![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
adrian_turtleWhen advertisers are pitching something, they usually put all the stuff they want you to notice in big print, right up front, sometimes in pictures. (Like the cheerful, alert, people without hayfever symptoms frolicking in fields of pollen.) The stuff they don't want you to advertise goes in smaller print, in a footnote, sometimes on the back of the page. (Like headaches, or anxiety, or risk of stroke.) People don't pay the same sort of attention to information that comes that way--it's flagged as a less important detail. They may look for the fine print to avoid being cheated when they're about to sign a contract, but that's different from remembering the footnotes on ads they notice when they're looking for something else.
I don't remember where I read this. It was a long time ago, and my own observations have supported it. People tend to remember the central points, the obvious bits, of what they hear and read. They can remember hearing about a medical treatment and not remember it didn't work at all, or remember that a public figure was accused of corruption but not remember that he was later cleared by a court. Giving detailed descriptions of what NOT to do can cause problems, because people are thinking about what they aren't supposed to do...sometimes more than what they are supposed to do. In defensive driving, you're not supposed to focus on the obstacles you need to avoid, but on the clear space you need to drive towards. Children are more likely to cooperate with "talk quietly" than with "stop shouting." Is any of this controversial at all, or new?
A few days ago, I was in the waiting room of a doctor's office, and I saw an old magazine. Newsweek doesn't show old covers on their websites, so I can only show you the cover by linking to a page that shows a small image alongside a summary of the article, but try to imagine the full-size cover, just sitting there on a chair. http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/08-05-2007/0004639476&EDATE=
The article is about those wingnuts who deny global warming in the face of all the evidence...but the cover is extremely sympathetic to the wingnuts. Someone who only caught a glimpse of the cover in passing, or who saw part of the cover in a newsstand rack, is likely to remember only the dramatic image and that Newsweek thinks global warming is a hoax. That bothers me.
Yesterday, I saw a link to a Dove video ad, that's supposed to oppose the beauty industry. (I can't explain how Dove, which produces beauty products, plans to oppose the beauty industry. Maybe it's like alcohol and tobacco--to be sold in moderation, to adults? But I digress.) The ad is called "Onslaught," and I will describe it here.* It starts with the face of a little girl of perhaps 8, looking curious and interested. Someone sings in the background, "Here it comes." The perspective shifts a bit, and billboards rush at us/her, faster and faster. Billboard ads for cosmetics, billboards of beautiful women selling stuff, sexualized women on tv, weight loss advertising on tv, medicalized tv ads (women in white coats holding up products promising to make a body part bigger/smaller/tighter/firmer/smoother). There is a series of rapid cuts between different ads showing women's bodies, pill bottles, and the word "fat." They show women growing thinner and fatter, very rapidly, as if they're using time-lapse photographry. The women stand on scales in their underwear. There are accelerated images of running on treadmills and looking into a flushing toilet. Then there are images of plastic surgery--not bloody, but creepy enough, as they show needles going in, and the surgeons drawing on the skin to show how it's supposed to be. Then suddenly we're watching a group of 10-12 year old girls cross the street in front of us. Printed on the screen: "Talk to your daughter before the beauty industry does." The younger girl we saw at the beginning crosses the street next, walking in front of the message. Then the screen goes blank, and Dove gives a pointer to their website of "self esteem programs for girls," which I did not follow.
*It's only about a minute long, but it had enough motion and fast cuts to make me queasy. It seems to be well done, for people who don't mind that sort of thing. (Thanks to Feministing for the link.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaH4y6ZjSfE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efeministing%2Ecom%2F
I think the people who made the Dove ad probably meant well, and the effect of a visual beauty industry version of "We Didn't Start The Fire" is accidental. I don't expect people to pay nearly as much attention to the quick little frame of child and text as to the concentrated onslaught of images themselves, and the idea that a woman can, should, must, make herself look perfect. I don't know why I suspect the designer of the Newsweek cover of less benign intentions.
I don't remember where I read this. It was a long time ago, and my own observations have supported it. People tend to remember the central points, the obvious bits, of what they hear and read. They can remember hearing about a medical treatment and not remember it didn't work at all, or remember that a public figure was accused of corruption but not remember that he was later cleared by a court. Giving detailed descriptions of what NOT to do can cause problems, because people are thinking about what they aren't supposed to do...sometimes more than what they are supposed to do. In defensive driving, you're not supposed to focus on the obstacles you need to avoid, but on the clear space you need to drive towards. Children are more likely to cooperate with "talk quietly" than with "stop shouting." Is any of this controversial at all, or new?
A few days ago, I was in the waiting room of a doctor's office, and I saw an old magazine. Newsweek doesn't show old covers on their websites, so I can only show you the cover by linking to a page that shows a small image alongside a summary of the article, but try to imagine the full-size cover, just sitting there on a chair. http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/08-05-2007/0004639476&EDATE=
The article is about those wingnuts who deny global warming in the face of all the evidence...but the cover is extremely sympathetic to the wingnuts. Someone who only caught a glimpse of the cover in passing, or who saw part of the cover in a newsstand rack, is likely to remember only the dramatic image and that Newsweek thinks global warming is a hoax. That bothers me.
Yesterday, I saw a link to a Dove video ad, that's supposed to oppose the beauty industry. (I can't explain how Dove, which produces beauty products, plans to oppose the beauty industry. Maybe it's like alcohol and tobacco--to be sold in moderation, to adults? But I digress.) The ad is called "Onslaught," and I will describe it here.* It starts with the face of a little girl of perhaps 8, looking curious and interested. Someone sings in the background, "Here it comes." The perspective shifts a bit, and billboards rush at us/her, faster and faster. Billboard ads for cosmetics, billboards of beautiful women selling stuff, sexualized women on tv, weight loss advertising on tv, medicalized tv ads (women in white coats holding up products promising to make a body part bigger/smaller/tighter/firmer/smoother). There is a series of rapid cuts between different ads showing women's bodies, pill bottles, and the word "fat." They show women growing thinner and fatter, very rapidly, as if they're using time-lapse photographry. The women stand on scales in their underwear. There are accelerated images of running on treadmills and looking into a flushing toilet. Then there are images of plastic surgery--not bloody, but creepy enough, as they show needles going in, and the surgeons drawing on the skin to show how it's supposed to be. Then suddenly we're watching a group of 10-12 year old girls cross the street in front of us. Printed on the screen: "Talk to your daughter before the beauty industry does." The younger girl we saw at the beginning crosses the street next, walking in front of the message. Then the screen goes blank, and Dove gives a pointer to their website of "self esteem programs for girls," which I did not follow.
*It's only about a minute long, but it had enough motion and fast cuts to make me queasy. It seems to be well done, for people who don't mind that sort of thing. (Thanks to Feministing for the link.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaH4y6ZjSfE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efeministing%2Ecom%2F
I think the people who made the Dove ad probably meant well, and the effect of a visual beauty industry version of "We Didn't Start The Fire" is accidental. I don't expect people to pay nearly as much attention to the quick little frame of child and text as to the concentrated onslaught of images themselves, and the idea that a woman can, should, must, make herself look perfect. I don't know why I suspect the designer of the Newsweek cover of less benign intentions.
