How advertising images shape our thoughts
A popular response to the Target-snow-angel-ad issue (and to many critiques of advertising) was, “It’s just one ad — what’s wrong with that?”
Here’s an answer. This is about subliminal advertising, but works for any image we pass by every day.
If you didn’t find the Target ad offensive, think about advertising images that are. How do these enter our consciousness? And what happens to them there?
And what about product images?
Then, think about those images entering a child’s underdeveloped brain.
This is seven minutes long, which is quite a bit for blog readers, I know, but watch:
(via iamjoshbrown via dawudmiracle)
February 27th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Is this for real? Like really real? I must know!
February 27th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
thanks for the link. i love your site!
February 28th, 2008 at 2:23 am
Lisa, I’ll be deconstructing the ‘reality’ behind the images in ads and power of imagery, at CCFC on 4/4, because it’s important that we all recognize and deconstruct the nuances without blowing ‘em off as urban wallpaper. What would the ’snow angel’ have looked like splayed as a child? a pet? a person of color? How would the context change?
Any images can shift in poignant juxtaposition based on stance, lighting, expression, shadowing, framing, typestyle; all kinds of nonverbal cues…For example— A lone rope dangling in a tree could conjure visions of child-like simplicity playing with a Tarzan swing…or be a PSA for black history month, it all depends on the POV/tonality and respectfulness quotient.
I dare say no one would find racism ‘amusing’ in ‘what’s the big deal’ tenor/dismissal of objectification. In fact, I haven’t blogged about it since the ‘perfect storm’ since I’m half convinced that’s what crashed my computer system was the deluge! ;-) But I’ll go on record as saying that I can’t think of ANY living thing splayed in that graphic that would be appropo.
Meanwhile, I can assure ‘mom’ that it’ll be a cold day in hades that this video would be deemed ‘real’ in agency environs (vs. a clever set up of subliminal influencers) due to the following:
1.) Brainstorming sessions are commonplace, but a half hour won’t scrape the surface for a full branding campaign w/marker comps, name and tagline generation (c’mon, think billable hours, even the creative teams competing over lunch sketches on paper napkins take longer than that!)
2.) No creative brief w/a gazillion parameters, just a few choice words and on your mark get set, go? I guffaw.
3.) A client being in perfect harmony with the creative team from concept to completion and only minor tweaks? I’m rolling on the floor now.
Still…it makes the point of influences in a subversive/subtle manner and plants the seed of cognizant awareness that we ALL must have lest we sleepwalk through life as brandwashed lemmings…nice post!
February 28th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Darren Brown has had several television shows in Britian (he’s a “magician, psychological illusionist, mentalist, and skeptic of paranormal phenomena”). I can’t say if this is “really real” or not, but I think the point is made, as Amy says.
Amy, sounds like your presentation will be terrific. And can’t wait to meet you both!
February 28th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Ah, that makes sense for context, Lisa. Agree the point of the video/media is what counts…as it can be used to educate/deconstruct and instill media literacy in a poignant way…
At Shaping Youth, we KNOW subliminal pop culture messaging is impacting kids in a huge way (also based on region/urbanity/socioeconomic levels, etc.) as when we conduct our ‘branding water’ exercise with Shaping Youth (to deconstruct ad tactics, name generation/label appeal /promo hooks, etc.) we have kids in some areas coming up with names like “Pimp Juice” and “Hyphy water” “Gang tears” etc. (this was an ‘at risk’ crowd and the names clearly reflected their environs as to what they ‘think would sell’ as well as the hip-hop/happenin’ wannabe scene of suburban white kids trying to be ‘cool’…
We also have them keep ‘media logs’ and there’s a direct correlation to their intake of media/mind and body perceptions w/the music video crowd…Fascinating (and um, disturbing)…when we ask where they ‘got’ some of their ideas they can point to something as simple as a student’s tee shirt across the room (human billboard), song lyrics from a ringtone that triggered the thought, or picturing what would ’sell’ at their corner convenience store/kids hangout en route home.
I’ll be writing about this exercise soon (along other ‘enhanced/fortified’ water trends aimed at kids and PETS (yah, sky’s the limit in what folks will come up with) plus an eco-look at the contributions to environmental waste since the whole bottled water phenom hit the big leagues to begin with. sigh. Whole ‘nuther story…
Ciao for now…
February 28th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
I took an advertising/psychology class that was focused on just this issue. Anyone that thinks the placement of the woman on the Target “target” was an accident is being completely snowed (no pun intended). Billions is spent on advertising each year and as “they” say, sex sells. Speaking of snow, if she was supposed to be making a snow angel, why couldn’t she have been in…..I don’t know….snow? Her clothing could have had the Target logo splashed all over it as polka dots, the snowflakes could have been shaped like little targets somehow. The camera angle could have been different so she wasn’t spread eagle, in your face. The are probably a hundred different ways they could have portrayed that, but they chose the most blatantly sexual position for a reason. And look at the press it has gotten. I’m thinking they subscribe to the theory that there is no such thing as bad press.
Well said, Shaping Youth. No living being should be displayed on a target no matter the “symbolism”. The bottom line is that a target is a target.