Overall, I enjoyed the class. I felt that the topics we discussed were interesting and appealed to me as a student since the material wasn't presented in the typical mundane manner that I was used to. I felt that the visual presentations eg. videos, photos, etc were a great help and related well to the themes presented in the Media Literacy Book and Rhetoric of Popular Culture. I thought that some aspects of the media literacy weren't as interesting as I would have thought. The chapters were in fact short and clear but sometimes I felt that they didn't pertain to the class in terms of what the course title was. I originally expected the course to be all about American popular culture and solely focus on advertisements and critiquing such visuals and methods but it was nice to take a different approach and look deeper into the reasons for which we consume what we do and rationalize the messages presented to us by the media. I really enjoyed the culture jams the most and being able to be creative with creating visual statements. The "Slap Chop" was the best! I also liked that the class environment was welcoming of all discussion topics and that there was room to come up with new ideas along the way and not solely stick to the syllabus. There was a lot of freedom and I liked that as the class progressed we were given control over what we wanted our final projects.
My only concerns were really with the blogs. Originally I was having a difficult time understanding what exactly was expected since to me a blog is all about free writing and jotting down one's opinions on certain subjects. Once I realized that there needed to be more integration from the text I felt a little bit better about writing them but sometimes was overwhelmed between the class blogs and syllabus blogs. I know that the purpose was to get a deeper sense of the material and become a more critical consumers but at times I found it a bit difficult to manage it all, especially since the class discussions sometimes didn't always apply to the book or where we were supposed to be in the syllabus. My suggestion would be that instead of necessarily calling them blogs, treat them as minor essay assignments in which all aspects of writing would be required so that students don't think they can just write down what they think about the matter and formulate it to read more like an essay with text references and with works cited. And to make a clear distinction between when In Class blogs were do and Syllabus blogs so that they don't become overwhelming considering that you are looking for well thought out, critical responses. Other than the blogs, I enjoyed every aspect of the class. I thought it was fun and enjoyed going to class. I never felt like I didn't want to go and liked the topic discussions as well as all of the personal side stories, which were often quite comical and made for a relaxing class environment.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
Shopping Experience, Show & Tell (Class Activity)
A little less than a month ago I was on a search to find what would be my new cellular phone. Previously I had owned Sprint's Rumor LG, which was a pretty decent phone with a QWERTY Keyboard, internet access, and a bunch of neat features but I wanted more out of my phone. I realized that although what I owned was a sufficient and effective phone I wanted something more advanced, especially with all that I had been seeing in the new smart-phone crazed market where cells phones not only serve as a way to complete a two-way talk but function as mini computers and much more. Cell phones like Apple's Iphone, the Blackberry, and the Palm Pre made me really excited that I had an upgrade coming up and that I could get a cool new phone for more than half the price. As I searched for my new and exciting phone I looked for three things: that it had a full QWERTY keyboard, since I am texting feen, a touch screen display, and that it came equipped with numerous applications just like what I saw in the commercials on TV for other products.
I knew off the bat that I did not want a Blackberry or an Iphone just because it is what everyone owns. I refused to conform and purchase the technological goods that have been sweeping the nation and decided that I needed to do some research of phones. I ended up finding a bit of information off the Sprint website and liked the Samsung Moment, a Google smart-phone; I then proceeded to go to samsung.com where the display of the phone caught my attention. I was intrigued by the visual images of the phone, its design, and overall structure. The site further provided me with a virtual showing on how to use the phone and everything it was capable of doing. I noticed on the side of the website it states "Experience the Moment. Simplicity, Responsiveness, and Speed", all of which were characteristics I was looking at for my new phone. The website in many ways told a story about the phone using visual images and text to narrate the positives of the phone and helped persuade me to buy it. I decided that I needed to see the product(s) up close in person to decide whether I liked the overall functioning of the phone(s) I liked and the new and updated styles available.
Upon walking into the Sprint store, which was fairly empty, a sales representative immediately approached me asking if I needed any help. He was polite, well-spoken, and seemed interested in what I had to say. He asked me what I was interested in and I clearly stated that I wanted a phone with a high quality camera, a keyboard, and internet access. Immediately he laughed and said I was a lot like he because I was more concerned with all of the features my new phone than anything else. Right off the bat he suggested a selection of Blackberry phones to me, which I completely dismissed and told him that I was looking for a similar functioning phone without it actually being a Blackberry. After giving me an awkward look as to why I would ever say "no" to a blackberry he proceeded to show me three cell phones, which all seemed to be phones that appealed to me: one was the new version Rumor LG, the HTC Hero, and the Samsung Moment. Immediately the Moment caught my attention and I proceeded to inspect it. Granted, out of the entire phone selection he showed me this was the priciest (which made me skeptical about purchasing) but it's the one that caught my attention the most and originally had my eyes set on. He went on to point out that like many people who purchase this phone I must text way too much and must be into taking pictures of just about everything and anything, both were statements which described me as well. The sales representative connected with me on a personal level because as I stated what I wanted from my phone he realized that those same attributes described me as a person and helped him narrow down the selection of phones he showed me.
The Samsung Moment phone caught my attention because it was a smart phone/android that was able to achieve way more than my old phone ever could. When applying the Neo-Aristotelian Approach to this product I believe that this cell phone was invented to compete with other phones such as the BlackBerry and Iphone, which seem to have unlimited applications and functions. It's message was clear; Google introduced this new phone as a way to persuade the market to invest in a phone that was able to do just as much as the other two without as much of the publicity and hype; it introduced a new competitor to the market. The overall organization and arrangement of the phone appealed to me as it is has a large display with touch screen capabilities, a slide-out keyboard, a touch pad, and a 3megapixel camera that can also record videos. The Samsung Moment further comes with a WiFi abilities, a memory card, and audio jack, a bunch of applications, and many more features that appeal to to people much like myself who want everything to be in the palm of my hand. The sales representative helped push me to further make my purchase as he presented the many capabilities of the phone to me and showed me how easy it was to work. He was well versed and had a great understanding of the product and how to sell it to me. We tested it out by taking pictures, recording videos, going online, downloading applications such as Google map, going on Facebook, and much more. The sales representative was able to clearly describe the positive aspects of the phone, present them to me, and succeed in delivering the product to me, which made me want to buy the phone more than I did before.
The in-store presentation was much more valuable than anything else; it further embedded in my memory how awesome this phone was and made me link Google's effectiveness with the end result of my phone. The details, features, and overall presentation of the cell phone originally caught my attention online but after having the sales representative show it to me in person I was almost instantly sold. At the moment, this cell phone has become a product used as a part of my everyday routine. I use my phone for just about everything; it serves as my alarm clock, calendar, e-mail, camera, IM tool, map for directions, and allows me to connect with others through texts and phone calls and much more. I also believe that its connection to Google played a large role in why I liked the phone so much because I felt like it was something I could rely on and be proud to walk around with.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Popular Culture Neo-Aristotelian Approach 5 Canons (Class Activity)
The word rhetoric is often linked to meaningless babble that is intended to beat around the bush on a given particular issue. Individuals such as politicians, marketers, celebrities and other public figures are known for using rhetoric as a way to communicate to a certain message to a group through the use signs/symbols and metaphors on a topic that they may not necessarily want to address. All in all, rhetoric is not necessarily completely negative; it is a term that has more to do with the ways that signs influence people and how it persuades members of society through communication (eg. speech, t.v, radio, internet) than solely meaning empty speech. For example, many of the messages delivered as a result of popular culture are often misconstrued, which is why it is important to describe, interpret, and evaluate the messages delivered to the public.
The messages that are communicated can be further examined through the five classical canons of the Neo-Aristotelian Approach as discussed in The Rhetorical Power of Popular Culture by Deanna Sellnow. The five cannons are listed as follows: 1) invention, 2) arrangement, 3) style, 4) delivery, and 5) memory. By looking at the five canons one can better understand how a particular message whether it is a speech or a visual image can influence listeners and viewers. Such a message is intended to persuade them to either take action or form an opinion on a certain issue or product. The interpretation of rhetoric according to the Neo-Aristotelian Approach is intended to examine the text or message presented; one is called to recognized the argument at hand and understand the speaker's appeal to emotion, logic, and so forth.
The Neo-Aristotelian approach is often used to interpret written and verbal speeches since they used to be the main form of addressing the public until the explosion of the media frenzy world took place. The 1) Invention of a speech begins when someone realizes that they have something to say and want to persuade an audience to believe in their message through the use of comparisons, logos, signs, and forming a relationship with the people. This phase focuses on the content of the speech and the ethos, logos, and pathos used to appeal to the audience and have an effect. The 2) Arrangement must be completed in a manner that follows on with the course of the speech in either chronological order or some other form of organization pattern. It should flow from a coherent introduction to conclusion, much like the format of an essay to highlight the main points. A speaker chooses their arrangement accordingly with the topic they wish to address whether they begin from a less controversial topic and work their way up to discussing a highly controversial topic. The 3) Style of the rhetoric criticizes the language chosen by the speaker. The style must not only express the ideas of the speaker but influence the audience through the choice of words. Furthermore a mood based on how the speaker 4) Delivers the message (eg. speak's clearly, loudly, softly) affects his/her ability to engage the audience and convey to them a clear and understandable message. The delivery of what is said and how it is said is important so that one can be persuaded to follow or reject a message. All of these steps then lead to embedding the rhetoric/message into one's memory after repetition, constant exposure, and how clearly the message is delivered that one can commit it to memory. (When giving speeches, eye contact, clearness of voice, and the flow of the message all contribute to whether or not someone remembers the message.) Someone who has memorized their speech and is able to clearly and coherently discuss the issues at hand and convey a message to the public is more likely to be remembered and forms a better connection with the audience.
The Neo-Aristotelian Approach can also be used and applied to other means of communications other than public speeches but in a slightly different way. The technological advancements of our society and the influence of the media have added other elements that limit the classical rhetorical approach. I will be using the Converse brand as a way to apply the Neo-Aristotelian Approach to explain how converse persuaded people to buy the product. The classical approach deconstructs the different elements that led to the popularization of the shoe.
The invention of converse sneakers began when Marquis M. Converse (http://www.converse.com/About/) realized that there was a need for a specific type of sneaker on the market. As stated on the converse website, “Our company was organized in 1908 fully believing that there was an earnest demand from the retail shoe dealer for a rubber shoe company that would be independent enough not to follow every other company in every thing they do.” The brand came into existence as a result of a need for a certain type of shoe, in this case a rubber canvas shoe intended for people who play basketball. The sneaker has been iconically linked to the "All Star"logo and the sport of basketball, as the brand was made popular by Chuck Taylor, an NBA star who liked the design of the shoe.
The Converse brand was put on the map through the use of this spokesperson who communicated a specific message to basketball fans. Taylor introduced basketball fans to the benefits of wearing converse: the styles, the comfort, and how the sneaker fit with each individual's personality. With the help of Chuck Taylor, the public began to associate converse with basketball. They became the shoes to wear on the court and the brand to keep your feet from hurting while playing sports. Through the exposure, converse became the ultimate shoe for basketball players. The message was structured/arranged to target general basketball players, individual teams, and people who played sports. The converse shoe was manufactured in many different styles (high-top, low-top, with and without laces) and numerous colors, which met the needs of the public, teams, and reinvented itself along the way as fans expressed the desire to tailor the sneakers to their individual styles (colors/logos). The delivery of the converse message was brought to the masses through the use of a celebrity who helped designate that converse was clearly the official sneakers of the NBA. Taylor, as a speaker and representative, made it Converse an ever popular shoe. Then gradually as time progressed the brand became the "it" sneakers to wear in gym class, out on the street, and for punk rockers to perform in. The fact that the shoes have been worn for decades and have been reinvented to symbolize different things to different groups have committed the sneakers to the public's memory. What began as a shoe popularized by basketball players is now not only the symbol of basketball but has morphed to symbolize Rock n Roll culture. Converse are also worn by the general public on a daily basis-children, men, women, and teenagers all wear converse, which they synonymously call "Chucks" due to the memory of Taylor.
Converse are a long days away from being the official sneaker of the NBA; it has been replaced by NIKE but has also shifted to become a part of popular culture in many respects. Converse are now worn by just about everyone; many people love converse because they come in many colors and can be worn on an average day. These "Chucks" are also very popular among artists, rockers, and other musicians who have integrated converse sneakers into their overall image and own personality. Converse were made popular once again through the media, especially in movies where actors/characters are seen wearing converse (eg. Stuart Little and Sylvester Stallone in "Rocky.") and musicians such as The Ramones, The Clash, Green Day, Good Charlotte, Blink 182, all of who rock out on stage with their "Chucks" on.
This is a photo of a band whose members wear converse on a daily basis and have made the shoes a part of their overall image, which in turn influences their fans to act. In this case converse are attracts the teen punk rock scene.
The same can be said about rocker Tom Delonge of Blink 182. Such artists send a message, in this case, converse are a symbol of rebellion and going against those who conform.
The many different styles/colors of converse.
The messages that are communicated can be further examined through the five classical canons of the Neo-Aristotelian Approach as discussed in The Rhetorical Power of Popular Culture by Deanna Sellnow. The five cannons are listed as follows: 1) invention, 2) arrangement, 3) style, 4) delivery, and 5) memory. By looking at the five canons one can better understand how a particular message whether it is a speech or a visual image can influence listeners and viewers. Such a message is intended to persuade them to either take action or form an opinion on a certain issue or product. The interpretation of rhetoric according to the Neo-Aristotelian Approach is intended to examine the text or message presented; one is called to recognized the argument at hand and understand the speaker's appeal to emotion, logic, and so forth.
The Neo-Aristotelian approach is often used to interpret written and verbal speeches since they used to be the main form of addressing the public until the explosion of the media frenzy world took place. The 1) Invention of a speech begins when someone realizes that they have something to say and want to persuade an audience to believe in their message through the use of comparisons, logos, signs, and forming a relationship with the people. This phase focuses on the content of the speech and the ethos, logos, and pathos used to appeal to the audience and have an effect. The 2) Arrangement must be completed in a manner that follows on with the course of the speech in either chronological order or some other form of organization pattern. It should flow from a coherent introduction to conclusion, much like the format of an essay to highlight the main points. A speaker chooses their arrangement accordingly with the topic they wish to address whether they begin from a less controversial topic and work their way up to discussing a highly controversial topic. The 3) Style of the rhetoric criticizes the language chosen by the speaker. The style must not only express the ideas of the speaker but influence the audience through the choice of words. Furthermore a mood based on how the speaker 4) Delivers the message (eg. speak's clearly, loudly, softly) affects his/her ability to engage the audience and convey to them a clear and understandable message. The delivery of what is said and how it is said is important so that one can be persuaded to follow or reject a message. All of these steps then lead to embedding the rhetoric/message into one's memory after repetition, constant exposure, and how clearly the message is delivered that one can commit it to memory. (When giving speeches, eye contact, clearness of voice, and the flow of the message all contribute to whether or not someone remembers the message.) Someone who has memorized their speech and is able to clearly and coherently discuss the issues at hand and convey a message to the public is more likely to be remembered and forms a better connection with the audience.
The Neo-Aristotelian Approach can also be used and applied to other means of communications other than public speeches but in a slightly different way. The technological advancements of our society and the influence of the media have added other elements that limit the classical rhetorical approach. I will be using the Converse brand as a way to apply the Neo-Aristotelian Approach to explain how converse persuaded people to buy the product. The classical approach deconstructs the different elements that led to the popularization of the shoe.
The invention of converse sneakers began when Marquis M. Converse (http://www.converse.com/About/) realized that there was a need for a specific type of sneaker on the market. As stated on the converse website, “Our company was organized in 1908 fully believing that there was an earnest demand from the retail shoe dealer for a rubber shoe company that would be independent enough not to follow every other company in every thing they do.” The brand came into existence as a result of a need for a certain type of shoe, in this case a rubber canvas shoe intended for people who play basketball. The sneaker has been iconically linked to the "All Star"logo and the sport of basketball, as the brand was made popular by Chuck Taylor, an NBA star who liked the design of the shoe.
The Converse brand was put on the map through the use of this spokesperson who communicated a specific message to basketball fans. Taylor introduced basketball fans to the benefits of wearing converse: the styles, the comfort, and how the sneaker fit with each individual's personality. With the help of Chuck Taylor, the public began to associate converse with basketball. They became the shoes to wear on the court and the brand to keep your feet from hurting while playing sports. Through the exposure, converse became the ultimate shoe for basketball players. The message was structured/arranged to target general basketball players, individual teams, and people who played sports. The converse shoe was manufactured in many different styles (high-top, low-top, with and without laces) and numerous colors, which met the needs of the public, teams, and reinvented itself along the way as fans expressed the desire to tailor the sneakers to their individual styles (colors/logos). The delivery of the converse message was brought to the masses through the use of a celebrity who helped designate that converse was clearly the official sneakers of the NBA. Taylor, as a speaker and representative, made it Converse an ever popular shoe. Then gradually as time progressed the brand became the "it" sneakers to wear in gym class, out on the street, and for punk rockers to perform in. The fact that the shoes have been worn for decades and have been reinvented to symbolize different things to different groups have committed the sneakers to the public's memory. What began as a shoe popularized by basketball players is now not only the symbol of basketball but has morphed to symbolize Rock n Roll culture. Converse are also worn by the general public on a daily basis-children, men, women, and teenagers all wear converse, which they synonymously call "Chucks" due to the memory of Taylor. Converse are a long days away from being the official sneaker of the NBA; it has been replaced by NIKE but has also shifted to become a part of popular culture in many respects. Converse are now worn by just about everyone; many people love converse because they come in many colors and can be worn on an average day. These "Chucks" are also very popular among artists, rockers, and other musicians who have integrated converse sneakers into their overall image and own personality. Converse were made popular once again through the media, especially in movies where actors/characters are seen wearing converse (eg. Stuart Little and Sylvester Stallone in "Rocky.") and musicians such as The Ramones, The Clash, Green Day, Good Charlotte, Blink 182, all of who rock out on stage with their "Chucks" on.
This is a photo of a band whose members wear converse on a daily basis and have made the shoes a part of their overall image, which in turn influences their fans to act. In this case converse are attracts the teen punk rock scene.
The same can be said about rocker Tom Delonge of Blink 182. Such artists send a message, in this case, converse are a symbol of rebellion and going against those who conform.
The many different styles/colors of converse.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Culture Jam Mville-Constructive Criticism
Culture jamming is an effective way of communicating the "other side" of the mainstream messages that are presented to consumers through the leading businesses in popular culture. The notion of culture jamming seemingly grew as response to the commercialization of products and ideas that have been displayed to the public as reality in a heavily media saturated environment. People are exposed to so many ads continuously throughout the day that they cannot consciously avoid every single message but should be aware of what is presented to them. Therefore, ads are created to counteract the effects of the media by those who examine beneath the surface of the messages and a act against the clutter of that popular media outlets set forth. After looking at a few ads and videos online on adbusters.com and other sites, I found that culture jamming was simply turning the table on some of the world's most popular name brands and ideas (eg. Nike, McDonalds, Cigarette Companies, and so forth). It reveals the hidden agendas of well-known companies and the tactics that they use to convince the public of how life should be and how people should act and consume information/products. Culture jamming seeks to challenge the ideas presented to the masses by the dominant forces in the media industry; it reveals the truth behind the pop culture that we take in through imagery, sound, and text. It is a way of sending out a message on the issues that are kept secret. Culture jammers converse their messages to the public by making changes to popular logos (Nike swoosh on Tiger Wood's smile), adding text to certain images (My poster below), creating videos ("The Meatrix"), and so forth as a way to get people thinking about the social reality that they live in. They usually target images in popular culture to grab a viewers attention and educate consumers about the reality of the products they support and the things that happen behind-the-scenes. Culture jamming in essence criticizes the image of the world that corporations have created and taps into an individual's emotion to generate a response to the reality that the public has been persuaded to accept.
A poster that I created to culture jam or simply just criticize an aspect of life at Manhattanville has to do with the Registration process and Student Accounts located at the castle. My criticism stems from personal experiences in having an issue arise during registration for all of my eight semesters at Manhattanville. I feel that the communication between students and certain departments on campus is weak and think that more needs to be done to keep the students informed on their account statuses and their eligibility to register for classes when the appropriate time comes around. Every time that I had to register I would receive notice from either Student Accounts or the Registrar that my account was "on hold" the day of registration. My parents always paid the bills on time, I made sure with my adviser that everything was on point, checked my WebAdivser, campus mail, and still, when the moment came after I waited on line for about an hour to register I received word that I could not sign up for classes because something was wrong with my account. It is very frustrating as a student to not only have to register for classes with those green sheets that have been signed off after chasing down professors but then to wait on line for a long time to hear that you have wasted your time and have to run around campus to student accounts, financial aid, and so forth to have everything fixed. And still, in the end you only did all of that to find out that by the time you can register your classes have been closed. It is basically a wild goose chase and a student is sent from one department to another only to be told information that contradicts because the communication between everyone seemingly got messed up along the way or the letters/message was not delivered to the student on time. Mville claims that it is a community that is engaged in all aspects of their students life but what it seems to be engaged in is cashing in a check and forcing the students to undergo unnecessary stress.
For my poster I us
ed the Mville site logo and a picture of a student walking up the steps to the castle; it states "On route to registration. SORRY!", "Your account is on hold" because this is what I have experienced at Manhattanville and one of the things I have liked least about the college. I hated walking from Brownson to the Castle each time to be told a different story when in reality my account was never supposed to be on hold to begin with! Many of my fellow classmates experienced similar situations and have been frustrated with the whole process. Somehow there was always an error with my account, and better yet, there is another girl with my exact same name on campus whose information was always mixed up with mine. For my entire first semester of sophomore year I had been using the wrong I.D. number because somehow campus safety, admissions, every other department confused the two of us and had us using one another's accounts, so again when registration came around the two of us spent 6hours trying to sort things out and get our classes. In essence, my poster takes a dig at the whole registration process and the departments involved that failed to communicate to me and other students the status of our accounts. (eg. tuition payments, parking payments, and signing loan forms) The whole registration system is currently changing and is supposed to allow to students to register themselves online; that would have been useful from the beginning but I still think it's going to cause major problems during the trial run. I do like a lot of things about Manhattanville but there are many, many aspects of the college that can be improved upon, and I think that they should definitely work on bettering the communication between departments. My poster essentially is intended to make not only students think about the whole process but the administration as a whole so that there will be fewer problems in the future. Mville needs to acknowledge the problems so that they can be fixed and students should be super-aware of their account status and should double and triple check everything before going to register for classes.
On a side note, these are examples of culture jamming against two of the biggest name brands/logos that I liked.
(Tiger Woods with the Nike Swoosh Culture Jam, the logo with it's most popular sponsored athlete. Wood's smile was made to imitate the Nike swoosh which makes his smile look like a crooked and deceiving, as if he were hiding something from the public. Again, using the swoosh as his smile gets people talking and thinking about why someone would have done that. What message would someone communicate by changing his natural smile with a popular sneaker logo?)
McDonald's "Big Mac Attack" revealing the ills of consuming the greasy fast food chain's products.
(adbusters.com) This is interesting because it catches the viewers attention by placing the famous McDonald's M/arch on the monitor representing the patient's heart rate. On the right side you can see the doctor's operating on the patient and shedding light on the fact that McDonalds doesn't necessarily serve the best food for its consumers. Regardless of this ad, people will continue to eat the fast food chain's products but it is funny to note that although many culture jamming ads are creating only a select few members of the population are exposed to it.
This is also a poster that I created from the previous culture jam blog I had completed before realizing that the current one had to involve Mville. I basically added text where "Starbucks" had been written on the logo and changed it to "We're everywhere. Is it fair?" as a response to the thousands of Starbucks that can be found within a few miles of one another (domination of coffee industry) and to touch upon the issue of "fair trade" and how Starbucks can sell it's coffee cups for about $5 and the farmers working the fields in developing countries probably earn about 3cents for their work. The logo can also be changed to say "Starbroke" or something like that to emphasize how much consumers are actually paying for this "premium" coffee and how much they could save by consuming elsewhere but that's just for thought.
A poster that I created to culture jam or simply just criticize an aspect of life at Manhattanville has to do with the Registration process and Student Accounts located at the castle. My criticism stems from personal experiences in having an issue arise during registration for all of my eight semesters at Manhattanville. I feel that the communication between students and certain departments on campus is weak and think that more needs to be done to keep the students informed on their account statuses and their eligibility to register for classes when the appropriate time comes around. Every time that I had to register I would receive notice from either Student Accounts or the Registrar that my account was "on hold" the day of registration. My parents always paid the bills on time, I made sure with my adviser that everything was on point, checked my WebAdivser, campus mail, and still, when the moment came after I waited on line for about an hour to register I received word that I could not sign up for classes because something was wrong with my account. It is very frustrating as a student to not only have to register for classes with those green sheets that have been signed off after chasing down professors but then to wait on line for a long time to hear that you have wasted your time and have to run around campus to student accounts, financial aid, and so forth to have everything fixed. And still, in the end you only did all of that to find out that by the time you can register your classes have been closed. It is basically a wild goose chase and a student is sent from one department to another only to be told information that contradicts because the communication between everyone seemingly got messed up along the way or the letters/message was not delivered to the student on time. Mville claims that it is a community that is engaged in all aspects of their students life but what it seems to be engaged in is cashing in a check and forcing the students to undergo unnecessary stress.
For my poster I us
ed the Mville site logo and a picture of a student walking up the steps to the castle; it states "On route to registration. SORRY!", "Your account is on hold" because this is what I have experienced at Manhattanville and one of the things I have liked least about the college. I hated walking from Brownson to the Castle each time to be told a different story when in reality my account was never supposed to be on hold to begin with! Many of my fellow classmates experienced similar situations and have been frustrated with the whole process. Somehow there was always an error with my account, and better yet, there is another girl with my exact same name on campus whose information was always mixed up with mine. For my entire first semester of sophomore year I had been using the wrong I.D. number because somehow campus safety, admissions, every other department confused the two of us and had us using one another's accounts, so again when registration came around the two of us spent 6hours trying to sort things out and get our classes. In essence, my poster takes a dig at the whole registration process and the departments involved that failed to communicate to me and other students the status of our accounts. (eg. tuition payments, parking payments, and signing loan forms) The whole registration system is currently changing and is supposed to allow to students to register themselves online; that would have been useful from the beginning but I still think it's going to cause major problems during the trial run. I do like a lot of things about Manhattanville but there are many, many aspects of the college that can be improved upon, and I think that they should definitely work on bettering the communication between departments. My poster essentially is intended to make not only students think about the whole process but the administration as a whole so that there will be fewer problems in the future. Mville needs to acknowledge the problems so that they can be fixed and students should be super-aware of their account status and should double and triple check everything before going to register for classes.On a side note, these are examples of culture jamming against two of the biggest name brands/logos that I liked.
(Tiger Woods with the Nike Swoosh Culture Jam, the logo with it's most popular sponsored athlete. Wood's smile was made to imitate the Nike swoosh which makes his smile look like a crooked and deceiving, as if he were hiding something from the public. Again, using the swoosh as his smile gets people talking and thinking about why someone would have done that. What message would someone communicate by changing his natural smile with a popular sneaker logo?)
McDonald's "Big Mac Attack" revealing the ills of consuming the greasy fast food chain's products.(adbusters.com) This is interesting because it catches the viewers attention by placing the famous McDonald's M/arch on the monitor representing the patient's heart rate. On the right side you can see the doctor's operating on the patient and shedding light on the fact that McDonalds doesn't necessarily serve the best food for its consumers. Regardless of this ad, people will continue to eat the fast food chain's products but it is funny to note that although many culture jamming ads are creating only a select few members of the population are exposed to it.
This is also a poster that I created from the previous culture jam blog I had completed before realizing that the current one had to involve Mville. I basically added text where "Starbucks" had been written on the logo and changed it to "We're everywhere. Is it fair?" as a response to the thousands of Starbucks that can be found within a few miles of one another (domination of coffee industry) and to touch upon the issue of "fair trade" and how Starbucks can sell it's coffee cups for about $5 and the farmers working the fields in developing countries probably earn about 3cents for their work. The logo can also be changed to say "Starbroke" or something like that to emphasize how much consumers are actually paying for this "premium" coffee and how much they could save by consuming elsewhere but that's just for thought.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Discuss Reactive Measures of Media (Class Activity)
The media has had a strong hold on us not only as consumers but also as individuals for a long time. Since becoming one of the dominant forces in our culture it has been an influential force in conditioning our actions, beliefs, and values. It is important to understand how our role as consumers of the mass media is shaped and the effects that it has on the way we react to events and society as a whole. It is better for a person to understand the effects process of the media and how that causes them to react in their everyday lives to the situations they face, the people they encounter, and the decisions they make so that they become less affected by the false reality portrayed by advertisers. What that means is that it is better for us to be proactive about the media and understand that there are a number of factors contributing to the effects process than to solely be reactive and accept what happens in simple terms (eg. good vs. bad, light vs. dark, right vs. wrong). Both what we see and experience should factor into how we react to the media and the rest of society.
When a person engages in the reactive measure of the media, he/she is simply reacting to the immediate exposure to an image or sound without putting together all of the pieces of the puzzle. Effects are not the results of single occurrences or events. In fact, there are many contributing factors that contribute to the formation of a greater effect that needs to be processed by people on a greater scale. For example, in chapter 6 "Proactive Perspective on Media Effects" by Potter the game of Russian Roulette is used to explain how numerous factors contributed to the death of a young boy who was playing the game with an actual (real life) loaded gun. The initial reaction of the public was to point their fingers at the media and blame the incident on the violence presented by the images shown on the television screen etc. As an effect of being reactive, the individuals failed to realize that the media alone was not responsible for the young boy's death. Other factors such as the loaded gun being present in the household, the unaware parents, and so forth contributed to the tragic occurrence. Yes, the young boy most likely saw the game being played in a movie but that single image cannot endure the blame on its own.
It is a natural reaction for a person to want to point fingers and place the blame on a force (such as the media) that they do not feel responsible for. Once a person understands that there are differences between being proactive and reactive they can act accordingly as a media literate individual. People have an idea embedded in their minds about what is socially acceptable, which provides them with a baseline for handling the effects process of the media. For instance, who put forth the idea that the media alone was responsible for the boy's death? This reaction occurred because with time, the media has become a scapegoat for society's problems; no one wants to take the blame for their own actions so might as well blame the main influencing force. The person that is usually blamed is usually not at fault because their are multiple influences that produced the final outcome.
When a person engages in the reactive measure of the media, he/she is simply reacting to the immediate exposure to an image or sound without putting together all of the pieces of the puzzle. Effects are not the results of single occurrences or events. In fact, there are many contributing factors that contribute to the formation of a greater effect that needs to be processed by people on a greater scale. For example, in chapter 6 "Proactive Perspective on Media Effects" by Potter the game of Russian Roulette is used to explain how numerous factors contributed to the death of a young boy who was playing the game with an actual (real life) loaded gun. The initial reaction of the public was to point their fingers at the media and blame the incident on the violence presented by the images shown on the television screen etc. As an effect of being reactive, the individuals failed to realize that the media alone was not responsible for the young boy's death. Other factors such as the loaded gun being present in the household, the unaware parents, and so forth contributed to the tragic occurrence. Yes, the young boy most likely saw the game being played in a movie but that single image cannot endure the blame on its own.
It is a natural reaction for a person to want to point fingers and place the blame on a force (such as the media) that they do not feel responsible for. Once a person understands that there are differences between being proactive and reactive they can act accordingly as a media literate individual. People have an idea embedded in their minds about what is socially acceptable, which provides them with a baseline for handling the effects process of the media. For instance, who put forth the idea that the media alone was responsible for the boy's death? This reaction occurred because with time, the media has become a scapegoat for society's problems; no one wants to take the blame for their own actions so might as well blame the main influencing force. The person that is usually blamed is usually not at fault because their are multiple influences that produced the final outcome.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Unfair Advertising Practices (Class Activity)
The goal of the advertising industry is to persuade consumers into buying name brand products and labels at all costs. This is a business that is willing to spend millions of dollars on print ads, commercials, and other media outlets to get consumers of all ages to buy products even if the practices they use to get their niche to buy are unfair. Some of the most unfair advertising practices are directed towards children who lack the maturation and experience to understand the images and sounds that are presented to them via the television, music, books, and so on. Children do not understand what it means to interact with the media because they have not matured or experienced real life, which makes them an easy target for marketers. In reality, the products that are being sold to children are neither good nor bad, it is the message behind the content that is questionable. What IS bad is overexposing a child to ads and manipulating them into buying a product or manipulating the child to force their parents to buy a product. Children are not aware of the intent of advertisements or commercials during their early years even though they pay attention to the TV screen and the images shown.
The job of an advertiser is to manipulate consumers into wanting products. When targeting children their focus is placed on toys, games or going to a place like Chuckie Cheese. What is unfair about certain advertising strategies is that they target children whose minds aren’t developed, which is a golden opportunity for marketers to play into their vulnerability (and exploit them). According to "Media Literacy" by Potter, children are exposed to the media as early as 6months of age (Hollenbeck & Stably, 1979); that is absolutely insane. The problem is that the child has no idea what they are paying attention to on the screen and is presented with a lifestyle that they are yet to understand. The overload of ads that children are exposed to is a result of the technological advancement of our society and the overwhelming amount of information that advertisers have accessible on their consumers.In my opinion, it’s not wrong to make things for children (toys, shows, songs) as long as it is development appropriate, which means that the messages/products displayed to them are aware of the different levels of development in which the child falls under. (sensorimotor, preoperational stage, concrete operational stage, and formal operational stage)
What is unfair about advertising to children is that since they are not developed cognitively, emotionally, or morally it is easier to get a certain message stuck in their minds even though they do not understand it. Unlike adults, children need to be protected from negative content (violence, sex, language) and unfair advertising practices (overexposure, no program distinction, false advertisements)until they are old enough to understand what the media shows them and how to process the messages.
"Only 10% of children 5 to 7 years of age have a clear understanding of the profit-seeking motives of commercials; 55% are totally unaware of the nature of ads and believe commercials are purely for entertainment." (Potter, 57)Young children can not differentiate between a programmed show and a commercial if there is not a clear indication that the two programs on t.v are not the same; the signal and the noise need to be distinguished. Advertisers need to be sure that there is a clear divide between the program the child is watching and the commercial they are being shown. For example, children Networks such as Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, the Disney Channel, Noggin and so forth need to make the distinction between when a show like "The Suitelife of Zack and Cody" is on and when a commercial advertising a new "Kids Bop" is on. Additionally, the time that a child is exposed to advertisements needs to be limited. Luckily,there are regulations in place to combat these unfair practices in which commercial ads are limited to 12min per hour on weekdays and 10.5minutes per hour on weekends; if a company refuses to comply they are fined an excess amount of money.(Potter) False advertisements are also illegal, for example if Barbie was presented on TV moving on her own or next to a large playhouse with a bunch of accessories and no disclaimer was mentioned. If the messages "Accessories are not included" or "Some assembly required" and so forth are not listed, then it is false advertisement but also an unfair advertising practice that makes the child want the Barbie and the whole "Barbie World" presented without knowing that when they go to purchase the doll they are simply only getting the doll.
Other unfair advertising practices include calling a child to action directly by stating "Ask mom and dad to buy ..." because to the child, what is presented on TV is reality, they do not understand the concept of deception or that they are only being shown part of the truth. They are not aware cognitively and accept what they see because of their basic level of understanding but to an advertiser, children are also consumers. Children are the ones that ask their parents for products. Most often they cry about getting what they want, complain, or nag until they get their way, which proves that the image presented to the child worked towards convincing them that the product is necessary. Phrases such as "I just gotta have it" and "I really need it" lure parents into purchasing products for their children that they would have never thought about buying otherwise. Even so, children are indeed a special audience not only because of their lack of maturation and need for protection but because they too are consumers with a strong influence over their parents who spend money on the toys and shows advertised.
Now that I think back to when I was a child I can honestly say that I asked my mother to buy me way too many Barbies and dolls and I wonder how great a role the media played in that. "How young is too young?" At what age is it appropriate to advertise to children who otherwise have no idea what they are being shown by the media? I think that children do not know what messages to ignore and what to pay attention to until they are older; their minds automatically become attuned to images, color, and sound with little filtering at high rates of exposure, which can be very unfair.
The job of an advertiser is to manipulate consumers into wanting products. When targeting children their focus is placed on toys, games or going to a place like Chuckie Cheese. What is unfair about certain advertising strategies is that they target children whose minds aren’t developed, which is a golden opportunity for marketers to play into their vulnerability (and exploit them). According to "Media Literacy" by Potter, children are exposed to the media as early as 6months of age (Hollenbeck & Stably, 1979); that is absolutely insane. The problem is that the child has no idea what they are paying attention to on the screen and is presented with a lifestyle that they are yet to understand. The overload of ads that children are exposed to is a result of the technological advancement of our society and the overwhelming amount of information that advertisers have accessible on their consumers.In my opinion, it’s not wrong to make things for children (toys, shows, songs) as long as it is development appropriate, which means that the messages/products displayed to them are aware of the different levels of development in which the child falls under. (sensorimotor, preoperational stage, concrete operational stage, and formal operational stage)
What is unfair about advertising to children is that since they are not developed cognitively, emotionally, or morally it is easier to get a certain message stuck in their minds even though they do not understand it. Unlike adults, children need to be protected from negative content (violence, sex, language) and unfair advertising practices (overexposure, no program distinction, false advertisements)until they are old enough to understand what the media shows them and how to process the messages.
"Only 10% of children 5 to 7 years of age have a clear understanding of the profit-seeking motives of commercials; 55% are totally unaware of the nature of ads and believe commercials are purely for entertainment." (Potter, 57)Young children can not differentiate between a programmed show and a commercial if there is not a clear indication that the two programs on t.v are not the same; the signal and the noise need to be distinguished. Advertisers need to be sure that there is a clear divide between the program the child is watching and the commercial they are being shown. For example, children Networks such as Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, the Disney Channel, Noggin and so forth need to make the distinction between when a show like "The Suitelife of Zack and Cody" is on and when a commercial advertising a new "Kids Bop" is on. Additionally, the time that a child is exposed to advertisements needs to be limited. Luckily,there are regulations in place to combat these unfair practices in which commercial ads are limited to 12min per hour on weekdays and 10.5minutes per hour on weekends; if a company refuses to comply they are fined an excess amount of money.(Potter) False advertisements are also illegal, for example if Barbie was presented on TV moving on her own or next to a large playhouse with a bunch of accessories and no disclaimer was mentioned. If the messages "Accessories are not included" or "Some assembly required" and so forth are not listed, then it is false advertisement but also an unfair advertising practice that makes the child want the Barbie and the whole "Barbie World" presented without knowing that when they go to purchase the doll they are simply only getting the doll.
Other unfair advertising practices include calling a child to action directly by stating "Ask mom and dad to buy ..." because to the child, what is presented on TV is reality, they do not understand the concept of deception or that they are only being shown part of the truth. They are not aware cognitively and accept what they see because of their basic level of understanding but to an advertiser, children are also consumers. Children are the ones that ask their parents for products. Most often they cry about getting what they want, complain, or nag until they get their way, which proves that the image presented to the child worked towards convincing them that the product is necessary. Phrases such as "I just gotta have it" and "I really need it" lure parents into purchasing products for their children that they would have never thought about buying otherwise. Even so, children are indeed a special audience not only because of their lack of maturation and need for protection but because they too are consumers with a strong influence over their parents who spend money on the toys and shows advertised.
Now that I think back to when I was a child I can honestly say that I asked my mother to buy me way too many Barbies and dolls and I wonder how great a role the media played in that. "How young is too young?" At what age is it appropriate to advertise to children who otherwise have no idea what they are being shown by the media? I think that children do not know what messages to ignore and what to pay attention to until they are older; their minds automatically become attuned to images, color, and sound with little filtering at high rates of exposure, which can be very unfair.
"The Corporation" Response (Week 5)
The Canadian Documentary "The Corporation" is a interesting film that sheds light on the truth behind the world's largest corporations and their media outlets (both the good and the bad). The question "What is a corporation?" was answered in a unique manner in this film. From what I watched, I understood that a corporation is a large institution that is a part of the life of every person in the world; it is the most dominant institution in our modern society. (This is a fact that I already knew but didn't pay to much attention to in the past simply because it has always been there.) Additionally, corporations have an excess amount of wealth and power, which is a problem for many people because they view this business as society's "bad apple". When I thought about it, I could not picture a world without the large corporations of today and all of the brand names that have been presented to me through the media outlets. I unfortunately do not know a world without a McDonalds, a Macys, Toys R Us, Walmart, etc.
Corporations such as McDonalds, Dennys, Disney, the Body Shop, etc are all run by people who are hidden behind large office buildings. I found it intriguing that in one of the chapters of the film the corporation is portrayed as a "person" with rights as opposed to an organization run from inside a structure. I would never in my own personal definition of a corporation define it as a "person" with the same rights as an actual living individual. The fact that lawyers were able to go around the law and allow for 14th Amendment, which was intended for the right of African Americans, to be extended to include corporations was ridiculous.I had no idea that it was possible to gain rights for a business by claiming that it was a "person" and successfully reaping the benefits designed for a human being.
Furthermore, the chapter entitled "Perception Management" described what a corporation is at best. It focused on how the corporate world in essence formulates the patterns and habits of our daily lives. Corporations do not only us advertise products to us but sell us a way of life. Each of us is being sold a story about what corporations think life should be like. These large businesses try to define who they are as people and try to relate to us by presenting their corporation as a "person" but what they are really doing is determining our freedom from behind the scenes. It was made apparent to me that there have been decades worth of propaganda that have been used to educate the public in consumer habits. We are told to consume a certain way of life and believe that what we do and buy is a result of our own will, which it certainly is not. We are told what we should by, how we should act, what is good, and what is bad by an industry only concerned with itself. Rich men who are out of touch with a majority of the population are making these decisions for a public that they can not relate to. The decisions that they make come from their reality (having money), not the reality of the rest of the world (most of whom don't have that much money).
Corporations essentially advertise a way of thinking. They tell their audience a story about who they are as people, what they should be like and make people believe that the images that are presented to them depict real life. Most consumers don’t know that the clothes they buy are produced by exploited workers. For items that cost $14.99 in America, the workers are paid 78cents in third world countries. As consumers we purchase items that are sold for hundreds of dollars when the workers (poor men, women, and children) only receive about 40cents on average, which is appalling. The film also used a really good example of how corporations have a way to make you think that by purchasing a certain item or label you are supporting a good cause. A segment displayed the use of the label "Kathy Lee" and promoted it as being a humanitarian brand that supported helping children when in fact 13 year old children were the ones producing the items consumed. What were people supporting when they bought a "Kathy Lee" Brand item? How do you support a brand that is intended to help children when you have children making the clothes? Does that mean one then supports low cost child labor? It's funny to actually take notice to how easily big businesses get away with lying and cheating.
Such devious acts are part of the reasons why corporations use Public Relations to enforce their good will and image upon us. P.R representatives help corporations have a voice, build business, and make them appealing. (eg. environmental campaigns)These economic giants are selling their role in society to create an image of being a regular person so that they in turn can appeal to the "Average Joe" who doesn't know any better. That is why it is important to be able to deconstruct the messages presented to us as consumers so that we don't fall into the pattern of accepting everything we are told. Some of the things that the consumer isn't told is that these corporations (eg. Shell) are responsible for creating chemicals that never existed before that are harmful not only to our environment but to humans and animals alike. Corporations have the means and power to produce chemicals for any purpose at absolutely no cost, which presents a huge disregard for human safety, especially if the risks are ignored in the hopes of gaining a profit. All of the chemicals used in our products are responsible for contributing to negative societal outcomes such as the cancer epidemic and infection of our food supply through the use of harmful hormones. (eg. cows injected with RBGH, which infected the animals' utters and our milk supply) The behind-the-scenes occurrences and wrongs are not displayed in the promotion ads and commercials; one must dig deeper and understand the reality of the corporation.
But what kind of person is corporation? A corporation has no moral conscious; it is an organization, not a single person like the documentary presents. There are numerous people running the corporations that dictate our lives who we know nothing about. They as "people" should have some sense of morality but when it comes down to it they only cares about their stakeholders and profit. The bottom line for a corporation is to make as much money as possible while maintaining all of the power and wealth in the community while disregarding the well-being of others.
Corporations such as McDonalds, Dennys, Disney, the Body Shop, etc are all run by people who are hidden behind large office buildings. I found it intriguing that in one of the chapters of the film the corporation is portrayed as a "person" with rights as opposed to an organization run from inside a structure. I would never in my own personal definition of a corporation define it as a "person" with the same rights as an actual living individual. The fact that lawyers were able to go around the law and allow for 14th Amendment, which was intended for the right of African Americans, to be extended to include corporations was ridiculous.I had no idea that it was possible to gain rights for a business by claiming that it was a "person" and successfully reaping the benefits designed for a human being.
Furthermore, the chapter entitled "Perception Management" described what a corporation is at best. It focused on how the corporate world in essence formulates the patterns and habits of our daily lives. Corporations do not only us advertise products to us but sell us a way of life. Each of us is being sold a story about what corporations think life should be like. These large businesses try to define who they are as people and try to relate to us by presenting their corporation as a "person" but what they are really doing is determining our freedom from behind the scenes. It was made apparent to me that there have been decades worth of propaganda that have been used to educate the public in consumer habits. We are told to consume a certain way of life and believe that what we do and buy is a result of our own will, which it certainly is not. We are told what we should by, how we should act, what is good, and what is bad by an industry only concerned with itself. Rich men who are out of touch with a majority of the population are making these decisions for a public that they can not relate to. The decisions that they make come from their reality (having money), not the reality of the rest of the world (most of whom don't have that much money).
Corporations essentially advertise a way of thinking. They tell their audience a story about who they are as people, what they should be like and make people believe that the images that are presented to them depict real life. Most consumers don’t know that the clothes they buy are produced by exploited workers. For items that cost $14.99 in America, the workers are paid 78cents in third world countries. As consumers we purchase items that are sold for hundreds of dollars when the workers (poor men, women, and children) only receive about 40cents on average, which is appalling. The film also used a really good example of how corporations have a way to make you think that by purchasing a certain item or label you are supporting a good cause. A segment displayed the use of the label "Kathy Lee" and promoted it as being a humanitarian brand that supported helping children when in fact 13 year old children were the ones producing the items consumed. What were people supporting when they bought a "Kathy Lee" Brand item? How do you support a brand that is intended to help children when you have children making the clothes? Does that mean one then supports low cost child labor? It's funny to actually take notice to how easily big businesses get away with lying and cheating.
Such devious acts are part of the reasons why corporations use Public Relations to enforce their good will and image upon us. P.R representatives help corporations have a voice, build business, and make them appealing. (eg. environmental campaigns)These economic giants are selling their role in society to create an image of being a regular person so that they in turn can appeal to the "Average Joe" who doesn't know any better. That is why it is important to be able to deconstruct the messages presented to us as consumers so that we don't fall into the pattern of accepting everything we are told. Some of the things that the consumer isn't told is that these corporations (eg. Shell) are responsible for creating chemicals that never existed before that are harmful not only to our environment but to humans and animals alike. Corporations have the means and power to produce chemicals for any purpose at absolutely no cost, which presents a huge disregard for human safety, especially if the risks are ignored in the hopes of gaining a profit. All of the chemicals used in our products are responsible for contributing to negative societal outcomes such as the cancer epidemic and infection of our food supply through the use of harmful hormones. (eg. cows injected with RBGH, which infected the animals' utters and our milk supply) The behind-the-scenes occurrences and wrongs are not displayed in the promotion ads and commercials; one must dig deeper and understand the reality of the corporation.
But what kind of person is corporation? A corporation has no moral conscious; it is an organization, not a single person like the documentary presents. There are numerous people running the corporations that dictate our lives who we know nothing about. They as "people" should have some sense of morality but when it comes down to it they only cares about their stakeholders and profit. The bottom line for a corporation is to make as much money as possible while maintaining all of the power and wealth in the community while disregarding the well-being of others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
