The discussion that we had in class was one of, I think, the most interesting we have had so far this year. At times, I think we can all get a little worked up and shout at each other, but I think it's good that a lot of us have strong opinions. I thought Tony brought up the interesting point that the reason all of these sexual ads are out there is for the shock factor, which can result in major profit for the company. Kilbourne mentioned Calvin Klein showing ads with border line child porn to get that shock factor and it had a huge positive effect on his sales. It is kind of sad that this is what advertising has become, but it's obviously working. Now we just have to figure out a way to fix it.
I also thought that Brittney and Ieysha brought up a good point when they said that people are probably not just going to stop buying a certain brand of jeans just because they have an offensive commercial. If people really like the jeans, they are going to keep buying them. This is I think part of why it is so hard to change advertising.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I also think it was the most interesting discussion we had so far. I have to agree with Tony. I think those ads work because of how shocking they are. I mean... I don't really understand how more people by their products by putting out offensive ads, but I guess it works. But then, like you said, I have to agree with Ieysha when she said that people aren't going to stop buying what they're used to buying because of some commercial. To be honest, who really pays attention to how offensive the commercial is?
Although, I don't agree with the use of sexual violence on different ads to promote various products, I have to admit that shocking commercials work. I do think something needs to be done, but I can't really think of any solution.
KENDALL!
I agree with Cristina and you that this was the most interesting and heated discussion that we have had so far. In reading this post, I appreciate how you comment on both sides of the argument in an unbiased fashion. The argument was so heated because of the male versus female perspective biases. I understand Tony's argument in that the sexual explicity of the advertisements has to do with shock factor, and getting the consumer to remember the product through that strategy. I also agree with Maggie and others about how abusing feminine sexuality is not the way to go because of the negative impacts on society and human behavior. However, stifling the sex and violence in advertisements is a direct violation of first-amendment rights and will lead to many class-action lawsuits. I have no solution.
Post a Comment