Chaz Hirata
24 February 2011
RD2
Advertising: The Social Ramifications of Making a Quick Dollar
While a good number of adults consider commercials to be a form of harmless entertainment, many children and teenagers are adversely affected by these advertisements and the messages that they send. Because the majority of these commercials are targeted towards the consumer, namely adults who will expectantly buy the products or services from the advertising company, many of these ads are inappropriate for younger audiences. It is our responsibility to teach our children right from wrong and we need to remember that young adults are the most impressionable demographic. [THESIS] Hence all ads and commercials negatively affect and complicate our lives by misrepresenting and altering our children’s perception of reality [THESIS].
We are living in a time when broadcast television companies, radio stations, and magazines flood us with loads of worthless material that have no bearing on real life. While these advertisements may have little to no effect on you or I, it most certainly influences millions of young Americans every day. For example, it seemed like half of the commercials during this year’s Super Bowl featured different beer companies and their 30-second spiel pushing adult beverages. Every one of these commercials featured handsome men and attractive women laughing and carrying on with an ice-cold beer in hand.
By glorifying alcohol on television, we send the wrong message to our children and encourage underage drinking among America’s youth. While beer companies may claim that they are trying to appeal to the “mature” adults in the audience, the reality is that these ads target young adults and teenagers. The next time you watch a beer commercial, ask yourself what audience the material appeals to. Is it the 40-year-old businessmen or is it the 18-year-old college freshmen? Which key demographic would be the more profitable to the beer companies, the mature adult or the underage partygoer?
And it’s not just about the drinking. Beer commercials often step over the line of good taste in an attempt to conjure a cheap laugh. In the Bud Light commercial known as the “Swear Jar,” the ad begins with a young lady sitting behind an office desk featuring a glass jar filled with money.
A man approaches and inquires, “What’s that?”
She answers, “It’s a swear jar. Every time someone swears, you put a quarter in it.”
“Who gets the money?” the man asks.
“I don’t know,” she replies. “We’ll use it to buy something for the office like a case of Bud Light or something.”
“F***in awesome!” he exclaims, dropping a quarter into the jar.
The commercial continues with co-workers yelling profanities at each other in order to fill up the swear jar more quickly. The cussing becomes embedded in every office conversation as employees attempt to “earn” their Bud Light. This ad is a prime example of an ad populum argument where writers use provocative language to distract the viewers in attempt to hide their lack of ideas in the argument. In this case, the swear words are used to amuse the audience while urging them to purchase the beer companies’ products.
Initially, I thought that this commercial was extremely amusing, incredibly tongue in cheek. Upon further review, I found myself wondering if it was appropriate for a young audience. If this commercial had run during the Super Bowl, would I want my children to see it? Had I seen the commercial for the first time while watching TV with my children, I probably would have laughed out loud. Upon seeing my reaction, my children might copy the same behavior they saw on the commercial thinking that others would consider it funny as well. In turn, they may wrongly assume that swearing is acceptable and humorous based on my initial response to the advertisement.
Some of my peers will argue that commercials do not have a negative effect on our lives and it is merely our interpretation of these ads which is responsible. They will maintain that most advertisements must be taken with a grain of salt as they are meant to be off the wall and humorous. Brandi Nakamura contends that, “As human beings, we are influenced by the world that surrounds us. However, as adults, we are all able to make decisions independently.” Conversely, children are tremendously influenced and shaped by the world around them. They follow by example and are extremely impressionable.
Generally, the goal of advertising is to win over the consumer and persuade them to purchase a particular product or service. However, not every advertisement fits into this category. A few advertisements, known as public service announcements, are done by non-profit organizations hoping to enlighten viewers and make them aware of the problems and evils of society. Cheeren Pires offers an excellent example when she states, “It is easy to generalize all ads into one group but not all ads have the same content. There are currently print, radio and television ads that discuss the downfalls of crystal meth in Hawaii. These ads are very powerful because they share real life stories that are very emotional and touching many different audiences. The ads talk about not trying meth even once. Every day, I pass a store on my way to work with a huge poster of a young man with sores on his face. This is a memorable daily sign for me to think about the impact of drugs on people’s lives. These drug ads definitely don’t have a negative impact. I think we need to pick and choose before we categorize ads as having a negative impact.”
These anti-drug advertisements are a perfect example of the slippery slope fallacy. The commercials presume that smoking meth “just once” will completely ruin your life and catapult you into a dark underworld of crime and corruption where you rob, steal, and sleep with complete strangers to get your “fix.” Furthermore, since the commercial offers no concrete evidence to support its argument, it functions solely as an ineffective scare tactic for the young adults that the advertisement targets.
While I fully support the message these anti-drug commercials attempt to convey to the viewer, I feel that the material comes off as elaborate and exaggerated. Although these advertisements are meant to target adolescents and teenagers, they seem too edgy and over the top to appeal to its intended audience. The advertisements offer no statistics or concrete evidence to back up its claims and worst of all, they feature actors smoking meth from glass pipes and shooting up the drug with syringes and needles. If our kids didn’t know how to smoke ice or shoot up heroin before, they certainly will after watching these so-called public service announcements.
As adults, we are all able to make informed decisions in every facet of our own lives but as parents, we must make knowledgeable decisions that affect our family. Protecting our children is not limited to the food they consume or the company they keep. It is imperative that the images they see and the information they receive are both inoffensive and age-appropriate. Many of today’s ads and commercials teeter on the edge of good taste and are insensitive to our most impressionable age group. In a 1994 study by E. Donnerstein, it is estimated that the average child in the United States will have seen 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence on television before he or she has started elementary school. It is up to each and every one of us to look after our most precious assets.
Works Cited
Donnerstein, E., Slaby R., & Eron, L. (1994). The mass media and youth aggression. In L. Eron, J. Gentry, & P. Schlegel (Eds.) A reason to hope: A psychosocial perspective on violence and youth (pp.219-250). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Nakamura, Brandi. “No, Ads Don’t Have a Negative Impact.” Online Posting. 11 February 2011. Laulima Discussion. 23 February 2011. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201130/page/dce5cccd-f9ac-4ad1-8c6b-6896281bf756]
Pires, Cheeren. “No, Ads Don’t Have a Negative Impact.” Online Posting. 8 February 2011. Laulima Discussion. 23 February 2011. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201130/page/dce5cccd-f9ac-4ad1-8c6b-6896281bf756]
Log of Completed Activities
_X__ Feb. 4- Intro to Paper #2. Read the Guidelines for Paper #2.
_X__ Feb. 7- Complete readings for paper #2.
_X__ Feb. 11- Laulima Discussion: Ad Pros and Cons
_X__ Feb. 18- Laulima Discussion: Logical Fallacies Exercise
_X__ Feb. 25- Submit RD2 [50 pts]. Review the guidelines.
_X__ Feb. 28- Submit three RD2 evaluations [50 pts]. Review the guidelines.
_X__ Mar. 2-7 – Submit FD2 [125 pts]. Review the guidelines.
Thank you to Sengchanh, Jessica, and Kevin for their excellent reviews. All of them were extremely helpful and allowed me to correct my previous errors. I really appreciate it everyone!
ReplyDelete