RA # 3

RA # 3

My topic is regarding the Dove Ad commercial, which is a response to other competitive companies such as Jergen’s and Olay, that do not show “true beauty” on their commercials.  Due to my interest in advertising companies, I thought that the specificity of the Dove Ad would be a great topic to conduct my research project on, considering that this particular Dove Ad is a response to its other competing skin care companies which include, but are not limited to Jergen’s and Olay.  My question to the sample size of 50 people that I would conduct my research on would be:  After viewing this ad, are you more hesitant to buy skin care products other than Dove?  There already is existing literature on the Dove Ad campaign, both criticizing it and supporting it.  I would like to submit my research project in the format of being a worker for the competing company of Dove, and address what my research has found, and how our company should revamp our “ad campaign”.

Hypothesis:  I am arguing that ad companies are going to loose money for the release of this dove ad commercial, and that once people see the dove ad, they will be more hesitant to buy the competing skin care lines of Jergen’s and  Nivea, because the Dove ad commercial is “outing” these companies for air brushing models skin, and creating a “false image” of what is real.  For example, Nivea’s false promise of getting rid of unwanted cellulite from their “miracle cream”, or Jergen’s false promise of a young and tan healthy glow that can hide the presence of wrinkles or acne. 

Plan of Action:  I would show the ad to only women, because these advertising companies are addressing their commercials to only women.  I want the sample size to be unbiased, in the sense that I incorporate women of all races, and have the age range be between 14 and 60.  Because all three of these companies are trying to sell products that eliminate acne and wrinkles, or other various signs of aging and cellulite problems, the age group is going to be wide, but will not include young girls or very old women, because these ad companies do not target those very young and old age groups. 

Method:  I will show the dove ad commercial to my sample size, and then show them the ad commercials of Jergen’s and Nivea, and ask them which skin care line they were most inclined to buy.  Before showing them the ad, I will also ask what skin care line, if any, that they used before.  I will let them know that all three ads were released around the same time :January of 2009.  All three ads are relative competitively, because each ad was released during the same month and year, which shows how Dove responded to previous ad campaigns of Jergen’s and Nivea, trying to make a “less bad” commercial.   The survey will be on paper, but I will pull up all 3 ads on youtube, that aired on TV, starting on the month of January 2009.

Results Summary:  The results will be in the form of a graph, which will visually show how these women responded.  It will be easy to understand, and will show the correlation of how the sample size responded to the competing skin care lines of Jergen’s and Nivea, after they saw the Dove ad commercial in comparison to the other two skin companies advertisements.   

Conclusion:  The results mean that the Skin Care Companies will need to respond to this dove ad commercial if my hypothesis is correct.  For example, Nivea and Jergen’s can revamp their ad campaigns by using the idea of persuasion and skepticism to work in tandem against dove so advertising can do its job in a competitive market; therefore, ads represent the seller’s self-interest due to the unremitting consumer interest in health: “We want healthy girls”.  There is overwhelming evidence that unregulated economic sources dictate that much useful information will be provided by and ONLY brand advertising.  Using this fact, Jergen’s and Nivea can generate a great deal of information in a few words, responding to the Dove ad campaign.  For example, changing the commercials for the goodness of healthy girls and positive and realistic body image commercials through informational sparseness: We can promote healthyness and real beauty AND still hire naturally skinny and flawless skin models that might be one percent of the population, but they are still real and beautiful none the less.  The bottom line is that these companies just have to be more careful on the models that they choose, and careful not to use airbrushing and drastic touch ups.  Viewer’s natural emotional desires will STILL want to look like that, even though most people do not, and we can also call out other name brand skin care advertising that have not changed their commercials in response to the dove ad, and still have commercials that facilitate that “fake” and “unreal” woman on their commercials.  In conclusion, it will refute the naïve idea that advertising will only emphasize the seller’s virtues.

Do Video Games Encourage Violent Behavior

       This particular reading assignment was shorter than usual and the "yes" and "no" arguments were similar in the sense that its arguments tried to "debunk" the common myths about video games.  The arguments on each side were more opinionated rather than purely primary source related.  In other words, they were more like a meta-study; a study of studies that consits of looking at studies already done, and coming to conclusions about them.  The arguments were secondary sourced opinons that really did not help readers gain insight on the issue at hand because both sides were using the same material!  For example, on pg. 99 the author did not even reference his statistics!  Basically, I was hesitant to take a side because both sides were very biased and used invalid info; just opinions. 
       I am curious to understand why the author of our textbook used these writing pieces for this topic.  My best guess for these writing pieces being selected would be due to the fact that there are too many varialbes with videogames to make a conclusive and valid study.  With that being said, perhaps the authors of our textbook could not find solid articles writing for or against videogames encouraging violent behavior. 
       However, before and after reading this piece I firmly believe that video games do in fact encourage violent behavior.  Even though my belief is based on mere opinion, I do not really have a lot to go off of, considering both of the stances on videogames in this textbook were merely only opinions as well!

Is Advertising Good for Society? p. 129

Is Advertising Good For Society?

       John Calfee argues that advertising is good for society, in the sense that advertisements offer basic information, that can serve the audiences in an unbiased way, so that they can become better educated about pressing issues at hand.  Dinyar Godrej argues that advertising is bad for society on the premise that advertising does not tell us anything about new products, instead it acts upon our emotions in many ways; creating anxiety and culturally and politically shifiting our society in ways we thought advertising never could. 

       John Calfee's main point is that advertising can benefit consumers!  Drawing on various examples from tobacco companies and kellogg's all bran advertising initiavitve, he points out that ad campaigns can function for the public's interest.  The persuasion and skepticism of the audience provides a natural environment for a competitive market that allows consumers and competitiors to borrow information for their own purposes.  In addition, Calfee points out that advertising can use additional information from outside sources, which further endorses his point that audiences are getting more infomration out advertisements, rather than big corporation companies trying to blatantly sell their product.  Advertsing companies are now using an increase in independent information.  Thirdly, he aruges that advertising can be a pervasive phenomenon that can benefit our society at large- extending beyond the interests of the advertisers themselves.  He gives the example of advertising for soap and toothpaste; which has dramatically improved our public hygeine and has prevented teeth from falling out.  Calfee comes to the conclusion that these health problems were alleviated by the advertisers themselves, and that there is overwhelming evidence that unregulated deconomic foreces dictate that much useful information will be provided by brand advertsing and ONLY brand advertising.  Fourthly, he aruges that competition makes advertising and context vague yet precise, in the sense that advertisers have the great ability to communicate so much  in only a few words.  Again, Calfee draws upon examples deep from the past, citing VW beetle's ad campaign during the fuel crisi of the 70's "Think Fast".  Advertising and context also relies on information from other soucres and informational sparity when dealing with competitors, yet competition in and of itself, provides audiences with more information than the actual selling of the advertiser's product.  Finally, Calfee calls on "less bad advertising", to bring attention to audiences the notable faults of their product; however, the ad companies are doing this for a reason!  Nonetheless, Calfee points it out as another way to be more informed in society.

       Dinyar Godrej says that advertising has started to rob our souls with the disproportionate corporate power due to people getting smart about commercials "fraudulent claims".  Advertising companies our now playing on our evolutionary wired brains; they are after our emotion!  For example, companies use images to engage us in our wildest fantasies and dreams; creating a sociological emergency where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.  The companies, draw on emotion and anxiety to convince you that you NEED to buy the product now.  Much effort is now being placed in neuromarketing, to channel our emotions, and our brain to buy the product.  We as an audience, might not buy the product at that second, but subconsciously, it has been implanted in our head that we NEED certain things, when in reality, we might not actually need them.  Therefore, Godrej says that our biggest tool against these corporation-owned companies is a constant reality check.  In addition to these companies bombarding our brain with bias and unnecessary information, the companies are changing the culture we are apart of; affecting how NewsPapers and TV show's such as CNN are run.  One study found that 40 percent of the 'news' content of a typlical newspaper originated in press releases, story memos and suggestions from PR companies.  Godrej further argues that she is "further tired" by the ad comapnies consistenly conservative values, when they know about the social, economic, and environmental issues at hand, and their deciseveness to "dismiss" them regardless...  For example, even though McDonald's food is helping to increase the obesity and diabete's epedemic in the world, they try to cover up these statistics by creating Ronald McDonald houses, which accoomadate families with sick children.  McDonald's did not just want to create Ronald McDonald houses, rather this was all apart of their campaign to scheme audiences to eat their food. 

       Personally, after reading both positions and analyzing the pre and post script on the issue, I feel that advertising can be good for society, but is not.  In this day of age, we have to critically analyze the issues of corporate power, mind control, deceptive advertsing, and creating desire and emotion for people to buy things that they really do not need.  And even after knowing that the ad industires know about all of these issues, the ad industry has responded by creating "quick problem-solvers" to what their ad's have created!  Perhaps they do this so that they themselves can police and dictate their own industries, rather than accepting regulation from the outside world.  Even though advertising can be a good thing and give information and benefits to society, it has done the opposite.  I personally feel that the bad has outweighed the good in this particular issue, changing how culture, society and politics are run!  However, the biggest tool we have against the ad industry is just keeping oneself in check with reality.  That is the the most helpful advicee I gleaned from reading this particular issue.