(Click to review the ads we analyzed in the Nov. Session) What Sells Monopolizing on Hoop Dreams
Happy Freaky Fab Goodness Not So Happy Meal
David Barboza uses the very words of a leading children's marketing consultant to indict
the exploitative practices of advertising campaigns in his revealing article, "If You Pitch It, They Will Eat It." The claims of Barboza's telling exposure of this industry are summed up in the quote, "You'd like them [food companies] to have a conscience, but conscience and bottom line are not in the same paradigm in the corporate world." From the mouths and actions of the food industry come their bottom line: lives don't matter, when we can get you to put YOUR money where OUR mouth is.
Are companies liable, or responsible, for the images they use to convince consumers to buy their products? Are there limits to their responsibilities and alternately should limits (censorship?) be placed on how and to whom they market? What are the responsibilities of the consumer?
Please weigh in on this issue in a paragraph response.
Reference the persuasive strategies (specify logos, ethos, pathos) used in the video ads.
Also, identify and use one quote from the reading to use in your response.
Finally, find 5 precise, persuasive, or powerful words in the article to use in your response. Be sure to type these words in BOLD CAPS.
Part 2
Analyze the following ad campaign to answer the questions below.
What, besides food, is this ad selling? Sex is obvious...go deeper. How is it defining female sex appeal? How is it shaping sexual desire? What does it say about the relationship between food and women, women and consumption, women and fast food? Who is the target audience? What is it trying to get us to buy into? How does it sell it?
How could its message reflect a political agenda related to power dynamics?Part 3
Can advertising, product supply, and market manipulation create skewed perceptions of ourselves, others, and even shape our social realities? Is the personal political, and the political personal?
First jot down a rough draft of your response to the question. Include a thesis, support, and evidence. After, watching revise your response and include your analysis of the video.Marketing Race
Part 1: I believe that the companies have a responsibility to make ads that are appropriate as far as sex appeal goes and that does not promote childhood obesity. In the article Barboza states, "McDonald's calls this promotion and brand extension. But, a growing number of nutritionists call it a blitzkrieg that perverts children's eating habits and sets them on a path to obesity." This form of advertising should be censored in order to ensure the health of todays children. Though I believe that the companies have responsibility the costumer also has responsibilities. Just because the companies put these advertisements out does not mean that the consumer has to respond. The consumer needs to practice some extent of self control.
ReplyDeleteJadyn Taylor
Part 2: The ad is selling desire or fantasy. It is defining female sex appeal with the food. It is saying that if you eat this food you could get a woman like that or that the food is as great as a women like that. It sells the product because men are attracted to women in the ads. When they go to get food they will remember ads like these and go to those particular restaurants.
ReplyDeletePart 3: I believe advertising can create a skewed perception of ourselves, others and shape our social realities. If advertisements contain beautiful models and make them to be beautiful and the standard of how everyone should be then that could skew perception. If we don't look like that than we believe we are not beautiful and if others do look like that than we believe that they are. In the video the children picked what doll they liked and what doll they thought was pretty what doll they picked was based on observations they have made. For example one girl stated that the white doll listened but the black doll talked back. People are highly influenced by things around them.
ReplyDeletePart one: When it comes down to it companies are in business to make money, and it is understandable. If a company is trying to do their advertisement in a "outside the box" kind of way, I don't see any problem with it, for example when Axe Body Spray tries to convince males that women will follow them around because women love their enticing scent. But if it causes any harm or if it is promoting false advertisements, then I feel the company should be held accountable for what they have committed. For example if a cookie brand states they have organic gluten free cookies, when in actuality the cookies the company is selling really is just an ordinary cookie. Then, if their cookies get the attention of a individual with a gluten allergy and that said individual falls ill. That company needs to be held responsible. That being said customers should be aware the companies are trying to make money and they are trying to persuade customers with their advertisements, so it is also the customer's responsibility to not be so gullible to every ad they may see.
ReplyDeletePart Two: This advertisement attempts to paint that Burger King is what a girl "wants". Some of the food in the ad is being portrayed as males, and relates to all males, which is who the ad is for. It also tries to paint Burger King as a utopian place for men, like women would really go there as if "this" is what women really want from guys, with statements like how "size matters", and being "blown away". This ad is trying to be over sexual to boost their advertisement to get more men in their doors'.
ReplyDeletePart Three: This is a tough question, because advertisements, product supply, and marketing manipulation can create certain perceptions of others as well as ourselves. Like constantly seeing certain images on TV, billboards and in magazines. They are all advertising something! This is supported by the "doll experiment" done with the young children showing that skin color is being portrayed in a certain way in society. But the reason I stated this is a tough question is because I believe that it is not only advertisements that make us think a certain way. I think it is everyday life the things we hear, see, and are told by actual individuals . I noticed in the experiment the children that said negative things stated a stereotype. This stereotype has probably been heard by the children, or told to the children. Advertisements followed the same influences that the children had been introduced to. This results in society having the image of white being the "pretty doll" and the black being the "bad doll", so since society has their image of what pretty is it is reflected in advertisements we see. So now there is going to be a skewed product supply and the market being manipulated by what society thinks.
ReplyDeletePart I:
ReplyDeleteCompanies must be liable for the adverse effects the images in their advertisements have on consumers’ health, specifically when marketing to children. The use of pathos in the ads, through colorful, dancing happy meal boxes, and the introduction of the playful Ronald McDonald in 1966 has a direct effect on children’s consumption of McDonalds food. As David Barboza, author of the article “If You Pitch It They Will Eat,” states, “Since 1980, the number of obese children, has more than doubled to 16 percent, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.” This growing trend in obesity highlights the CLEAR connection between the PROLIFERATION of advertising and children’s health. Of all consumers, children are the most ignorant of the health risks posed by consuming processed industrial food. By applying logos in phrases such as “25% less sugar” in the advertisement of yogurt and other products targeted for children, companies are able to equally convince parents that the food being marketed to their kids is healthy. Statistics demonstrate that the repercussions of advertising that INCREASINGLY targets children are STAGGERING. Though many may argue that it is the consumer’s responsibility to be conscious of the dangers of the food industry, companies should be held equally responsible so that the manipulation of consumers can be reduced. The precedent of tobacco companies that are prevented marketing within a certain radius of schools, should be just as applicable to the companies that market processed/fast foods, if avoiding the EPIDEMIC of child obesity is to be made feasible.