01st Feb 2010
EDEC 262- Blog 5
Blog 5- Super Bowl and Super Ads
The Super Bowl is the most watched program in America each year, often topping 100,000,000 viewers globally (the majority of whom are from the United States). Because of its high profile nature and the demographic of consumers who view the game (apart from Thanksgiving, it is the highest day of consumption in the US), advertising companies often submit their most expensive ads for broadcast during the game. Advertising space is at such a premium that companies now pay up to $3 million for a thirty-second spot. Consequently, the ads themselves have become as much a focus of discussion as the game.
Money, however, doesn’t always rule in these situations. A gay dating website called ManCrunch produced an advertisement for broadcast during the 2010 game has subsequently been rejected by the broadcaster.
The rationale for rejection? Originally it seemed that it was a matter of money (the broadcaster claimed they weren’t able to validate Man Crunch’s credit). However, Man Crunch countered that they offered to pay in cash, which would seemingly undercut the broadcaster’s excuse. Given the sort of hypersexualized and homophobic advertising that has been featured in past Super Bowls- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHkoZ7ngAM0 – is this an example of hegemonic influences working on advertising?
Do other advertisements continue to perpetuate these same sorts of hegemonic ideologies?
Different Topic
Strange Commercials
People are constantly exposed to advertisements, whether on television or simply by the highway. Many times, the viewer is able to tell what they are trying to promote, or sell. However, other times, the viewer has no clue about what they are trying to sell until the end of the commercial where they announce the company name. So many companies such as “Go Daddy” and “Comcast” have the strangest ways of advertising. For example, one Comcast commercial shows a guy getting on the bus trying to pay but instead of putting the money where it’s supposed to go, the man is putting it in the bus driver’s nose. So the bus driver says “this is not where you pay” and the man says “yes, this is where I pay” and they continuously say this. In the background, there is a man getting all excited! It is not till the end that we end up seeing that it is a Comcast commercial.
What type of company is Comcast anyway?? Many times, there seems to be no relation whatsoever to what the company is selling, but I think that’s the point of it. They want to have strange commercials or ads so it can leave people thinking of how strange that commercial was, and as a result makes you remember their company name.
It’s apparent that advertisements are the foundation and economic means of the mass media. We are exposed to thousands of advertisements everyday and this just proves to show just how much of a powerful force it is. These advertisements introduce elements into our consciousness and our conscious will not reject these elements because they are so commonly shared in the cultural community. In other words, advertisements feed us cultural capital. The notion of hegemony is what drives these advertisements because they illustrate a method of control with consent.
I decided to watch a show of “Law and Order: Special Victims Unit” and see the kinds of commercials they are exposing to the targeted group that enjoy this show. First, let’s talk about the targeted group. All the characters on the show are middle to higher class considering they are either a detective or a doctor. The status of the characters was also marked by the clothing that they wear. Furthermore, in this show the female characters are just as active as the male characters, although virtually all victims were female. The show also does a good job at representing minorities. Just by this analysis, it’s clear that the show attracts a wide targeted audience, mostly the older generation.
By understanding the targeted audience, I was able to see how the commercials being shown within that hour were generally for an older audience. The commercials were of cars, beer, and restaurants. In the car commercials we would see drivers in their car smiling and being happy. The beer commercials would show overly excited people having alcoholic beverages and enjoying themselves. In the restaurant commercials we see the products that they have, their deals, and someone eating food apparently content with the taste of the dinner.
By doing this little analysis, I was able to clearly see the hegemonic ideologies being exposed to the targeted viewers. It’s amazing to see just how powerful commercials can be.
**DIFFERENT TOPIC**
When watching CNN this morning, I was reminded, once again, of the impending doom of the terrorist attack in the coming months. I find it so ridiculous that the media feels the need to use these scare tactics on the population. All they seem to speak about these days are the awful things that are happening around the world these days.
There is always a constant repeating cycle of tragedies that play over and over again on the news networks. For years it was the economic crisis, reminding people about how unemployment rates are soaring at levels higher than ever. Bombarding us with information regarding dropping stock prices and how our 401k may eventually be enough to buy us a stick of bubblegum. It’s enough! Referring to one of Jeff Share’s concepts, for those who do not “passively” take in the media’s propaganda, we able to critically examine the fact that the media clearly has ulterior motives for instilling fear in the masses.
While this is a rant about my general frustration with the media’s responsibility to relay relevant information to the public with the goal of informing us, I think that the way they broadcast information about the doom of the world is bordering on pornographic. As I said at the beginning, the most recent obsession of reporters is the coming terrorist attack that we should all be expecting… because we are… due for one? Get real. Your chances of dying or being critically disfigured in a car accident while texting are infinitely greater than your chances of being blown up on a plane!
I first came across this show when I was visiting Burlington with my mother last summer. We were eating dinner in the hotel room, and there wasn’t much in the way of great television, so as my mom sort of dozed off, I started watching “teen shows” such as Hannah Montana and The Secret Life of the American Teenager. Now, the latter of the two shows, is shown on MuchMusic as part of their weekly broadcasting schedule. I would not say that I am an avid fan of the show, yet admittidly I do watch an episode here and there. Although the subject matter covered throughout the course of one episode is not the most stimulating or in-depth material, it is however, interesting to get a glimpse into what the media believes appeals to younger adolescents, and how the media works to teach/inform the youth about certain issues.
This show has a bit of a Seventh Heaven sort of feel to it. The houses and the high school are in prestine condition; there is not one mark of graffiti anywhere. Basically in this season, the main female character, Amy, who I believe is supposed to be around 16 years old, is preganant. The father of the baby, Ricky, is the “bad boy” at school, who got the girl pregnant during a summer fling. Ricky is the dead-beat of the school, always getting in trouble, does not take anything seriously, and sleeps around. Amy’s parents are now going through a separation, yet they still live in the same house. Her mom was a stay-at-home mom who now is forced to go out onto the work force, but cannot find a proper job, so she has to work at a fast food restaurant. Amy’s dad owns a furniture store, and has a gay couple working for him. Amy’s crush, Ben, is the nerd of the school, who is supposed to be the skinny, rich boy of the group. Then you have the Latina girl, Adrian, who dresses in revealing clothing and tries to steal everyone’s boyfriends. The list of stereotypical characters goes on and on…… You have the Ultra-Christian blond girl, her intellectually handicapped brother, a stigmatized inter-racial couple, the African-American students who live in the disadvantaged area, etc….
On one hand stereotypes that are so blatant can actually be helpful in creating discussion forums about the problems that stem from and are related to the overuse of such reinforcement mechanisms. However, what is evident to one individual, may not be as clear to the next. Jeff Share writes about the fact that different people interpret things in different manners. I mean, in a certain sense, this goes without saying. However, it is important to analyze whether particular understandings and interpretations may hurt or hinder the progress of those holding these beliefs. I think that it would be of the utmost importance to discuss such shows and media’s use of certain characters in particular roles with the youth in our future classrooms. I feel as though this show presents certain situations, but than does not take the responsibility of further exploring these issues.
It would be interesting to discuss an episode of this show with a high school class. The main issue that each of the episodes (at least so far) deal with, is the idea of pregancy. As discussed in class and in parts of Share’s book, the subtle messages or hidden meaning behind certain things is just as important to notice, because these aspects shape our perceptions and understandings as well. One major problem I can think of, is that the show casts the only Spanish girl in the show as a character that displays alot of sexuality. She also has alot of “attitude” and has a distinct accent. Then there is Amy’s mom, whom has lost all of her marketable skills, because she stayed at home with her children. Come to think of it, there is not one woman on the show that does not somehow fall under the category of “victim” in one way or another. There are a few points that I would like to focus on from Share’s book. On page 16, I would explore this show using points 1 and 4. Point 1 would inform the view that this show is simply a construction of media, and not necessarily a true conveyor of reality. And Point 4 would explain to the viewer that one needs to problematize the representation of the characters to discuss what is really at play. This point ties into what Share writes about on Page 17, when he writes about analyzing HOW a certain media souce represents its subjects. With the case of The Secret Life of The American Teenager, one should be cautious of how the creators represent the power relationships between men and women, and how certain ethnicities are conveyed. I would most likely not recommend this show, because it simply works to reinforce stereotypes, and does no justice to the limited about of real-life issues that are in fact raised throughout any particular episode.
*******TOPIC=DIFFERENT SUBJECT*******The Secret Life of The American Teenager…not sure why it did not show as a title on my original bog!
In watching the first commercial, I can somewhat understand how it could be viewed as “offensive” to homophobic viewers. I don’t agree that it is any more inappropriate than the Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake debacle or some of the other sexualized ads that they allow during the SuperBowl. If it was a man and a woman kissing, I would bet a million dollars that there would be no controversy whatsoever, but such is our society. I personally don’t enjoy seeing anyone, 2 men, 2 women or whatever, making out on TV while I’m enjoying the football game but that is besides the point I guess!
In my opinion, there is probably a hegemonic influence at play here. I’m assuming that the broadcaster knows the target audience is straight male viewers who might be offended by something like this. The Snickers ad on the other hand, can come off as funny because it is clearly 2 heterosexual men finding homosexuality disgusting. I can see how a broadcaster would think an ad like this would be beneficial: it’s attention grabbing and slightly scandalous. The ManCrunch ad most likely was refused simply for the backlash the broadcaster would receive…especially from the very Christian, homophobic Southern USA among others.
I definitely do not agree with this thinking, but I don’t see major broadcasters changing their minds anytime soon. Any homophobia that is on TV is usually very tame (ie Will and Grace) and there isn’t much visual affection between the 2 men. It is interesting because shows like “The L Word”, and even “Grey’s Anatomy” are allowed to show two women kissing in just as much detail as that ad. I suppose it’s a double standard and hegemony has much to do with why. Maybe they should just stick to mice and guinea pigs! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JWP1mTItD4&feature=related
I will be writing about an already released Super Bowl commercial. The advertisement is for cars.com and can be found at: http://www.cars.com/superbowl/
This ad shows a boy who from a very young age knows it all. He amazes his parents by putting out a fire and riding his bike the very first time with no help. As he grows up his confidence and knowledge impresses many people and especially the ladies! Despite this fact there was one thing that made him uneasy, buying a car. This self-assured man was nervous, like everyone else when it came to making this big decision. Yet, all he had to do was go to cars.com and to regain his confidence. The ad mentions frequently how knowledge is the key to the character’s confidence.
This advertisement is mainly targeted for the male audience, since stereotypically, “all” males like cars. It seems to imply that if you are a male who is not confident like the character shown you go to cars.com. This website will give you the knowledge about cars that you need to make you a more confident person about purchasing an automobile. I think this advertisement could also serve a similar purpose for females, who stereotypically, do not know much about cars. If this is the case they too can go to the website and become just as knowledgeable as men about cars.
The Super Bowl is mostly a big hype in the U.S. but also among sports fans… This got me thinking do Canadians have a big sporting event like this? Hockey and the Stanley cup play-offs came to my mind immediately. I began wondering why there is not such a big hype about these advertisements. Sure, not everyone is into hockey yet when it is playoff season there is usually a buzz about this sport… I wonder if advertisers pay more to have their logo displayed on the boards of the arena during a playoff game? Does it cost more to buy a commercial spot on television when the play-offs are on? There only seems to be this advertising count down for the Super Bowl but why not other sporting events?
DIFFERENT TOPIC: The Slap Chop
I am sure that if you have ever woken up and watched T.V. in the middle of the night or stared at the television screen early on a Sunday morning, you have seen the infomercial for the “Slap Chop.” If you have not, you definitely should; if nothing else to increase your cultural capital. You can find it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUbWjIKxrrs. When you actually stop and listen to what the spokesperson is saying, the infomercial takes on complete new meaning.
Personal microphone on face, screaming out at the audience, the spokesperson Vince tells whoever is listening, what a great product the Slap Chop is. Some of the things he says are:
?“You’re going to be in a great mood all day because you’re going to be slapping your troubles away with the Slap Chop.”
?“Stop having a boring tuna, stop having a boring life. […] Now you’re going to have a nice tuna salad. Look at this. You’re going to have an exciting life now.”
?“Guys we gotta make America skinny again, one slap at a time”
?(While gratting cheese with the ‘Gratty’ that comes with it) “Now watch this, tacos, fettuccini, linguini, martini, bikini…”
…WHAT?!
Whenever I see this infomercial, I cannot help but think about exactly what the company is trying to sell. Through Vince’s comments, it sounds like they may be trying to sell anti-depressants, a promise for a better life, a weight loss system, and complete and utter ridiculousness. In reality, the company is just selling a kitchen instrument. I have a very hard time believing that the producers of this infomercial tried to come across as serious. For one thing, why is the spokesperson wearing a microphone on his head? As is evident through other commercials and television shows, there are ways to amplify a person’s voice on T.V. and still keep the microphone hidden. Furthermore, if he is wearing a microphone, then there is no need for him to be shouting out at the audience. Including this microphone was a conscious decision on the part of the producers. Secondly, the comments that Vince makes while demonstrating everything the Slap Chop is able to do are off topic and have no correlation with the product itself. The consumers watching this infomercial, if they actually pay attention to what Vince is saying, are liable to be left with a feeling of confusion about the random commenting.
These two points, along with the belief that producers of media know exactly what they are doing when they include certain things/comments lead me to believe that the producers wanted the infomercial to be ridiculous. The producers’ only aim is to sell their product. In this case, whether one associates the product with nonsensicality or not seems to be irrelevant, as long as the consumer remembers the product. After all, viewers will tend to watch something they think is ridiculous and random because it is entertaining. Nevertheless, I cannot help but wonder why this infomercial is so strange and how the producers could have come up with such random, yet ironically entertaining things for the spokesperson to say about the Slap Chop.
SNIKERS VS. MAN CRUSH
Hegemony may have played a part in not allowing this commercial to air in more than one way: 1) Snickers is a well know chocolate bar owned by Mars, and Man Crush is a less know dating site. The broadcasters may have thought that the spot was better off left to a company that was more known and that had more “power” at the end of the day we remember the names of the big companies and their commercials {ie. Budweiser} we also go looking for these commercials every year to see if and how they outdid themselves from the last year. If the spot would have been filled all by new/no name companies, I don’t thing the game would have the same commercial followers. The more powerful companies may not have liked losing their “spot” also leaving the broadcasters in a position of having to be loyal to the companies that come to them with commercials all the time.
2) Content may have also played a factor in the decision. Snickers make the whole thing look like an accident or innocent mistake and the men redeemed themselves by yelling out ‘quick, lets do something manly’ pleasing the homophobic audience. Man Crush on the other hand started it off like it was and accident and then the men kept going at it, wish would make the homophobic viewers uncomfortable. I question would be, would the commercial have gotten the same reaction if it were two girls in the same commercial? Tow girls seem to always be portrayed in media as “EVERY” guys fantasy, if the site was Girl Crush would it have been given the boot too? There seem to be double standards.
Topic: Oscars Nominees for Short Film (Animation)
It’s that time of year when the Oscar nominees are announced. And my favorite part of the show is the short animation feature.
Last year, Kunio Kato’s “La Maison en Petits Cubes” won the Academy Award, and rightly so.
This year, the nominees are:
– “French Roast”: a well-to-do man takes coffee in a French cafe as a beggar wanders around outside and inside. The well-to-do man is repulsed, but forgets his own wallet and continues to order coffee to stall paying the bill. Hilarity and sweetness ensue.
– “Granny O’Grimm’s Sleeping Beauty”: a child cowers in fear under the covers as her aggressive grandmother tells her own vindictive version of Sleeping Beauty
– “The Lady and the Reaper”: an elderly woman close to death is suddenly revived unwillingly by a star doctor, and what ensues is a tug-of-war with the grim reaper for the life or death of the woman.
– “Logorama”: a Tarantino-esque police chase and hostage crisis occurs in a surreal world made and peopled entirely of corporate logos.
– “A Matter of Loaf and Death”: didn’t see it, but it’s a continuation of Wallace and Gromit
It strikes me a little more each year that animation–shorts and features– is increasingly a platform of representation for the aging population. “Up,” Pixar’s treat of the year, has both the central character and the villain as older gentleman on adventures. “The Triplets of Belleville,” an Oscar winner from another year, is another example. This year, three of the shorts have elderly women at the forefront – in “French Roast,” an elderly nun who at first seems like a sleepy oversight, ends up being a sneaky bank robber; in “The Lady and the Reaper,” an elderly woman fights for her own right to death; and in my favorite, “Granny O’Grimm,” Granny narrates a tale of revenge where the elderly fairy is the central character in ‘Sleeping Beauty.’
There is increasingly an interest in aged persons, particularly women, in animation. There is a realization that they make amazing heros and heroines and bring a sweet and traditional context to their stories.
Go watch these on YouTube before they’re taken off!!
When we watch the superbowl, we expect to see popular beer advertisements, chocolate bars and every other product that is well recognize by people all around the world. These companies have had a lot of experience in advertising, which is usually why they are so popular. Since so many people watch the super bowl, these companies understand that in the few seconds they are paying for, they must leave the audience with something to hold on to. The commercial could be strange, or funny or leave people questioning but either way people are supposed to remember it. For example, in the beer commercial that was shown in class, everyone laughed. People would remember this commercial for its humour as well as having something “wazzup” to hold on to. People don’t even realize the power that commercial had but the next time they go into a beer store they will most likely think of that commercial when seeing that type of beer and likely purchase it.
NEW TOPIC******LEGAL MALE PROSTITUTE*******
On January 21st, a brothel in Nevada hired their first male prostitute and is now the only legal gigolo in the United States. The Shady Lady Ranch has won state and county approval for this man known as Markus who’s first appointments were held last weekend. Markus has said in an interview “that his pioneering role in the sex business was “just the same” as civil rights icon Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat and move to the back of the bus during racial segregation in the U.S. South.” He has also said “A surrogate lover will love that woman for a whole hour, or however much we charge here, and she’ll leave feeling much more empowered and much more confident in herself.” It is not surprising that he is now forbidden from doing interviews. What is this guy thinking! I find it disgusting that they have officially hired a legal prostitute, what kind of image is that giving the young people of North America? I think no matter male or female, your body should not be paraded around as an object or a piece of meat. If you would like read more about this story I found the article at http://news.ca.msn.com/odd/cp-article.aspx?cp-documentid=23309582
The Super Blow is only on Sunday and I am already sick and tried of watching commercials. (This also includes the 2010 Winter Olympics, but that’s a whole other topic). I quickly skimmed through a short article written by Christian M. Hood, “Super Bowl Commercials: Are they worth the price?” where I was interested to discover that “For Super Bowl XXXIX, a 30 second commercial spot cost $2.4 million; that is $80,000 a second!” I found this to be rather disturbing, especially because a majority of these commercials are never showed again on television. They are simply for Super Bowl purposes only.
In the hit television show, the Biggest Loser, it was mentioned that America spends an estimated amount of 50 billion dollars on snacks for the Super Bowl. The Super Bowl is all about the commercials, the food and which singer is going to be performing. So in the end, it’s only normal when someone asks, “by the way, who is playing?”
At the end of the article, it was written that “Millions of people watch the Super Bowl, many specifically for the commercials”. What is the point? I for one, skim through commercials; for they are only an interruption during my show.
**NEW TOPIC: REALITY SHOW CELEBRITIES**
Last night as I was watching my favourite guilty pleasure TV show, TMZ, I found myself asking “when, why and how did these people become celebrities?” This question was brought on after a segment which lasted about a minute was devoted to MTV Jersey Shore’s, Pauly D and his newly acquired body guards. Jersey Shore is a ‘reality’ show that depicted the lives of 8 Italian-American, self proclaimed guidos and guidettes, as they partied during the summer at the Jersey Shore. I’m not going to act like I didn’t watch this show, because I did so religiously, but by no means should appearing on 9 episodes of a reality show make you a celebrity, furthermore a celebrity who requires 2 bodyguards. After the part about Pauly D, Kim Kardashian was featured. How did she become famous? A reality show of course! Keeping UP With The Kardashians is the reality show that skyrocketed her and 2 of her sisters to fame, through simply documenting their day-to-day lives- which happen to be full of family feuds and exciting parties.
It seems these days that half the celebrities out there are simply famous because MTV or another popular TV station picked them up for a reality show. Take the girls from quite possibly MTV’s biggest hit, The Hills; it is impossible to read a magazine without a feature about one of them. This includes the biggest drama queen of all-Spencer Pratt and his Barbie doll wife Heidi Montag. These people have no real talent yet for some reason, they have become an obsession in our society. I admit there are a select few that deserve their celebrity status, as they have made something for themselves through the fame but for the most part these people are not important. Not only that but they are really bad role models. Take Heidi Montag for example; who just underwent 10plastic surgeries and now in my opinion looks quite frightening. And this was all so her and her husband could get more media exposure! She claims she wants to be a role model, but what is she promoting? That being yourself isn’t good enough, that not having a real job is cool and if you act stupid enough, you will become famous. I think these reality stars should not be considered celebrities and the media definitely needs to take a step back in promoting them and their outrageous lifestyles.
****** Different topic*********
After our discussion during lecture about hermeneutics and the theory of interpretation I started to wonder just how many different interpretations of any given symbol there could be? And I wondered too, what factors contribute to this association of meaning?
The factors seemed once again to be linked with the same classifications as those for the dominant culture, namely, age, gender, religion, education, sexual orientation, race, class, and language.
I chose to do a so called “hermeneutics exercise” with our very own belovéd symbol the McGill Martlet:
http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://montrealflags.tripod.com/mcgill.jpg&imgrefurl=http://montrealflags.tripod.com/mcgill.html&usg=__zX-YkZ1rB3f4DFEOpv7AcQc-6Nc=&h=992&w=714&sz=112&hl=en&start=7&sig2=PIEazrZo-6l8lT3OljM7vA&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=RCVkYt7puZFGPM:&tbnh=149&tbnw=107&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmcgill%2Bmartlet%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26um%3D1&ei=lk5rS7eOAs33lAfBoZGRBQ
The following were a few of the interpretations I could conjure up:
1. Age: The school I want to go to.
-The school I went to.
2. Gender: (Before the 1880’s ) A university for men.
3. Religion:
4. Education: To a scholar in the classics, the words in Latin below the crest mean perhaps “By work all things increase and grow”.
- The symbol represents an institution of I cannot go to.
- The university I went to.
5. Sexual orientation:
6. Race: An institution that is known for its multi-national student body.
7. Class: A prestigious university
8. Language: The words written below the symbol are in Latin.
-McGill is an English educational institution in a French province.
9. Sub-culture:“I represent the Martlet’s when I play a sport’s team”
-“what is a Martlet?”
I soon realized the list could be endless. Our interpretations of symbols are reliant on our varied experiences. Because human experiences are infinite, so too are the possibilities for interpretation of symbols. The trick therefore is understanding how marketers could use these variations to their (economic) advantage.
How do they use them? What other interpretations of the McGill crest could be seen?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRh1WF5FqqY
I just stumbled upon this “teaser” ad – I wanted to share because I think it’s pretty funny, however, my response to this week’s blog will be in response to the ads this year – so stay tuned…
After watching the two contrasting commercials, I can definitely agree with the statement that the Snickers ad is an example of hegemonic influences working on advertising. The reality is that Western society has become very hypersexualized over the last few decades, and generally speaking, is not completely comfortable with the idea of homosexuality. Is it just a coincidence that these same occurrences are perfectly reflected in advertisements, as well as in many other forms of media? The answer is obviously no, as it is precisely because of the kinds of ideas fuelled in media that our society is in fact hypersexualized and homophobic in the first place.
The concept of hegemony is a major player in the way the media presents certain ideologies and beliefs to the masses, and how the latter decides to hold these ideas as well. The way it works is that the “ruling class” of society dominates and rules over all other classes (the masses), and imposes on them the ruling class’s ideas that will eventually come to be seen as the “norm”, thus the masses hold on to the same beliefs as the ruling class. What is interesting during this whole process is that the ruling class manages to convince the masses that these ideologies are beneficial for the masses to hold, when truthfully they are only advantageous to the ruling class. The masses are in fact “blinded” by this truth, and continue to be conquered by consent and without force.
How does this fit into the two commercials we have just seen? Through hegemony, the Snickers commercial is maintaining the idea that of the ruling class (now seen as a “norm” in society) that men should be tough, rugged, emotionless, and that anything contradicting this idea is completely unacceptable – such as homosexuality. When the two men in the commercial “accidentally kissed” through the Snickers bar, they absolutely had to “Do something manly!” to counteract this unacceptable behaviour that has been communicated to the masses through hegemony, and again reinforcing “manly” behaviour through the same way. In contrast, the ManCrunch commercial was rejected from airing at the Super Bowl because of hegemonic influences; the openly gay message that it sends is not in sync with the ruling class’s ideology, therefore it will not be played. The argument that this advertisement was declined by the broadcaster because it would “offend” the Super Bowl’s predominantly straight male audience is correct but at the same time not fully explained. The whole reason why this predominantly straight male audience would be “offended” by this advertisement in the first place is because of hegemony. Furthermore, the very act of the broadcaster refusing to play this advertisement during the Super Bowl is hegemonic again. To answer the last question of this blog whether other advertisements continue to perpetuate hegemonic ideologies, my response is most definitely. These ideologies are present in all kinds of media and are absolutely not limited to television. If we look close enough, we can begin to see these types of hegemonic influences everywhere, and how much they seem to take hold of our ways of thinking.
I have recently learned that many regulars on the Superbowl commercials’ list were not going to be present this year such as Pepsi, FedEx and GM. They all had their reasons – GM’s being quite obvious (money cannot be spent on advertisement in such difficult times). But when a company HAS the money, such as Man Crunch, why be denied access to the general population (mainly U.S.)? Easy, people are not ready for it.
To quote my classmate Shannon: If it was a man and a woman kissing, I would bet a million dollars that there would be no controversy whatsoever, but such is our society.
I completely agree with this statement. Why do you think Will & Grace is so popular? – because it makes fun of homosexuality (I am not putting down this show…it’s actually one of my favorites, and I have all seasons on DVD..I can still be critical about it). This commercial not only touches upon an oppressed group – homosexuals – but also tries to make the oppressed be ‘part of’ the dominant culture – white guys watching football – a big ‘no-no’ for this society. Previous Superbowl commercials such as the ‘wassssup’ did touch upon oppressed groups (African-American, Indian, etc.) but did it in such a way that was less ‘graphic’. Black people were not at the top – they were acting goofy, how they are seen to do by the dominant culture. I think ManCrunch was very brave to bring this to the table…better luck next time? I hope there comes a day where all will have equal rights, but sometimes, even money isn’t enough…
RESPONSE TO “REALITY SHOW CELEBRITIES”
I agree with everything that Jordan is saying. I have never seen an episode of Jersey Shore, but I still know who these people are because of the continuous coverage that they get by the media. I have seen an episode of The Hills, and I have no idea why people watch this show. I don’t really see a point to it. The people that really annoy me from that show are Heidi and Spencer. They are definitely making the most of their 15 minutes of fame. I am surprised that it hasn’t run out yet. I see nothing interesting about the couple, they are just very annoying. I did hear about how she had 10 plastic surgeries in one day, and I just couldn’t believe it. She really is sending out a terrible message.
Another reality show couple that was in the media a lot this past year was Jon and Kate Gosselin (from Jon and Kate plus 8). Every single entertainment show and magazine had stories about them and all their divorce drama. It was ridiculous! They became bigger celebrities when they were having trouble than when they were happily married. I admit that I was a fan of their show before the whole divorce story started, but the story got so out of hand and stopped watching it. They seemed to be getting more coverage than “actual” celebrities and all because their marriage was falling apart. I remember watching an episode of Access Hollywood once and one of the hosts said that he was tired of all the coverage that Jon and Kate where getting from the media, but his show was covering the story just as much as an other media. I found that he was being a bit hypocritical. It certainly was the most overexposed story of the year! They definitely should not be considered celebrities.
In today’s day and age, violence has been a type of entertainment that has increasingly been apparent in the various media platforms that are at our disposal. When it all boils down to it, we witness more acts of violence in a day than we actually are aware of. As most of you may now, studies have been done which have correlated a possible link between media violence and the acts that follow the viewing of the aggressive material.
TV Violence – Affective Domain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCEtC7p4xTs
When I watched this video entitled “TV Violence – Affective Domain”, it introduced me to a number of statistics that were rather shocking. The first statistic being the number of murders that the average child watches before competition of elementary school. At first watch, I began questioning how the viewing of 8000 murders before the end of elementary school affects the average child. According to the video’s cited source, the Association of Psychological Science, television is harmful and contributes to real-life violence.
The images that are depicted in the attached video are visually revealing and quite graphic, yet as an adult, I am able to understand the difference from reality and fantasy. What worries me is that the children who have most probably seen such violent and graphic images in television, film and video games are unable to see the clear line between reality and fantasy. What should also be questioned is how such images are impacting children? Will children view these acts of violence as the typical manner in which you resolve problems? This subject manner is rather large and is one that should be questioned further in order to gain a greater understanding of its affect on children. As teachers, how could we examine such graphic material in order to teach children that the images presented are not real and do not present the way things are in real life?
DIFFERENT TOPIC: 2010 Olympics
Generally when I watch the same TV station for a long time (and living in rez, I don’t really have a choice), I end up getting tired of the same commercials repeating over and over. However recently I have been watching CTV, who is a large sponsor of the winter games. A large percentage of the commercials on CTV are for the Olympics, and I must have seen each one at least a hundred times. Usually I would just mute the TV when commercials that I’ve already seen come on, but I haven’t gotten sick of these commercials yet, I actually really like them! I think CTV must have put a lot of thought behind these commercials, because although they seem simple, there really is a lot to them. I find that every time I see one of these commercials, I feel a sense of Canadian pride, which just makes me even more excited for the Olympics to start. Each commercial introduces you to a Canadian athlete that is participating in the Winter Olympics. The music in the commercials seems to be very momentous, and the athletes are shown in many different action shots, proving to Canada just how impressive our Olympic athletes are. These commercials were also well thought out by CTV, because now that Canadians have been introduced to many different athletes for many different sports, when watching the events they will remember the commercials, and will be able to cheer for one specific person, making the events even more exciting. After watching these commercials for a few weeks, I am even more excited now for the Olympics than I was before.
“Different Topic”
Next week the olympics will be taking place and I must admit it is something I look forward to. Unfortunatly, I have not seen that much media publicity promoting the olympics. I truly believe that if it were being held in the states there would have been numerous advertisements by now along with media coverage. Since the U.S. usually is a strong county throughout the olympics most of the publicity is geared towards them. The only saving grace this year is the fact that the Olympics are being held in Canada. I read in the paper today about some of the young upcoming athletes from Canada who have a chance to take home a medal or two. This winter Olympics will be important one for Canada and in many ways will bring numerous citizens together. The olympics is usually a time when Canadians stand together as family and support one another. One does not even have to know the athletes its as if they are a member of our family and we stand by and root for them. The Olympcis for me, is quiet a special time for all Canadians. It’s a time that units us all.
I really feel that the lack of publicity and promotion for Canada says alot about how people feel about us. In essence we are seen as humble and modest people. Where as the Americans are usually seen at arrogant and agressive atheltes. In many ways the Olympics brings out the true colors of the Countries. Once the Olympics begins the news coverage will be predominatly be on the Olympics and this is a time when Canadians will be in the lime light, once again and beable to prove to the rest of the world how special and true Canadians really are.
***DIFFERENT TOPIC: MEDIA VIOLENCE***
I FORGOT TO PLACE THE TITLE IN CAPS FOR COMMENT #20
*****ANTI-ABORTION AD TO AIR DURING SUPER BOWL*****
I find it rather interesting that the Super Bowl will not be airing the ManCrunch commercial, but it will however be airing an anti-abortion commercial, supported by a Christian organization.
“Focus on the Family” will be air a Super Bowl Ad, featuring Tim Tebow (quarterback for the Florida Gaters) and his mother. It’s about their faith and their potion about abortion. His mother did not get an abortion, even contravention of doctor’s orders, since she had a very serious illness that she contracted while pregnant and had to take harmful medication early in her pregnancy. This pregnancy turned out to be fine and grew up to be her famous son Tim. “Focus on the Family” paid for and wrote this ad. They are a famous Christian group that is against abortion, gay marriage and gay rights. CBS worked with them to make this ad.
Apparently, CBS has always been in the past anti-advocacy, but however seem to promote this particular ad, and promote going against your doctor’s will and risking your life. The key point made by the reporter is that we are all very happy that everything turned out fine for her and that she was willing to risk her life, however this isn’t always the case. This is the exemption and not the rule, so CBS shouldn’t be promoting ignoring medical advice.
I want to make note that I am not anti or pro abortions. I believe, just like the ad made by Planned Parenthood, that the choice lies in every woman’s hands. We cannot judge another person for the decisions that they make. Every woman’s decision about their health and family should be valued. We do not have the right to criticize or dictate how others should behave.
This ad definitely demonstrates a hegemonic ideology, in keeping with the idea that the dominant culture is often anti-abortion. Abortion is an extremely hot topic in parliament, and even though women are granted the rights and freedoms to choose, abortions are often viewed negatively in our society, especially from the religious point of view.
The fact that the Super Bowl can pick and choose its ads, demonstrates the fact that hegemony is very much present in our society. Though the Super Bowl mostly touches one key demographic, the fact that they will be airing an anti-abortion ad during a MANS game, which features only MEN, is rather oppressing to women. This kind of advocacy should not be on Super Bowl Sunday, without some kind of response.
Super Bowl commercials do what commercials are meant to do best: grab your attention, make you remember. I realize that this is the most watched event of the year in America, but it makes me wonder; why is it that they don’t have ads as good as these all year long? Why would a company make another one of their own commercials look so dull, boring, and unattractive for this short moment of glory. Why spend so much money on airing it just once? This all seems a little irrational to me. Does it not defeat the whole purpose of promoting their product? One would assume that after seeing such a humorous, attention-grabbing, “I want more”-type of commercial that it would be there again, and again. It is the case for some, very little, but for others, your last resort becomes YouTube and other video streaming sites that keep them on record. I can’t imagine that Youtube is more popular than big US TV networks that would be able to air the commercials following or even before the Super Bowl.
I guess if you look at it from another angle, you can sort of understand the “secrecy”. By making them rare and unique to an event, it causes many to actually pay attention to them, rather than flipping channels or opting for a bathroom break like many would normally do. It becomes your chance to catch the shocking ones, the hilarious ones, and even the few controversial ones.
In the end, this time of the year has become a trademark for commercials. Some fanatics watch the Super Bowl just for them, sadly careless about the actual game. On this note, I wish you all a wonderful Super Bowl weekend, enjoy the commercials, the nachos, the beverages, and more. Go Saints Go!
**DIFFERENT TOPIC–MALCOLM IN THE MIDDLE**
Today I was watching an episode of Malcolm in the Middle and it made me realize some things that I have never thought of before. Media class has made me think deeper and look at things in a different light.
I used to watch Malcolm in the Middle a lot because it’s funny. Looking at it today I realized how interesting to see a switch in gender roles. Usually the father of a family is portrayed to have authority, respect and power. In Malcolm, it’s the mother who has all these traits. The 3 boys are terrified of her! They disrespect their father all the time, but always listen to their mother. Even the father is afraid of his own wife! So I began asking myself, what is the purpose of showing this switch in gender roles?
I think it’s important to show the audience that the father is not ALWAYS the head of the household. In reality it can be the mother, just as well as the father. Many people assume that a person’s father is much stricter than the mother, but that is not always the case. It’s interesting to see the other side of things in this TV show.
Another thing I noticed is how dysfunctional their family is compared to other families on television. This is a good thing to show the audience, because they can relate to it. I’m sure not every family is as perfect as most families we see portrayed on TV.
I think that it is much more interesting for the audience to watch shows that they can relate to. What’s the point of watching a perfect family? Then there is no surprise!
In my opinion, the Man Crunch commercial is quite strange. It is clearly attempting to be funny, perhaps because of the content of the commercial, however it is not funny at all. I believe that the commercial was rejected because many people feel uncomfortable with this type of situation. While most people seem to be ok with the idea of lesbians, many people seem to have difficulties dealing with male homosexuals. I don’t know exactly why this is the case, but I can assume it has something to do with “emasculating of men”. For instance, to many men, calling them gay is the biggest insult for it questions their masculinity. It is this idea that makes most of the male population so uncomfortable with homosexuals and homosexual behaviours. Since the Superbowl caters largely to the male population, it makes sense that the network did not want to take a commercial that so bluntly displays homosexuality for they don’t want to make their audience feel uncomfortable. However, in this day and age, I believe that everyone has the right to express themselves and so this commercial should have as much right to air as the next. This company is paying for their spot, so they should be given the air time. The networks can’t start changing their rules; one goes for one company goes for them all.
**** USE OF CENSORSHIP IN THE MEDIA”"
I’m going to choose a different topic for this blog. This time I want to talk about censorship in the media, when is it okay and when it’s not okay to use it. TV stations are probably aware that kids watch TV so that have to block things. I can see where they’re coming from but is it really necessary to put it on shows that kids don’t watch. It’s useful when people strip down naked on non-playboy channels; I’ve seen a few on MTV. It’s kind of awkward to be on that channel and ya I agree it should be censored.
But they’re some sections where I find that they censor too much. For example, on an American idol, the contestants give the middle finger at the judges if they don’t make it to Hollywood. Is it really necessary to censor that, because children sooner or later usually pick that up in school? But would really never have I seen the censor “bleep” used it too abusively. Shows like Hell’s Kitchen, Trailer Park Boys and Kitchen Nightmares, all my three fave shows use it too frequently. Personally I find it more entertaining if they don’t censor swear words, they even censor the mild ones ?
I see what the media is doing, trying to protect the youth, but lately it’s beginning to grow out of proportion.
This is in response to Rebekah Leitner’s comment on the anti-abortion ad that is to air during the Super Bowl on Sunday. Firstly, I was definitely surprised to hear that they would air this type of commercial during such a sports event. I think that the only reason why they are is because of Tim Tebow, who is the quarterback for the Florida Gaters, as Rebekah mentioned. However, what right does he (and his mother) have to say that abortion is wrong? Just because she decided to keep her baby after all her doctors cautioned her not too and he turned out to be a famous athlete, does not mean that she has the right to go on national television and say that abortion is wrong. Just like Rebekah, I am neither for nor against abortions, and I believe that whenever a woman is confronted with such a decision, it is exactly that: a decision that they are allowed to make and that should be without judgment.
Coming back to the reason why they will air this commercial during the Super Bowl,
I do not want to say that men do not care about abortion, but they certainly are not concerned by it as much as women can be. So why would they show such a commercial during the Super Bowl? I think that it was just a way to give Tim Tebow his 30 seconds of fame… I do not think that it is the time or place to show such commercials. Actually, I do not think that they should make such commercials at all! If they want to sensitize the public to such a topic, that is fine, but to deliberately say that abortions are wrong is just too judgmental to air on mainstream television I believe.
*Different topic: The use of feminine stereotypes in the media as well as the use of violence
The two topics that I chose to discuss this week sort of link a little to the original topic. After having looked at various super bowl 2010 commercials throughout the previous days, there are many things that came to mind although there were two specific commercials that stood out to me.
The first commercial that caught my attention is a Doritos commercial that was banned. If I summarize it quickly, it is a story about a man who gets in his car and is mostly distracted by a tune that is playing on his radio. As he is singing along to this tune, he is backing up at the same time and accidently hits a woman. As soon as you see the hit, there are Doritos that fly in the air and the driver starts panicking. To make it short, we find out that the driver is worried about the Doritos and he does not care about the person that he hit with his car, where he decides to run over her in order to get his Doritos bag. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T_DiTPoy-A. I am glad that they removed this commercial from viewing on television since it promotes violence to the highest degree without even being aware of it. Like David mentioned in his blog, violence is now a form of entertainment that is being used ever more in media. People take a look at a guy hitting and running over a woman with his car in order to save the “commercial product” and they assume that it is a normal and a funny thing. Our priorities have clearly changed, where we are now saying that a human’s life is least important than one of a product; way to educate the society about the right values!
Another commercial that I came across and that got me quite angry as well is one for a company called “Fantasy Video Greetings”. After having done my research on the company, I realized that it is an enterprise that sells greeting cards/ videos of beautiful, sexy and half naked women. I already have difficulty liking this website since it promotes the idea of women serving as objects and pieces of meat particularly to men. I got even more frustrated after having watched the commercial for the super bowl. In this commercial, there are two attractive white women that are showing a considerable amount of cleavage and that are asking “dumb” questions about the way that the super bowl works. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ClTyzXoaZg. What particularly gets me angry about this commercial is how dumb that they make the beautiful/sexy women seem when they start speaking. Not only are they reinforcing the stereotype that beautiful women with big boobs are stupid but also that they know nothing about sports since the mall and the beauty parlor is the only place that they visit. They give the idea to men that all beautiful women are capable of looking good although they will say stupidities as soon as they open their mouths, therefore as the final line mentions “Dude…do not bring your girlfriend to my super bowl party!” These same women are not worthy enough to go to a party with their boyfriends; women’s rights are being brought lower in this commercial where the men are again portrayed as the authoritative figures!
Other subject: Religious ideologies and advertisement
I do not watch much TV so much of the commercial I see are sent by some friends to me to watch on YouTube. After reading chapters on Arabs and Muslims, I looked more closely at how some advertisements used stereotypes of religions to sell products. One that I found quite funny at first was the following: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40DykbPa4Lc
It shows a young boy arriving to a Buddhist empire and learns combat stuff. All the other ‘’Buddhists’’ have a sign on their forehead. At the end the young boy who is now older understands that the sign on the forehead is a mark you get my smacking your head on a Pepsi can. Therefore Pepsi is a form of enlightenment.
On a second look, what I found disturbing was the way the stereotype of Buddhists learning crazy martial arts skills perpetuated once more. I think that with the actual crisis going on in Tibet it is inappropriate to make fun of this community.
I agree with Chantalle’s comment above that the broadcaster was likely fearful of alienating its core market of heterose*ual males but that there should not be differential treatment of advertisers based on grounds of se*ual orientation. As Chantalle mentions, there is no reason why one company’s money is better than another’s and, ironically, the capitalist ideal is done a disservice by a rejection of the mancrunch ad on any grounds other than that of profit. Clearly the decision was an example of hegemonic influences operating to safeguard the image of Superbowl as a male, heterose*ual sporting event; as one commentator to the youtube video wrote “Superbowl is a man vs. man event, not a man meets man event”. Interestingly, the very fact that the broadcaster would be so fearful of offending/alienating its straight male audience and the virulent response of some males to the ad, indicates the apparent level of insecurity of certain males with respect to their se*ual identity or orientation. In the context of today’s hyperse*ualized consumer product ads, the mancrunch ad could not be regarded as anything but tame.
*DIFFERENT TOPIC** Social Networking Slang
There are many words that we use without realizing, which may not be the best way to communicate or express our thought. For example, the craze with using the abbreviation “LOL” after every single sentence when writing to a friend on facebook. It became very evident to me that I overuse this abbreviation when I almost actually said LOL out loud when having a face to face discussion with someone. I think that the way we abbreviate words and sentences on social networking sites may interfere with our ability to speak proper English. When I first starting using MSN messenger and such things, I would find myself going back while writing a paper to correct a word that I had accidentally abbreviated by habit. Of course, I have been able to control my use of slang throughout my educational life thus far, however, It simply makes me wonder if we would all be speaking in the same manner to each other if social networking and instant messenger devices did not exist. I personally think there would be a drastic difference.
So I definitely haven’t seen tons of commercials for the super bowl yet, however I have found a couple of interesting ones for Fantasy Video Greetings. I have to admit the two I saw were both really quite funny. The one is being aired and the other is not. Here are the two links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ClTyzXoaZg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8F_cHT4DvQ&NR=1
The first link is of the one which is being used. It involves two attractive women asking questions about football (stupid questions I might add, i.e. how many points for a home run? ) haha the tag line of the commercial is “Dude … do not bring your girlfriend to my super bowl party”. It is a cute commercial but the stereotype that attractive, put together women do not know anything about sports is definitely present. Either way, the commercial is definitely catchy!
The second commercial starts off with a wife cleaning up and complaining about the football game, as it will “mess up” her clean house. Later, an attractive woman comes into the same scene, but instead of complaining, she is bringing her husband a beer. She then offers to have herself and a friend (both are attractive, sexualized women) perform his own private halftime show. The tag line for this commercial is “whats your football fantasy for the big game?”
Both commercials use attractive women as the main component. Both commercials are creative, but they both leave women in a negative light; the women are being degraded in both.
Both commercials are catchy and definitely leave a lasting impression. As a result, I’d definitely say they were well made. I have never heard of the company who is advertising through the commercials, but they definitely succeeded in bringing it to my attention.
**DIFFERENT TOPIC**
The Internet and culture….
If you are anywhere in the world and you do not have the Internet, you are an outsider. We have to understand that people living in third world countries aren’t as privileged as us, but even then, they may have locations where they can pay to use a computer for an hour. As many will say, the Internet has to be one of the most amazing inventions. I’m in Canada and I can communicate with my friend who is in Ireland instantly. I can look up information for my research papers. I can even watch movies in the comfort of my bed. But is the worldwide tool as good as most say?
There are two sides to every medal, and as amazing as the Internet is, there is so much going behind the screen. I’m the type of open-minded girl and I rarely judge. I like all foods, watch any show and listen to every type of music. Rap, country or metal, they all appeal to me. Some song lyrics may be very disturbing or offensive, but artists, mostly, will express themselves that way.
They other day, something completely knocked me off my chair. I don’t know if this is just cultural shock, but I saw a video of two Latin Americans kids (or so it appears) grinding with one another, while people are in the background cheering them on! Looking at them, I would assume they are not older than 10 years of age and they are dancing, or should I say dry humping. I don’t know what’s worse; seeing children doing a mature act, or being able to watch something like that. Another thing that made me angry is looking at the young boy. He has no clue what he is doing! He is just following her command and moving to movement of her booty.
If you would like to access this video, here is the link: http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhy8801t7C1OSW49CP
It might be their culture and to them there is nothing wrong with seeing children “dancing” like that with one other, but statistics do say that it is estimated that in the Latin American area there were 2 million people living with HIV and AIDS. Shouldn’t there be a change if this is really what is going on?
I laughed out loud at Diana Samaan’s short analysis of the slap chop. It is ludicrous how objects embody such high hopes in North America. Throw out your anti-depressants and buy a slap chop instead!
Rachel Bradley – Thanks for the short animation links. Obviously elderly people make interesting characters so it’s just our fear of aging in North America that makes the grey representation so rare – unless, of course, it’s old people looking like they just stepped out of the pool in Cocoon.
Rebekah Leitmer brought up the excellent point about the anti-abortion ad being aired during this year’s Superbowl. Clearly, as other bloggers have mentioned, these advertisements are preaching to a converted audience, that is, beliefs and lifestyles are being reinforced and even celebrated. Some characteristics of the audience were mentioned, namely, heterosexual, conservative Christian, white and male, but, I would add that more needs to be said about the type of masculinity being represented here. Not all men are homophobic yet this target audience is; not all men drink copious amounts of beer or like soft porn yet this audience does. Of course, there are gay people, women (both of whom may like beer and/or soft porn) and strictly sports fans who only watch for the game, but, they are in the minority. One of the key things about hegemony that Professor Steinberg emphasized in the last class is this notion of consent among the masses towards their subordination to the dominant culture. This reminded me of a neoMarxist book I read awhile ago (I forget the author but it was written in the 70s), which argued that the sports subculture was an obstacle to class consciousness amongst the largely working class fan-base. In other words, sporting events distract the lower classes from noticing their disadvantaged lot in life. But, from the point of view of hegemony, it’s not just a case of being distracted from recognizing power relations (which is, frankly, insulting to working class minds) it’s a case of the people consenting to the dominant culture. This question of consent is very complicated because there are degrees of consent and different reasons behind consent. Professor Steinberg mentioned the story about her son having to buy Nike apparel because of the company’s monopoly over the sport’s team. Consent does not always mean ‘in favour of’. I would argue that not every guy who ascribes to the hegemonic masculinity represented by the Superbowl ads is homophobic and misogynistic, but they go through the performance because, ultimately, humans prefer to be a part of the dominate culture rather then alienated from it. I guess another way of putting it is: If you can’t beat them, join them.
One thing that is interesting about Superbowl ads is how successful they are at being subjects of conversation for years after they first air. There are countless examples of this point, from Budweiser, to ETrade, to Doritos; all these commercials have entertained audiences on television and YouTube since they made their way into our homes each and every Superbowl game. These commercials appear to be so captivating because of the fact that unlike many other commercials we see throughout the year, they have absolutely nothing to do with what they are advertising. In fact, in most cases, it isn’t until audiences see the name of the product that we actually know what the commercials are actually about. This is most evident in this ETrade commercial: youtube.com/watch?v=BnQMq5wtZcg,
or this Doritos ad; youtube.com/watch?v=M8QZo4mybGA.
These two ads are among the many that use a humoristic approach to reaching a very broad audience of viewers during the Superbowl. And these commercials are exactly the kind that stay with us all long after we first see them, by laughing and thinking, what the?
“DIFFERENT TOPIC”
For the readings this week, on “School of (Punk) Rock” and “Punk Rock, Hip Hop, and the Politics of Human Resistance”, I realized how important it is to incorporate student’s interests in media literacy. The first article, the author described his experience as a young child jumping around from school to school because these public schools were encouraging students to learn standardized tests and becoming a product of experimental education. He advocates for students to “be more than a witness” and a DIY (Do it Yourself Attitude) when it comes to create media.
The authors of Punk Rock, Hip Hop, and the Politics of Human Resistance describe the importance to integrate student interests when looking at the social studies program. Students are becoming more and more disengaged with the content of the curriculum because media has becoming a huge part of youth. It has changed the way we look at education in today’s modern world. If we allow our students to engage in their own learning by looking at media literacy as a critical pedagogical tool, students are able to create their own drive to develop the self-discipline needed to learn how to lead a critical consciousness and ultimately a sense of empowerment needed to transform our dull reality, that is, the material world.
In a recent podcast that was posted at http://www.citizenshift.org/podcasts/051_citizen.mov gave insight to children at the Tyndale Community Centre in Little Burgundy. These students come from lower socio-economic status’ and have been challenged to use media literacy by using rhyming and rapping as a way to develop their vocabulary, literacy, and writing skills all together while actively participating in their learning. In the article, it introduces us to many contemporary bands or rap groups such as Dead Kennedys, Public Enemy, Bad Regligion, and many more that deal with social, economic, and political issues. While implementing these forms of media literacy inside the classroom, do we as educators think that this strategy will help engage those students who normally are disengaged with their own learning, or do you think it is inappropriate for students to explore such extreme lyrics or topics that are expressed. Should we monitor their learning in a way that may hinder their creativity, or do we allow them to express themselves freely i.e. if a child experience oppression himself in his own community. Should we be responsible to openly discuss with our students these strong, yet imperative topics that we deal with in our society?
As I watched both parts of this podcast, it made sense to me why punk rock and hip hop can be such a useful tool when engaging in media literacy. Because our society is changing with technological advances, should we adhere to these changes and ignore traditional forms of education?
In reponse to Rebekah Leitner’s *****ANTI-ABORTION AD TO AIR DURING SUPER BOWL*****
I had no idea that such an ad was going to air during the Superbowl on Sunday! Honestly, what does abortion have to do with a football game? OK, Tim Tebow’s mother didn’t have an abortion and now he is playing for the Florida Gaters, and then… I believe that CBS should have put more thought in promoting advertisement for this Ad, which is suggesting not following medical advice. In most situations individuals request advice from their doctors because they want a “professional opinion” that is often much valued, however; in this case this story seems to defy the norm.
Nonetheless, advertising anti-abortion during a superbowl is out of place since this is implying a hegemonic value that most individuals watching the game are against abortion. To be quite honest, most MEN watching the superbowl will most likely not react to this type of commercial, as they are not affected in the same way as women regarding such a decision. Once again, the initial purpose of this commercial was obviously for someone’s 30 seconds fame. In my opinion, if this issue was so pertinent and should be heard of by most of America’s women it should be aired during shows where the main spectators would be women. Unfortunately, this commercial will only demonstrate women being oppressed at this moment.
This is in response to Jordan’s post (#14) about celebrities. I was JUST thinking the same thing – how and WHY are these stupid reality show stars all so famous?
For one, the whole reality tv stars are getting ridiculous. Heidi Montag is the perfect example for this too. She wasn’t even aaaaaanyone (at least Lauren had been on the show Laguna Beach for a couple years prior) and now she’s got a CD?? She can’t even sing! If you don’t believe me, go here – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MtJSNVlZrU The only thing she has going for herself is her relationship with a PRICK who pays for all her production fees, and plastic surgery.
And that’s another thing. Her recent stint of plastic surgery is WAY worse than Jordan described. The dufus got 10 plastic surgeries done (but doesn’t count it that way because she got it all in one operation). I was watching an interview some station had with her about the surgery, and she actually had the nerve to say that she’s not promoting fake beauty! Her new album is titled ’superficial’… how much more fake can you get. She’s the most ridiculous role model – and she knows it. She was responding to the reporter’s questions with the whole “I still think inner beauty is more important” and you could tell the reporter wanted to punch her in the face.
Basically, I just think it’s sad that our entertainment business has come to the point where anyone who has money can become a celebrity. Celebrities have more responsibility than just doing whatever it is that made them famous – they are role models and examples of perfection to kids everywhere. It’s disturbing that some kid is going to buy a poster of Heidi for their wall and look at her face 10 plastic surgeries later thinking it’s beautiful. It’s sad really. Depressing almost – Jordan, I couldn’t agree with you more.
Advertisers put millions if not billions of money towards advertisements during the Super Bowl. The issue is that many ads of Super Bowl are made with the idea that the consumer will remember what he has seen on T.V. These ads are so popular that they are uploaded onto youtube, blogs and showed on television shows. For instance, I remember watching a T.V. show, last year, showing the most popular ads of 2008 which many of them were showed during the Super Bowl. In addition, even if some of these ads were banned before the Super Bowl, they have the highest rate of views on internet websites. For example, there was this ad made by the PETA organization which showed female vegetarians in lingerie handling different vegetables and it reported that vegetarians have better sex. This ad was never shown during the Super Bowl but still made headlines. Personally, ads are made for the consumers to remember so they use sex, stereotypical views or comedy to sell their products or/and be talked about. Over the years, I have noticed that many ads come from the same company such as beer companies (Budlight, Budweiser etc), Doritos, Coke etc. Furthermore, these are the companies who have the money to be advertised during the Super Bowl. These ads continue to perpetuate stereotypical views which consumers might not be aware of. In addition, these ads are predominantly made for straight males which would explain why they do not want to show the ManCrunch ad because it contains an open gay message. However, refusing to air this ad demonstrates that society (broadcasters) still hold hegemonic views.
After watching the first video it is clear that many people would conceder it offensive and in no way fits into the hegemonic ideologies of today’s society. As much as we think our society is becoming more open and excepting as time passes, as sad as it is, I feel that people prefer to stick with what they know and what they are used to. The power of the dominant culture continues to rule the majority (if not all) of the popular advertisements we see. I feel it is for this reason only that “man crush” did not get the spot in the lineup!
I read in several blogs that perhaps the people I in charge of the advertising lineup wanted to be loyal to the companies that have paid for advertisements year after year, or that maybe they we worried about loosing the interest of the audience due to the fact that the company advertising was not well known. I feel, that although these reasons may have been considered, that money talks and that the major reason for giving up a 3 million dollar add paid in cash had to be because the ideals displayed contradicted the ideals of the dominant society. The risk of offending the people with “power”, AKA the dominant culture, was not worth it!
To answer the question of whether other ads “continue to perpetuate these same sorts of hegemonic ideologies” there is no doubt in my mind that they do. Every romantic commercial we see displays man and a woman whether it be a dating website or, an ad to sell diamonds. Other ads display women doing “womanly” things such as shopping or caring for children and men doing “manly” things such as fixing something. I looked up ads from the super bowl 2009 and came across a commercial for Dorito chips. Every time the man would eat a chip, he got what he desired. For example he walks past a bank machine and suddenly money comes flying out, then he see a cop, eats another chip and the cop turn in to a monkey. The commercial even shows the man walking in the street, when he sees a beautiful woman, he eats a chip and her cloths fly right off her. I felt this commercial was a great example of how advertisements reflect the hegemonic ideologies of today’s society. It showed that dominant culture is made up of whit men who like money and sexy women!
Over the weekend, in preparation for today’s Superbowl, there was a special on CBS featuring all of the best commercials from Superbowl Sunday from the past. Many of them made me laugh as I recalled watching them in the last few years, however, after reading the topic for this weeks blog I am now overwhelmed by the fact that all of them portrayed the hegemonic ideals. The majority of the commercials were for Budweiser and Doritos, and there is not a single commercial that I can think of that didn’t involve a white ‘American” male in some way shape or form. To be fair to those two companies, there was the ‘token’ black man thrown into the commercial every once and while, but even then, they were still portrayed as being part of the hegemonic white American culture.
I then began looking past the commercials that are shown on Superbowl Sunday because in reality, I can’t really blame the companies for appealing to the while middle class American man…I mean I would argue that that is their key demographic for an event like the Superbowl. So I began analyzing in a way all of the other commercials that I viewed over the weekend. Not surprisingly, they all portrayed the same hegemonic ideologies that the Superbowl ones did. The predominant characters were almost always white, they were obviously American (meaning that they didn’t have any accents), and for the most part they were middle class.
It is hard to believe that in a country as diverse as Canada that we don’t have ad’s trying to appeal to other demographics other than the white middle class Canadian!
I think the broadcasters knowingly refused to feature this advertisement. They know who their target audience is and what their prejudices are. I’m under the impression they didn’t want to create an uprising or generate negative comments from the viewers. In my opinion, the Superbowl is totally over rated. So many people who never watch football….not one game of the regular season….make a big deal out of watching the Superbowl. I think it’s a socially in-thing to do and I believe the announcer is very aware of this. It would be suicide to broadcast an advertisement that would go against the mainstream thinking and risk upsetting viewers. I also believe that the creators behind this Mancrunch advertisement and its current controversial debate have done an amazing job at building a publicity stunt. They probably never really intended on broadcasting their clip during the Superbowl, they just wanted us to do exactly what we are doing now…talk about it.
This being said, I think hegemonic ideologies are perpetuated through advertisements all the time. The “norm” or what is accepted as mainstream and dominant is reinforced in the media on an on going basis. In my opinion, the Superbowl is certainly a good example of this.
Companies constantly use sexual imagery and innuendo to promote their products through all forms of media. The public is bombarded with video and images of young women, and to a lesser extent men, using sexual desire to promote and gain awareness for products. This is certainly not a new phenomenon and Super bowl ads are no exception. However, after examining the nature and content of these ads there appears to be a threshold for the level or amount of sexual content in TV ads. This threshold is certainly not based on any established criteria but rather based on public opinion and outcry. One commercial banned during the 2008 super bowl was an advertisement for the website godaddy.com. It depicts a group of people watching a football game and one man on his computer registering domain names on godaddy.com. The man at the computer tells his friend that he can’t watch the game because using godaddy.com is like going on a first date, his first kiss, snuggling up to a pillow and satin sheets with flower petals. While he speaks the footage pans to Danica Patrick in skimpy clothes, acting out the man’s fantasy. At the end she appears out of nowhere at the party and the lucky guy leaves with her. While this commercial is certainly sexually suggestive, it is identical to material that appears on broadcast television daily.
sorrry ****CONTINUATION****
his suggests that the criterion for super bowl advertising is somewhat stricter than the standard TV criteria. The commercial for Man crush is also sexual in nature, but it is different in that it involves two men. Does this mean that hegemonic powers are subtly manipulating advertising without our awareness? I tend to disagree. The super bowl is a huge Mega-Event watched by 100,000,000 viewers, including families with children and people with strong religious beliefs. Sexual content in commercials is regulated t benefit of these viewers. It does not appear that only homosexual material is censored, rather all sexually imagery is scrutinized before approval.
The link can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjbx6d1UKqY
This is in response to Mélodie Huot’s topic, “The Internet and culture….”
video: http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhy8801t7C1OSW49CP
I was COMPLETELY shocked when I saw that video of children grinding together while other little children cheered them on. I even caught sight of an adult who came into the picture and showed the little girl another sexual dance move to do with the little boy. I do not agree with this whatsoever. I think it’s promoting VERY early sexual behavour, and the behavour that they’re portraying in the video is most definitely going to confuse those children because they’re so young! I agree with everything that Mélodie has said, this video makes me very angry, seeing children do such a mature act that I don’t believe they’re near ready to do, nor even make a good decision whether or not they want to do that or not. It might just be their culture and there’s nothing wrong with it there, as Mélodie also said, but it’s things like this that obviously increase early sexual behaviour and decisions that aren’t ready to be made. It even looks like it might be the parents or adults who first encourage the children, judging by what I saw in the video. I agree that there should definitely be something done about this, 2 million people living with HIV and AIDS in the Latin American area! I think better education, programs, and awareness needs to be very much so available there, for good parenting, safe sex, and healthy choices.
Whenever the Super Bowl comes around, we have learned to expect a frenzy of publicity for advertisements by the hosting broadcast network. This year, the buzz has been about an ad for a gay dating site, called Man Crunch, which has lost favour with CBS. The advertisement for Man Crunch will not be run during this year’s Super Bowl because CBS has said that “ our standards and practices department decided not to accept this particular spot.”
What they really mean is that the material in the ad has made CBS uncomfortable with the idea of showing an ad that does not fit with the hegemonic ideologies of today’s society.
Personally, I do think that the Man Crunch add was rightfully rejected, but not because it contains an open gay message, but because it was poorly made. To me the add looks like they hired two straight actors to act as if they were gay. I did not think it was very convincing at all. In addition, the ad is tired. Two hands accidentally touching in the chip bowl? I think it is stupid. The whole commercial seemed very much like a joke.
I believe that the whole add was a hoax to get publicity. There is a website, but it could easily be fake. Anyone can put up a social networking site. Do you seriously think a new gay dating site would advertise for the Super bowl (which caters to hero sexual men) first? I do not think that it makes sense. Who has that kind of money to waste? Especially a startup site like Man Crunch. I believe that if it were a legitimate organization, it would have been all over the gay websites and blogs first.
OOPS MISTAKE. THE ABOVE ENTRY WAS DONE BY ILANA CARMELI NOT ADINA CARMELI.
ADINA CARMELI’S NAME WAS AUTOMATICALLY ENTERED IN THE NAME SLOT!!
Terri-Lynn Warren made a great argument for why better sex and health education are a must in today’s world. That video I watched from Terri-Lynn’s blog was horrifying. I was disgusted by it. I got this comment off the website written by “Guest”
“Damn calm down its jus dancein & yu gotta give it up, tha girl can dance . Some high school kids can’t even dance like tht so stop commenting on “bad parenting” . The girl can move.”
2008-10-15 12:44:02
All human beings should be given the right to have a childhood. The problem of today’s world begins with poor education and the fact that children are given tools to explore the world around them at too early of an age. When is anything age appropriate? When was the word appropriate given a new definition?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDyJgy7Rq7g
What are Super bowl commercials about? What makes them interesting? What do people want to see? Check out this Super bowl commercial of 2009. What I see is Sex, Money, and Freedom to act as one pleases.
People are upset that their children are being projected to inappropriate things at a young age, just take a look at the Super bowl commercials and ask yourself; should my children be watching tv?
Ok, I know that question is a little extreme… But we are becoming more educated of what the media is all about. It is now becoming our responsibility for how to project what is of importance in this world. Are we just going to take the easy way out and complain?
The thing is, everyone has different values… so who’s right is it?
RESPONSE TO NEW TOPIC: STRANGE COMMERCIALS
I totally agree with Stefania when she says that some commercials are constructed in such a way that we don’t know the point of it until the very end. In some cases, it can be effective to get the point only at the end of the commercial, when you finally understand it all.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9VS9DkbOxw&NR=1)
– watch the commercial before reading the description if you really want to be surprised.
In the example I have given, a father and a son do the groceries together. The boy starts a huge tantrum about wanting candies when his father says no. As we see the father, looking desperate, a sign appears on the screen saying “use condoms”. The commercial advertises for a brand of condoms.
However, there are some other commercials that just don’t make sense at all, even when you get to the end.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9VS9DkbOxw&NR=1)
In this commercial, we see a girl trying out many different hats. We therefore assume, throughout the commercial, that it will be about some king of clothing boutique, but it’s about McDonald! I keep thinking about it, and I still don’t see the connection.
In sum, there are many different types of commercials, and I think that some push the “originality” too far and just don’t make sense. To finish, I will post one last commercial in which you can’t guess what it’s going to be about until you get there. The connection is there, even though not obvious at all, and the commercial is quite funny even if you don’t agree with the connection.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfqmTTz_3R8)
Different Topic
The Wonderful World of Disney: Sexism, strength, and dominance.
How many Disney movies did we all see as children? How many times did you watch your favourite one? And how many of those songs can you still remember the lyrics? Disney has portrayed sexism, strength and dominance in practically each and every one of its movies since the beginning. Whether it is Belle, Cinderella, or Arielle, they all seem to fall short of being the ones in charge. Instead they must conform to the ways of their dominant counterparts. Through the media Disney influences the way in which we, the viewers think, but it is less straightforward. Through the environment of images that Disney presents to us, we become accustomed to the stories they tell. The pictures slowly begin to shape us and what we know about the world, because we have grown up with them. Disney does this in a very subtle way. It does not happen right away, but rather gradually across ones childhood.
Because of all the practice they’ve gotten, Disney has now become very good at what they do. So next time you decide to watch a Disney movie look out for the predominant traits of sexism, strength, and dominance.
The commercials produced for the super bowl are, for many, the biggest reason to watch the game. After watching the first commercial, I can see why it was banned, and I do believe that this is an example of hegemonic influences working on advertising. As Shannon Summers has already stated, I also believe that the broadcasters are aware that the main audience of the super bowl is heterosexual men. Thus, they probably banned it because they knew that their target audience would feel uncomfortable watching such a commercial.
However, in addition, I did not find the commercial itself was that effective. I did not find it clearly presented what ManCrunch was. The only reason I knew it was a gay dating website was from the introduction of the video. Furthermore, I think the advertisement also fails to be effective because it’s taking a currently taboo subject in the United States and trying to draw humour out of it. I think by doing such, the ad campaign is trying to sensitize people towards homosexually. However, I think that the hegemonic influences media has had on society are what fundamentally make the ad fail.
-DIFFERENT TOPIC: “THE KING OF QUEENS”
One of my classmates, Camille, inspired me to write about the show, “The King of Queens” because I too made different conclusions from this show that I never would have thought of had I not taken this media class. Like the show “Malcolm in the Middle”, the female of the family takes the dominant role, which in a way contradicts the title of the show. The title “The King of Queens”, would allow me to assume that the male of the house would take the dominant role because he is the King of his domain. I found this switch in gender roles to be interesting because it allows women to be viewed as powerful beings who are capable of making their own decisions without male consent. For example, in the show, both the wife and husband, Carry and Doug, were driving somewhere and Carry was the driver. I find that even the simplest of tasks plays a large role in television shows. We are so used to seeing men be in control and so it is a breath of fresh air to see the woman in control for a change. Some shows are successful in portraying the power of women in a positive way, however in regards to “Malcolm in the Middle”, I find that it is not always the case. Camille mentions how Malcolm’s family is dysfunctional and how the mother is in control of the household. Although the show does not directly state that the children are dysfunctional because of the mother, it can be implied that the mother is not fit for being in control of raising children. This takes away from the positive role reversal that the show tries to implicate and pin points the mother as being week in her attempt to hold her family together. One can then assume that things may be different if the father took some control in family matters. This all being said, I think that it is important for shows to be responsible when trying to attempt to portray women as strong dominant beings. I think that “The King of Queens” does a great job of showing Cary as a strong independent character who is capable of taking care of her family.
After watching the first commercial (Man crunch) I realised why they banned it. It definitely had to do with the fact that the broadcasters know that the main viewers of the superbowl are heterosexual men and that they would not probably not like the Man crunch commercial. However, I think that Man Crunch could’ve produced a commercial that did not invole two men kissing and still made it clear to the viewer what the commercial was about. Personally, if I saw that advertisement on tv i would not have understood what it was trying to sell. It’s as though Man Crunch did it on purpose to put two men kissing just to see if the people responsible for airing commercials during the superbowl would air their commercial. I agree with Kathryn Mitchell about putting humour in a taboo subject. By doing so, I think that people who already have a problem with homosexuality would get even more frustrated by this commercial. I guess what I’m trying to say is that the decision to ban this commercial had alot to do with hegemonic influences.
DIFFERENT TOPIC
RESPONSE TO KELLY TOMAN PUNK ROCK, HIP HOP AND THE POLITICS OF RESISTANCE AND SCHOOL OF (PUNK) EDUCATION
I think that Kelly brings up some interesting points. I agree that children are becoming distant and uninterested in today’s curriculum. Music is something that the youth today is very interested in and plays a huge role in their everyday lives. Incorporating something like music that is significant and attractive to the students is a great way to get them more involved and aware of what’s going on in the classroom.
I worked with Tyndale students as a math assignment last year and I noticed that Tyndale workers had a very different way of teaching their students. They used media and music to teach them about math and reading and I got to see firsthand that the students were able to get more involved with their homework and assignments. To answer your question Kelly, I do think that strategies such as the ones used at Tyndale will in fact help engage students further. Although I think that a lot of what is being portrayed in the media today can be quiet inappropriate, if we ignore these messages that children will see either way, we are turning away from a very prominent type of pedagogy. Children are learning through what they are being exposed to in the media, through music and music videos, through magazines and commercial, etc. It is important for these subjects to be introduced and examined in the classroom so that students can critically examine what they are being exposed to in their everyday lives. I think through critical media literacy in the classroom, in sense, we as teachers are monitoring what they are being taught through the media and we are teaching children what to do with these messages and how to respond to them.
A huge issue that I think is happening right now with media literacy is that in the media today, there is a lot of sex, violence and other inappropriate subjects being portrayed. As teachers, what do we do we do with this? Are these issues that should be specifically addressed? If so, how?
RESPONSE TO JORDAN ELLIOT’S DIFFERENT TOPIC: “REALITY SHOWS CELEBRITIES”
When I was reading Jordan’s blog, I couldn’t help but think that there is truth in what was said. These people have become celebrities by merely appearing on a reality show, and some of them have no real talent, and should not be on television. However, if we take a step back, we can see that these so called celebrities are famous for a reason. Shows like The Hills and Keeping up with the Kardashians are famous because viewers continue to watch them. Reality TV shows are in such abundance because that is what people like. We enjoy watching the lifestyles of the rich and famous and do to this; these ordinary people will continue becoming rich and famous. Despite the fact that the media does overly expose them, making them seem famous, if we “regular” people were not all that interested, then their fame would lessen and we would not hear about them so much. Now this is not to say that I am a saint and do not watch these shows, I do, I just think it is important to remember that their fame has begun with the viewers enjoying their lives and wanting to see more of them.
I agree with some of my peers as they mention how the commercial was probably banned from airing due to the fact that the broadcasters are are aware that the main viewers are heterosexual men. I do believe that other advertisement companies are perpetuating these hegemonic ideals for the most part. I do not remember the last advertisement that I have seen which was based on homosexuality. I still think that there is a lot of influence from broadcasters to keep everything hegemonic. Most of the advertisements that I see for dating websites are focused on heterosexual men and women sharing their stories on how they met an fell in love. I think that the broadcasters for Super-Bowl should have definitely aired the advertisement, because it would have gotten the world to see that we should not be still living with this hegemonic ideal.
DIFFERENT TOPIC
Thinking of commercials, I thought about the differences between Korean and the America/Canadian commercials. There is a Korean show where the beautiful ladies from other countries talk about their experiencies in Korea and the differences between Korea and their countries. In one show, one of the ladies in the show mentioned the difference in commercials. In Korea, the famous actors and actresses are the ones who are in the commercials, and the most famous actresses are the ones who take the alcohol commercials. However, in other countries, at least the States and Canada, no actors or actresses from tv shows or movies are in the commercials. The lady who mentiones this was Canadian and she said that it was because Canadians think that if actora and actresses are in commercials as well, people will be seeing too much of thim, therefore, people might get fed up with the actors or actresses. I always wondered why other countries and did not use actors and actresses in their commercials. In Korea only the famous and well-known actors and actresses are welcomed in commercials.
**SPAM TESTING**
REPSONSE TO NEW TOPIC
JORDAN ELLIOT’S REALITY SHOW CELEBRITIES
I agree with Jordan.
**NEW TOPIC: REALITY SHOW CELEBRITIES**
I agree with Jordan. Reality show celebrities are, despite themselves, famous BECAUSE of the way they live. These “celebrities” represent the dominant culture at its finest. This is not to say that they are, or should be, models in any respects, however they do represent what the world views as the best breed of human kind to whom we all feel the need to compare ourselves to as the greatest end point of personal success. In this society it is not enough to be of the right race, speak the right language, be of the same religion, or even know the right people. Being white, Christian, heterosexual, and highly educated is simply not enough. For one thing, high education is unfortunately not how one gets to the top anymore – at least not in the world of fame and the power that comes with it. Also, those of the dominant group must also be thin, rich, and forever young to be able to compete with the others of this group.
Reality shows provide an appropriate array of young thin folk who are kept young – as is the example with Heidi Montag – and who flounder their wealth and power with no concern to “lesser” groups and get away with it. As is the case with all celebrities, giving off the impression of being rich and keeping up with standards of youth and thinness is really the only thing that continues to keep them on the star quality platform. While few celebrities can get away on pure talent, a scandal arises as any star causes to question those standards of celebrityism (true – not a real word) – thinking of American Idol’s winner Kelly Clarkson’s weight struggle is enough to agree with this concept. The truth is, reality show celebrities are the new standard. They are not educated as is normally considered but they sure portray the young, rich, white, thin, and powerful group that is the dominant group – And understanding that these people actually exist sets a new ideal for personal success. Is this not why people watch reality shows? To witness their newfound reality celebrities at work? To idolise them, despite themselves?
I DON’T KNOW WHY THIS WORKED…
Banned Superbowl “ManCrunch” Commercial
As much as I find this commercial odd, and not really funny (not, but because it kind of seems like poor slapstick-y comedy) I think its goal was to be talked about, because hey, any publicity is good publicity! At least, according to some people…This commercial was doomed from the very beginning and I believe the producers of it knew that very well. Showing a commercial where two average Joes are watching the game-a very manly activity to begin with-and then proceed to get hot and heavy on each other-an act that is stereotypically considered to be effeminate and therefore less manly- just seems like an oxymoron in today’s American society. Because of stereotypes, “manly” men cannot be gay in the media. This is unfortunate, and I do not agree with this stereotype but it’s a fact. This leads me to believe that the only reason this commercial was made, if it wasn’t to be officially aired, was to get a lot of media coverage, and therefore more exposure to potential customers. I believe that this worked fairly well. Controversy sells.
Television ads are constantly trying to sell a certain image of the company they are promoting and some creatively craft their ads with hidden messages geared towards certain audiences. These advertisements change throughout the years but always leave the audience with either a jingle, symbol or some hint that will always lead the consumer to remembering their products.
Clearly, we all know that the Super bowl ads are geared towards a heterosexual male audience. As Shannon and Kathryn have mentioned broadcasters are in fact aware that the majority of the viewers will fall into this category of heterosexual male, which is how they are able to be selective of the advertisements that they will be airing and how they can captivate this audience. As i watched the Super bowl I paid extra attention to the advertisements that were being aired and i realized small aspects of certain commercials that would make a male remember the brand. For example, i saw a Acura car commercial, evidently there was a very pretty woman involved and all she really did was stand there and watch the car, however, a heterosexual male would become captivated by her beauty and remember the ad based on the woman. Also as i watched all of the Bud Light commercials they all have the same idea with men and what it means for a guy to have a good time for example one was about an entire house made of Bud Light beer which for an American man watching the Super Bowl that would be a dream. The Doritos commercials also fall into the category of being geared towards men. I must say the Doritos commercial with T-Pain i liked the most out of all of them.
Felice raised a good point regarding this notion that i agree with where advertisers have such a short amount of time to sell their product that they must leave a mark that will make the viewer remember the product and want to buy it. Therefore, it is important that advertisers pay extra attention to the commercials they choose to air during one of the most watched television events of the year. As a society i do not think we all realize the power of advertisements and sometimes i think we should stop and think when we buy something to see why we are buying it, because i know many times i will purchase something due to the fact that i have seen it on television and i want to have it myself. The Super bowl ads for me this year were a bit of a disappointment however i do think that they will still entice their audiences to buy whatever item it is they are trying to sell.
In case you missed out on the commercials you can see them all on http://www.cbssports.com/video/player/superbowlcommercials .
The hype of the super bowl game has now come to an end for the year. The talk about the commercials, however, has yet to begin.
Commercials that air during the Super bowl evening stand out from the rest. Unlike any other night, most people sit through the commercials and actually enjoy watching them.
One obvious fact about the Super bowl commercials is that they are often over exaggerated, but as Felice mentioned, that is the whole point. Companies design their ads to grab the consumers’ attention at a time when they are certain millions of people are watching.
Although a large variety of people watch the game, it is very noticeable that the ads are mainly targeted towards men (many ads on beer, cars, tools…). To air a commercial like the ManCrunch would have caused great controversy especially towards the dominant audience (heterosexual males, as Mara mentioned).
As many others, I do not think that the ManCrunch commercial was appropriate. My opinion does not rest on the fact that the commercial addresses gay dating, on the contrary, I do not think it was appropriate because it seemed to be offensive towards the homosexual community. I also agree with Adina by saying that this commercial was poorly made and also wonder if it still would still have been rejected if presented otherwise.
Hegemony was predominant throughout the commercials that aired during the super bowl tonight and I believe that it will continue to do so throughout other big game night events.
I am interested to see if this sort of hegemony will be present throughout the upcoming Winter Olympics.
After watching this Mancrunch video, I was struck by what work of genius it is. I think it was a brilliant marketing move on the part of this dating company. First and foremost, let’s get down to business. Did Mancrunch honestly think they would be able to get a spot on the Super Bowl? No, I would think not. After that Adam Lambert “homosexual kiss” scandal on the American Music Awards, it has become blatantly clear that we have not crossed a stepping stone in time. Everyone knows Super Bowl is the most testosterone driven televised show on this planet. I think it was a tactic from this company in order to create a buzz and get people to start poking around and finding out what the scandal was about. Luckily for Mancrunch, they didn’t even have to use a cent in order to get their publicity. This was a smart move on their part. There was definitely a hegemonic force at work here. It’s too bad that this still has to happen in 2010.
Upon further inspection of this video, I understood that this video is targeted to closeted gay people. As tacky as this video is, I am sure that is has some “closet gay” men in American are going to bed tonight with many thoughts running through their heads.
Props to Mancrunch for snart advertisement!
**NEW TOPIC: Doritos commercial**
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vr_BIM3GGps
This commercial was one of the first ads that was shown during the super bowl yesterday evening. After having seen so many commercials, I remember this one most because of its humor. After watching a second time on youtube, I realize that there are many messages that are shown which put women on a lower scale than men. The first time we see this is at the beginning when the man enters the woman’s house and stares at her back side while she walks away to get something. This shows viewers that women have not much to offer except for their beauty. The second time we see women being put down is when the young boy, her son, tells the man taking her out that he is not allowed to touch his mother. Although this may be seen as a cute act of a son looking out for his mother, it also shows women needing to be protected by men. So within this 30 second commercial we see two different parts where women are objectified and shows as the weaker sex.
Due to problem with Spamming, I am going to attempt to do my post in two parts.
PART 1
First off, I would just like to say that the ManCrunch commercial really startled me. I had not expected such a display, especially for an American commercial. I am not homophobic, nor am I against Americans; I am just extremely startled that anyone would ask to air such a commercial in the United States given the reactions known about Homosexuality. Personally, I feel that that commercial could have been done in a much less invasive tone. Compared to the Snickers commercial, the ManCrunch commercial is very racy. Obviously, the Snickers commercial was not meant to come off as overly and obviously homosexual, as the ManCrunch commercial was. The creators made the Snicker one seem like an accidental kiss, something that was not meant and only happened because of the temptation of chocolate, whereas the ManCrunch was obviously discussing gays and their right to come out.
PART 2
Hegemony is the political, economic, ideological or cultural power brought by a dominant group over other groups, regardless of the explicit consent of the latter. Obviously, keeping the ManCrunch commercial out of the Super Bowl is such an example. Due to the fact that it is OBVIOUSLY homosexual as well as promoting a homosexual group, I can completely understand why they would not want to show this at the Super Bowl. Being an event associated with being manly, liking sports and being straight, there is an assumption that gays will not be watching the show, nor should they promote to people who are unsure about their sexuality. The fundamentalists would have a field day if they saw such a commercial on television. The station was clearly covering themselves. As a superior class group, the straight and possibly Catholic people are obviously using their power to censor what is on television. Despite the rights that homosexuals have and the increase of media coverage, the dominant culture still feels that they have the right to pick and choose what is shown to the public.
I find that other advertisements still follow this hegemonic view. The white, straight, Catholic, and male society still has power over what is seen by the public. They monitor commercials and pick and choose what products, who endorses them and when they are shown, exactly like the example mentioned.
**RESPONSE TO JORDAN ELLIOT’S ‘REALITY SHOW CELEBRITIES’**
Reality-show celebrities have become some of the most favourable people to hear and gossip about. MTV’s Laguna Beach starred Lauren Conrad. The fame this show brought to her led to another program following the next chapters of her life; The Hills. The difference between Lauren Conrad and Heidi Montag: Lauren studied at FIDM, worked as an intern for Teen Vogue and People’s Revolution, launched her own clothing line. Heidi, on the other hand, dropped out of school. She did however work for BoltHouse, a public relations’ company and later got fired due to her and her husband’s lack of maturity and responsibility.
There have been poles on gossip websites asking viewers who they are tired of hearing about in entertainment news. Couples like Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, and Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes were included in the pole. The winning couple of course: HEIDI MONTAG and SPENCER PRATT! If people are “so tired” of hearing about them, why do we keep hearing about them? Their behaviours and excuses to being famous are so sad and pathetic, that most of us secretly enjoy hearing about them for a laugh.
Montag and Pratt now have a book called ‘How to Be Famous: Our Guide to Looking the Part, Playing the Press and Becoming a Tabloid Fixture’. The books features chapters like ‘Guide to Playing the Villain’ (courtesy of Pratt) and ‘Getting Work Done Is Your Job’ which explains which plastic surgery procedures one should get done to receive attention and further, become famous for. After the 10 surgeries Montag had, she claims it is an investment for her carreer?! She also says that this is the “real” her now; the better and improved version of her. Please watch this interview with Heidi Montag on Good Morning America: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puRF_UqcwWQ
Heidi Montag and her husband Spencer Pratt are the perfect examples of ‘reality show celebrities’. They even admit that their actions are done for fame! It feels as though it’s a never ending streak for them. I feel like they will continue to ‘shock’ us just to get that much more coverage; usually being negative.
I do think that the Man Crunch commercial was banned because the target audience would probably not have enjoyed the commercial as the others that were aired at the Super Bowl. The mainly heterosexual male audience was probably assumed to have liked the beer or chips commercials that were aired frequently instead. I noticed that most of the commercials that aired at the Super Bowl were about beer. From my experience, beer is assumed to be a sports fan’s go to drink. Therefore, the constant advertising of beer enforces that notion. A good example of the beer advertisements is the ‘House of Bud Light’ commercial. In the commercial, a man has his friends over to his house made of Bud Light cans. As the people start removing the cans off the wall, the man’s wife is exposed in the process of taking a shower. This ad contains all the stereotypical images of a sports fan’s interests: the beer, the creativity in storing the beer, the party and the half-naked woman. This commercial may appeal to the target audience because this is the behaviour that is expected from them and the man in the commercial found a creative way to take it to a new level. This commercial would clearly not have the same effect nor be shown during a program that is targeted to another group. I don’t think that airing commercials that appeal to the stereotypical ideas of the groups watching a program is new. It is not strange to see toys advertised during children’s programming therefore I do not find it strange to see that Super Bowl commercials are about the stereotypical interests of the viewers. I am not justifying this but I do see how advertisers would imagine that spending the large amount of money to air their commercial during the Super Bowl would be an effective sales strategy.
Aujourd’hui je vais prendre le thème des annonces télévisées du superbowl. Il est évident que ceux-ci sont très regardées et qu’elles coùtent extrémement chères. Il est donc bien intéressant d’analyser ceux-ci puisqu’elles ont été beaucoup réfléchis afin d’attirer le plus possible d’attention. J’ai remaquer qu’il y avait évidemment beaucoup d’annonce concernant le sport et aussi par le fait même, plusieurs commerciale où le sport est intégré.
Pour ma part, j’ai décidé d’analyser une des nombreuses annonces de doritos. Celle que j’ai choisit met en vedette un jeune garçon d’environ une dizaine d’années et celui-ci désire avoir des chips Doritos de son frère plus âgé. Par contre, ce dernier refuse et le taquine avec cela. Donc le petit frère décide de faire comme un événement d’actualité de cette année c’est-à-dire de faire à croire à ses parents qu’il a volé dans un ballon. Lorsque ses parents voient qu’il est saint et sauf ils lui disent qu’ils vont lui accorder tout ce qu’il désire et donc il prend les fameuse Doritos de son grand frère.
Cette annonce vise un public qui peut être assez large puisqu’elle met en contexte une actualité qui peut avoir été connu par un public d’à peu près tous âge. De plus, elle utilise une certaine touche d’humour ce qui peu l’avantager et elle met en valeur les relations familiales entre deux frères ce qui peut aussi attirer des gens qui se reconnaissent dans cette situation. J’ai choisit cette annonce puisqu’elle représentait un gros canular de l’an 2009 et je trouvais intéressant la représentation qu’ils ont réaliser avec ceci.
Sunday evening, I sat down with some friends to watch the Super Bowl. I’d never watched it before, and I found it the idea of “pre-game commercials” interesting. At one point during the pre-game program, they presented a mini-biography of one of the Saints’ players, Drew Brees. He used to be a great player, and then fell upon bad times when he suffered a wrist injury. The announcers went on to say how he got a second chance when Brees got a chance to play with the New Orleans team after Hurricane Katrina had hit. Brees got his life and career back with this team, gave back to the community, and life was good again.
I thought it was interesting that the one player they gave all this attention to was exactly like the Dominant Culture we’ve been describing in class. He is white, heterosexual (cue pictures of him and his beautiful wife and children), educated (studied at Purdue University), wealthy, and gives back to the community. He in no way represents the average player on the team, but he’s the one that was focused on. From what I saw, he’s the only player that got this biography/commercial privilege. I was wondering if anyone saw any more of these biography/commercials, because I only started watching around 5:30pm. To me, this commercial was symbolic of our society and highlighted how the Dominant Culture is glorified in media.
Part 1
I figured I would actually sit down and watch the Super Bowl, and all the commercials, before I commented on the broadcasters decision to ban the proposed 30 second spot by Man Crunch. For starters, it should be noted that it is not irregular for commercials to be banned from network television. Over the years, the FCC and television networks, have had their hands in preventing commercials from airing for a variety of reasons. Some were overly sexual, others were too violent and others were simply too graphic in nature. Therefore, I was not surprised to learn that the commercial in question was not allowed to air.
Ever since the Janet Jackson incident at the Super Bowl a few years ago, the NFL and the stations carrying the game, have been taking rather significant steps to avoid any explicit or newsworthy incidents from making their way onto the broadcast. So, while the commercial should be tolerable by industry standards, there is no denying the fact that the NFL and the networks would have had to deal with an enormous amount of backlash stemming from the sexual charged and pro homosexual commercial, like was the case a few years ago.
Part 2
It really is a shame that this commercial was banned from being aired when there are dozens of other commercials that are erotic in nature being aired during the game. It really does speak to the homophobic nature of our society. The problem is that everyone is so afraid to push the limits when it comes to homosexuality among men. We are constantly bombarded with overly sexual commercials that feature girls in next to nothing dancing around and kissing each other, yet, this particular commercial was actually forbidden from airing. Unfortunately, we are stuck in a vicious cycle. So few companies and marketing agencies are willing to feature men in the same way they feature women and so we are going to continue living in a society dominated by hegemonic ideologies. A society where young boys grow up believing they have to perpetuate the stereotype of the dominant and strong male and a society where others are not comfortable being themselves. I believe the commercial would have been a step in the right direction and I’m disappointed the NFL elected not to air it. Homosexuality in sports is such a taboo subject and this was a step on the path where homosexuality and athletics go hand in hand. Where young boys aren’t ashamed to be gay and play sports or where they don’t have to hide their true identity.
In response to the Man crush commercial, I think we have all reached a general consensus about the super bowl being targeted towards white heterosexual males, and question why Man crush thought this commercial would appeal to this audience. However just to play devil’s advocate, I think it was genius!
Allow me to clarify this statement. If you think about it, media -post super bowl Sunday as Elisa mentioned is saturated with air time directed to the commercials. Since I didn’t get a chance to watch it, I attempted to youtube the videos before seeing Mara’s link ( thanks!) and most of the responses I got were “banned” super bowl commercials that had a ridiculous amount of views. If these commercials are “banned” they why do we still have access to them? Perhaps Man Crush knew that a commercial like that would stir up this much controversy and that is exactly why they did it. As the saying goes “even bad press is press” . I mean, we are all blogging about it after all. I am just saying that perhaps this was the Man crush’s goal to gain our attention through controversy. I am curious to see how this “banning” of a commercial has affected their sales. This scenario reminds me of the Janet Jackson event, an accident?… I’m not so sure.
Does anyone else stop and wonder that if the ad was called “Women Crunch” and featured two women kissing, if it would have had the green light to air? I think so, and I also think this is sad and just further proves how media content and what and when we get to see it is so one sided and restricted.
While I understand that commercials are strategically placed to appeal to the demographic of the show that is airing (Gain laundry detergent during The Young and the Restless or the latest toy during an episode of Sesame Street), but as it was mentioned in the blog, it is the most watched program in America each year!!! This means that it is no surprise that companies are falling over themselves and spending 3 million on 30 seconds to get their product noticed. But then, if so many people watch the super bowl, then why do so many of the commercials only seem to cater to white, middle class males? All I saw when looking at a few of the commercials from this year and previous years was beer, cars, and junk food.
My above statement about the likely possibility of “Women Crunch” is also related to the Adam Lambert fiasco at the VMA’s. Many news stations and Barbra Walters herself refused to re-air the clip of his performance where he kissed another male on stage, but felt it was ok to show the Brittany and Madonna make out as a comparison. How it was ok to show one and not the other is beyond me.
While the ad itself as well as its content could be argued as being below the super bowl par (most of the commercials are hilarious and big budgeted, while the “man crunch” one could have been filmed in anyone of our living rooms) I still feel it was wrong to cut it out completely, especially, as someone mentioned, when a few other companies pulled out due to finances. Why kick out an ad that was willing to pay just because the content may be uncomfortable for some viewers?
So I have just spent the last hour watching Superbowl commercials.
I only intended to watch a couple, to get an idea of what they were all about. With everyone in the class talking about sex so much, I assumed I would be bombarded with images of tits and ass. I was rather surprised not to be. I ended up watching almost all of them because they were funny. Honestly, most of the commercials just seemed funny to me, especially the Bud Light ads. There wasn’t as much sexualised content as watching 2 minutes of music videos.
I didn’t really see too much racial stereotyping. Most of the commercials featured either white or black characters—few had both in them. Although I think to make anything of this would be reading too much into it.
I can say that after watching all of these adds, the only one that made me want to purchase a product was Cherry Dr. Pepper—although having Kiss in the add didn’t do it, making me aware that it existed did it. Good job Dr. Pepper, your ad was successful!
The only thing I can see to criticize was an abundance of male chauvinistic humour. But I didn’t really see this as offensive. There was a lot of objectifying women in the ads, but the end result of this was usually making the men look stupid. It wasn’t subtle. Perhaps because I am spoiled at never having had to fight for my rights as a woman, or perhaps because in my group of friends, the guys joke that the girls should be in the kitchen, making them sandwiches and then proceed to spend hours cooking for everyone while the women sit chatting and drinking beers, this really didn’t bother me. Considering the demographic of Superbowl watchers—largely men, the humour made sense.
I’d also like to point out that I noticed 2 ads about environmental causes, which is typically not the “manly” thing to air during the Superbowl.
As for the choice not to air the ad for a gay dating site, I don’t agree with it at all, but I understand it. There is a chance that some homophobic individuals would be offended by this add. It would be more likely for homophobic individuals to complain about this ad than it would be for homosexuals to complain that there were no ads of this type (had they not known it existed). So yes, the Superbowl ads perpetuate the hegemonic ideologies of America. But they seem to have done it without being too offensive. We have the year to get people used to the idea of gay dating ads—maybe next year they can make their Superbowl debut.
I found the super bowl commercials to be exactly what I expected. They were mainly directed at heterosexual males and many employed humour as a way of getting across to their audience.
I liked the Doritos commercial with the little boy who catches his mother’s date checking her out as she leaves the room. At first I thought it was simply a cute commercial with an adorable child actor. However, as one of my classmates pointed out, (I read her post before but can no longer find it as I scroll) it does show oppression to women, but in a very subtle way. The little boy is protecting his mother (and his Doritos), two things he loves very much. The message flies over most peoples’ heads because we simply watch the entertainment value of it and look no further. It is only through critical analyzing of the commercial that we see common stereotypes are present. The little boy is the “man of the house” and must therefore look out for the female, even though she is older. I think Doritos showed this in a cute and non aggressive manner. It remained a light hearted commercial and one that I remembered the next day due to the cuteness of the boy, not because of the way it depicted the mother.
Another commercial I liked was the Google commercial. It was the first Google commercial that I had seen. It was very simple, yet it kept the audience’s attention because we weren’t quite sure where they were going with it. It quickly becomes evident that the commercial is telling a love story between two people who met in Paris. I liked the commercial because it was different and I think it was a pretty creative way of bringing people’s attention to Google and all the possibilities of things you can find by searching through their browser…even love.
I have to agree with Pamela’s viewpoint and bold statement: the Mancrunch commercial was in fact, genius, whether or not it was intended is irrelevant at this point. These days, it seems even the most controversial, taboo, or “rejected” ads are the ones that seem to monopolize the spotlight. The edgier, the better, or so it seems. The fact of the matter is, though this ad was rejected for actual airtime it is still being viewed throughout the country and presumably around the globe. Who knows, this ad may turn into a Movement of some sort–or at least that is how I perceive any form of media that challenges the hegemonic advertisements the Superbowl is notorious for.
When I think of the SuperBowl yesterday, I think of Budweiser commercials. For some reason, those are the advertisements that strike me the most; perhaps because of their dominace and ever presence. This “rejected” ad was a breath of fresh air for me, and I’m sure for many other viewes as well, seeing as it is one of the rarer forms of advertisements that do not perpetuate the hegemonic structure that is prevalent in today’s society.
I say keep them coming!!!!!!
DIFFERENT TOPIC: Being Homosexual on Mainstream Television
Part 1
Gays and lesbians have had a long and difficult journey on television. It does appear that things are getting better on mainstream television with the introduction of successful shows such as Will & Grace and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. While I applaud that the shows feature openly gay main characters (like Will and Jack), I feel that the gay relationships and romance are not a topic that is covered. Will & Grace features two gay men who are friends, not lovers, and these men interact mainly with the two heterosexual female main characters, Grace and Karen.
Part 2
I feel this is still an indication of mainstream television’s prejudice and double standards against homosexuals, and in particular, gay men. Sex is everywhere in the media – and it is common to find lesbians groping or making out with one another, without raising any alarms. And yet an openly gay man such as Adam Lambert is slammed for giving a passionate kiss to a band member during a performance. My fellow classmate, Deborah Graziani worded our discrimination so well – “It has become blatantly clear that we have not crossed a stepping stone in time”. In our changing society, with its continual realization through time that being open to differences (be it racially, physically, or sexually) is the way to move toward a better society, we have allowed homosexual rights to fall behind.
Part 3
What have I learned so far? That being homosexual and being allowed to appear on mainstream television means that you must conform to certain limiting rules:
1. Be the stereotypical best friend gay man to a woman
2. No sexual content between homosexual couples
Usually I am not one to watch the Super Bowl because I am not a big fan of sports in general. My boyfriend on the other hand worships football so I watched it with him as a part of this assignment. Although there are many funny commercials that I liked a lot like the T-Pain auto-tune Bud Light commercial I want to focus on one that was directed at the ladies. The heartbeat commercial featuring Mark Sanchez was without a doubt the best one. It was targeted at women who enjoy the game and also the women who were coerced by their significant other (like I was) to watch the game, and tackled a real issue rather than: “it’s the biggest game of the year lets party, or here is the car or super tech gadget that you must purchase because we spent millions of dollars on this commercial”. Here is the link to the youtube video, let me know what you guys think!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=At7EltHApyE
Let’s keep in mind that homosexuals are not considered as being part of the dominant culture.So no wonder why the broascasting of ManCrunch ads has been refused.The Superbowl is aimed at young heterosexual males ,so this ad would have been pretty much awkward.As Katryn Mitchell stated before, if this ad had been shown sunday night,the audience would have been uncomfortable because most advertisments during the Superbowl usually picture sportive, strong males (often machos).I ,personally, totally agree with CBS position not to show the ad on TV because it would have tranish their image.This issue raises the importance of Share questions on media text: . What contexts affect the message of the media text and who or what group is benefiting and who or what group is suffering from this media text?In this case even if money played a major role,CBS refused to play the ad.They may have lost a huge amount of money but it seems like it is much more important for them to keep a good image and not go against the will of the dominant culture.It is sure an hegemonic influence but I wonder if it is also a social value? Being in 2010 does not open the doors to all sorts of attitudes that has long been considered as controversial.
As much as that man crunch ad was funny, I think as many people have said, it just wasn’t as popular as other types of products that were being advertised at the super bowl. For example, there was a Gatorade commercial that I didn’t fully understand but it was about football players: more specifically the Saints and the Colts. Images of those players while drinking Gatorade made it very powerful and made me think that’s that is why they aren’t the super bowl; because they drink Gatorade. I personally enjoy funny super bowl commercials because I find them more entertaining but if the name brand is something we recognize and know then we have more of a chance of enjoying it. I think that if the man crunch ad had those men eating Doritos and drinking bud light that maybe then super bowl would have let them air it. It is not a popular enough site and didn’t have the right kind of advertisement in the commercial to be played at the super bowl just yet.
I’m sorry, there was a typo in my last post. I said “aren’t” when I really meant to say “are” when I am reffering to the Saints and the Colts playing at the Super Bowl.
Sorry
I have always amazed by the whole controversy and euphoria revolving around the superbowl. Personally, I am not a football fan but for the interest of this particular assignment I did watch the superbowl, well the commercials
. I am sure that there are a lot of people like me, who are actually anxious to see the broadcasting of those new commercials rather than watching the actual game. I find this situation retty self explanatory. It demonstrates what kind of society we live in today. Shouldn’t we be concerned about this though? We achieved a turning point broadcasting wise. Nowadays people dont even watch a sport game for the sake of the sport; people are actualy looking forward about the viewing of commercials, isn’t that an alarming situation?This made me look further into the question, why are people so excited about the divulgation of these ads. Is it because most of us know that the airing of an ad during the superbowl can typically cost millions of dollars; 30 seconds of advertising time during the 2010 telecast is he high price tag of the commercials and our curiosity pushes us to want to see if these ads are really worth all the money spent? To see if all the promises that they will be spectacular and innovative in most cases is going to turn out being true. More often than not, the commercials are often highly anticipated, generating much buzz even before the game is played usually because of their innovation or sense of humor. That explains why so many people are tuning in years after years to watch these ads.
Thus, I find very relevant to mention that these high-profile ads are usually only broadcast on the originating American network. This is because the cost of buying commercial time on the American network does not include ad time on foreign broadcasters, which sell their own advertising. Moreover, since there is lower interest in American football outside the U.S., other carriers have smaller audiences for the game, meaning that the ads seen locally may not share the high reputation of the domestic commercials.
This is definitely an example of hegemonic influences working on advertising. The understanding is that although there are 100 million viewers watching the super bowl yearly, that they are most probably the typical man’s man who loves sports and is heterosexual. As the broadcasters they may feel that showing an ad like this will turn off the majority of the viewers and as to not spark contradiction they choose to decline showing it. It may be said that as a society we are more accepting now than ever before but if you take Adam Lambert’s awards show spur of the moment make out with someone of the same sex, the controversy caused was out of this world. It just goes to show that although seemingly accepting as a society there are still very many people left uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality.
The TPAIN commercial for Bud light http://www.spike.com/video/bud-light-t-pain/3334616 depicts a woman coming home from grocery shopping and the man taking the beer and calling all his guy friends. I feel that this is the typical stereotypical relationship where the female goes grocery shopping and the guy drinks beer. After watching all the budlight commercials from the super bowl, as expected I realized that they are mostly made up of men because of course it can be assumed that for the most part it is guys who drink beer.
The commercial I am choosing to discuss is one with Betty White being surrounded by a bunch of jock football players.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1Sv_z9jm8A
The second I saw Betty White, I laughed so hard. She’s this cute little friendly old lady, and seeing her get beat down by a man was pretty heartbreaking! First of all, the fact that the jocks said “your playing like Betty White out there”, referring that girls are inferior to men in sports. This is a sexist comment, although I didn’t take it seriously and thought it was really funny. Right after that is said, she replies by saying “that’s not what your girlfriend said”. This feeds the assumption that all guys that play football are straight. Since she said “girlfriend”, she assumed that he 1) has a girlfriend and 2) his partner is in fact a girl. This is a slightly homophobic comment, and it is one that is made very often without even realizing it. After, a girl comes off the stands, who’s supposed to be his girlfriend and says that if he, being Betty White, eats a Snickers bar, he’ll play better. The second he eats it, he turns back into his own self: The perfect depiction of a male football player, knocking everyone else down.
SUPER BOWL: RESPONSE TO DEBORAH GAZIANI
This was a great marketing move on the dating company’s part just like Deborah said. The commercial gets the attention of all those who watch it. Mancrunch surely knew that they would not be able to get a spot as part of the Super Bowl commercials, because they knew from the beginning, that it would be truly too controversial to air. If you ask me this is genius marketing! After knowing that it would be too controversial they made it anyways and tried to sell it, all the while they pretended to be naïve. Just like all the other banned commercials they have gotten their publicity in the media for the simple fact of being banned and without spending a penny. For example this Doritos commercial that was banned:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T_DiTPoy-A&feature=player_embedded
Yes, it was banned, but just because it has the word banned in the title and it’s now on YouTube, just like all the other banned Super Bowl commercials, just as many people will click to watch it. Thus creating publicity for Doritos without having to pay.
So whether marketing companies pay 3 million per 30 second slots or 0$ it is up to them. We see now that both have been done! Which is more successful?
In accordance with Pamela & Sabrina:
I am going to have to say that I completely agree with the decision to ban the ManCrush advertising. Sitting on the outside looking in, and being a group of university students who love to question every decision made by corporations, it is certainly easy to start stomping our feet and screaming injustice. This is EXACTLY what ManCrush wanted.
We are taught many different subjects, but I don’t know any university courses that cover FCC guidelines, perhaps in a communications program. Nevertheless, why is it not conceivable that this ManCrush ad failed to meet the requirements set forth by the FCC. It is my contention that this company was well are of what was required & permitted, financially and content wise. They deliberately developed a questionable advertisement that would generate public interest.
According to Alexa.com, the web information company that compiles data from every website on the internet, ManCrush’s website is ranked 2,734,000th on the internet with 20 sites linking in! To put this into perspective, Culturologist.com is ranked 13,000,000 with 5 sites linking in. McGill is 8000th.
Just about every single Super Bowl advertiser is in the top 500 000 sites on the internet and the majority of these are not online companies. There is no reason why we should believe that ManCrush’s credit could not be validated.
It is an excellent advertising ploy. As university students who love to question every decision made by corporations, get past the fact that this website promotes homosexual relationships and recognize that there is a marketing department looking to generate the most amount of money and attention for the least cost. Looks like they may have come up with a pretty strong marketing campaign.
I watched all the superbowl commercials on the CBS website to find one that would stand out as very different compared to most types of advertisement usually seen on television but also in magazines. Because THE SUPERBOWL is extremely popular and could be considered the norm to watch it, the commercials presented have to be worth watching. The body image has become something of great importance these days and advertisers usually hire people with attractive appearance to sell their products or ideas. When I saw the commercial for Career Builder entitled: Casual Friday, I was shocked. It was not what I was used to seeing. I saw men with chest hair, flabby stomachs, some with bald heads and most men were wearing briefs. I think the message was quite clear. I’m not sure if the advertiser’s true intention was the make the new employee uncomfortable but I certainly did. When we see body wash or razor commercials, the people presented look healthy or men have waxed chests. At the end of the commercial, it states “expose yourself to something better” in my point of view, I think this means that people would much prefer be working in a place where people looked like “sex bombs,” then of course the message would be entirely different. Do we want to live in a world like in the movie “Surrogates” (2009) or live in a world where everyone is confident about their self image? I know maybe this was not how I was supposed to understand the commercial but this how I saw it.
The Superbowl commercial I chose for this blog is the one for Dodge. “I will eat some fruit as part of my breakfast , I will shave, I will clean the sink after I shave, I will say yes when you want me to say yes, I will be quiet when you don’t want to hear me to say no, I will take your call, I will listen to your opinions of my friends, I will listen to your friends’ opinions of my friends, I will be civil to your mother, I will put the seat down, I will separate the recycling, I will carry your lip balm, I will watch your vampire TV shows with you, I will take my socks off before getting into bed, I will put my underwear in the basket, and because I do this, I will drive the car I want to drive.. The Charger is man’s last stand”
I chose this commercial because it promotes the idea that women are very controlling and often don’t let men do and have what they really want. This commercial depicts men looking tired and defeated. The Dodge commercial tells men that if they do everything their wives want them to do such as listening, and putting their underwear in the basket, they will have their last chance at freedom, their last stand, the car they’ve always dreamed of—the Dodge Charger!
I find this commercial very funny and different because it doesn’t promote the idea that men can do whatever they want and have whatever they want whenever they want as most car commercials depict. They have to have some fruit with their breakfast, carry lip balm and do a range of other tasks for their wives in order to have the one thing that will make them happy, and free. It’s very interesting that this video does not hegemonically support patriarchy as most other car commercials do.
If you haven’t seen this video, check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aet-Eyv382o
DIFFERENT TOPIC
I am reading a book about a translator who accompanied a lawyer to interview prisoners at guantanamo bay, and i couldn’t stop thinking about how one sided the media is. So many people spend their time being ‘entertained’ by the media, that even the news has become simply a source of entertainment to many as it is rare that actual unbiased facts are given. I have the impression that people are starting to resort to tv as it is convenient and quick, and turning away from other sources of information.
If for example what was written in my book (stories of men from the Middle East being captured and the treated recieved at Guantanamo) was a top story on CNN, people would be shaken and feel sympathy rather than anger and terror.
It’s sort of sad/funny to know that I will never flip through the stations to find a story sympathetic to people in Palestine, or Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. It is simply not on the agenda of global institutions and media networks.
I’ve been having a lot of trouble posting my blog, I keep getting the message: “Hmmm, your comment seems a bit spammy. We’re not real big on spam around here.” I’ll try again later or rewrite
From watching a few of the Super Bowl commercials, I still believe that there is a great hegemonic ideology in what I see. Almost all the commercials that I was able to see on youtube were about men or seemed to be directed towards men. Now not all the men were white, there were a few black men in the commercials but what really shocked me was the lack of other ethnic minorities and women. I understand that this is because the advertisers were gearing their commercials towards a target audience, but it seems to me that lately more and more minorities and women are watching these events (even if it is only for the commercials).
Two commercials I would like to discuss are the Dodge charger commercial that Bianca discussed, as well as a Doritos add about a black man who visits his girlfriend.
The dodge charger video may first and foremost be offensive to women, who are portrayed as controlling and bossy, but it is also offensive towards men. Clearly it is geared towards the way men might feel about women but it doesn’t shed a very nice light on them. They appear to me in the commercial as passive and unable to stand up for themselves.
The Doritos commercial shows a man visiting his girlfriend and who eyes her up. The woman’s son sees this and after the man tries to steal a Dorito the son hits him and tells him off. First off, this is the first women I have seen in any of the Super Bowl commercials and she is portrayed as the “piece of ass” type of women. As well the man portrayed is shown as a womanizer who doesn’t really seem to care for the son. I am unsure to who the video is geared, but I think that really it manages to offend many people.
**NEW TOPIC: REALITY SHOW CELEBRITIES**
I am not a big fan of football and I did not watch the SuperBowl last weekend so I will be talking about Jordan’s topic.
I have to say, I hate reality shows to the core! However, I must admit that sometimes, when there is nothing on TV, I might be tempted to watch some of these shows. I just love hating these people! (My personal favorite? Jersey Shore of course!) I sincerely believe that this explains some of the popularity of reality TV. I mean, I can’t be the only one watching these shows just to hate them right? I think that half of the fun consist in watching these so called “celebrities” crash in flames after their quick ascension to celebrity godhood. I mean let’s face it, people love it when celebrities fall in disgrace. That’s what make tabloids sell. This is the equivalent of fast food for television.
Some of the most interesting commercials that I seen from the Superbowl were the Godaddy.com commercials. They feature Danica Patrick who is a female race car driver. I think indeed she is a talented race car driver but this is how she is used in these commercials. Danica Patrick is extremely popular and has been photographed in numerous magazines.
This entire focus of the Godady.com commercials is on Danica Patrick being the Godaddy girl and what other females need to do to become the Godaddy girl. The actresses in both commercials decide that they are willing to show off how hot they are by ripping off their shirts reveling another shirt with the Godaddy logo. Women were the only characters in these commercials and they had to play a very sexual role. For example in one of the commercials Danica Patrick is enjoying a message when the masseuse recognizes her as the Godaddy and then rips her shirt off to show Danica how hot she is. The idea of the Godaddy is showing is hegemonic in the sense that women are willing to do anything to be a Godaddy girl. Women are also depicted in these commercials as only having skills to look sexy in order to be the Godaddy girl like Danica Patrick.
I had no Idea what Godaddy was from the commercials. It could have been because I was distracted by Danica Patrick and the other women ripping their shirts off or they just didn’t make it clear. For those of you who want to know Godaddy.com does. They sell website or something.
http://new.cbssports.com/video/player/superbowlcommercials?ttag=SBAD10_on_all_cspt_sb_ao_0002
http://new.cbssports.com/video/player/superbowlcommercials?ttag=SBAD10_on_all_cspt_sb_ao_0002
I would first like to talk about the infomercial that Diana Samaan talked about in her blog. I have seen this infomercial numerous times, and it has even brainwashed my mother to buy the product. Vince is not only the spokesperson for the slap chop, but also the SHAMWOW, which is also in my household! I find this man very entertaining, and honestly I did not really think about what he was saying until I read Diana’s blog. Before, I thought his comments about America getting skinny, having a boring life, and being in a good mood today were simply entertaining. However, when you look into what he is saying, it does sound like an anti-depression commercial/product, and these comments are totally random. It is clearly evident that the producers of this infomercial have based their production on humour and not seriousness. However, their tactic does work; the Slap Chop and the SHAMWOW are highly successful products. Like Diana said this infomercial comes off as ridiculous and random which for most viewers becomes entertaining and attracts them to the product.
Secondly I just wanted to briefly talk about the Super Bowl. While watching the Super Bowl everyone expects to see commercials revolving around beer, cars, chocolate bars and every other popularized products of America. It is a definite certainty that the companies that these products belong to understand that they only have a limited time to hold your attention and entertain you, the viewer. The whole point is that you remember their commercial and go out and buy their product. It is somewhat shocking how these companies pay so much money to have a spot for their commercial that will only play during the Super Bowl and never again. This brings me to the topic of the Olympics, recently I have been watching the Olympics and I have been paying attention to the commercials on the channels. Mainly, I have been watching CTV, and like Jennifer Allore, surprisingly I have not gotten tired of these commercials YET, and some of them have been playing for quite a while. I feel very proud and happy to be Canadian when I see these commercials. It is a nice feeling; it almost feels like you, the viewer, are being included in the Olympics games and ceremonies.
RESPONSE TO SUPER BOWL ADS
I have watched many different commercials for the 2010 SuperBowl and I understand why the ManCrunch commercial was rejected. Most – if not all – SuperBowl ads portray stereotypical characteristics of men that make them totally manly. They drink beer, they like sexy women, they are loyal to each other, they love sports, they have power, etc. Why is that so? Because society constructed everyone’s thinking of what “being a man” means, and men apply to these rules and guidelines. They actually have to follow them if they want to be part of society as heterosexual men. So, it ends up being a vicious circle. Society constructs a certain identity for men, which these men pursue, and which is then represented in the media, to again reinforce the identity of men in society.
The ManCrunch commercial totally breaks this cycle because it presents manly men watching sports and drinking beer, but ending up being homosexual. It contradicts the principle on which all the other ads are based. The broadcaster doesn’t want to break the vicious circle, because even though ManCrunch was ready to pay the demanded price, the broadcaster would make more money by safely staying in the vicious circle, and use it to make more profit. So in my opinion, the broadcaster was right when it said that it was a question of money, it just didn’t specify money from whom.
I think that the Man Crunch example is definitely a display of hegemonic influences at work. The first point I want to bring up is that it is just as important to look at ads that were cut, as as that were shown. Which is why Man Crunch is such a good example. We can never be exactly sure the specific reasons behind the ad not making the cut, however it is curious that this ad goes against the images that are usually shown in the Superbowl ads. In response to the second question, I think that all of the other ads that played perpetuate the super heterosexual ideal. I can’t really think of one that doesn’t perpetuate that ideal.
**RESPONSE TO: REALITY SHOW CELEBRITIES**
In response to Luc’s comment regarding reality shows, I too have similar feelings. Although I do not watch many reality shows, based on the few that I have seen, I find myself laughing at all the silly things the celebrities do or say. For example, in Paris Hilton’s new best friend show, after she eliminates a contestant, she ends off by saying “TTYN”. I couldn’t stop laughing the first time I heard her say that as it seemed like such a big joke! TTYN meant to stand for “talk to you never”. It seems so ridiculous as no one would ever say “TTYN” to someone in real life. Although some reality shows are absolutely ridiculous, I do appreciate the ones that actually showcase people’s talents. For example, So You Think You Can Dance and America’s Best Dance Crew. I also really enjoy Britain’s Got Talent as you are able to see a large variety of talents instead of simply dancing or singing.
Since this blog discusses banned Super Bowl commercials, I was tempted to discover what other commercials have been rejected, and why. The commercial that I fell upon and that caught my attention is a Snickers commercial that shows two males working on a car. One man pulls a Snickers candy bar from his pocket and starts eating it while the second man begins chewing the other end. As a result, the two men touch lips and then back off from each other extremely quickly, terrified by the sinful act they have just committed. Assuming that if they do “something manly”, they will be dismissed from the misdeed in which they have done, and consequently rip hair off from their chests.
When I saw this commercial for the first time, I was not exactly sure how to take it in. I read on CNN.com that the Human Right Campaign and the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) condemned the ad. Clearly the commercial is controversial, but I believe that it gives two messages. Firstly, are they trying to say that males have to pronounce their masculinity by being heterosexual and nothing else? Or do males have to pronounce their masculinity by being homophobic?
The “accidental” kiss, in my opinion, is not what should trigger the audience’s uproar. Personally I was more shocked with the fact that the two men believed they committed something that was completely immoral. The commentary on the website where I retrieved the video was also pretty shocking. One of the comments that struck me the most was, “What do children think when they see this commercial? Are they learning anything?”. I believe this is where the notion of hegemony comes to play. The manner in which the hegemonic ideology is perpetuated is by showing that if the two men were to have intentionally kissed, they would not be “manly”. In other words, homosexuals should not be considered “manly”.
The ironic part to this commercial is the fact that it was “banned” due to its controversy. However, it seems to be causing more controversy since it is considered “banned”.
http://www.spike.com/video/kiss-alternate/2820719
Sorry, this is the link I intended to post :
http://www.spike.com/video/kiss/2819686