Advertising is...

Excuse me, this doesn't look like the picture on the box

Brands misrepresent, falsify, big up their products all the time. They're advertising to make it look good, you wouldn't buy it otherwise.

Hello? Are you paying attention?

Our attention span these days is so short, its a wonder people can even manage to stay awake in class (but not yours sir, they're always wonderful of course). But its a real problem. We're exposed to thousands to images and ads a day, its a miracle we can even take a second to realize what ad we're looking at. With this much advertising coming our way on a daily basis, is it corrupting our attention span even more? Or is it just not fascinating enough for us to focus on?

Personal experience when it comes to paying attention to anything is my first rule of "tl;dr", which literally means "too long, didn't read." If I see something that needs my attention but has a gigantic block of text on it, I will most likely ignore it. I just don't have the attention span to read through a whole bunch of copy and stay interested after a few lines. I feel like advertising is the same. We see so many ads in a day that we just ignore it was a daily part of day that we take for granted. Its just there, it will always be there and if it was really important enough we'd have paid attention to it. Advertising today is fighting to keep us interested, fighting to keep especially the younger generation, raised on technology and social media, interested. We're online daily and it takes our attention away from mainstream advertising. Brands today have to now use social media sites more than ever to keep our interest and use those sites as a means of advertising. Did you know "social media expert" is now a paying job title? Companies have to pay someone to keep up with social media trends and know-how technicalities so they can keep up with their consumers.

I could literally be getting paid to know how to use facebook effectively right now. Seriously, should I have picked "communications" as a course after all?

With our attention span now as small as 5 minutes, its no wonder that advertising is becoming less and less appreciated. Does that mean they have to increase their advertising and throw more ads our way? I don't think so. I think brands have to become more creative if they want to capture our attention and keep us interested in the product. On the other hand, could it be all the advertising already getting thrown at us thats decreased our attention span to so little? I also don't think thats the case. I think its the growing use of technology and the fact that its now mobile so it goes everywhere with is thats keeping our attention short. We're so interested in the online world that we just don't notice things outside of it anymore. So if brands want to stay relevant, they only have 5 minutes to do so.

Shockvertising

These days its hard for a brand to become recognizable. Most generic ads get lost in the sea of marketing and advertising the average consumer sees today. The solution some brands go for is using shockvertising - an advertising method that uses shocking and sometimes graphic imagery and messages to catch consumer attention. These ads range from a subtle message to full on graphic imagery that may make you want to throw up. The question, do brands need to resort to such methods to establish themselves? Does it work? Or are they just hurting themselves in trying to be household names?

When it works:

Using shockvertising is a great way for activist organizations to get their message across to a large audience. Many organizations ranging from drug abuse to animal abuse or human rights use shocking ads to capture people's attention and bring light to their cause. In their case they force the audience to think about the message, making a lasting impression on them.

Graphic Anti-Whaling Campaign

 



Battered Women Ad

'Humans for Animals' Graphic Anti Sea Clubbing Ad

 

In the case of these ad campaigns, shockvertising works very well. These organizations are trying to invoke an emotional response from the audience by using graphic and thought provoking scenarios. Their way of getting a message across is effective to the point that they may not make their brand recognizable but they are able to create an impression on people's minds about what their organization stand for or against, which si their ultimate goal.

 

When it kind of works:

 

Some brands will use shockvertising to sell a product. Usually that involves nudity (the case of most high fashion ads) or sexual references. Usually shockvertising in these ads aren't as graphic, but more so controversial. These ads try to bring out an emotional response as well, but in most cases its a negative or "oh my god did they actually do that!?" kind of response. And in most cases of high fashion ads its perfectly ok with the brands to be seen as negatively or controversial. They're trying to look edgy and cool and sexy, so these ad campaigns often involve shock material that relates to sex.

 



Terry Richardson Watch Campaign

Tom Ford Eyewear Ads

Belvedere Vodka Ad

 

In these cases they're using sexually explicit material to sell their product. They're associating their brands with sex and fun and being edgy. This is the look they want their brands to represent, and the market they're targetting has an appeal for this, so it works out.

 

When they kind of miss the point. Sometimes completely:

 

Sometimes you see ads that use shockvertising but they completely confuse the audience into going "what am I even looking at? what the f*** is this? are they stupid?". Some brands take a chance with shockvertising and miss their mark completely, sometimes resulting in their brands being put in a negative light. This is when they really should have done some market research and got someone to re-evaluate their ad campaigns.

 

I'm not sure what they're trying to sell but there's insects all over the place and ew.



 

Magazine cover. Just why. How is this relevant to anything? I don't understand!?

Next time when you're trying to sell accesories, try not alienating 50% of your audience by portraying women as shoe racks.

 

Also try not using a reference to AIDS when selling handbags. Not only is it completely irrelevant, its also kinda offensive because thats sensitive subject material.

 

 

So basically, shockvertising to me is an effective advertising medium as long as it is relevant to your brand or company and doesn't effect it negatively (unless you want to be seen as the "controversial" brand). I understand that all publicity is good publicity, but if I see an ad for handbags that says "we're all potential carriers" i'm more likely to assume i'm getting AIDS from your handbags than anything else. Keep it simple, keep it relevant, and make an effective use of this creative advertising category.









Its ok to cheat as long as you don't get caught!

Yeah right.

Personal opinion: its never ok to cheat on your significant other, or have an affair or anything of the sort. Those kinda of things are what breaks hearts all over the place and sends people into a spiraling void of depression and hate. Its a stupid way of dealing with relationship problems. If you're not happy in your relationship, talk to the other person and deal with it. If after that it doesn't work out then leave. Its as simple as that.

That being said, some brands have opted to pique consumer interest by adding just a little spice into their ads. They try to give their ads an edge by introducing the idea of cheating or having an affair, something seen as taboo in society. The question: is it done in just good humor or is it promoting the acceptance of infidelity?

Lets just start with Ashley Madison and get it out of the way.

ashleymadison.com is someone's fantastic idea of a dating site - except targeted at committed individuals looking to have an affair with other comitted people. Basically its your go to site if you ever feel the need to cheat on your significant other but are too lazy to wait for a drunken opprotunity at a bar. You know you're going to do it anyways, and this site just makes it easier. And they're not hiding what they're about either. Its all over their ads. Their branding basically boasts that if you dont like being with your current partner, go have an affair. Literally:

And you know what, their adversiting is spot on for what their brand is about. Its all about cheating, so why wouldn't be all over their advertising. They're targetting a specific market and they're selling their brand effectively.

Who knew you could market the smell of coffee and cigarettes and ink and package it as an alibi for your cheating?

Apparently this entire fragrance line is targetted towards men who need an excuse out of why they were late or where they were. If you cheated, no worries, spray some "burnt rubber and steel" on yourself and she won't even doubt your story for a second!

I will give this one an ok as well, because the product is marketed specifically for the act of cheating. So saucy ads like these will surely boost your brand.

Now on to the ones that make no sense to me.

Sex sells. I get that. But what do pretzels have anything to do with using this type of provocative advertising? Lose your old one for a new thin and stacked one? Really? The advertisers know full well what kind of message they were sending with this one. I'm sure someone thought it was a clever idea at the production stage because of the actual product, but I think it was in poor taste. Then again, these fabulous people also brought us these gems:

 



I rest my case with this one.

Anyways, my point is that if your product is specifically targetted towards a market that cheats and has affairs, using infidelity in your marketing is perfectly appropriate. That is your brand and that is what you're trying to show the masses. If you're advertising for soap and your tagline is basically screaming "Take a hot bath with a sexy girl thats not your wife", I think you're trying too hard to sell something thats completely irrelevant to your branding strategy. Yeah, its a clever play on words and it catches attention and its provocative, but how much is it going to sell in the general population of fairly good natured consumers?

Subliminal Advertising

Subliminal messages in advertising suggest sensory stimuli below an individual's threshold for conscious perception. Basically saying that if I flash a 0.5 second message at someone repeatedly for a certain length of time it will stick in that person's brain without them realizing it. It suggests some sort of mind manipulation. Whether this can be actually called "manipulation" is debatable. Every person has a different theory, but there definitely two opposing sides: those who believe in it and consider it wrong, and those who don't think its exists.

Personally I think subliminal messaging is non existant. I think people are confusing creative branding and advertising for something that its not (in this case being "manipulation"). Designers go through a lot of pain staking thought and research to create ads and brands that are easily recognizable and unique. Their first thought is not "how can I manipulate the masses into remembering our ads and brand" but rather "how can I design this in such a way that it stands out from all the billions of ads there are and promote the brand properly." An easily recognizable brand is a job well done on the designer's part, and this is what we're paid to do.

Priming is a concept of  providing subtle information that influences the way we think about a certain brand. Taking the coca cola ad example here:

Because of how popular this brand is, we can easily distinguish that the smiley face is actually part of the Coca Cola logo. This is an example of priming from their advertising department. They're trying to get the consumers to associate their brand with happiness. And while that is the point, I wouldn't consider this "manipulation". There is nothing wrong with trying to associate your brand with a particular feeling or emotion. That is purpose of advertising and branding. We as designers are to create a connection with our audience and consumers. How are we to do that if we completely eliminate the use of priming in our work? I find it an effective tool to use when designing. If as a designer I can get the consumers to recognize my brand with just a few subtle hints then that means I have done my job well.

Priming is not exclusive to advertising. Many designers use it to design a particular brand. A few example include FedEx:

You can see the arrow pointing right between the E and X. Most people associate this as moving forward and with the business model of FedEx the subtle clues as to what the brand is about is present in the logo.

In this particular logo for Tostitos you can see two people enjoying a chip with a bowl of salsa between the S and O. This is clever subliminal messaging/priming from the designer to relate the logo to the brand and business. Manipulating the masses? I think not.

Advertising is a medium to sell a brand. Subliminal messaging and priming are not some underhanded methods to persuade consumers to buy certain products, but rather to create a connection and a lasting impression on them. They are purely just some ways advertising can be more effective and nothing else.

Is it funny enough to sell?

Thinking about this topic made me do some brain work. I've never really thought in depth about humor in advertising being a selling point. I did some analysis over my own spending habits and how much I buy based on advertising and how many of those ads had humor in it. Honestly, i'm still not even sure how to approach it. Here goes nothing.

I'm a shopping addict (to the point of a problem haha). I buy a lot of things on impulse. I wander stores and if something catches my eye, usually I end up buying it. I don't know how much of it is dependant on the advertising. There are certain products that I will go back to because I like the humorous advertising.

An example of that is vitamin water. The first time I tried this product wasn't because I wanted to try it, it was because of the witty advertising on the label.

I read one of those for the first time and it was the funniest thing to me. It was so cleverly done that I had to buy it. Not only did I buy one, I went and bought ever single one of them to read the labels every time I wanted a drink.

Needless to say I only ever buy vitamin water as a drink now. It the funny advertising that drew me in and I've continued to buy the product since then. I'm sure i'm not the only one. I mean how can you not?

I'm probably under the category of people that buy something because its funny or cute. That being said, I think the doritos ad with the banana man are hilarious and ridiculous. But I still don't like doritos. The funny advertising didn't do much to change my mind. I just don't like the product. Maybe thats because i've tried it before so its not the best example. Lets take the Snickers commercial. Their tagline is "you're not yourself when you're hungry" and the commercials are usually funny. It still doesn't make me want to buy a Snickers. I think the advertising is very well done. But it doesn't sell the product to me.

Vitamin water connected with its audience to sell their products. They had frank and genuine advertising that not only resonated with its consumers, it also compelled them to buy the product. To me it was literally a "look this is our product and we think its good for you, you should probably buy it" kind of approach, and it was done in such a hilarious and witty way that it worked. They knew their market, they did their research well and whoever designed that campaign knew exactly the kind of humor the target audience would appreciate.

I think humor in advertising is a very good way to relate to your audience. But you have to know the kind of humor your target audience will appreciate. It can't just be "funny" to sell the product. It has to connect. It has to hit the consumer in a way that makes them go "oh I get it! Thats awesome and I wanna buy this thing!". Any ad can be funny. Its when the humor is used well and in a way that really sells the product instead of just showing "look how funny we are!" that you will get a humorous ad that works. Connection with your audience is very very important, and you can't lose sight of that to make an ad thats just "funny".

Advertising and Food

This topic is just...downright stupid to me.
Reading the articles makes it seem like advertising is to blame for the world's obesity problem. Yes, because ads tell you "here eat all of this until you gain so much weight you develop health problems."

That was sarcasm.

Food advertising's job is to make the consumers think that the food they're selling is delicious. They're not going to advertise "Buy our food. It tastes good but its not good for you in large quantities." Thats not interesting to the average consumer. Thats the kind of things they put in the warning labels or daily nutrition info. In reality, this is the kind of information that consumers should be looking at themselves. Its up to the consumer to determine what affects their health in a positive or negative way. Putting the blame of obesity on advertising is just ridiculous.

Personally I like to lead a healthy lifestyle. I enjoy all sorts of foods, but i'm aware of what i'm eating. As are many other people in the world. Most of the time obesity is a personal choice. Its a habit. I could just as easily say that I don't care about what I eat or how much of it I eat. Whats that going to lead to? If I eat what I want and however much I want and don't work out, i'm going to be obese. Thats a given fact. But I make the choice to enjoy all the delicious advertised food in moderation and work out regularly. I choose not to gain weight to the point of health problems and obesity. Its about being disciplined, and people who say "its the advertising's fault!" just aren't disciplined enough to make the right choice about their bodies.

For people complaining that advertising is affecting the children:
Its the parent's job to tell their kids right from wrong. The parents of these supposedly vulnerable children are the ones who should be telling them whats good or bad for them, until the kids are old enough to make that choice for themselves. Advertising has a market, and that includes children. If a child asks for a food product they saw advertised on tv and their parents know its not good for them, just don't comply. Why blame the advertisers? If the parents give in knowing its bad for the child, thats on the parents, not the ads.

Photoshopping Ads

Photoshopping ads has been done for many years now. Today's society is obsessed with making near perfect images. Women need to be airbrushed to perfection. No hair out of place, no imperfections. These rules apply to men as well. And drinks. And food. And perfumes. Many see photoshopping ads as wrong. There are lots of blogs that exist for the sole purpose to analyzing overly photoshopped images, bringing to light the obsession of the media over the idea of perfection.

But is it really wrong? Are we that badly affected by the media's portrayal of perfect images?

I'm on the fence with this topic. While I do agree that photoshopping women's bodies to the point of unrealistic features is wrong, I can also agree that using photoshop to enhance minor features, specially used in ads for food or objects, should be allowed.

There are lots of negative connotations behind photoshopping women and men in ads. It creates unrealistic ideals for the consumer, specially young girls and women, of what a person should look like. Many young impressionable girls ad boys look at these ads and think "this is what I need to strive for." Everyone wants to look like a model. This creates a stigma in lots of girls, namely those who end up developing eating disorders to look like that girl in the catalog sporting size 00 jeans.

But speaking as a designer, I believe photoshopping ads should be acceptable to a certain degree. I've edited countless photographs in photoshop. I use photoshop to enhance my images. I use to correct lighting, remove imperfections, clean up the image, etc. I've never edited a model to the point of unrealistic expectations, but i'm not exempt from using photoshop to clear up the skin or fix a hair out of place. Consumers aren't stupid. They can clearly spot an over edited image and make a comparison for themselves in regards to what the actual product looks like.

Advertising is a creative medium. Photoshop is used to help enhance it. I'm perfectly ok with using photoshop to edit images. But its when you start cutting off and slimming down body parts to create unrealistic bodies is when I start having a problem. Men and women come in all different shapes and sizes. This should be accepted across the media. Not everyone is a size 00, and advertising should be catering to everyone. But advertising is also about creating beautiful, compelling images. And as a designer, photoshopping the images to enhance it is not a bad thing to me.

Mic Mac Mall Back to School Campaign

Recently the Mic Mac Mall in Nova Scotia laucnhed an ad campaign aimed at their young shoppers - namely the young girls. The ads depicted carcitures of young girls with tag lines like "Social Studies? Does posting my new boots on Facebook count?" and "My favorite class? Shop!"

Not only are these ads highly sexist, they also display what the marketing world thinks a young girl's mentality is like - or should be. Apparently to Suburbia Advertising - the agency responsible for creating this campaign - young girls care more about shopping than they do about school or getting an education. While its true that a majority of the mall going demographic is young girls, I feel that the ads could have been displayed in a different way - preferably in a non-sexist and non-demeaning way.

Its also baffling that, while it claims to be a "back to school" campaign, no young men were targeted in the ads. Why was it neccesary to only single out girls? Why not also target the young men? Most likely if the young men were also targeted, the campaing would not have recieved as much publicity, even though the message would still have been demeaning.

I think the agency wanted publicity for its client, and was fully aware of what it was doing. Their facebook page includes the same type of ads but with different tag lines - why could these not have been the ones to be printed and displayed at the mall? Even though an apology was issued, the mall still got its publicity. Mic Mac Mall did issue an apology, but the campaign has hurt the brand and created mistrust with its shoppers/consumer base. But still, negative publicity is still publicity, and this campaign helped the mall gain its 15 minutes of fame.