Comments | logangrey: Why? (#1, as there are doubtless going to be many more such questions)

logangrey

Why? (#1, as there are doubtless going to be many more such questions)

Mar 13, 2006 21:31

Tonight I saw: "The Naked Truth: Advertising's Image of Women", a talk by Jean Kilbourne, sponsored by SAPAC and half a dozen other UofM groups focusing on women's issues, and it led to some questions.
( I'm Curious- I'd like to read more! :-) )

Comments 18

Sex sells fdmts March 14 2006, 04:14:07 UTC

I was on the T the other day, and there was a poster advertising some "dance party mix" or other. It was basically a picture of this big boobed hottie in a bikini. She was wearing little more than a vapid look.

I didn't give it a second look until I saw another one which had been defaced. The graffiti read "advertising numbs you."

Yup.

Re: Sex sells logangrey March 16 2006, 00:42:38 UTC

Yah, that was one comment she made at the beginning of her talk. She said 95% of people come up to her and say "but I don't pay attention to ads, I just ignore them, I know they're stupid". Most of those are wearing ambercrombie and bitch t-shirts. Absolute's ads make no sense, they don't say anything about the vodka, yet their sales quadrupled as a result. The ads are intended to be subliminal, they're intended to be mostly ignored, and therefore to influence your buying decisions unconsciously later on. Humans are difficult to persuade rationally, easy to persuade emotionally and subconsciously. Terrifying eh? :-)

A friend of a friend is teaching a new class about media in high school, where they study how ads work. This is exactly what we need. It should start in elementary school.

_earthshine_ March 14 2006, 14:02:33 UTC

Is it that our repression makes us more susceptible to such ads and thus it's simply their efficacy pushing their development?
Is it because we have a stronger concept of free speech, so advertisers have had here more free reign to push this to it's limit?
Is it because we are more strongly capitalist than any other country, and thus selling by any means necessary has become accepted?
Is it not actually true that we are the leaders in this and we're just given the impression that we are by people who are trying to support their anti-objectification agenda?

My guesses: Yes. Nope, unless by "free speech" you mean your next question. Likely. Not sure.

I think we're actually objectifying all aspects of our lives in a very bad way...Word. I flash back to the popular poster from our frosh year of college: a picture of a five car garage, with your typical plethora of desirable cars within (BMW, Porche, etc.), with a path leading up to a large fancy house on a hill in the background, and the banner text across the top: "Justification ( ... )

logangrey March 16 2006, 00:46:45 UTC

Indeed- limiting exposure is a very good idea. But since exposure is inevitable, and any system based on censorship of information is intrinsically unstable (what happens when snippets of the info, or even the fact that there is something being hidden is revealed?), it really most responsibly must be supplemented by conscious active education about ads and how they work and what they do or (mostly) don't mean. How to think about them, how to be careful about them. Forwarned is forarmed, and your children may be in danger if they're first exposed to television and media ads outside your sphere of influence in high school.

This can easily be coupled, I imagine, with conscious active education about what other people say does and doesn't mean as far as what you should do/believe. Teach your children to think about and be critical of everything! Okay, maybe we don't want them to be bitter little balls of cynicism from day 1, but you get the idea. :-)

aerospcgrl March 14 2006, 16:05:53 UTC

logangrey March 16 2006, 00:50:33 UTC

Word up! To further expand on my responses to fdmts and earthshine, education is the answer. Top down information fed along with the ads, rather than censoring the ads, is the way to go. You can't control information. You can't control marketing responding to what shocks people. You can make people less susceptable, and change what gets sent out based on what they'll recognize of as stupid. If they're insulted by the implications of your ad, your product will do poorly. Problem solved. :-) Of course getting across in this country the concept of the value of an enlightened populace, that's a tough one. Since that value can't be measured in dollars (or will be negative if it is), it's a tough sell.

Heh, I could see the relationship there. Hard to date when Mom's cooking dinner. :-)

aerospcgrl March 16 2006, 00:59:37 UTC

No, actually the relationship has more to do with the women of marrying age not marrying... They are going out into the work force in droves instead of getting married... the men are just staying where they have always been... at home with mama. The ideologies are changing... quickly.

logangrey March 16 2006, 01:03:35 UTC

Funny. I wonder if that means that women will soon be viewed as the valuable child and men as the useless one? Then the women will be coddled and the men guilted, and it'll reverse again? Hmm. Turns out there are many forces which work to keep the gender balance well balanced.

Thread 7

rivercrossings March 14 2006, 19:22:58 UTC

Why is the United States of America, one of the most conservative and Puritan societies on the planet, so far out on the cutting edge of the use of sexuality and the objectification of women and people in general in our advertising? I feel that the use of sex and exaggerated images of beauty is a natural trend in capitalist advertisements- but why is Europe not way ahead of us in this, being as they are more sexually progressive?

Is it that our repression makes us more susceptible to such ads and thus it's simply their efficacy pushing their development?
Is it not actually true that we are the leaders in this and we're just given the impression that we are by people who are trying to support their anti-objectification agenda?

I think these two probably account for most of it. I think aerospcgrl put it very well:

We are so sexually repressed as a culture that we don't express sexuality in a healthy way, which opens the doors to all kinds of unhealthy sexual ideologies.

Back to logangrey:

How do you fight this? How do you balance between supporting ( ... )

logangrey March 16 2006, 00:54:29 UTC

Hmm, but I rebel against censorship by the government. Showing people being happy while using your product is not necessarily false advertising. The line is vague and fuzzy. I'd rather start a counter ad campaign- an educational campaign built into things we've discussed above- to get across the message "if they're not talking about the product, why is that? Is it because the product has nothing real to offer? Hmmm." If people approached ads this way, maybe they'd have to respond.

And yes, I agree. In an appropriate rating system, people would be able to run around completely naked in after school specials, but if someone punched someone else in anger, it would be rated R. We are indeed, fucked up.

(The comment has been removed)

aerospcgrl March 14 2006, 21:28:54 UTC

The US protect children from sex and have no problem exposing them to violence. In Europe it's the exact opposite. They protect their children from violence and embrace sexuality.

From what I have seen on Italian TV: TRUE... Italians are lovers not fighters. I am being kind of tongue in cheek here, but the sentiment is true. You can see it on the Rai Uno satellite TV that my grandmother gets. There is sexuality and nudity as if it were really no big deal in Italian TV shows, variety shows, and movies... but contrasted with US media there is camparatively little violence.

logangrey March 16 2006, 00:57:12 UTC

Word!
The human body can be beautiful. Sex is fun. Those are not the problems.

Ah yes, how to get people to stop voting based on their prejudices and actually think about what politicians will do once they're in office- that's a trick too. :-)