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.
Friday, 27 September 2013
Friday, 20 September 2013
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.
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.
Tuesday, 17 September 2013
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)