Week Four EOC -- Smoking Advertisement

In 1952 Reader’s Digest published an article stating that smoking was bad for ones health.  This was a shock to the millions of Americans who already enjoyed smoking and had for many years.  After all, the US Government put cigarettes in soldiers cases during the war, which undoubtedly got many of the men on the force addicted to the cigarettes in the first place.  After this article came out, the tobacco industry had to start finding new and creative ways to sell their product and suggest that cigarettes were not bad or not that bad for the individuals who enjoyed them.  Lucky Strike cigarettes were one of the first companies to realize this and use a  new type of ad campaign.  In this particular ad there is a depiction of a doctor who states on behalf of 20,679 other physicians that Lucky Strikes are less irritating to the throat.  This type of reassurance from so many doctors was bound to ease the minds of some consumers, it gave them a reason to buy Lucky Strikes if they weren’t already, they were less bad for them as some of the other available brands.  The ad is targeting all those consumers who already smoke, and specifically those who do not smoke Lucky Strike and are concerned about the health effects that smoking will have but are still unable to quit their habit.  But there is also a second type of consumer that they are going for in this ad.  It may seem simple and inconsequential but this was a new thought in the 50s, Lucky Strike came up with a slogan.  No longer would say that there cigarettes were the best because they thought they were, they were the best because they were toasted.  Lucky Strike capitalized on the fact that the general populous may not know that in fact every brand of cigarettes have toasted tobacco inside.  If a consumer were not swayed by the possible health benefits of Lucky Strikes (or in fact just didn’t care) the cigarettes were still set apart from all of their other competitors because they had something special the others did not, they were toasted. (Photo courtesy of  Go Retro)

Week Two EOC -- Ethics in Advertising

Ads that are controversial always keep people’s attention.  They get noticed, talked about, and viewed by many more people than who would have seen it normally.  The first ad that I chose that shows questionable ethics is an ad that was run by Sisley a few years ago.  The ad which is catchy and interesting is also very controversial.  The ad depicts two girls who are fashion junkies ‘snorting’ a white dress from the company.  This would be a great way to sell their clothing to a young, fashion conscious customer.  They will look at the ad and understand the irony of the girl junkies.  However this is exactly where the ethics of the ad come into questioning.  Most young viewers of the ad will understand that the dress is a replacement for cocaine, down to its white color and thin straps perfectly depicting a line.  While the ad is clever and caught viewers’ attention (and while I believe that most viewers are smart enough to not go out and use cocaine after viewing the ad) should advertisers really promote, even in a disguised way, the use of illegal substances? (AdRants)

Everyone knows the adage ‘sex sells,’ and that is true.  After all, stereotypes and phrases such as this only come about because in general they seem to be true.  No matter where we look we are constantly visually accosted with images of girls and men trying to sell us a product through a sexual means.  There is something to this; it’s probably one of the easiest ways to catch a person’s attention in this day and age where we are constantly bombarded.  Walking down the street I would stop if I see an image of a gorgeous man trying to sell me the new Tom Ford cologne.  But at which point should advertisers stop and think about when it is too much.  Many fashion companies have been under the bullet about their sexualization of models in their ads, Dolce and Gabbana, Tom Ford, and American Apparel to name a few.  At which point are you no longer selling a product?  In this ad for American Apparel the model is wearing a white t-shirt and boy’s style underwear.  Both of which are available at American Apparel, but I don’t know which one she is trying to sell me.  One only sees the highly sexualized image of a female and the American Apparel logo hidden in the bottom.  At what point are advertisers to blame for the mass sexualization of their ads?  The problem is that there are different levels of sexualiztion to everyone and therefore the question almost becomes moot. (AmericanApparelAds)

Another ethics that advertisers face is that of body image.  It is no secret that many Americans are overweight and obese.  While this is mostly due to the type of lifestyle they lead, one would be hard pressed to not hear about some type of weight controversy during the day.  This happened last fall when Ralph Lauren released images for his new ad campaign.  The ad which was run in Japan (where people are for the most part healthier than in America) depicts a model who is naturally thin photoshopped to appear even thinner.  She is almost unnaturally thin to the point that a person might have health concerns for being too underweight.  While mostly concerned in the field of fashion, body image is constantly being questioned.  Should only thin models be used, should they have a minimum weight?  This falls to advertisers as well who chose to use these thin models and Photoshop them to meet our society’s beauty ideals.  The problem here is that our society has created these ideals for both men and women and then complains when people who meet them are shoved in their faces.   Should advertisers be held responsible? (PZRservices)

Week Two BOC -- About Me

I am THE fashion enthusiast. I watch every runway show and salivate at the opportunity to produce them. With my business background I hope to run and operate my own fashion show production and PR company Haute Productions. I relish in the opportunity of being offered new challenges and creating exceptionally unique answers to those challenges. I offer design houses a new way of looking at the traditional runway show by turning the show into an all encompassing event including lighting, video, music, and food in order to make their show memorable in the minds of some of the greatest magazine editors in the world, but without compromising the design houses’ unique brand identity. Each year I also hope to partner closely with IMG to produce and help ensure that all the shows at the Mercedes Benz Fashion Week in New York as well as the others around the world are scheduled, planned, and completed successfully to the designer’s wishes as well as the company’s expectations.

Week One EOC -- Volkswagon Lemon

The Volkswagon ‘Lemon’ ads changed the face of advertising in the 60s.  Originally advertising was introduced in order to only inform a customer, come shop here this is what we have this is how much it costs.  Volkswagon was able to lead the way into a new area of advertising, the idea that an ad could be catchy, fun, and even poke fun at the company, making the consumers enjoy them and remember them more easily.  When the Beetle was first introduced in America many consumers were calling it a ‘lemon,’ a term which in the 60s meant that an item was of lesser quality than its counterparts.  Volkswagon ingenious idea was to take a picture of an actual ‘lemon’ from their production facility (an automobile that did not pass inspection) and tell why it would never be sold because of its blemished chrome on the glove compartment.  The best part of the ad is the actual copy which is frequently lost but reads:

             

The Volkswagen missed the boat. The chrome strip on the glove compartment is blemished and must be replaced. Chances are you wouldn't have noticed it; Inspector Kurt Kroner did. There are 3,389 men of our Wolfsburg factory with only one job; to inspect Volkswagens at each stage of production. (3,00 Volkswagens are produced daily; there are more inspectors than cars.) Every shock absorber is tested (spot checking won't do), every windshield is scanned. VWs have been rejected for surface scratches barely visible to the eye. Final inspection is really something! VW inspectors run each car off the line onto the Funktionsprüfstand (car test stand), tote up 189 check points, gun ahead to the automatic brake stand and say "no" to one VW out of fifty. This preoccupation with detail means the VW lasts longer and requires less maintenance, by and large, than other cars. (It also means a used VW depreciates less than any other car.) We pluck the lemons; you get the plums. (PowerWriting)

It is in this copy that the true meaning of the ad is shown.  Just looking at the ad one would first assume that in fact all Beetles are lemons because this particular Beetle looks to be in fine condition and the same as all the models being drove around by those ‘hippies.’  However upon reading the ad copy the consumer is shown in an actually very amusing tone that in fact not all Beetles are allowed to be sold and that if there is some defect in the car making it an actual ‘lemon’ then one of the 3,389 inspectors in Volkswagon’s plant probably saw the imperfection and threw that lemon to the damaged pile.  It was an ad that rather than just informing the public of what was being sold, it persuaded the audience that they should and perhaps needs to buy this ‘lemon.’