Post 10: Mitt Shyamalan (M. Night Romney)

The Onion News Network jokingly calls it War for the White House. It's tongue-in-cheek, but is coming closer and closer to reality. Video and television campaigns sponsored by presidential candidates are more of a competition of whose video can slander the opponent the most. This particular ad in support of Mitt Romney does provide facts about Obama's faults, but it is the production of the video that really drives his point home. At the beginning of the video, Obama is giving a speech in Denver; strangely enough, I wasn't paying attention to what he was saying. This is because in the background, the cinematic music overshadows everything he says. Imagine every shocking movie trailer (M. Night Shyamalan especially) - the thundering drums, the slowly-rising synthetic sound that chills your spine and forces you to anticipate a horrible climax, the fast-paced percussion after the climactic point. All of these are better suited to the unsuccessful film The Happening than a Mitt Romney support ad.

At one point, I went back and listened only for what Mr. Obama had to say. What I heard was astonishingly positive. He talks about democrats having a different view of progress, that they "measure progress by how many people can find a job that pays the mortgage. Whether you can put a little extra money away at the end of each month so you can someday watch your child receive her college diploma." What about this relates to chaotic tension that one would find in a thrilling film? I understand that Romney and his staff are trying to show that Obama is not living up to his promises, but the music is more fit for the actual facts than what Obama promised. In general, the ad is really trying to pose Obama as a tyrant, an antagonist, a deceiver. There is a bit of transfer/association used by showing images of North Carolina, probably to make residents feel sentimental towards their state. The images are coupled with the gestalt of rapid motion and frame changes, creating unanswered questions, like "what happens next?" or "what can we do to stop this bad man?" The writers assume you can make the connection between cinematic cliches and politics, but the message is a bit lost.

After the rising action, the ad tries to win the audience over with some facts and figures regarding Obama's failure to make his promises, specifically in North Carolina. It mentions that N.C. is where Obama and friends will be having their next meeting; the ad is most likely directed towards voters in that state. The ad makes a case that Obama has wronged North Carolina, with facts showing the state's bad conditions. But like in every other political ad, there is no evidence to show that Obama is the cause of these bad trends. It could very well be fallout from Bush's ineffective presidency; there is no way to tell with no information.

The final message on the screen is OBAMA ISN'T WORKING.COM; below that are the words "Paid for by Romney for President, Inc." I'm sorry Romney, but if you are trying to appeal the working class, one of the worst things you could do is make your campaign into a corporation. And what's with the 19th century image of people waiting behind an unemployment sign? I don't care whether Grover Cleveland's citizens were unemployed; I would much rather talk about the present. In addition, your color scheme needs work. If you're going for "American," the country wants red, white, and blue, not red, grey, and aquamarine. Just a few suggestions.

Post 9: And Now for Some Music

Very rarely has a short music video gotten an emotional reaction out of me. Cage the Elephant's video for their song "Aberdeen" is an exception. I started listening to this song on the radio a while ago; it really caught my attention and I was instantly drawn to it. The thing that reeled me in the most were the vocals; namely, the emotional and hesitant way they were sung. In practically 99% of professional songs and music videos, the vocals are perfected so that there is no fault or error. Lead singer Matt Shultz contradicts this trend with his many emotional pauses and stutters, giving the song a genuine quality that evokes sympathy from the listener. The vocals are supplemented by a major chord progression that transitions into a darker, minor bridge (in other words, the song goes from innocent to dark through the tone of the music). I probably would have liked the song regardless of the vocal quality, but it made the song much more unique and heartfelt.

As for the lyrics, they are pretty hard to dissect. What I was getting while listening to this song was that the writer is coming to terms with his bad qualities. He is aware of some sort of sinful behavior, but is caught in it and can't escape. This idea is reverberated in the lyrics "Never saw my dark side," and "Saw the flame tasted sin." The "flame" leads me to believe that it could be his drug use/abuse. And the lines "I've been tryin' real hard / To realize / But somethings take a long long / Long long time"give me the feeling that it's something he's been doing for a while, but has not yet realized that it's bad. Now, after doing a little research, I found out that the name "Aberdeen" may refer to Kurt Cobain's home town in Washington. That puts a bit of a spin on things, as now the lyrics could be from Cobain's point of view, lamenting on his own drug use (that eventually led to his death). The town of Aberdeen could have led to his turn to drugs. Or perhaps (and I'm going out on a limb with this one), the song is referring to the writer's admiration of Cobain, also leading to sinful behavior.

On to the video--my favorite part. The song itself got me shivering a bit from the emotional tone. But the music video really put me over the edge. I mean, it's really sad. The entire video is a claymation (more playdough, to be precise), stop-motion video about a large monster and his interactions with people. It becomes evident that all the monster wants to do is become friends with the humans, as he has no friends of his own. But all of this turns for the worst when the clumsy monster accidentally kills a few humans due to its size and strength. The playdough and bright dragon character give the feeling of innocence, but there is also violence and clay gore, giving an air of black comedy that unsettled me. At the end, the army of clay humans fires missiles upon the monster, violently ripping it apart. In the final scene, the commander looks at a sculpture the dragon made depicting its intended friendship with humans. The whole idea of the video is that the subject is misunderstood as this destructive monster, but is actually seeking friendship and compassion. This relates to the lyrics in a way; the writer is misunderstood because of his sinful actions, which are all anyone sees. In reality, he is innocent, and is just being badly affected by an addiction or temptation. Paired with the child-like animation, the message had huge sentimental quality; I felt more sympathy for a playdough dragon than any other character I've seen in a while.

Essentially, the fact that the alternative genre is circulated mostly through the radio and iTunes shows that this song is directed towards young people who already listen to stations that feature their music. The jarring vocal characteristics and video caught my attention, and are meant to do just so. I would vouch that this song exemplifies gestalt, simply because of the vocal pauses and stutters that are unusual because they are not common in mainstream music. But overall, I just really love this song. It is a breath of fresh air from those heavily-altered songs that top the charts today; the singer gives the feeling that he really cares about what he is singing, or that he really is the character he is truing to portray. In fact, a lot of Cage the Elephant's music is very unique and worth listening to. I urge you to check them out.

Post 8: The Other Black and Yellow

It's true that we will never prevent ourselves from falling into the pit of advertising and consumerism. Companies and advertisers trick us, play to our subconscious impulses, force us to buy things. For example, Nike has driven its superiority into our minds so that every man, woman, and child can recognize its brand over any other. How can it repay us for its aggressive marketing campaigns? Cyclist Lance Armstrong found a way. Let profits from sales go to a cause. A good one. Something that can make a difference in the world. Lance has touched upon one of the most tragic diseases we know today. And by using his authority as a national sport icon, he has worked with Nike towards raising money for his foundation. True, Nike gets profit out of this. But either way, their cooperation has the power to change lives.

It's a powerful idea. Practically trademark a color scheme. Make it your own. Advertise it to both athletes and activists. And, most importantly, get a multimillion dollar conglomerate on board. Millions of people have purchased Livestrong (Lance's trademark) products. That is a significant amount of money going towards the foundation. People that would normally not donate money are doing so through their interest in athletic performance and color-coordination. This sort of cooperation is a perfect plan to get more support for important foundations. The way I see it, Nike has way too much money. And if they are not going to pay their overseas workers any more for production, they should at least give away some of their profit. I think every color scheme should have a foundation attached to it. Not only would the previous consumers be giving money, but the people who were too guilty about buying Nike products would be more likely to buy the product to support the cause as well. It's a win-win situation. And it is making lives better.

The moral of this partnership is: learn from Lance Armstrong. True, Nike is doing a bit of good, but it is the actions of this athlete that really matter. He took his battle with cancer and turned it into a cause. To overcome hardship is one thing; to work hard to help others overcome their own hardship is another, more admirable thing. If we want to progress as a society, we must remain focused on the issues of everyone.

Post 7: Panda Cheese

Let me start off by saying this is the first Egyptian product I've seen an advertisement for. It is also one of the most bizarre and menacing. Needless to say, I found it on YouTube after looking for foreign commercials; and though it is strange, it still uses the same techniques as commercials in the US.

Watch any one of the Panda cheese commercials, and you'll see a few sad-looking people declining an offer for the cheese. Then enters a sweet-looking panda. He is still and proceeds to stare at the person/people who would not take the cheese. This gets very creepy, very fast. The camera angle switches from the cute panda's face to its whole body, which slouches menacingly over the victim. His short, stout body resembles a hulking, angry human - one who looks like they could really hurt you. After a while, the panda grabs the nearest object and destroys it, either by throwing to the ground or smashing it. In one, he screws up a cook's meal; in another, he rips out a sick man's IV. Clearly, the panda does not mess around. One advertising technique Panda uses is Wit and Humor - some may watch the commercials and laugh at the cruel acts of the Panda. For me, on the other hand, it was completely a frontal Gestalt attack. The slow, romantic music in the background is unusual compared to the disturbing footage of a panda threatening innocent people. The threat itself did not sell the product for me. The commercial made a lasting impression in my mind, and now I am very curious as to what the product is like is it has such a strange campaign. The Gestalt aspect raises many questions for me, most prominently: what did I just watch? It's completely an appeal to the need to satisfy curiosity. It could also appeal to the need for safety, because no one wants to be attacked by a panda. Now I really want to try the cheese; too bad I don't live in Egypt.

As for assumptions, these commercials make a few: men are more likely to buy cheese/use it; people like pandas, therefore a menacing panda will be a contradiction; people who do not enjoy a quality cheese like Panda are boring (lifestyles depicted were drab and depressing). A fallacy in reasoning was Begging the Question - you should buy Panda cheese because nobody says no to Panda cheese. Another could be a minor, comical Slippery Slope fallacy - if you do not buy Panda cheese, you will be hunted down by a Panda (and even killed, as suggested in the hospital scene). 

Overall, the bizarre commercial caught my attention and now is a topic of humor for me. Sometimes I see potential applications of the Panda scene in real life. Most of all, I want to find this Panda cheese and see what it's all about. And I'm not just saying that to appease this Panda staring over my shoulder. Go and buy Panda, cheese guys! Seriously, you need to! Please Help Me, someone get he----

Post 6: iPaidNothing

Call me crazy, but I'm really contemplating going through with one of these reward registrations. What could go wrong? It looks pretty convincing, and that isn't the only factor. I could completely accept the fact that I would need to sign up for a bunch of discount offers - the iPad and iPhone would definitely make up for any survey or offer I have to fill out. I think the only reason I'm hesitant is the possibilities of what it could lead to? If surveys and discount offers are as trivial as they sound, how could they pay for the free Apple products being given away. There has to be a catch. The signups clearly are more interested in getting your information for their records than helping you get a good deal on limited-addition knife sets. And I don't want them to have that kind of information about me (address, phone number, personal consumer information). Through watching the Frontline program "The Persuaders," I found out that websites take your information and sell it to marketers and campaign managers. These groups then can target you directly as an individual with advertising and political messages. It seems like if advertisers have that much information about me, then I have no control to defend myself from falling prey to their tactics. Maybe the iPad isn't worth it after all...then again, does a small sacrifice like that really rival a $500 value?

That aside, I also realized how tricky these reward websites are. This particular page (GadgetsBonus.com) has absolutely no affiliation with the Apple company or iPad distributors, yet I am almost convinced that it is. That is because of the design and layout of the page. Notice the slate-grey background and the neat, modern font. Is it me, or do these very closely resemble the iOS design of all Macs, iPods, iPhones, and iPads? Also, notice the high-resolution photo of a small girl. These kinds of images are found in nearly every iPhone ad on TV. Before I got to this screen, the "Congratulations" area was replaced with a small survey that wanted to know if I qualified for the free iPad. But the only questions were "what is your gender?," "how old are you?," and "how often do you use Facebook?" I personally think that any combination of answers would lead to the same "you qualify" response. The website simply uses this to appeal to our need for autonomy. We want to feel special and distinguished, and GadgetsBonus congratulates us for being special and qualifying for a prize. It is hard to notice, but very effective.

One of these days, I might sign up to get something free of charge. Even if I know that I am becoming a pawn of marketers; I just want to test it out. The biggest question I have is whether I would really get an iPad when all is said and done. For know, I can't say.

Post 5: Sarah Mclachlan's ASPCA

I'll admit straight away that a commercial can easily make me tear up. It just needs a Sarah McLachlan soundtrack and three or more pictures of animals. They don't even have to be abused animals; though it does increase the effect tenfold. In these ways, the ASPCA has me feeling like the worst person in the world every time I see their commercial. It's the type of media experience that moves me to make a change in my life.I never do, but I keep telling myself that as soon as I get my first paycheck over an annual 60,000, I will pledge to the ASPCA. I know that it's the right thing to do because so many people either do not have the time or do not feel the need. But the only reason I am persuaded to act on this serious issue is a song and some pictures.

First of all, I'll talk about Ms. McLachlan. She has a great voice, and it is always accompanied by a single, quiet piano. The song "Angel" that they always use is very sad (depressing, even). You get the feeling that it is about death and loss even without listening to the lyrics. It reenforces the big message: that animals can be hurt just as much as we can, and that we have to treat them with compassion too. It even suggests that there is a dog/cat heaven; this makes me believe she is appealing to Christian people. That makes sense; more than 75% of Americans are Protestant or Catholic. But a sad song has the power to transcend faith, and it can affect all sorts of people.

The other cause for my emotional reaction to the ASPCA commercial is the slew of animal close-up pictures. I guess it's really only dogs and cats that they show. This makes me think that they hand-pick their animals based on potential emotional response. I doubt you'd be as likely to cry if you saw a close-up picture of a goldfish; bigger pets are more easily used to showcase injuries and teary eyes. Take this dog for example:

Now compare it to this sad-looking parakeet:

I think the difference is pretty objective - the dog has the more human-like physical qualities, so it can show off its emotion more. This gives us the desire to care for it like a child. The ASPCA is directly appealing to our emotional need to nurture. The fact that the individuals being nurtured are animals allows this need to apply to anyone, not just mothers. And they make sure to include all types of dogs and cats to appeal to all types of people.


I'm glad I saw this commercial; it has informed me about the very important issue of animal cruelty. And I promise myself I will donate money when I have enough. But now that I know, I really don't want to see these commercials. They just remind me that I haven't helped yet, and that my inability to donate could result in the loss of more innocent animals. And they bring tears to my eyes almost every time; it can kind of ruin my day.

Post 4: Your Discount Starts Here

 

I was at Sac State today for an academic competition when I passed by their campus bookstore. In huge print larger than the name of the building read, "Welcome to Sac State. Your Apple Education Discount Begins Here." So, that's it then. Companies have started infiltrating education, trying to make their products a necessity. You obviously don't need own a Mac to pass any course from communications to quantum physics, so why take that approach in marketing? Well, the fallacies present are overwhelmed by our own self-indulgence.

There is a hidden analogy present that I have some faults with. True, you may get a discount on an apple computer, but how does this have anything to do with education? You could even get by without your own computer in college (probably not anymore, but still). So, no matter what, investing in an Apple product that costs upwards of $600 is in no way a discount even if you get $50 off. People these days still seem to fall for the "discount" trick. We justify our large purchases by claiming we are saving money. We use an equivocation of the term "saving" to show that the money we spent is less than the money we "could" have spent. But this is a huge hypothetical situation. You could also say that you "could" have bought nothing at all, and realize that the true definition of "saving" is NOT spending money.

The second trick behind Apple's introduction at Sac State is use of flagrant assumptions. Apple wants us to assume that Apple products are necessities for education today. Saying "Your Apple Education Discount Begins Here," implies that you are obviously going to use Apple to get an advantage in education; you just need to know where to start. Tying in to this is the assumption that Apple products, specifically the Mac and the iPad, will give you any advantage or assistance in your education. Compared to Windows computers, Mac's biggest advantage is aesthetic, which does not factor into your education in the slightest. What it does do is force us to lie to ourselves. By nature, we Americans believe we have the right, as members of a capitalist society, to pursue products that are bigger, better, faster, or stronger. We hide these desires and use excuses such as necessity to justify them, but they are always present. Even I'll admit that I would love the idea of getting a new MacBook Pro for college at a discount no matter how useful it really is. In fact, the childish fascination I have for aesthetically-pleasing and organized technology plays a big factor in my desire to own a Mac. But if you ask me, I'd probably claim the computer would help me organize my school work and visualize projects.

The biggest lesson here is not to buy products just because you feel like you need them. Evaluate products based on actual utility rather than false necessity or popularity. Maybe it can help you stay a step ahead of everyone else.

Post 3: Meta-advertising?

What if someone were to tell you that companies were stealing sponsorships out of you? That you are, in a way, serving the same purpose as Kobe Bryant or (formerly) Tiger Woods to companies, but without the millions of dollars in profit that ends up in their pockets? Because of a recent move, I've been offline for about a week, which has given me time to focus on real-time marketing, and boy has it got me thinking. Personally I would be asking for my cut (only several hundreds of thousands is enough), but the way advertisers do it tricks us every time. It's a little scheme I like to call "meta-advertising," and now that society is so flooded with it, there is practically no way out.

Think about the big name brands of clothing, especially shoes. Nike, Vans, Adidas. The supposed appeal for us consumers is the quality or aesthetic of the product. But these big companies have reeled us in by creating a vicious cycle of advertising - when you buy the product and wear it, you are, in turn, re-advertising the same product. The technique some have perfected and some are struggling with is the application of a symbol, or something you can tag the product with so that the general public will notice. Nike has got it down; the swoosh symbol is integrated into the design of their clothing and shoes, so that it adds appeal in and of itself. In fact, 90% of the shoes you see have a noticeable tag to identify them. The three stripes for Adidas. The New Balance N. Some do it discreetly: the identifiable icons on the back of Vans and Converse. We often think it's just part of the appeal of the product. But what it really is is a way for companies to use the consumer to sell their product.

When you are walking down the street and see someone wearing a pair of shoes that interest you, you generally don't the time or initiative to ask them where they got them. There was no noticeable logo, so when you get to the local mall, you have no way to search for the shoe store or describe the shoe effectively to someone else. After this defeat, you return home and try looking online for the shoes you want; but this could take hours, and you are beginning to forget why you liked the shoe in the first place. Now consider Nike. As soon as you see the the large swoosh that engulfs the shoe, you know instantly what brand of shoe it is. And with so many stores and ways to buy online, you end up with the shoes in your closet and a lighter wallet.

How did Nike work this scheme so well, so that even five-year-olds can recognize brand-names more easily than they can recite the numbers 1-10? They've essentially made the logo a part of the world as we know it. On billboards everywhere, your attention is always drawn to the logo. We've been conditioned to see this logo and connect it with Nike, and to connect Nike with prestige, athleticism, and superiority. We also know that Nike changes their line frequently to continually get more advanced, and so we believe their is no brand more current than Nike. Everything we buy from Nike will be top-of-the-line, ahead-of-the-game, cream-of-the-crop (so as to cross generations). This may not necessarily be true, but these are the beliefs evoked by noticing the swoosh symbol.

So the next time you lace up a new pair of Converse, or zip up a jacket with three white stripes on the arms, know that you are helping to bring a multimillion dollar company to the masses. You are voluntarily showing off a product to the world, one they will most likely see more often than anything Kobe's contract tells him to wear. The only difference is that you're doing it for free.

Post 2: The Immoral Protagonist

We've all seen at least one. On television, in movies. Perhaps some of the most popular shows today feature characters that are far from righteous, kind protagonists or heroes. Some do very bad things for supposedly good reasons. Others find themselves in trouble for following horrible, almost nonexistent ethical codes. Either way, many people find themselves addicted these shows. I'll admit that I am too.

But what is it about the poor choices of the characters that intrigue us? From the way I see it, the shows act as a sort of escape. One of my favorite shows, Dexter, revolves around a character that constantly kills others in the name of justice. I can tell it's not Dexter's (the main character's) good intentions that draw me to the show; I find myself uninterested with CSI or Law and Order. Instead, I think producers play off of the cautious, orderly, and monotonous nature of day-today life for many viewers. Murder is immoral and illegal in our society (as well it should be), but of course this creates a curiosity in many people of what it would be like in another world. A television show is almost a perfect substitute, allowing us to live out crazy events without actually having to partake in them (let me reiterate that murder is morally, legally, and universally WRONG). Besides, would you rather watch an hour-long account of a day job in a science classroom, or an hour-long thriller about a teacher who spends their time making methamphetamine and dealing with drug cartels (the plot of academy award-winning show Breaking Bad)? Would you rather watch a man analyze blood patterns or take vengeance for his wife's death with a syringe and a dozen sinister-looking knives? By watching a couple of episodes of Dexter, I can essentially pretend to be a violent, vigilante blood-spatter analyst who has some pretty bad*ss lines. In this way, the producers have me hooked.

Often, TV programs use immorality as a form of comedy. Most of us have heard of or watched the widely-successful sitcom Seinfeld. The four protagonists in this comedy partake in questionable actions, often lying and bending the rules to get what they want. This always leads to tragedy on their behalf, something we can laugh at because their poor decisions make it acceptable (the "they deserved it" complex). Shows like Seinfeld with multiple immoral characters will usually use the poor choices of one character to wrong another character, who in turn will return with a worse action. Often, the spiraling of their fortunes causes unrealistic situations to come about, further adding to the humor. Seinfeld is nearly fifteen years old now, but in terms of the use of immoral protagonists, it is fairly new. Remember Leave it to Beaver? I Love Lucy? The one-panel comic strip Dennis the Menace? They all became popular because of the antics of the main character.

Nowadays, this comical application is used very often. Watch Comedy Central for an hour or two and you are sure to stumble upon a few characters who are breaking multiple laws and ethical codes. It's Always Sunny, South Park, and Workaholics are just a few of the many. I think producers also play on this genre because it makes viewers feel good about themselves. It must be satisfying to reassure yourself that you are far from the violent, immoral, promiscuous, and often criminally insane characters that appear in today's leading shows. I'm glad I don't drink excessive amounts of alcohol, assault the innocent, or fill my reality with lies. I can see what it's doing to these characters, and it's not good.

Although I will say it's incredibly fulfilling to watch.

If you have any favorite shows with unethical characters, feel free to post them in a comment below. Thanks!