasp each idea Dietmar brought up with a broader eye than I normally would. Dietmar himself is from Austria, so I felt it was important to consider his ideas from a cultured and global standpoint rather than narrowing the impact to only the U.S. or even my own little world in California. This was a key aspect of his presentation: the world today is constantly connected in a way it never has been before. Advertisers must be conscious of how an ad could be interpreted by people of countless social, political, geographical, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds, because something created in and intended for viewers in California can easily be seen in Iceland within seconds.

That being said, I found the most intriguing part of Dietmar's presentation to be the idea that advertisers must think in terms of situations. He defined branding as "dominance of a certain situation" and used an example about buying cars. If you need an elite company car, you think of BMW or Jaguar. If you need a reliable family car, you think of Ford or Chevrolet. These brands are all well known, but each is specifically designed - and thus specifically advertised - to pertain to a certain situation for which the consumer needs a car. Dietmar made it clear that the goal of a company should be to remain in the top three recognized and trusted brands for a specific situation. 

This may not be the most distinct or new thing he said in his presentation, but I think it's an increasingly important view on consumerism in today's world. Just in the last century or so, we've gone from having one or two brand choices in a supermarket to five or fifteen brand choices in five or fifteen supermarket chains. Today, when a consumer has an overwhelming number of brands to choose from that perform the same or similar functions, distinguishing one brand from another is the most crucial aspect of making sales. Distinguishing them by situation rather than functionality could be an unexpected way to get through to consumers and sway them in one brand's direction. And in our world where outlets for advertising are everywhere from a living room to an airplane to a person's pocket, and with the introduction of "individualized digital anticipation," a brand would have to work tremendously hard to be almost omnipresent in a consumer's field of vision. It seems genius to me to target advertisements that show how a product caters to a certain situation, and since it's becoming easier to track a consumer's tendencies and purchase histories, this situation-specific form of branding seems vitally important when trying to win over a consumer.

I could go on and on about how I interpreted each of Dietmar's ideas. I thought his presentation was engaging and enlightening, and found myself questioning the good and bad aspects of the world's dependence on technology, let alone my own addiction. I want to sincerely thank him for taking the time to speak to us.

-Saige

So It Begins

I've always found it unfair that teenagers are basically forced to decide what they want to do with the rest of their lives by the time they turn eighteen. But I've also always felt very lucky because unlike many of my friends, I've known for quite a while what I want to do: advertising. People are often surprised when they hear that's my chosen field. They say, "Saige, you're so nice, you don't want to be a shark like them ad folk!" This generalization has always bugged me because while I may not know the ins and outs of the business, I do know that there will always be room for kindness and compassion when trying to sway a consumer. That's something that excites me about advertising - there are countless outlets, countless approaches, countless innovations that can be taken to get the job done. Of course some work better than others, and I have much to learn in that regard, but I find myself smiling when I think about the creativity I will be able to use in my everyday life while working in advertising. 

I've always been interested in the psychological aspect of advertising, and how the rapidly changing technological and social aspects of our generation affect how a consumer thinks. I think the most important part of advertising is its fluidity - there are certain things that will always remain true about selling products and ideas, but there's also an endless world of possibilities that fluctuate alongside the progression of society. An advertiser must be acutely aware of his audience and what message that audience will receive best. I find so many aspects of advertising to be intriguing and I am actually perhaps a little too excited to explore them all.

Still, the whole "shark" thing eats away at the back of my mind. If there's anything that actually disgusts me about advertising, I guess it would be the notion that I could one day become a heartless soul-sucking monster who values revenue over integrity. I think this is where being kind and compassionate comes into play - I will do what I must to succeed in the business, but I refuse to sacrifice my conscience in the process. Maybe this means staying away from political advertising, or maybe this means I'm not cut out to be a part of the industry at all. Only time will tell; I've got a lot to learn and an open mind will be my closest companion.

And so it begins. I look forward to learning all I can from this class. 

-Saige