I have no doubt what so ever that the people developing the commercials for the Superbowl, and the companies benefitting from the advertisements, believe that it is worth three million dollars for 30 seconds... after all, hundreds of thousands of people sit on their butts and watch the game, and will be exposed to those advertisements... which definitely impacts the consumer market for the products being advertised. However, I look at things from a more realistic point of view, so I disagree.
Three million dollars for thirty seconds? Three million dollars, if you have to use it for advertising, could go a lot farther than one commercial. You could create billions of flyers, do hundreds of commercials during non-Superbowl time... any number of things. I'm not sure of exact statistics, but I'm willing to bet that doubling your advertising during off-season would gain you just as many customers as one commercial during a football game.
Furthermore, with disasters such as the earth quake in Haiti, I think that there are a lot more important things to focus the world's money on than Budweiser. I guess that's not really relavent to the media though....
It's obvious that the reason a commercial during the Superbowl costs so much is that it is one of the biggest games of the year, and has the largest audience to broadcast to. As well, it's necessary to make the commercials entertaining and eye-catching, to stand out amoung the dozens of other commercials aired during that time. Worth it though? I think not... especially since, not being a football fan, I don't benefit at all from that 3 million... I've got no idea what trendy new products they're advertising and I know a lot of other people who won't either.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
Media Meanings and Me
Each individual person brings their own meaning to a piece of media. My opinions about what a particular film is supposed to mean may vary considerably from Jacob's. Here are a few films and my opinions about them.
http://www.nfb.ca/film/vistas_little_thunder
This first film is based on an Aboriginal tale, about a boy setting out on a cross country canoe trip to become a man. I really enjoyed this film, I thought that it was very humourous and I liked the native style animation. Having said that, someone who doesn't know very much about Aboriginal culture, or would have trouble following the very busy, hectic animation, might not enjoy it as much as I did and may have interpreted the meaning behind it in a way much different from my own.
http://www.nfb.ca/film/girl_who_hated_books/
This film is actually based on a children's book that I've read to my son many times. I've always enjoyed this story, and I think the producers of the film did a great job with it. I think a lot of other students might be bored by it, but since I am a mother I have an appreciation for children's stories, because I am exposed to them every night.
http://www.nfb.ca/film/erlKing
I could not finish this film. Not because of it's length or because I didn't enjoy the style or music, but because I found the content too disturbing. As a mother, any subject matter to do with the harm or murder of children is appalling to me. Other teenagers my age are so used to slash, blood and gore that they might enjoy the story of the ErlKing, or even find it "lame" because it is not nearly as graphic as "Saw" per say. However, to me it is extremely scary, because I can picture my son as the little boy in the story.
Take a look at those videos... do you like them? Are your opinions different from mine? It's almost guaranteed that they will be. No two people are the same in their opinons, thought processes, or (as this pertains to the above) the meanings that they bring to the media they are exposed to.
http://www.nfb.ca/film/vistas_little_thunder
This first film is based on an Aboriginal tale, about a boy setting out on a cross country canoe trip to become a man. I really enjoyed this film, I thought that it was very humourous and I liked the native style animation. Having said that, someone who doesn't know very much about Aboriginal culture, or would have trouble following the very busy, hectic animation, might not enjoy it as much as I did and may have interpreted the meaning behind it in a way much different from my own.
http://www.nfb.ca/film/girl_who_hated_books/
This film is actually based on a children's book that I've read to my son many times. I've always enjoyed this story, and I think the producers of the film did a great job with it. I think a lot of other students might be bored by it, but since I am a mother I have an appreciation for children's stories, because I am exposed to them every night.
http://www.nfb.ca/film/erlKing
I could not finish this film. Not because of it's length or because I didn't enjoy the style or music, but because I found the content too disturbing. As a mother, any subject matter to do with the harm or murder of children is appalling to me. Other teenagers my age are so used to slash, blood and gore that they might enjoy the story of the ErlKing, or even find it "lame" because it is not nearly as graphic as "Saw" per say. However, to me it is extremely scary, because I can picture my son as the little boy in the story.
Take a look at those videos... do you like them? Are your opinions different from mine? It's almost guaranteed that they will be. No two people are the same in their opinons, thought processes, or (as this pertains to the above) the meanings that they bring to the media they are exposed to.
Media Constructed Reality
We've recently taken a look at the phenomenon of C.S.I., and how it fits into the second key concept of media, that media constructs reality. Watching both an episode of the show and an episode of Oprah focusing on C.S.I. we analyzed how the producers of this hit crime show try to make it as close to reality as possible, as well as how (despite their efforts) it's quite obvious that it is a construction (i.e. through the credits, mood music, time lapses).
Well, C.S.I. certainly is popular, with it's several million fans, but I can think of an example of the second key concept that affected almost as many people... and for many it was in a much more negative way.
On October 30th, 1938, the U.S.A. tuned into their radios and were shocked to hear about the arrival of martians (aliens) on planet earth. There was a widespread panic, many people fled, a few committed suicide. The majority of these people turned on the radio too late to hear the broadcaster say that what they would be listening to was a work of fiction, and meant only for entertainment. We know the story well, over seven decades later it remains a hit and was recently made into a movie.... The War of the World's.
Why did so many people have such a panicked reaction to this "construction of reality?" Well, part of the reason is that the audiences of media determine the meaning in what they see/hear, which I'll explore in my next blog. Another reason is that the radio broadcast was created to sound threatening and frightening, it was meant to be a scary story... and they took the "scare" tactic a little too far in their construction. This construction of reality had a more immediate effect than C.S.I., which has made changes to our court proceedures and our perception of crime scene invesigation over a period of time, however it is still an example of how media constructs reality... and society reacts to whatever reality is constructed for them.
Well, C.S.I. certainly is popular, with it's several million fans, but I can think of an example of the second key concept that affected almost as many people... and for many it was in a much more negative way.
On October 30th, 1938, the U.S.A. tuned into their radios and were shocked to hear about the arrival of martians (aliens) on planet earth. There was a widespread panic, many people fled, a few committed suicide. The majority of these people turned on the radio too late to hear the broadcaster say that what they would be listening to was a work of fiction, and meant only for entertainment. We know the story well, over seven decades later it remains a hit and was recently made into a movie.... The War of the World's.
Why did so many people have such a panicked reaction to this "construction of reality?" Well, part of the reason is that the audiences of media determine the meaning in what they see/hear, which I'll explore in my next blog. Another reason is that the radio broadcast was created to sound threatening and frightening, it was meant to be a scary story... and they took the "scare" tactic a little too far in their construction. This construction of reality had a more immediate effect than C.S.I., which has made changes to our court proceedures and our perception of crime scene invesigation over a period of time, however it is still an example of how media constructs reality... and society reacts to whatever reality is constructed for them.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Photoshop World... It's All A Lie
Over the last couple of days we've taken a fairly in depth look at photo manipulation in the media. This exploration has included the dissection of the Dove Evolutions Ad, several photos that have been altered for multiple reasons (i.e. O.J. Simpson's photo made darker to look more menacing) and the false advertising of one particular beach through the use of stock photos. To be honest, the advertisement for the beach didn't bother me much. It showed a woman in a bathing suit in front of a shoreline. While I didn't agree with the company's reasons for using a stock photo (cutting cost, which proved to be untrue) I think that since the focus of the photo was the woman in the swim wear rather than the scenery it really doesn't deserve a great deal of fuss.
Having said that, I've found some of the other photo manipulation extremely disturbing. For instance, taking a photo of Julia Robert's face and putting it on a picture of her body from five years ago. Robert's is attractive enough, there's no need for that. I've found a few more examples, shown below, in which the changes made are entirely unnecessary and incredibly extreme. Look at these photos of Kiera Knightly. In the original she is extremely flat chested, her eyes are wider, her eyebrows are slightly more unruly, and she has less muscle definition. In the edited photo all those things, along with the over all colour of the photo, are completely altered. Certainly it is necessary to change the photo for the publicity of the film (King Arthur), generally to draw the audience's eye to the poster is was used for... but to change her chest from an A cup (maybe) to a B or C? That was not needed. She was beautiful before hand, and more natural looking. I highly doubt that people in King Arthur's time looked as though they were wearing a pound of makeup... why make her look like a clown when her face already suited the part? Take a look for yourself.
Now, take a look at this one, which is NOT for a movie poster, but instead for a magazine cover. In the "before" picture Kirsten Dunst is already a small size, with pretty features and beautiful skin. In the "after" shot she looks as though she has been molded like a barbie doll and left in the sun too long. Her hip bones jut out, her face looks burned, and she's magically lost about ten pounds off of her already petite frame. Necessary? No. She was beautiful before.
Our perception of beauty is being completely skewed by this type of manipulation. Our perception of everything is being manipulated by media. Certainly there are companies that are trying to reverse this problem, for instance the Dove campaign... however such efforts are difficult to take seriously when you look at the fact that Dove and Axe (a company which exploits women as objects in their advertising) are under the same management. It's sickening. Yet another reason why I don't buy magazines and don't watch television. The only magazine I do read (Today's Parent) is even guilty of manipulation. For crying out loud, children are beautiful as they are. Take a look at this picture of my son and tell me he's not worth putting on a cover, without adding a pound of make up and altering his cheekbones!
Photoshop is fun, when you use it just for kicks, but I think it's time the world sees things as they truly are... not as they are after 10 hours in a studio.
Having said that, I've found some of the other photo manipulation extremely disturbing. For instance, taking a photo of Julia Robert's face and putting it on a picture of her body from five years ago. Robert's is attractive enough, there's no need for that. I've found a few more examples, shown below, in which the changes made are entirely unnecessary and incredibly extreme. Look at these photos of Kiera Knightly. In the original she is extremely flat chested, her eyes are wider, her eyebrows are slightly more unruly, and she has less muscle definition. In the edited photo all those things, along with the over all colour of the photo, are completely altered. Certainly it is necessary to change the photo for the publicity of the film (King Arthur), generally to draw the audience's eye to the poster is was used for... but to change her chest from an A cup (maybe) to a B or C? That was not needed. She was beautiful before hand, and more natural looking. I highly doubt that people in King Arthur's time looked as though they were wearing a pound of makeup... why make her look like a clown when her face already suited the part? Take a look for yourself.
Now, take a look at this one, which is NOT for a movie poster, but instead for a magazine cover. In the "before" picture Kirsten Dunst is already a small size, with pretty features and beautiful skin. In the "after" shot she looks as though she has been molded like a barbie doll and left in the sun too long. Her hip bones jut out, her face looks burned, and she's magically lost about ten pounds off of her already petite frame. Necessary? No. She was beautiful before.
Our perception of beauty is being completely skewed by this type of manipulation. Our perception of everything is being manipulated by media. Certainly there are companies that are trying to reverse this problem, for instance the Dove campaign... however such efforts are difficult to take seriously when you look at the fact that Dove and Axe (a company which exploits women as objects in their advertising) are under the same management. It's sickening. Yet another reason why I don't buy magazines and don't watch television. The only magazine I do read (Today's Parent) is even guilty of manipulation. For crying out loud, children are beautiful as they are. Take a look at this picture of my son and tell me he's not worth putting on a cover, without adding a pound of make up and altering his cheekbones!
Photoshop is fun, when you use it just for kicks, but I think it's time the world sees things as they truly are... not as they are after 10 hours in a studio.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
My Media (In)Dependence
Having finished the media consumption survey I've now been instructed to post an entry about the results, and about my independence and/or dependence on certain forms of media.
Compared to my peers, I think my dependence on any given form of media is very minimal. I live on my own, and have chosen not to invest in cable or satellite television, which means that I am not subject to the daily bombardment of television advertisements that people waste so much money on. We own movies (mostly children's films for my son), and if we want to watch a particular show we rent it on DVD. I hate the way television affects people's lives, convincing them to buy things and be at home to watch a show at a certain time, T.V. even plays babysitter for some people's children! I see no reason to have that in my home.
Cellphones are another form of media that I am in no way dependent on. I do not own a functioning cell phone, and while I think it would be beneficial for me to use one it is not a necessity. Cell phone bills are far too high, and when you're paying $730.00 per month for rent, on top of the costs of diapers, groceries and bills you don't have the money to spare. It sickens me, as well, that cell phone companies charge people for text messaging when a recent study showed that it costs the companies nothing to transmit text messages from phone to phone. It's ridiculous. Perhaps someday, when I'm making forty dollars an hour, I'll be able to afford to pay those companies for their rip-offs, but not right now.
The types of media I am at least moderately dependent on are few. I use the internet for school work, and for occasional socializing. I also use it for my own personal research. Newspapers I rely on for the news (obviously) as well as real estate rental openings, job offerings and other important information. I use music players (radio, sterio, Mp3 player) frequently, I am a music lover and almost always have something playing. I don't consider books part of the "mass media", but since the survey did I have to say that they are the form of media I am most dependent on. I read for pleasure, for research, for school, and to my son. They are an asset to psychological learning and development, and as such we have book cases in every room that are packed with everything from historical documentations to Dr. Suess.
Over all I really don't think I am incredibly dependent on the media. I could go without almost every form of it, with the exception of books. I don't know what's going on with Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, and I really don't care. It doesn't matter to me what conspiracies are going around about Michael Jackson's death and I can't tell you what a McDonald's is advertising on television these days. None of those things, amoung many others, are important to my day to day life. Three cheers for non media consumption!
Compared to my peers, I think my dependence on any given form of media is very minimal. I live on my own, and have chosen not to invest in cable or satellite television, which means that I am not subject to the daily bombardment of television advertisements that people waste so much money on. We own movies (mostly children's films for my son), and if we want to watch a particular show we rent it on DVD. I hate the way television affects people's lives, convincing them to buy things and be at home to watch a show at a certain time, T.V. even plays babysitter for some people's children! I see no reason to have that in my home.
Cellphones are another form of media that I am in no way dependent on. I do not own a functioning cell phone, and while I think it would be beneficial for me to use one it is not a necessity. Cell phone bills are far too high, and when you're paying $730.00 per month for rent, on top of the costs of diapers, groceries and bills you don't have the money to spare. It sickens me, as well, that cell phone companies charge people for text messaging when a recent study showed that it costs the companies nothing to transmit text messages from phone to phone. It's ridiculous. Perhaps someday, when I'm making forty dollars an hour, I'll be able to afford to pay those companies for their rip-offs, but not right now.
The types of media I am at least moderately dependent on are few. I use the internet for school work, and for occasional socializing. I also use it for my own personal research. Newspapers I rely on for the news (obviously) as well as real estate rental openings, job offerings and other important information. I use music players (radio, sterio, Mp3 player) frequently, I am a music lover and almost always have something playing. I don't consider books part of the "mass media", but since the survey did I have to say that they are the form of media I am most dependent on. I read for pleasure, for research, for school, and to my son. They are an asset to psychological learning and development, and as such we have book cases in every room that are packed with everything from historical documentations to Dr. Suess.
Over all I really don't think I am incredibly dependent on the media. I could go without almost every form of it, with the exception of books. I don't know what's going on with Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, and I really don't care. It doesn't matter to me what conspiracies are going around about Michael Jackson's death and I can't tell you what a McDonald's is advertising on television these days. None of those things, amoung many others, are important to my day to day life. Three cheers for non media consumption!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)