Post #3

What is it with ads that companies spends an average of gabillions of dollars per year in order to show off their products to as many viewers as possible? There isn't any guarantee that the viewers will automatically be attracted to the product that he/she will end up purchasing it. But there must be something in advertisements that attracts consumers, because an average cost of a 30-second super bowl commercial is now sold for $4 million (as of 2013). I guess one of the many reasons why companies (big and small) might pour in so much efforts and money into creating ads is because they can make the ads flexible and more attractive to people of any race, color, gender, age, etc. According to Gloria Steinem, there are two stages to developing an ad. When she worked for Ms., the magazine company would take a "people products" that is used by both men and women, but create the ad that would attract men, such as cars, insurance, credit cards, etc (Steinem 112). Likewise, you can virtually take any product and create an ad to target any type of audience.

Sometimes, ads can get a little out of hand such that it affects (mostly) women of different ages, races, and class. Accordingly to Jean Kilbourne, an average adult will spend about one and a half year of his/her life watching television COMMERCIALS and becomes exposed to 1500 ads per day, which makes it most powerful educational force (Kilbourne 121). Because people are virtually surrounded by ads, it has a great affect on them, regardless of their ignorance. And this is particularly more harsh and applicable to adolescents because they are still in the stage where they are new to the society and value public figure and ads more personally. She listed three types of stereotypes against women that are still shown to the viewers, such as housewives who would flawless without any scars or blemishes, artificial images that look natural but impossible to obtain in reality, and sexual attitudes, especially with the dirty jokes. With sexual attitudes portrayed in ads, anything with s.e.x will sell, regardless, but it is offensive and really dehumanizes people (or women for the most part).

  

So, can ads really change people's lives? I mean, they are not harming (or helping) people physically, so what can visual effects really do to people? Well, Douglas Kellner mentioned cigarette advertising that targeted men in 1981 and women in 1983. Marlboro advertised that a "real man" would smoke cigarettes, like the muscular and tough looking cowboys in pictures (Kellner 127-128). Meanwhile, Virginia Slims portrayed elegant women smoking that women can identify with as "progressive woman and modern living" (Kellner 128). The cigarettes ads were highly influential and affected many women. Long time ago, more men were shown to smoke cigarettes, but as many women were found to be smokers as well after the "female cigarettes" were introduced. So, can ads REALLY change people's lives? YES, and it can be viral and influential.

These tactics and strategies that advertising companies have used for a very long time needs to change. It will be hard for them to, because the results of their tactics are highly promising. However, if advertising companies are considerate and care about the fact that there are people getting hurt and negative portrayed by their ads, they should be more careful in what they put into people's minds. Today, it seems just as impossible to persuade big companies as it was long, long ago. This is why people take matters into their own hands to persuade the ad companies or lobbyist by sending them petition, holding rallies, protests, movements, organizations, etc. Cortese wrote about advocacy advertising, which is when an organization protests or speaks out against or for a certain idea or issue. One of the issues that I found intriguing was regarding abortion. Both pro-choice and pro-life groups used explicit or mundane pictures to display a huge message (Cortese 47-48).

Advertising companies can be mean and insensitive towards a particular group of people when it comes to making big bucks. However, I feel that there definitely are alternatives to this. First, ad companies can start by appealing to people of all types. According to Danae Clark, one of the marketing strategies that advertising companies use is to choose a group that is identifiable, accessible, measurable, and profitable (Clark 143). With lesbians, they meet none of the criteria, which is why they are rarely portrayed in ads. It might be a different situation today, but it used to be that companies would target the  widely known groups with a lot of people to make profit and exclude anybody who is part of the outliers. Also, advertising companies, especially teenage girls' and women's magazines have to stop sexualizing and glamorizing women. Wolf stated that "women's magazines for over a century have been one of the most powerful agents for changing women's roles, and throughout that time... they have consistently glamorized whatever the economy, their advertisers, and, during wartime, the government, needed at that moment from women" (Wolf 64). These magazines are powerful and very influential towards women, which is why it is about time for these magazine companies to realize that can focus on ways to glorify women for who they are instead of sexualizing them to be someone they are not.

Reference

Danae Clark - Commodity Lesbianism

Cortese - Constructed Bodies, Deconstructing Ads: Sexism in Advertising

Douglas Kellner - Reading Images Critically

Jean Kilbourne - Beauty and the Beast of Adveritising

Gloria Steinem - Sex, Lies and Advertising

Wolf - Culture