Ad buster

1) What is the original message of the company or brand you have targeted in your Spoof Ad?

The original message of the ad I have targeted is they are trying to sell their Rouge Caresse lipstick. Other than to promote their company and their product I do not think there is any other message to the ad I have spoofed.  

2) How have you changed or subverted the original message of the brand or company?

I have changed the message by showing the real side of the company L'Oréal. L'Oréal tests on animals to create most of their products. I do not think this is a very well known fact to the public because it could make their company look less desirable to consumers. My poster reveals what a true ad for L'Oréal could look like because there are probably some poor animals in the world in a test lab that are wearing this exact lipstick, just for the benefit of humans. 

3) What techniques have you used to target the company (humour, shock, attention to problems within the company and it's message)? 

I have taken a picture of a bunny to replace the head of the female model in this picture to represent how this company tests on animals. The slogan I create "The real face of L'Oréal" is to also represent how this company tests on animals. I think the little touches I used to create my spoof ad can come across as shocking and funny. It can be funny because the bunny with the bright pink lipstick obvious looks odd and I believe would make people stop and actually look more closely at the ad. I also believe it can be shocking because when people get a closer look at what I have created I believe they will see the under lying message that I have tried to expose. 

Ambush Marketing Under the Influence

1) How did Budweiser hijack the sponsorship of the Olympic games?

Budweiser hijacked the sponsorship of the Olympic games by creating a 70 foot blimp shaped like a goal light in hockey game. This goal light shape blimp would then light up every time team Canada scored.They hijacked the Olympic games because they were not the official sponsors of the National hockey team. Budweiser was outbid by Molsen. However the blimp made it seem as if Budweiser was still the official sponsor.  

2)  Do you think Budweiser was successful in drawing attention to their brand?

I think Budweiser was very successful in drawing attention to their brand because it is getting a lot of media buzz and it was a very creative way to advertiser their company. If a company gets this much attention then I would deem it successful to drawing (for the most part) positive attention to their company. 

3) How did Budweiser use methods employed by culture-jammers to undermine their competition? 

They made a bigger and bolder "ad" to overcome Molsen (who they lost the national hockey league sponsorship title to). The COC  and Molsen both believe that Budweiser were playing foul, however Labatt (the owner of Labatt Breweries of Canada) thinks that Budweiser were just promoting their beer in a clever way. He believes "it kept promoting the blimp openly -- and stealing Olympic buzz". This displeased a lot of people because it made Molsen look less superior to Budweiser because Molsen didn't have a massive blimp flying around and lighting up whenever team Canada scored. These are the methods Budweiser used to become superior to their competition. 



This is the link to the article the globe and mail wrote regarding the advertising in the olympics: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/marketing/olympics-advertising-who-won-who-lost/article17060580/

Dumb Starbucks

1) Why would someone want to parody a major corporation like Starbucks?

I think somebody would want to make a a parody of a major corporation like Starbucks because it would draw a lot of attention to their selves. Starbucks also has a very high reputation and to dirty the image of Starbucks by using it as a joke would humiliate the company. These could be some of the reasons a person would want to humiliate Starbucks, also they could be trying to make a point to the public about consumerism and brand names.

2) What do you think is the message of Dumb Starbucks?

I think the message of Dumb Starbucks is about consumerism and how a lot of people do not buy for quality but for a brand name. This was evident in the mini-clip we watched on YouTube when people were paying $10 for a hat that was a normal baseball cap, but it had the Starbucks logo on it and said Dumb Starbucks. Also when there was no coffee or cups left in the shop people were still waiting in line so they could just enter the small coffee shop with the hopes of maybe finding a spare cup they could take home. This showed how people will do almost anything just to say they have a specific brand name of something. This was the message of dumb Starbucks and how many people will just buy companies objects for its brand name.

   

This is the link to a clip on YouTube about dumb Starbucks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo_deCOd1HU

This is a link to an article in the New Yorker about Dumb Starbucks: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2014/02/dumb-starbucks-and-the-art-of-the-hoax.html

Chobani Posts Ad Inspired By Gay-Pride Flag, Takes On Russia's Anti-Gay Laws

1) Do you think it is appropriate for a product or advertiser to use a social issue like gay rights to market a product?

I do not think an advertiser should use social issues to market their products because I think they could possibly offend a lot of people and I feel they are taking advantage of social issues. Firstly I believe it can offend a a lot of people if an advertiser uses social issues to bring awareness to firstly their product and secondly the social issue. The social issue the advertiser is using should come before the advertising of their product and I think most advertisers fail to do this. The right intention is behind their ideas, however it usually comes across as if the advertiser is taking advantage of these issues to come up with clever marketing ideas.

2) What communities might find the Chobani ad offensive?

The communities that might find this offensive are the gay and lesbian communities, the government and people who work to bring awareness to social issues in communities. I think these people might find this offensive because Chobani is using a important social issue to market his product, which will allow him to make large amounts of revenue, which isn't right. I am aware that he is trying to show that the American's are defying the anti-gay laws that were established in Russia, and I think he has good intentions, however he is going about it the wrong way.

3) Are the Olympics an appropriate venue to address human rights issues? Explain.


Since the Olympics are on such a large stage and so many people watch them, that addressing human rights can be considered to be both a positive and a negative thing.  I think it can be a positive thing because so many people will be made aware of specific social issues. As well if they use the athletes to address these issues, people who idolize then are going to be more likely to help these social issues be eliminated around the world. However I also think this is a negative place to address human rights issues because the Olympics are focused on athletes trying to be the best in the world and to bring prestige and pride to their countries. Ultimately the Olympics are a sporting event that brings everyone in the world together to cheer on their country, therefore it isn't the best setting to be discussing social issues in the world.






This is the link to the article Emily Thomas wrote about this ad: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/08/chobani-gay-ad_n_4752509.html 

Lets go team Canada!!!

Good luck to all the Canadian athletes that are participating in the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics!

   


This is the link to CBC's website to follow team Canada's progress in the Olympics: http://olympics.cbc.ca/

Documentary reflection

1. Write a reflection on your documentary presentation that includes portions of your presentation or the presentation in its entirety. Please include any new insights that you developed in presenting your documentary to the class.

I though our documentary presentation went very well. The documentary we chose to present was called The Bride Price. Our documentary wasn't to long, which meant the class didn't become disinterested in our presentation. I thought the documentary we chose had a very strong message and conveyed it very effectively. Even though our documentary was short every moment of it was important and relevant to proving how serious child marriages are, and how the film maker (Stephanie Sinclair) thinks it should be abolished. Each time I re watched the documentary it makes me appreciate even more the freedom to chose to marrying whomever I may choose, and at an age where I am ready to be married. Unfortunately for these girls in this documentary they never had that option and were married off at a very young age.One question I started to wonder about while I was doing the my presentation was whether or not Stephanie Sinclair has started an organization to free young women from having to marry men, whom they do not know at such a young age. I have since looked up the answer to my question and discovered she has not started her own organization, but she often helps out with other humans rights organizations.

This is the link to the documentary The Bride Price,  created by Stephanie Sinclair: http://mediastorm.com/clients/the-bride-price-for-icrw




2. Write a reflection on one of the other documentaries that you viewed in class. Name the tittle of the documentary, the intended message and please include your opinion on whether you think the message of the documentary was conveyed effectively. 

Another documentary I viewed in class was called The finale of HBO's "24/7" Red Wings-Maple Leafs: Road to the NHL Winter Classic.  The message of this documentary is used for entertainment purposes. They are trying to promote the the Winter classic and trying to tell people there is a deeper meaning to hockey and it is a serious game. The players who are on the team have had to go on a long journey to get to where they are now, and most of them are pretty humbled by it. Personally I am not a huge hockey fan, however viewing this documentary made me want to watch the winter classic, and maybe even some other hockey games. It made me feel sympathy towards the players because they had to play in horrendous conditions, however they all played because they are passionate about the game. Therefore I would say this documentary effectively conveyed its message.

This is the link to The finale of HBO's "24/7" Red Wings-Maple Leafs: Road to the NHL Winter Classic: http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=699005

Hoop dreams vs. Bowling for Columbine

1) List three major differences between the two documentaries.

Three major differences between these documentaries are the length, Bowling for Columbine was a much shorter documentary than Hoop Dreams. Secondly the viewing of the filmmaker, you only saw the filmmaker in Bowling for Columbine however they never showed up in Hoop Dreams. The filmmaker was not shown in Hoop Dreams because it is a more traditional documentary. Lastly these were two different types of documentaries. Hoop Dreams was focused on two boys and their basketball careers, whereas Bowling for Columbine is more focused on an object and an organisation. The object being guns and the organisation being the NRA (National Rifle Association) in the United States.

2) Hoop Dreams was an incredibly long film 2hrs 52mins, why do you think the filmmakers chose to include so much footage in their film?

I think the film makers wanted to include so much footage into their film because it was all relevant to the story they are telling. They are following the lives of these young boys for 4 years, therefore they would have immense amounts of footage. Obviously they edited the amount of footage they had, however they took the most relevant aspects and parts from their years of footage to create this film. I think the film was long, however while watching it didn't feel that long because it was very well edited and contained all the necessary points to make this a brilliant documentary.

3) Who was the narrator in the documentary Hoop Dreams. Why are we not made aware who the filmmaker is or what they look like throughout the documentary? 

The narrator in Hoop Dreams is Steve James (he is also the filmmaker). We are not made aware of who the filmmaker is because it isn't that important to the documentary. The documentary is following the lives of two boys, therefore the filmmaker had no purpose putting himself in the documentary because it is not relevant. By adding himself into the documentary they are creating more footage that will make the film unnecessarily longer.

4) What makes Hoop Dreams a more traditional Documentary?

Hoop dreams is more of a traditional documentary because it is much longer than most modern documentaries, and the filmmaker never makes an appearance in their film. Traditional documentaries tend to have these aspects whereas Bowling for Columbine shows the filmmaker and is a much shorter documentary. The aspects of Bowling for Columbine show more modern day documentary components.