The way television attracts consumers is changing. It has to if it wants to keep its viewers, especially since youtube and the ability to watch shows online came out . Keeping consumers tuned into programs, especially during commercial breaks is becoming more and more difficult. I know that I, personnally, surf the channels during commercial breaks, or I will watch two different shows. One during the others commercial break. Many people are starting to record their favorite shows which allows them to fast forward through commercials they are meant to see by advertisers. To solve this issue, advertisers are going to have to come up with more creative and engaging ways of attracting their markets.
The idea which FOX is pursueing seems like it could be effective. Telling a consumer how long the commercials will be will allow the consumer to decide if that amount of time is short enough where they will stay or too long. It gives the consumers the choice to watch the commercials, which has never been done before now. I think this method will attract more consumers because the commercials aren't taking them by surprise, and because the commercial block will be shorter. The shorter the break the more likely people will choose to stay because they will have less time to do something, then come back and watch without missing parts of the show.
Another method for commercials would be to copy how Europe does them. Europes commercials come at the end of the program, so there are no breaks from the show being viewed. Although I'm not sure how effective this is, I would much rather have that, then be interrupted every ten or so minutes with commercials. I actually think this is a terrible method for advertisers because no consumer will want to sit and watch five to ten minutes of straight commercials. How this works in Europe I have no idea.
I think there are two likely methods advertisers will use for getting consumers to watch their commercials, and networks to keep their consumers. One of which is more product placement within shows. Although this method isn't always the greatest, it can be extremely effective, especially if it is done well. Another method is that networks will start having shorter commercial breaks, but the breaks themselves will be more frequent. This would be like having one commercial per break. Its not long enough to drive the person away, but it's long enough to attract thier attention. Otherwise I'm honestly not sure where advertising will go in the near future. Maybe I'll tune into the TV more often to find out how it changes.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Monday, May 4, 2009
Blog #7 Open
So far in Media Lit a few of the topics we've discussed include what the media is, how it is used, how it is consumed, and how it should be consumed. We've analyzed concepts of the media, and we've examined the messages it sends us. Overall, I feel as though I've become a slightly better media consumer. Being informed and media literate is extremely important when it comes to making social decisions, political decisions, etc. The media can be extremely influential on society, thus, we must make sure our society is educated. The media advertises to certain markets. Magazines, product advertisements, shows, and stations are all meant for certain demographics, certain peoples in society. From what I've learned, especially after the advertising unit, is that one of the main goals of the media is to make money. The more viewers you attract, the more advertisers will pay you to use your medium, which will bring about more purchasing of advertised products by the viewers. If your medium isn't entertaining enough, money goes down the tubes. Many aspects of media, including the news, are more like forms of entertainment. This isn't necessarily good, especially when it comes to the news because viewers can be receiving fabricated stories, or exaggerations from news stations who're trying to keep their ratings up.
The one thing I have noticed is that the media really is everywhere. It's almost annoying how often I notice something media related because of this class. As helpful as it is to notice advertising methods, stereotypes, or some of the American Core Values, I really like to have a break from learning, and school related material... but this stuff is constantly around me. The world of media and its methods... thats all I have to say.
The one thing I have noticed is that the media really is everywhere. It's almost annoying how often I notice something media related because of this class. As helpful as it is to notice advertising methods, stereotypes, or some of the American Core Values, I really like to have a break from learning, and school related material... but this stuff is constantly around me. The world of media and its methods... thats all I have to say.
Monday, April 27, 2009
#6 TV product placement
Advertisers pay amazing amounts of money to have products placed in movies and television shows. For certain products I think it is a bit of a waste, for example fast food. I actually recently started noticing product placement and it was in the movie Iron Man. I found it amusing that i notice the crumpled Burger King bag. For the amount of money the advertiser payed to have it in the movie, it wasn't worth it. I don't feel any desire to have any Burger King and the product placement was so poor it seemed more like a waste of money. The only time product placement for food really catches my eye is when there's a great feast about to be eaten and something was made with this food brand. Otherwise food product placement seems pointless.
Product placement seems to work on consumers when it is some type of car or clothing brand. But even then it isn't always that effective. It seems like people are more influenced by the product placement if it is actually has to be used by a celebrity they like, or is being used in a cool way. The only reason I know about certain cars is from movies that have placed a certain car in it and the car has pulled some cool stunt, or looks amazing.
Sometimes there can be too much placement of a product in a movie or show. For example, the movie Step Up 2 the Streets had a phone placed multiple times throughout the movie. What kept me from wanting the phone, besides the fact that I like my present phone, was that basically every character had the phone. So whenever anyone received a text, the same phone was pulled out. It didn't seem as cool when everyone had one. If only the main character had the phone I'd probably have liked it more than I do now.
Overall it seems to me as though product placement is pointless unless its some sort of sweet technology. Even then the product can't be shown as being used or owned by many people, but it can't look shabby either. As for affecting peoples buying decisions, I'd say it has much less influence than radio and television commercials, but it is more effective than contextual ads.
Product placement seems to work on consumers when it is some type of car or clothing brand. But even then it isn't always that effective. It seems like people are more influenced by the product placement if it is actually has to be used by a celebrity they like, or is being used in a cool way. The only reason I know about certain cars is from movies that have placed a certain car in it and the car has pulled some cool stunt, or looks amazing.
Sometimes there can be too much placement of a product in a movie or show. For example, the movie Step Up 2 the Streets had a phone placed multiple times throughout the movie. What kept me from wanting the phone, besides the fact that I like my present phone, was that basically every character had the phone. So whenever anyone received a text, the same phone was pulled out. It didn't seem as cool when everyone had one. If only the main character had the phone I'd probably have liked it more than I do now.
Overall it seems to me as though product placement is pointless unless its some sort of sweet technology. Even then the product can't be shown as being used or owned by many people, but it can't look shabby either. As for affecting peoples buying decisions, I'd say it has much less influence than radio and television commercials, but it is more effective than contextual ads.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
#5 Advertisments
Advertisments are extremely interesting and complicated. Some are much more effective than others. For example, I find billboards to be extremely uneffective. All they can do is attract a consumer's attention, but they are passing by so quickly that the information is often forgotten, or wasn't able to be consumed quickly enough. The only time billboards are really effective is when you're on a road trip and the billboard is advertising fast food. Then it is extremely effective; at least that is what I have found.
Radio commercials, however are extremely effective. Their use of classical conditioning and repitition is what makes them effective. Radio commercials are amazing at accomplishing the goals of advertisers. The song that goes along with the commercial grabs the listeners attention which ultimately makes them aware of the product. As the commercial goes on someone explains the product, its attributes, and other important aspects drawing the consumer in; something is usually thrown in about low prices or deals which hooks the consumer entirely. The tone of a radio commercial allows it to make as many claims as it wants without the consumer noticing. The "we're different and unique" claim is used most often, especially by jewelry store commercials, as well as the compliment claim. It seems that these two work the best with the radio because no one can actually see the product being sold and therefore has nothing to compae it to, or doesn't feel like a goon watching someone "compliment" them. People sound more sincere on the radio because it is slightly harder to altera radio commercial than it is to alter a TV commercial. Propaganda devices are also used quit often on the radio. Personally, I feel as though the radio is trusted moreso than other mediums because its always live. We're used to the radio talking to us, so throwing in weasel words or using the "plain folks" device are much easier since it is mostly plain folks listening. Yet, the repition of certain commercials tends to allow consumers to develop distaste for a product because they are sick of hearing about it... Like Shanes Jewelers... I will never be able to listen to their commercials and say I want to buy their diamonds. Overall I'd say radio is the second most effective type of advertising after TV.
Contextual ads are similar to billboards. Sure they can grab your attention with some annoying tune, or by popping up infront of whatever you're doing on the computer... but there are hardly any Propaganda devices or Claims used. The most a contextual ad does, for the ones I get anyway, are attention getting noises, colors, or sayings. Otherwise i barely look at the ad and close out before I even know what the product is. Advertising online is a huge waste of time in my opinion, especially since "pop up blocker" came out and most of the ads are being blocked anyway.
As a whole, radio commercials are definitely more effective than both billboards and contextual ads. In fact, it would be incredibly amazing if contextual ads could just disapear altogether since they only act as a nuisance to consumers, not aiding the product whatsoever.
Radio commercials, however are extremely effective. Their use of classical conditioning and repitition is what makes them effective. Radio commercials are amazing at accomplishing the goals of advertisers. The song that goes along with the commercial grabs the listeners attention which ultimately makes them aware of the product. As the commercial goes on someone explains the product, its attributes, and other important aspects drawing the consumer in; something is usually thrown in about low prices or deals which hooks the consumer entirely. The tone of a radio commercial allows it to make as many claims as it wants without the consumer noticing. The "we're different and unique" claim is used most often, especially by jewelry store commercials, as well as the compliment claim. It seems that these two work the best with the radio because no one can actually see the product being sold and therefore has nothing to compae it to, or doesn't feel like a goon watching someone "compliment" them. People sound more sincere on the radio because it is slightly harder to altera radio commercial than it is to alter a TV commercial. Propaganda devices are also used quit often on the radio. Personally, I feel as though the radio is trusted moreso than other mediums because its always live. We're used to the radio talking to us, so throwing in weasel words or using the "plain folks" device are much easier since it is mostly plain folks listening. Yet, the repition of certain commercials tends to allow consumers to develop distaste for a product because they are sick of hearing about it... Like Shanes Jewelers... I will never be able to listen to their commercials and say I want to buy their diamonds. Overall I'd say radio is the second most effective type of advertising after TV.
Contextual ads are similar to billboards. Sure they can grab your attention with some annoying tune, or by popping up infront of whatever you're doing on the computer... but there are hardly any Propaganda devices or Claims used. The most a contextual ad does, for the ones I get anyway, are attention getting noises, colors, or sayings. Otherwise i barely look at the ad and close out before I even know what the product is. Advertising online is a huge waste of time in my opinion, especially since "pop up blocker" came out and most of the ads are being blocked anyway.
As a whole, radio commercials are definitely more effective than both billboards and contextual ads. In fact, it would be incredibly amazing if contextual ads could just disapear altogether since they only act as a nuisance to consumers, not aiding the product whatsoever.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Blog #4 (Media Stereotypes)
The media's way of portraying men and women influences how we view each other day to day. Women are stereotyped as weaker, more emotional people. They portray women as catty, and extremely prone to cliques. When we see shows on T.V., girls usually have their "bf" and a close group of friends. When they try and branch out or another girl tries to enter the group, there tends to be huge issues. Either the new girl is a threat to the group in some way, or she just isn' t good enough. If you take the movie Mean Girls, Katy is considered a threat by Regina, so Regina takes her into her group to keep her from becoming better than her. The whole movie is about how girls treat each other, and how they allow others to think of them. This movie portrays high school girls of different race, and status levels thes stereotypes girls have been given by our media. Yet, we live out this stereotype almost everyday. Girls do form cliques, girls usually don't branch out to other groups, and no one expects them to. If you are a girl without a group in todays world, you are pretty much alone, and others don't try to make contact with you.
I think boys have it easier than girls do mainly because guys, from what I have personally seen and experienced, both in media and in reality, get along with anyone and everyone. We see shows where a guy from any particular group or clique can fit in with any other group. They are hardly ever rejected from the group and this is because they are a male. I realize this isn't always true in reality, but it seems to be extremely close to true, especially at Burnsville where there are cliques, but guys seem to fit anywhere they go.
Besides being portrayed as loose and catty, girls have slowely been shown stereotypes that regress back to older days where girls kept the house. Guys, jokingly or not, have been heard to say "make me a sandwich" to girls, as though its thier job. This is extremely disrespectful to women and to men, because thier are many male chefs in the world and girls are useful for other things besides doing what guys want them to. This has gotten much better, from what I have personally experienced, although you still hear about older guys who think women have one place and thats in the home. These men tend to be more distrustful of women, especially in the world of engineerig, and will sometimes be expect women to prove their worth. Women have to work that much harder just to be accepted as equal.
I also think that there is a pressure on guys to be more masculine and "tough" than girls. The media hardly ever shows men as being weak, although there are a few "chick flicks" that do. It seems as though guys think they have something to prove and are prone to challenging other guys to see who is better at this or that. I think this attitude that some males have tends to intimidate girls, and at times, it can be something that both girls and boys think of as normal. Girls, according to the media, like tough guys, so guys act that way to impress girls and keep themselves from being seen as weak. While girls, who may even think that the tough guys is intimidating or just stupid, will go along with thier act and encourage it, because it's "normal".
I think boys have it easier than girls do mainly because guys, from what I have personally seen and experienced, both in media and in reality, get along with anyone and everyone. We see shows where a guy from any particular group or clique can fit in with any other group. They are hardly ever rejected from the group and this is because they are a male. I realize this isn't always true in reality, but it seems to be extremely close to true, especially at Burnsville where there are cliques, but guys seem to fit anywhere they go.
Besides being portrayed as loose and catty, girls have slowely been shown stereotypes that regress back to older days where girls kept the house. Guys, jokingly or not, have been heard to say "make me a sandwich" to girls, as though its thier job. This is extremely disrespectful to women and to men, because thier are many male chefs in the world and girls are useful for other things besides doing what guys want them to. This has gotten much better, from what I have personally experienced, although you still hear about older guys who think women have one place and thats in the home. These men tend to be more distrustful of women, especially in the world of engineerig, and will sometimes be expect women to prove their worth. Women have to work that much harder just to be accepted as equal.
I also think that there is a pressure on guys to be more masculine and "tough" than girls. The media hardly ever shows men as being weak, although there are a few "chick flicks" that do. It seems as though guys think they have something to prove and are prone to challenging other guys to see who is better at this or that. I think this attitude that some males have tends to intimidate girls, and at times, it can be something that both girls and boys think of as normal. Girls, according to the media, like tough guys, so guys act that way to impress girls and keep themselves from being seen as weak. While girls, who may even think that the tough guys is intimidating or just stupid, will go along with thier act and encourage it, because it's "normal".
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Blog #3 (American Values in TV)
It's amazing how a show that is about the supernatural can identify values of Americans. Charmed, the show i can sometimes view, represents American Core Values in multiple ways. They are represented through the characters' actions, decisions, and through what they think and say. The setting also portrays many values that are important to Americans, and so does the story line. How the characters dress and speak can express some of our core values. Through all these means of portraying American Core Values, Charmed seems to be encouraging viewers to value quite a few of these values.
Two values that seem to go hand in hand on this show are Achievement and Success and Activity and Work. The "charmed ones", as they are sometimes called, are constantly doing some kind of activity, either protecting innocent, fighting demons, or just trying to live a "normal" life. There is hardly ever a time in the show where you see them relaxing and doing nothing. During basically all of the activities the charmed ones perform, they are striving for, and usually achieve, success. Failure, to them, is NOT an option. In the episode I watched, Phoebe, one of the charmed ones, was obsessed with saving this guy she liked. It turns out that it was his time to die, and the angel of death wouldn't stop until he had his "victim" (for lack of better word). Over and over again Pheobe would work to save this man and time and time again she succeeded.
Another value this show portrays is Material Comfort. The charmed ones live in a large house, have pretty nice cars, and for the most part, live pretty comfortably. Yet, it seems that at least one of the sisters is searching for a guy to love. Having a man who loves you is portrayed as a material comfort to any female who watches this show. Almost every show that I've seen, there is some type of romance, either forthe married sister or for the single ones.
Efficiency and Practicality are also values that this show tells viewers to value. Whenever there is a problem with a demon or something of the like, the charmed ones work together quickly and efficiently to stop or get rid of the problem. The think of the best way to solve their dilemas and then they perform the solution they decided on. Yes, sometimes thier ideas don't work, but they always learn from their mistakes which can also represent another value, Progress.
Youthfulness is portrayed through the sisters themselves. All are pretty young and vivacious. They are energetic and sometimes a little naive. So, when people watch the show, they see young women living and fighting, and youthfulness becomes imortant to the viewers even though there is no fuss being made by the characters themselves.
Two values that seem to go hand in hand on this show are Achievement and Success and Activity and Work. The "charmed ones", as they are sometimes called, are constantly doing some kind of activity, either protecting innocent, fighting demons, or just trying to live a "normal" life. There is hardly ever a time in the show where you see them relaxing and doing nothing. During basically all of the activities the charmed ones perform, they are striving for, and usually achieve, success. Failure, to them, is NOT an option. In the episode I watched, Phoebe, one of the charmed ones, was obsessed with saving this guy she liked. It turns out that it was his time to die, and the angel of death wouldn't stop until he had his "victim" (for lack of better word). Over and over again Pheobe would work to save this man and time and time again she succeeded.
Another value this show portrays is Material Comfort. The charmed ones live in a large house, have pretty nice cars, and for the most part, live pretty comfortably. Yet, it seems that at least one of the sisters is searching for a guy to love. Having a man who loves you is portrayed as a material comfort to any female who watches this show. Almost every show that I've seen, there is some type of romance, either forthe married sister or for the single ones.
Efficiency and Practicality are also values that this show tells viewers to value. Whenever there is a problem with a demon or something of the like, the charmed ones work together quickly and efficiently to stop or get rid of the problem. The think of the best way to solve their dilemas and then they perform the solution they decided on. Yes, sometimes thier ideas don't work, but they always learn from their mistakes which can also represent another value, Progress.
Youthfulness is portrayed through the sisters themselves. All are pretty young and vivacious. They are energetic and sometimes a little naive. So, when people watch the show, they see young women living and fighting, and youthfulness becomes imortant to the viewers even though there is no fuss being made by the characters themselves.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Blog #2 (media influences on kids)
The "Consuming Kids" video was extremely interesting. I don't think I've ever connected any of the problems, like obessity and A.D.D., to the influence the media has on kids today. This video really opened up a new side of media to me. I never really thought that media would target kids just to train them to consume goods. It's really quite smart; hitting kids while they are learning the ways of the world around them. Yet, as good for the economy as encouraging kids to buy may be, I don't think that media is to blame for all of the problems occuring in children today.
Sure the media may completely surround us, but it is the responsibility of the adults surrounding the children to teach them how handle all of the advertisements being thrown at them. Adults have the responsibility to ensure that their children have self control when it comes to buying what they want. Kids need to be taught that there is a difference between needs and wants. There are reasons kids are more influenced by what the media tells them today than they were in earlier days. One obvious reason, the one mentioned throughout the video, is that kids are constantly exposed to advertisements and new culteral ideas. Another is that adults are not as strict about educating kids on good behaviors. Back in the day, adults were more strict on teaching their kids good morals and values. Today, although this doesn't seem to be true in many cases, adults aren't as strict in their teachings.
I think that adults are more desensitized than kids are which allows them to watch advertisements and not be as affected. Kids see adults watching, so they watch, but because the kids haven't been properly trained in receiving media messages, they are more influenced. We also should remember that people make media, so to blame the media is to blame ourselves.
Sure the media may completely surround us, but it is the responsibility of the adults surrounding the children to teach them how handle all of the advertisements being thrown at them. Adults have the responsibility to ensure that their children have self control when it comes to buying what they want. Kids need to be taught that there is a difference between needs and wants. There are reasons kids are more influenced by what the media tells them today than they were in earlier days. One obvious reason, the one mentioned throughout the video, is that kids are constantly exposed to advertisements and new culteral ideas. Another is that adults are not as strict about educating kids on good behaviors. Back in the day, adults were more strict on teaching their kids good morals and values. Today, although this doesn't seem to be true in many cases, adults aren't as strict in their teachings.
I think that adults are more desensitized than kids are which allows them to watch advertisements and not be as affected. Kids see adults watching, so they watch, but because the kids haven't been properly trained in receiving media messages, they are more influenced. We also should remember that people make media, so to blame the media is to blame ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
