Odd Advertising in Movies

Advertisers now are having a harder time persuading us to get our attention and buy their product. Its getting harder and harder to push through the clutter they've already established. They're now advertising to us with the use of odd advertising. Advertisers use odd advertising in place of typical methods of billboards and commercials. A way they use odd advertising is product placement, where a company displays their brand or product in a movie or show.

 

Over the break I recently watched 22 Jump Street. While watching the film I noticed the notorious use of product placement by multiple companies in the scenes. One major brand that was continually seen was Sony. All the technology and devices showed were Sony Xperia devices (phones and tablets) as well as Sony/Vaio computers. When panned in on characters texting or in class they would picture them using Sony devices with the Sony brand facing out towards viewers.

 

Along with Sony several other brands were portrayed, just as how Sony showed their products being used, Nike as well did this. Instead of showing viewers the typical commercial, Nike instead displayed their clothes and shoes being worned by the stars. When the shot would pan in, focusing in on when stars would speak they'd show the Nike brand zoomed in on. Also whenever characters would be on the run or sitting down, the camera would seeminly make emphasize on showing the brand outfacing so people can see it. During the times when they had Channing Tatum playing football, or anything involving football, the Underarmour brand continually popped up. When scenes involving football appeared the Underamour brand would appear on the uniforms, socks, shoes and such apparel. After watching the entire movie it appeared to me that the movie was more of an advertising scheme then film. It seemed like every shot had some type of company advertising in it, ranging from the use of a Sony phone, Nike shoes worn, and Dorritos eaten. It served as a great example of companies using the odd advertising technique of product placement. They transformed this comedic film into a prolonged advertising clip.



Toyota: Ain't No Room For Boring

The 2014 Toyota Highlander car commercial is your typical car commercial, in which a company tries to entice you buy their car by using a popular celebrity to endorse them. But this recent commercial is a great example of this common advertising technique seen throughout all types of media. Companies have you believe a popular celebrity in their commercial by showing the celebrity using or in the product trying to be sold.

In this Toyota commercial, the Muppets are the ones portrayed riding in the Highlander, and enjoying all the features that car has to offer. The Muppets are singing a song that talks about all the great features of the car, and with the main chorus, "ain't got no room for boring." By using the Muppets singing, which is what they are known for and iconic by people for, they are showing the people watching how the Highlander is a great product that you can trust. Since obviously creative puppets driving a car is trusting enough to spend a large amount of money on car, simply because "animal" the Muppet said so.

Logically this commercial doesn't sound viable, once you put thought into it and look beyond the fun, exciting characters promoting it. Before analyzing the commercial I was in the typical spot of the American consumer watching the clip, from that point of view I found the commercial to be funny and cool. And after that I automatically connected the Highlander with the Muppets, with the simple reasoning that they were in the Highlander and the commercial appealed to me. After watching the commercial it invoked a childhood urge in myself, I now connected the Muppets, a childhood icon, now to a car. There's no logic behind it but it works because Toyota took a cultural icon in they eyes of Americans, and used it to promote their product. It certainly worked, because I can't think of one without thinking of the other.

Ideas on Putin

A serious question and issue brought up by many in America is the topic of Vladimir Putin, Russia's president, seemingly more dictator if you ask me. When we here the name Putin, many thoughts and assumptions come to mind, ranging from simply a political figure of Russia, to a threat to foreign assets and the list goes on. When I looked at two news organizations they both showed different points on President Vladimir Putin. Looking at the New York Times, I noticed the way that they reported on Putin, they showed him in a particularly negative view. By using language in their article like, "denounced what he called the global domination of one superpower," and "unstoppable." Putin is pictured as an unstoppable tyrant taking over weaker states and a figure that denounces the West's actions, primarily America. They write about him as, "risking the consequences," this puts him in a place of problem being the center of global debate. Overall, The New York Times portrayed Putin as a horrible man, that won't listen to the West and is unstoppable with power.

On the other hand, looking at an article by CBS, they used a different line of language. They portrayed Putin, as a law abiding good citizen, with good intentions for his country. In the recent events which he's decided to step down soon as president, it's written that he'll step down in line with the Russian Constitution, this shows him as being law abiding, a man of law. He stated how his continued present in office would not be for the greater good of Russia, shows his interest and devotion towards the Russian people, betterment of the people. In a speech given by him after his election he thanks the people for the win in their election of an open honest election. Using the words open, and honest, show his positive connotation of himself and the people. The overall view from this CBS article showed Putin as being a good, law abiding man with no selfish intentions. I consider both sources accurate in their reporting but all I have to say is that there's probably more than meets the eye when think of Putin, so even though the article uses opposite tones towards the Russian president, they both are technically correct. But the reason we hold such negative connotations and ideas towards Putin is because the news sources we've seen portray as tyrannical. There quite possible is much more than we know.

CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-for-life-vladimir-putin-opens-up/
NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/19/world/europe/ukraine.html?_r=0

My Relationship with Media

In today's world it's impossible to not take notice to the immense amount of media presented to us. Media is an impressionable force to me, everywhere I go now, there's always a billboard or some type of advertisement in my face. Being your typical high schooler I have all the social media sites like Instagram and Twitter. And while scrolling through them I can't help but take notice to all the ads and products presented to me, that want to me to buy or listen to what they want me to. This probably being the biggest impact of media. When an add is presented to us it tends to always imply they want us to buy some product. And they do this by continuously showing the same product over and over again, and making you want it. You can't escape ads, when all you want to do is watch a TV show, there's an ad there, now it seems like the show itself is mainly ads and less plot of a show. Or when you want to listen to music you turn on the radio, oh wait another ad being played to you, and you have to listen to five ads before you actually get to listen to the actual song. I'm not going to lie advertisements do impression my decisions and such, I do fall victim when I'm presented with something on TV and instantly want it, simply because of a 30 second commercial. So you ask for my relationship with media, well it's the same as many others, highly annoyed by the immense amount and yet highly impressionable, and the consumer with the will to buy it.