My Thoughts On Advertising....

Is Advertising Ethical?

Advertisements are ethical. Their job is to sell & convince consumers to purchase. Sometimes falsity is needed in order to ensure this.

R.I.P Attention Span

It is not news to our society that we are exposed to tons of thousands of advertisements per day. And I think it's safe to say that we don't notice or pay attention to every advertisement we see...but is this really because of the amount of advertisements we're daily bombarded with? Is the abundance of advertisements were exposed to cause our attention spans to shorten? Or are certain advertisements just not striking enough for us, causing us to mute them out? 

It has been said that the average attention span in the past ten years has dropped from 12 minutes to 5 minutes. As a person who struggles to pay attention to things for more than 10 minutes, I definitely agree with this statistic. But, do I feel that advertising specifically affects the attention span of our society? Hm...not exactly. 

I think there is more to blame than advertising. I believe that social media, more than anything, has a much bigger effect on our attention span. We are constantly connected to the web, whether it be by cellphones, laptops, tablets, etc, we are always distracted by something other than what is going on around us. I myself, have noticed a major change with my attention span, due to the different social media outlets that are available to us. I find it extremely difficult to concentrate on the task that I need to get done, without tuning out and getting distracted by some sort of social media website. I think it's safe to say that we all check either our e-mail, text messages, Facebook, Vine, Twitter, Instagram, Youtube, etc, at least once every few hours. 

"Growing evidence shows that social media, among other Internet-age phenomena, is actually rewiring our brains, creating shorter attention spans than ever before. Depending on what you believe, it may also be making us stupid and/or causing the end of the golden age of blogging."

What I'm really trying to get across here is that I think that all these social media outlets, and these mobile devices, have really caused our generation to tune ourselves out to a lot of things that were once more appreciated in life. Even in simple conversations with friends, I find myself, and others, tuning out what other individuals are saying to us, as we are distracted by text messages, or social media sites on our mobile phone. I think that social media has a huge impact on how much time we  give to certain things. With advertising, we most likely won't pay attention to an advertisement unless we find it relevant to our life or interests. And because of this, the advertisement industry really needs to push it's amount of campaigns published, in order to make us pay attention. They constantly need to come up with more compelling and dynamic ideas to make us stop,  and actually take our time to appreciate, and absorb them. 

On the web, we also are exposed to tons of advertisements. But, we are so used to them being there, that we normally just tune them our of our mind. Unless the advertisement pertains to our interest, we normally don't care for them. Even with pop up advertisements, we are so accustomed to them appearing on our screen, that we normally don't care what they have to say, and we just exit them to continue on with whatever else we were doing. Because of this lack of attention we give to advertisements now, there needs to be a larger abundance of them in order for us to acknowledge what they're trying to sell/tell us. 

Overall, I feel that advertising is becoming less appreciated due to the fact that we're all so attached to our mobile devices & social media outlets. We're constantly planting our faces into our phones, rather than enjoying and appreciate the things around us. I feel that the amount of advertisements that brands produce is going to need to get higher & more dynamic, in order for future generations to pay attention seeing as social media & technology is only expanding more and more. 

I found this neat/intersting infographic on the topic of social media & attention spans: Click here to see!

Is Shockvertising Really Effective?

---

In today's modern society, we are exposed to tons of thousands of advertisements each day, but how many of these ads do we really remember? It is becoming harder and harder for brands to grab our societies attention, as we are now exposed to various different ads per day (via web, cellphone, television, radio, etc) and it's impossible for us to remember what each and every message is trying to tell us. So with this, it seems it has become very popular for brands to take the risk of using shock advertising in order to grab our attention and stick with us. 

What is shock advertising exactly?

Shock advertising is described as the intention of offending, startling, or intriguing the viewer by challenging what would typically be accepted socially, morally and religiously in our society. Typically this method is used to promote safe sex, discourage drug use, violence, or animal cruelty. It is an advertising method used in order to potentially change our behaviour or view on things. Shock advertising can be very impactful, but it is often criticized as it uses such an unethical way of grabbing attention. Most shock advertising includes the use of bloody, gory images, sexually suggestive references, profanity, and other moral offensiveness in general. 

But, there is definitely no denying that these advertisements get attention and force people to remember them. This is the advertisements main goal. Although, just because these advertisements are memorable, doesn't mean that they're effective in the right way. There are some negative side effects that can come along with shocking the public, and this can totally ruin the brands opportunity of selling their merchandise. 

So...what exactly can be so bad about shocking our society? 

Well, one reason is, even though these ads may arise interest the moment they are seen, they often will become less effective the second or third time they are noticed, as the viewer will expect the shock, and it therefor becomes less effective. The ad will never have the same amount of impact on the viewer as it did in that first moment. Another complication with shock advertising is, although these advertisements are extremely creative, not all of the population will be able to appreciate or accept them, especially if it offends their personal moral beliefs. For example...

These are advertisements for an Italian clothing firm called United Colors of Benetton. They've published an advertising campaign that includes photographs of Pope Benedict XVI kissing senior Egypitan Imam, as well as Barack Obama kissing Hugo Chavez. Benetton claimed that this Unhate campaign was aimed at fostering tolerance and global love. But, Benetton was unaware of how much controversy these advertisements would stir up, and they had to withdraw the photograph of the Pope Benedict and Egyptian imam after the Vatican denounced it as an unacceptable provocation. This ad campaign is a great example of how a shock advertisement may be acceptable and completely supported to some, where as to others it may thoroughly offend them and their religious/moral beliefs. I think this ad would be highly appreciated by the LGBT community, but to a religious person who has certain beliefs about same sex affection or relationships, this may come off as totally unacceptable. 

Now, although shockvertising has its downfalls, that doesn't mean there aren't any effective aspects to it as well. Studies say that shocking advertisements increase the attention of the audience and also benefit our memory. People are more likely to remember an advertisement which contains shocking content over a mediocre advertisement. These advertisements can cause the audience to become engaged, or potentially uncomfortable, but if it gives a positive impression, then it's well worth the risk. I think that if the brands main focus is to get publicity, then the shock factor is definitely a good approach, and will never fail to be remembered.

Conclusion? 

Personally, I believe shockvertisments have a place and a time. You wouldn't place a gory or sexually suggestive ad in a teen magazine, or somewhere where a child may be exposed to it. You also wouldn't want to place them near a church or near an area where typically people who may be offended to the certain ad will be. I believe that shock advertisement definitely has it's benefits, as there's no doubt that they leave much more impact on the public than a regular ad, but I think the subject matter needs to be appropriate. I think that certain subjects that really need to stress their view on society are able to use shock advertising because they need to have that impact in order to really get their point across. For example: 

This is a really great campaign against child abuse. Child abuse is a serious subject and it really needs impact in order to get the severity of the issue across. I think without using shock advertising for this subject, the average viewer would just walk past and not even pay attention, but because this ad shows a physical child being broken into pieces, it grabs your attention and really makes you think about it–carrying the thought with you throughout the day possibly. 

But, for an ad like this...

I think the shock advertising in this ad is really not needed. Burger king could still get their point across, and get people to buy their food without having to use suggestive imagery. I don't really understand what sex has to do with burgers at all, so I find this advertisement pretty irrelevant in general.

So like I said, shockvertising definantely can be very effective, but it needs to used on the correct subject matter, and needs to be displayed in the right place.

Is Cheating Becomming Socially Acceptable?

---

Cheating. Everyone knows what it is. Although, not everyone's view on cheating is the same. For the majority of us, I'd say we can agree that cheating is immoral and unacceptable in a serious relationship. But there are some cultures in the world who actually believe that cheating is a-ok and shouldn't be looked down upon. Mormons believe that it's acceptable to have more than one wife, and in Islam it is acceptable to have up to four wives at a time. To them though, this technically wouldn't be considered cheating, as it is considered acceptable to have more than one wife at a time, but to other's who do not believe in polygamy –this would seem completely disrespectful and wrong. 

"When people are in a committed relationship, the definition of cheating is based on both parties' opinions, and both parties may redefine their understanding to match the party at an either lower or higher extreme of this definition."

Cheating sucks. I think we can all say we have experienced or known someone who's experienced being cheated on by their partner. Unfortunately, I have been cheated on once in my life, and I can definitely say that it is one of the most horrid feelings in the world, especially when you've put so much faith in a person! But is all cheating considered bad?

In my opinion, I think there are different levels of cheating. There's cheating on your math test in elementary school, cheating on a diet by sneaking a candy bar after a work out, cheating on your favourite brand by switching to a newer one, cheating at a poker game by peeking at someone else's hand, and then there's cheating on your partner...

What I'm trying to say is that I don't believe that all cheating should be considered completely immoral. Innocent cheating such as sneaking a treat while on a diet, isn't the greatest decision in the world, but it's certainly no where near as harmful as cheating on your partner. 

It seems in todays society that cheating has become somewhat more acceptable in a sense. We turn on a TV show and we are exposed to adultery all the time, we listen to the radio and hear a rapper claiming how many "b****es" he's got, we open a people's magazine and read about how so and so is cheating on so and so, we drive down the street and see an advertisement like this...

So, why are we exposed to infidelity & adultery so often? Is the media trying to convey that cheating should be considered acceptable? Or are we taking this whole infidelity thing too seriously?

I honestly believe that in advertising, they use the subject of cheating to catch the viewers attention as it can relate to most people's lives. The advertisement will most likely not fail to be recognizable and memorable since it is connecting to such a taboo and soft subject, and this will make people pay attention. That is their main goal.

Now. There is one last point I would like to make and that is that I think that there are ways of using the cheating subject in an ad, without upsetting people. For example, I think that using an example of a more innocent form of cheating would be ideal. Such as cheating on a brand by changing to a different one, or cheating on your diet, etc. These forms of cheating are less offensive, and avoid relating cheating to relationships with our partners. 

This is an example of an advertisement in which I feel conveys the cheating subject in 

a more innocent and suitable manner, without being offensive to other's. Its still funny, and actually 

pretty cute, and manages to get it's message across without using relationship infidelity. 

In conclusion, I feel that using infidelity in advertising can be suitable, it just needs to be less harsh, and contain a more innocent perspective. Adultery is such a soft subject for some people, especially those who have delt with it throughout their life, and I don't think it's a good idea for a brand or company to give off the impression that they support it.

Subliminal Advertising

Here is a trailer of a documentary called "Programming the Nation" which goes into depth about the 

history of subliminal messaging. 

---

Subliminal messages are predetermined methods thought out by communication techniciains which are made to influence individuals to reply to information given subconiously. These messages can be written, hiden in pictures or voices, and given very fast and vaguely so that it avoids your conscious mind. Messages that are consciously seen or heard can be judged and critiqued, giving us the chance to choose how we want to react. Subliminal messages sink into our subconscious minds giving us no opportunity to react or decide how we want to feel towards the message given, and may cause us to respond in a order which we ordinarily wouldn't.

Since the 5th century, greeks created the science of rhetoric which is a way of influencing people to react in a certain way in which they normally wouldn't. Giving pieces of persuasive information to people can be manipulative and when they see or hear certain bits of data, they can be persuaded one way or another, without being aware. The way in which we process information, and the effectiveness that subliminal messages has on our brain has been continually studied throughout history, including many commercial experiments during the mid 50's. These commercial experiments included projecting subliminal images during television, and also audio subliminal messages during radio commercials. 

One of the most well known subliminal messaging experiments created was done by a man named James Vicary in 1957 which aired during the presentation of the movie Picnic. It featured the words "Hungry? Eat Popcorn. Drink Coca Cola" which appeared every 5 seconds for the span of 0.003 seconds. It was said that the popcorn sales increased by 58% and the Coke by 18%. This information shocked the public and caused a controversial stir, giving individuals the impression that effects of subliminal perception in the future would cause a world where everyone was subliminally controlled to do what the government authorities wanted. Later on in 1962 James Vicary stated that his study was untrue and he never gave any detailed description of his study, giving him no evidence to support his theory. 

This subliminal message is just plain clever in my opinion, I've purchased tostitos many times 

throughout my life, but never noticed the two people with the salsa dip between. Now that I think of 

it though, I can never eat Tostitos without salsa, could this be a coincidence? Or is the logo influencing

 my subconcious mind without me even noticing.

So, what are my thoughts on subliminal messaging? 

I feel that subliminal messages are very effective and can control us to react in a certain desired way. Subliminal messages are meant to be absorbed subconsciously into our brains, so if we subconsciously perceive it, how are we to know that it actually affected us? I think that certain subliminal messages like per say, James Vicary's strategy, are more effective over nonsense advertisements with "sex" messages hidden in them which virtually have no meaning really at all, and are typically non related to the product or true meaning of the message given. I believe that these "naughty" messages are typically done by accident, as it is known to the design and advertising industry that sometimes when we create things we oversee the little details that others may notice. So, products or signs which hidden "sex" words, etc are more likely accidental than anything, in my opinion.

This is a video recorded by someone who found a McDonalds subliminal message during a food network show, I believe a message like this could definantely have an affect on our subconcious decisions and potentially pursuade us to go and eat at McDonalds, without knowing we were influenced for those short seconds it was flashed. 

On the other hand, I believe other subliminal messaging like flashing demands during a television show, are intentional and effective. This messages tell our subconscious mind to do things, and we may actually do them whether or not we realize it. Flashing a McDonalds logo during a cooking show, could be extremely effective, since normally when we tune into a food channel on television, we tend to become hungry, and seeing a McDonalds advert quickly during the show may potentially get our minds to subconsciously think "Hm...I'm hungry, maybe I should grab a quick burger and fry at McDonalds."

So in conclusion, do I believe subliminal messaging is meant to manipulate us, or persuade us to respond in a certain way? Yes and no. Like I said, certain subliminal messages like flashing food advertisements during a television show or movie, are definitely manipulative and out there to persuade us. But hidden messages like "sex" on a skittles bag, are most likely mistakes made by whomever designed them, I mean why else would someone randomly stick a word which has no relation to the product whatsoever? 

Entry #4: Humour in Advertising...Is It Really Effective?

---

Humour has been a common strategy in advertising for many years, but is it true that humour is really effective for these companies to make their brand more memorable, or are these witty adverts all too much effort for the outcome they produce? Many humorous advertisements tend to be the most memorable, as it gets people talking about them, and sharing them with friends, etc. But does this really increase sales? Or do people just watch and share these advertisements because they're entertaining to look/watch and laugh?

Personally, I do agree that humour in advertising can be effective to a certain degree. Although, some factors need to be kept in mind when producing humorous ads such as; appropriate humour for the product, funny/witty–not insulting or obnoxious, targeting the humour of the audience who typically would be interested in purchasing the product, and most importantly, persuading the target audience to actually purchase these products. A really important key to remember is not to lose your intent of the advertisement, which is increasing sales. I think it's important that if an advertisement is humorous, it still needs to be specific and must make it's point, so that the audience doesn't get lost in the humour, and actually goes through with purchasing the product.

"According to a 1993 Journal of Marketing study that examined multinational effects of humour on advertising (a study that still stands true), the major conclusion was that humour is more likely to enhance recall, evaluation, and purchase intention when the humorous message coincides with ad objectives, is well-integrated with those objectives, and is viewed as appropriate for the product category. Under such circumstances, humorous advertising is more likely to secure audience attention, increase memorability, overcome sales resistance, and enhance message persuasiveness."

Another factor to keep in mind is; humour is in the eye of the beholder, and it is very easy to insult a certain audience, and certain humour can be easily misinterpreted. So, I think that the humour should be kept lightly, not too obnoxious where it can easily be taken the wrong way, and potentially leave a bad impression for your company. I also think that the humour strategy may be too risky for smaller, less mainstream companies because if the humour is mistaken or misses the mark, then this small company is putting a huge damper on their sales when they're really in no position to. Where as a huge franchise like McDonalds, has more room for advertisement fails because people will most likely still purchase their products even if they're humour was misinterpreted since they have such a huge audience range.

Above is a risky commercial for the men's Axe Detailer Shower Tool. This is a really good example of an advertisement that appeals to majority of it's target audience (men ages 18-30s), but this commerical could easily be offending to a certain audience such as older folks or people with a more serious sense of humour. 

So, is humour really an asset for improving sales and getting your company name our there? Not really. There are numerous advertisements that have been very successful without the need to be funny. But I do agree that humour can be an easy way of getting people's attention. On the other hand, humour can be a really difficult strategy to use since it's so wide, and every person has a different sense of humour. Some companies may have the mindset that they don't really care if certain individuals are insulted by their adverts since they're only objective is targeting a certain crowd of people, and I think this is a bit risky since if you want you're company to become large and well respected, why would you put your company's reputation in that kind of predicament. That's just my view though, I personally would want my brand to be well respected by all different crowds, as this results in higher sales, and not just limiting your product to a specific target audience. 

I also feel that there are certain company groups that can use the humour strategy, and ones that should not. Certain subjects that may be a sensitive topic to many people should not use humour in my opinion. Including humour that may come across as racist, sexist, or even just plain cold should never be used. This is obviously just going to create problems and controversy for your company. Below are a few advertisements which I found should not be using humour. (in the way they did anyway)

For a mouth wash ad, this is kind of an inappropriate setting, and may be

taken the wrong way to some people. It's not even really funny anyway, in

my opinion, so why bother?

This ad could be taken as racist. It's almost implying that the white

version is better than the black. Many people may be sensitive to this

subject and find this advertisement rather insulting or inappropriate.

This ad is obviously somewhat sexist. It's implying that the male

needs to use post-it note's to remember the girl's name. This is also

an example where the humour isn't really suitable for the product 

they're trying to sell. What does sex have anything to do with post-its?

I feel this could be taken the wrong way to certain individuals. 

So in conclusion, do I think all these risks that come along with humour in advertising worth it? Yes and no. Like I said, as long as the humour is used properly, still maintains it's point, and doesn't distract the audience with its humour...then yes I think it's most definitely worth the risk. But, if the ad misses it's point and could potentially be insulting to majority of people, then no it's obviously inappropriate and not worth the effort. 

Entry #3: Is Advertising Making Us Fat?

---

Although it may be easier for us to blame advertising for the rise in obesity each year, I have my doubts upon whether advertising really influences people to develop unhealthy eating habits. Last week I expressed my feelings on advertising and beauty, and how I believe that photoshopping an image to unattainable perfection has made a strong impact on our society, but I personally do not 100% believe that advertising deliciously unhealthy looking food has an impact on our society in the same way. McDonald's has been in business since 1940, and it is not news to our society that their food is terrible for our bodies. But why do we continue to eat it? Because it tastes good, it's convenient  and it's price tag is low and affordable. Of course advertising does play somewhat of a role in our decision making, as we are exposed to tons of food advertisements per day. But I believe, that it's really up to the individual who makes the decision to indulge in an unhealthy meal, as we are the ones in control of our own actions. I think blaming obesity on advertising is more of an excuse than it is a true factor. In this modern world we now live in, there are many advertisements for healthy living. I've actually noticed that nowadays, it  has become more of a fad, and more acceptable for an individual to obtain a healthy eating lifestyle and to eat organic, vegan, or gluten-free. We are all very much aware of what foods are considered healthy for us, and which ones are cancer causing, fattening, etc...so, why is there still a rise in obesity?

Obesity is now known as a form of addiction. It has been said that fast food with high calorie and fat content has the same effect on our brain's as drugs do. And this is what has led me to believe that advertising really has a small amount of responsibility on our societies obesity issue. An individual is going to make the decision to eat the way they want, no matter how many or little advertisements are out there for these food companies. I'm not saying that seeing a delicious fat burger during a television commercial won't spark anybodies interest, but I highly doubt that these commercials (or advertisements) really hold a gun to our societies head and command them to eat their products. I believe it's the taste, convenience and price of these greasy, salty foods that drive us to consume them. People are addicted to the taste, and no matter what, they're always going to eat it, even if they're aware of the effects it has on their bodies. So what I'm trying to say is that, advertising really doesn't force us to drive down to a fast food joint and pig out, we as human beings can make our own decisions, and we are the only ones to blame for indulging in unhealthy foods. There are also a variety of healthier options at most fast food restaurants such as salads, wraps, etc. So, why do people continue to eat the unhealthy options? Because they choose to! And to them it tastes better, and the taste is what drives them to consume it.

"The combination of fat with sugar, or fat with salt seems to have a very particular neuro-chemical effect on the brain...what that does is release certain chemicals that are similar to drugs, like heroin and morphine." – Ann Kelley, professor at University of Wisconsin states (link to article here)

I truly believe that food advertisements have no more impact than any other advertisements such as; clothing, cars, electronics, etc. Just because we're exposed to all sorts of new expensive electronics each day, do we go out and blow all our money on them? No, not likely (for majority of us anyway). So, just because obesity has become such an issue, it seems like it would be an easy target to blame advertising for the problem, when advertising really has little to do with our daily food intake decision making. I believe that obesity is much more complex than being exposed to food advertising, and it really has more to do with genetics, self-control, addiction, and lifestyle. 

As for children, I'd have to say that my view is a bit different. As children are so naive, and don't yet obtain the ability to realise right from wrong, so of course if they see their favourite toy being advertised on top of a McDonald's bag, they're going to want it! I remember as a child, begging my mother to bring me to McDonald's just for the toy (I had no interest in the food). I think that it's mainly the responsibility of the parents to teach their child that eating unhealthy food should not be a daily activity, and that it is more of a treat. So, in actuality it's not really advertising that should be held responsible for child obesity either, as the parent should be responsible and wise enough to not feed unhealthy food to their babies. In my experience, I have noticed that majority of obese adults, tend to have obese children. It's not very often you see a fit, healthy parent, with a physically unfit child. This is due to the parents' food decisions influencing the child, and educating them on proper eating habits! 

So, when it comes down to it, I think advertising has a small portion of blame on our eating decisions, and it's up to the individual to gain the will power to fight their greasy, unhealthy food wanting needs (or seek professional help when needed).  Like I said before, obesity is more than just about advertising, its much more complex and has many factors which contribute to it. We need to open our eyes and realise that our poor eating decisions have consequences, and it's only ourselves we have to blame, not advertising!

Entry #2: The Abuse of Photoshopping Advertisements

Plus-sized model Tara Lynn retouched for a print advertisement in V Magazine.
Read more: http://fox40.com/health-and-fitness/stories/fake-beauty/#ixzz2fahiPRhq

---

Once upon a time, before the late 80's when photoshop was first published, there was a time when women would flip through their favourite magazine and daydream of having the same beauty as celebrities in which they idolised obtained. Even before airbrushing, and retouching was a popular term known to the advertising industry, women (and men) have always experienced a time in their life in which they wish they could be, look, or act like someone else they assume is perfect. But nowadays, in this media savvy modern would in which we live in, there has become a much greater pressure upon the average woman to attain this perfect image which society has drawn for us. Photoshop has become such an essential tool in advertising and it seems that now the whole world is aware of what it is, and what it can accomplish. We are also aware of the damage is has caused to societies expectations of the average looking woman or man, and this is something that defiantly needs to be addressed before it somehow gets worse.

Now, I'm not denying that photoshop isn't a wonderful and useful tool. As a designer, photoshop is one of my most used applications that I tend to use on a daily bases. Photoshop gives designers and photographers the freedom to create beautiful things. But I do believe there is such a thing as abusing photoshop. There is a fine line between better-ing a photograph, and completely altering the image to the point where it can be defined as lying. What I'm trying to say is that, since photoshop has been used to death in majority of our advertisements, society has now raised the bar of beauty to levels of perfection which are merely just impossible for the average person. Since our societies expectations are so high, this is causing men and women to become much more susceptible to self esteem issues, eating disorders, addiction, depression, feelings of failure, and in extreme cases, thoughts of suicide. Since we are constantly being forced to gawk at all these images of perfect looking beings, we have come to believe that this is the way we should look, and if you don't meet these standards, well then you're not attractive. Which is so saddening, and quite disturbing to think about. Why has society decided that we should all fit into this "perfect" category? And that being thin, or having clear skin makes you an appealing individual? Why can't we all realise that if everyone looked the same, and all so perfect, our world would be such a dull, and boring place to live?

Furthermore, I do understand and believe that photoshop can be used to help convince someone to respond to an advertisement, and can also make it more visually appealing. There are ways of editing a photograph in such a way, which can help the consumers' attention, and make them want to potentially purchase the item that is being advertised. But I do believe that there is a way in which photoshopping an image to the extreme (such as cutting out areas of body parts) can be considered lying. Why do we have to cut off an inch of two of a model's waist? Does this really make a difference in whether or not the consumer will actually purchase the item? Or has society set such high standards of what women and men should look like, that is has become the norm to photoshop all photographs of models to the extreme? I think we all have come to realise that 99% of models' advertisements are photoshopped, and we all somewhat know in the back of our mind that these models don't really look this perfect on a daily basis, so why do we continue to make them appear this way? What kind of standard is this going to set for our future? Is it going to continue to get worse or will society finally realise that every body shape, and form should be appreciated? 

I can only hope for the latter, but the way media is expanding more and more everyday, I doubt there will ever be a drastic change in the photo-editing world. Photoshop is just going to continue to expand and become quicker and more efficient for photo-editing, and advertiser's are always going to take advantage of this product. All I can hope for is that it will get toned down a bit, and somehow in the future our model's advertisements can appear more real, and attainable. 

Entry #1: Sexist Advertising

Mic Mac Mall Ad Campaign: Sexiest or Not?

---

Honestly, I feel that these ad's are pretty insulting to women, as they are suggesting that women lack education and would rather spend their time shopping over learning. I'm not exactly sure why an agency would figure these would encourage woman to buy back to school clothing as the ad's may be quite offensive to certain women, and potentially discourage them from purchasing any items from the mall. I don't think the agency thought this ad campaign through enough, and they defiantly aren't going to draw their target audience in with these demeaning advertisements. If I were the owner of the Mic Mac Mall I would've felt a bit uneasy putting these advertisements up, and I most likely would've contacted the agency that designed them, and asked them to rephrase the ad's to make them less insulting towards women. I think that if these ads featured men as well, it would have potentially made it less sexist towards women because then they're not suggesting that only women prefer shopping over education. I feel that these ads are pretty poorly designed in general, it looks like not much effort went into the thinking process of designing them, and they just stuck a few cartoon women with clothing and added a crappy slogan to them. I think that the ads could of potentially been a lot better if the right agency had been designing them.

I don't think that these ads completely hurt the Mic Mac Mall, I mean, people are going to shop there anyways because they need certain things and if there's nowhere else nearby to get what they need, they're most likely going to end up shopping there anyway. If anything I think that these ads just caused a bit of controversy and attention towards the Mic Mac Mall, but I honestly don't think it is going to make them go bankrupt or anything like that. I think that the fact that they also went out and apologised for these ads really was a good way to get their customers to forgive them, and potentially bring back in the women, or men, who were insulted by these advertisements. The 5000$ cheque was also a nice gesture, to show that they truly care and are genuinely sorry for the mistake.

Overall, I do think these advertisements are a bit demeaning to women, but I don't think they would insult me to the point where I would refuse to continue shopping at the mall.