awisth-blog

[awisth-blog]

#believeinyourdreams #manifestyourthoughts #cantstopwontstop

[awisth-blog]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Amanda Wisth (@theamandawisth)

Blessed for this amazing life #odeto2013 #2014infullsweetswing

[awisth-blog]

PETA: Anti-Fur Anti-Anna Wintour

Rank's Model: Intensify

Photo courtesy of: http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/archive/2009/05/13/fur-flies-at-anna-wintour-event.aspx

Association: PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) focuses its attention on "the four areas in which the largest numbers of animals suffer the most intensely for the longest periods of time: on factory farms, in the clothing trade, in laboratories, and in the entertainment industry. We also work on a variety of other issues, including the cruel killing of beavers, birds, and other "pests" as well as cruelty to domesticated animals." (Peta.org)

PETA's campaign against Vogue's editor-in-chief, Anna Wintour, emphasizes their dislike for her character (or lack thereof), looks, professional decisions, and her choice in attire. PETA is directly associating Anna Wintour with animal cruelty.

The stark contrast of "Beautiful Animals" and "Ugly People" is pretty powerful in portraying PETA's feelings on those who wear fur. PETA's disdain for Wintour also comes from her use of fur in Vogue, her pro-fur editorials, and her refusal to run paid advertisements from animal rights organizations in the world-renowned fashion magazine, hence the "Keeping Cruelty in Vogue."

I love the use of "In Vogue" as it has two meanings in this ad: Wintour is editor-in-chief of Vogue. She is known fur her use of fur in the publication's spreads and covers and of pro-fur editorials. Also, "In Vogue" means "in the current fashion or style" and by largely using fur "In Vogue" she is perpetuating the idea the fur is "In Vogue" (in current fashion/style).

PETA's use of a less-than-flattering photo lends credibility to the usage of the word "ugly." There are many pictures they could have chosen, but the icy/angry expression on Wintour's face is a quite fitting example of "ugly." Wintour is known for being a rude, cold, aloof elitist. Her chilly personality paired with her desire for fur has her pegged as "ugly."

Composition: The angles in which the banners of words are placed look like caution tape at a crime scene. I do not think this was by accident. The banners are placed directly over the picture of Wintour, as though her actions towards animals by her love of fur, make up a crime scene.

Composition could have be more complete if Wintour was wearing fur in the picture. It would have provided better evidence, upon first glance, that she is a sinister fur monger.

Repetition: Repetition is used by color, not by words, jingle, or slogans. "Fur is worn by," "ugly people," and "Anna Wintour" are all in white font. This repetition brings focus to "fur is worn," "ugly people," and "Anna Wintour," aligning them, making you believe that Anna Wintour is an ugly person for wearing fur. "Beautiful animals" and "Keeping cruelty in Vogue" are both in yellow font.The repetition of this color usage associates "beautiful animals" being treated with cruelty by Vogue by associating the two by way of the color yellow.

 Omission: There is quite a bit left out of this "ad" and it is completely one-sided. Anna Wintour and EVERYONE else who wears fur is ugly and Vogue is cruel. Those are two very loaded statements that need much more elaboration and evidence to make a solid argument.

Diversion: Diversion is not present in this ad. Anna Wintour doesn't have an opportunity to defend her position she cannot divert attention away from the claims of this ad.

Confusion: YES!! Faulty logic is BOLDLY written all over this ad. To make a crude generalization that everybody who wears fur is ugly is a childish attempt to shock people into submission. Wearing fur does not make one ugly. And not all animals are beautiful. Plain and simple.

The Map is NOT the Territory: Hayakawa (1990) noted that "Most of our knowledge, acquired from parents friends, school, newspapers, books, conversation, speeches, and television, is received verbally - that is in words" (p.19). Let the truth be told!

This map, as good of a slam campaign as it is, is not the territory. PETA is telling you that anyone who wears fur is ugly, that Anna Wintour is ugly, and that Vogue supports animal cruelty. Well, that's just a matter of opinion! Hayakaw (1990) argues that "...by means of imaginary or false inferences from good reports or by mere rhetorical exercises, we can manufacture at will, with language, "maps" that have no reference to the extensional world" (p.21). Case in point: animal cruelty, in my opinion, is wrong. But in this ad, PETA is not addressing the issue of animal cruelty. Instead, they are personally attacking an individual for one thing - wearing/using fur for personal and professional reasons and then proclaiming all fur-loving people to be ugly. Yes, the use of fur for any reasons other than to be worn by an animal is cruel in the minds of us animal lovers. Yes, it evokes an emotive response, it is harsh, and it is in your face (as PETA intends it to be), but it isn't providing the audience with the substance that an allegation of "people who wear fur are ugly" needs to be supported by. Vogue, by way of fur in editorials and covers, is not a supporter of animal cruelty. The map is NOT the territory. Sorry PETA!! You use propaganda just like the others do!

 References

Hayakawa, S.I., & Hayakawa, A.R. (1990). Language In Thought And Action. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace & Company.

Gass, R.H., & Seiter, J.S. (2003). Persuasion: Social Influence And Compliance Gaining. Pearson Education, Inc.

PETA.org (2013). Retrieved from http://www.peta.org/about/default.aspx

The Free Dictionary (2013). Indexing. Retrieved from http://www.thefreedictionary.com

[awisth-blog]

The Map is NOT the Territory - Newport Pleasure

In the brilliant words of Hayakaw (1990), "The symbol is not the thing symbolized; the word is not the thing; the map is not the territory it stands for" (p.19). Let's look into this with Newport, shall we?

This ad is for cigarettes. As it should be because clearly I smoke when I am playing tug-of-war on a beach....

The product that is being advertised here is not represented in the image of people of having fun. But pleasure is. They are smiling, laughing, playing. For them, life's a beach! Now only if you could be experiencing as much PLEASURE as they are....

But wait! YOU CAN!! Just buy some Newports (100's, Mediums, Lights, Regulars, etc... YOU have options!) and experience the time of your life!

Newport is using "image-oriented advertising" to "manufacture favorable associations" with their brand of cigarettes (Gass & Seiter, 2011). First we have a group of people - Smoking [Newport] is social. Second, we have people smiling and laughing - Smoking {Newport] is fun/brings pleasure. Third, we have a beach, some hard bodies, and a good ol' game of tug-of-war - Smoking [Newport] will provide you with a dream-like existence where every day is vacation with the best looking people you know.

As Gass and Seiter (2011) state, "The whole point of image-oriented advertising is to link products with favorable attitudes, values, and lifestyles" (p.52). Newport has nailed that with this ad.

Newport (and many other tobacco companies) are notorious for using image-oriented advertising to lure people in. Newports = Pleasure. Simply stated, smoking these cigarettes is equated with fun and friends.

Sorry, Newport, I just am not a fan of tug-of-war.

Photo courtesy of: http://globalgrind.com/2011/03/21/last-call-govt-bans-cigarettes-black-people-photos/

[awisth-blog]

Indexing - Got PMS?

Indexing - an indication, sign, or token (www.thefreedictionary.com).

This ad is rich indications and signs of non-identity in regards to women who are experiencing PMS and the alleged beasts they become "once a month."

We must realize the limitations that such verbiage in every day conversation and in advertising places on us. How do we do this? By reminding ourselves that generalized statements such as "Business is business," "boys will be boys," "Women drivers are women drivers," are simply not true (Hayakawa, 1990).

Signs/Indications:

The man, looking toward the audience appears to be nervous, cautious, apologetic, and scared for his life.

The man is holding 3 cartons of milk while holding one out as an offering - perhaps of peace

"I'm sorry I listened to what you said and not what you meant." This statement indicates that women demand men to read between the lines.

His shoulders are up, tense, in a shrugging pose- this suggests that he is on the defense, most likely due to not "inferring the meaning of what she said."

To put it plainly, woman #1 suffering from PMS isn't woman #2 suffering from PMS.This ad plays into the tired, old stereotype that women who are PMS'ing are "possessed by evil, hungry, emotionally expressive demons." Every women is different, therefor her hormones, reactions, mood fluctuations, etc... cannot be generally categorized. Not even for PMS. As Hyakawa (1990) would say, "Cow 1 is not Cow 2" (p.125).

Photo courtesy of : http://theweek.com/article/index/217177/californias-sexist-pms-milk-ads

[awisth-blog]

Allness - Guinness Is Good For You

So this ad is saying that Guinness is universally good for EVERYONE?! Children, pregnant women, the sick, the healthy, the nondrinkers? Who do they mean by "YOU?" Anyone who can read?

This advertisement implies, that no matter who YOU are, Guinness is good for YOU! It leads me to ask "Why is it good for me?" "How is it good for me?" "What does it contain that makes it good for me?" "When did alcohol become good for me?" "Is it meant to replace supplements?" "Is it a meal replacement?" "I am gluten free - Is it still good for me?" "How can a beer brewer know that this beverage is good for anybody?" "Is it good for me to drink 6 and get behind the wheel?" "What are the nutrition facts?" The list could go on....

Although I do love this ad. It is simple,striking and says so much by saying very little. Generally, your average consumer won't write down 20 questions to ask regarding the statement. They most likely will see the sign and be like "Damn right it is! I want 4!"

This ad is a great example of what Gass and Seiter (2003) call "sloganeering" (p.53). As they put it, "...slogans imbue the products with positive qualities, over time, become embedded in receivers' minds" (p.53). With that said, if you want a beer that is good for you, which one will you choose? Place Guinness in hand....

This ad also inspires me to go up to the corner bar and get a Guinness. Not because it is good for me but because it tastes delicious!

Photo courtesy of: http://theaposition.com/tombedell/golf/lifestyle/2566/tap-beers-of-the-week-guinness-black-lager-vs-guinness-draught

[awisth-blog]

Affective Connotation - Child Health Foundation

Affective connotations create an individual or shared emotive response. A word, phrase, or image can cause this response. Hayakawa (1990) states that "The affective connotations of a word, on the other hand, are the 'aura' of personal feelings it arouses” (p.44).

The "aura" of personal feelings I have toward this ad were brought on by quite a few things. First, the Child Health Foundation's (an independent, charitable foundation, located in Munich, Germany) purpose is to protect the health of children - With brilliant marketing!

There are many emotional layers in this advertisement. The image is setup so perfectly to draw your eye from left to write. First we see this angelic looking little girl looking off into the distance. Her face is illuminated by a soft light. Then we see a ring of white/grey smoke above her head, portraying an angel's halo (symbolism). The stark black background provides great contrast to and illumination of the smoke and the brightness of the girl's face and attire. The tail of the smoke floats off to the right side of the page as you're hit with a statement that reads "Some children get to heaven earlier."

Nowhere does it say "Stop Smoking!" That would be too easy and ineffective.This ad needs to get your attention and tug at your heart strings.

As Hayakawa (1990) states, "In every language, there seem to be certain "unmentionables"....The fear of death carries over..." (p.46). Death and children are not two things that are paired well together, as the combination of the two evokes negatively charged emotional responses.This ads intention was to do just that - evoke a powerful emotional response to stop smoking in the presence of children. I say it is pretty successful in doing so.

Photo courtesy of: http://lgsmarketingproject.wordpress.com/