After
reading The Grammar of the Ad: Case
Study: The Commodification of Human Relations and Experience – Telenor Mobile
TV Advertisement, ‘Everywhere’, Pakistan Autumn 2007, I have a new
appreciation and understanding for the way advertisements are constructed. As
Barthes describes in the reading, photographs contain both denoted and connoted
messages. By this he means denoted essentially, is what the photograph depicts,
whereas connoted is a symbolic or inferred message. I agree that with
documentary photography people often forget that the photograph is also a
construct. The photographer had to choose the subject, story, framing, lighting,
along with other photographic choices that could push an image to look partial
to what the photographer may want to document or show. I think it’s crucial for
people to remember that just because it exists in a photograph with a given
story, doesn’t always mean it’s true or that it encompasses the whole truth.
For advertising, I would also agree that society knows that ads are constructed
and that the connoted meaning on an ad has become second nature to us.
It
makes me wonder if there was no such thing as advertisements, would there still
be an emphasis on the symbol and cultural meaning of the object? For example,
if there were no ads about mobile phone technology would they still hold the
weight of being a symbol of wealth and status in Pakistan like the example in
Wells presented? Advertisements certainly play a huge role in showing the
public what they might not know they “want”, but they should “want”. The
repetition of advertisements continues to pushes that “want” and continues to
embed the connotations of that ad. If the person in the ad looks happier
because they have the latest phone, or technology, then the viewer is going to
assume that by having the latest technology, they can be cool or happy as well.
However, I think even if there weren’t such a thing as ads, it wouldn’t
necessarily take away the association between an object and its signifying
meaning. This is because as Willamson begins to point out they are “neither the
thing nor the meaning alone but the two together” (223). Essentially, I agree with that. Although ads
can more effectively get things advertised due to their nature, people have
become advertisements in themselves. Let me push the Pakistan mobile phone ad
example from the book further. If there was no such thing as an advertisement,
but people still saw wealthier people of status with mobile phones, the mobile
phone will still be associated with that meaning. Therefore what Williamson was saying about
the signifier being always associated with the meaning is true. Advertisements just make it easier for the
company to tailor their product to a specific audience through a specific
construction of an image. They construct everything in order to get the response
they are looking for.
This
reminds me of the use of colors in advertisements. McDonalds, for example, uses
yellow and red because it has been determined that those two colors together
trigger appetite as opposed to say blue and green. All of those details, down to even the color
palettes are constructed to push the consumer or viewer to think a certain way
or feel a certain way about their product.
Another
thing this reminds me of is shady and deceiving ads can be. We know ads are not
necessarily truth because they are constructed but we generally don’t want to
believe there would be a push for ads in foods, objects, etc that would harm us
or our health. For example, the way tobacco company used to operate. They would
use ads to make smoking seem cool, which enticed the viewer to then start
smoking. Truthfully, it was constructed to look cool, and maybe it did make a
person cool back then, however, now that person may face serious health
problems. It’s similar today in the sense, that there are millions of ads of
sugary foods and fast foods, but hardly any about eating healthy. A McDonalds ad won’t straight up tell the
viewer their food could cause obesity, heart disease, and diabetes down the
road if it is consumed consistently (although a lot of ads do implement tiny
text or faster pace audio if it is a television ad). Instead, the ad will showcase, say the big
mac, super sized fries, and supersized coke to show you that you have to have
it. Ads are constructed for profit, whether they tell the complete truth, or
part of the truth to get the consumer to buy their product whatever it may be.
It is clear that ads are everywhere in our day-to-day lifestyle and without a
doubt they do influence where we spend our money.
I
don’t necessarily think it is bad that advertisements are constructed to
persuade us to think one way or another. However, I do think it is important
for people to remember that that is their function; an ad is going to make the
target viewer want the product. I think it is important to remember what the ad
might make the viewer think they want, might not be what they need and just
because they eat or buy a certain product doesn’t result in them becoming as
strong as Tony the Tiger, or as “hot” as the next Abercrombie model wearing the
same clothing that you just bought.
2 comments:
I agree with your points Cat, and your response made me think of one example in particular.
When you mentioned McDonalds, it made me think of a documentary I had seen recently called "Fed Up". It detailed the junk food industry, and specifically advertisements geared to children. Full viewer recognition of what the true purpose of a advertisement is is necessary (as you pointed out), but a child is not capable of this. In the case of junk food advertising to children, there is only so much a parent can do to shelter their kids from the constant bombardment of images they see on a daily basis. For this case in particular, when marketing to children, I think a certain threshold of right and wrong needs to be held up to companies. The childhood obesity epidemic in America serves as proof that it is a problem. It stems from a lot of other causes, but advertising plays a huge role.
Cat, I think you made a good point when you talked about how even without advertisements we make associations of class, wealth, and "coolness" with objects and products. I feel that it is human nature to compare ourselves and constantly strive to uphold our image, so naturally photography supports this way of thinking. It is important to consider the camera as a tool of communication and remember there is a voice and opinion behind it.
Post a Comment