Sex Sells. So what?

As everyone always knows, sex sells.  Showing some skin or posing provocatively to attract costumers is a common trend in advertisement but when does it become too much?  Are more and more people offended by the racy advertisements?

I personally am not offended with advertising that simulate sex or show an attractive man or woman representing a product.  As Sigmund Freud as taught us, we are sexual beings.  Companies use this to their advantage to get out attention to their product and I don't blame them!  We look to buy products that will be beneficial to our appearance all the time.  Men buy the body wash that will make them smell the best to women.  Women buy the makeup that will attract men.  A perfume company wouldn't use a puppy to sell their perfume.  If you saw a puppy holding a bottle of perfume on a billboard, you'd probably just look the other way.  But if you saw a racy perfume ad on a billboard, you would be more intrigued.  I understand people getting offended by seeing racy advertisements but thats not the intention behind the ad.  The motive for the ad is to get your attention (maybe negative or positively) so you remember their product. 

As much as it doesn't offend me, I do think there is a limit.  If a company was trying to sell a vacuum, the ad probably shouldn't look like this one below:

 

If the product to be sold is a razor then yes, showing a pair of women's legs in the ad is fine!  It grabs the female customer's attention.  The ad above is from Germany and maybe their have a different social norm with advertisements.  I think this ad is a little too much but not offensive.  The company just looks stupid and looks like they tried too hard to market their product as "sexy" even though it's a vacuum cleaner.  Many people say that women are more sexualized in ads than men are and this is probably true but it's not in a negative way.  Everyone knows the companies are just trying to get you to buy the product and not to offend anyone.

Do you think we use sex in advertisements too much?

In Response to Lia Moreggi's Post

"Even though parents have been through the difficulty of teen years as well, times do change and pressure seems different. I just need to ask, do the ads really help?"


I agree with what Lia had to say in her blog about the public awareness announcements.  I just had a class with a guest speaker from the Wellness center at Keene State.  She came to talk to us about Alcohol Education.  In hopes to relate to us better, her message was basically "it is okay to drink alcohol, even underage, as long as you do it safely."  I learned from her whole presentation that if i consume alcohol with a carbonated drink, I will get drunk faster.  It seems as though we try to make teens aware of the troubles with alcohol but we also tell them its okay to drink.  As Lia said, we don't describe the distributive behaviors that come with the abuse of alcohol or other drugs.  I think that these ads need to spread more throughout colleges.  Some ads about living above the influence can be annoying and unrelated to teenagers.  I think the media needs to do a better job at really reaching out to students about the behaviors that can lead from the abuse of drugs and alcohol.  Depression and suicide are two behaviors that can come form the abuse of alcohol and drugs.  I think schools are too scared to talk about depressing, suicide or other disruptive behaviors.  Our school in the past few weeks have gone through several incidents involving suicide.  I have seen people close to me be deeply affected from this.  The only sympathy they received from the school was an email saying they were "sorry" and they were providing counseling.  The second incident wasn't even  acknowledged.  Colleges need to do a better job reaching out to students and getting the information out their about living above the influence.

Unique ways to save money

The other night I was watching the TLC show, Extreme Couponing, and was amazed.  This television documentary showed the lives of a few people who took cutting out simple grocery store coupons to a new extreme.  One woman had $638.64 worth of food items and only paid $2.64.  She saved 98%.  Another women had a retail sale of over $200 but only paid about $2.00 after coupons.  A man had a over 2000 times from the grocery store and only spent about $200.  After watching these people save up their coupons and have storage areas piled with food, I had one thought: why am I not doing this!?

I always get those magazines in the mail with a bunch of little coupons and never had the thought to actually look through them.  Unlike my mother, who cuts out every useful coupon she can find, I'm not quite the bargain shopper.  I've come to realize though how many different way there are to save money!  While coupons may be a great way, there are several other unique ways that people save money.

I found a website that had useful household cleaning tips with foods you find in your fridge.  If you want to clean silver, use the inside of a banana peel.  To clean copper-bottoms pans, use ketchup.  To clean the garbage disposal or to freshen it, run slices of a lemon through it.  Other useful tips are for an ant deterrent, use Cayenne pepper or cinnamon.  On minor wounds or burns, spread honey.  Honey acts as a good antibiotic cream.  These are just some of the many tis out there for people to save money.

With our economy being unpredictable at times, I think people need to start using these ways to save money.  Maybe not going to the extreme of couponing taking over your life, or using honey to clean a wound, however there should be a balance of using ways to save money.  The people profiled in the show Extreme Couponing, they are taking it to a new level.  For years they cut out coupons for that one moment they go to the store and stock up.  This show has given those annoying magazines a new light to me.

What are the different ways you do or have heard to save money?

This article is the unique ways to clean:
www.mint.com/blog/saving/household-products-food-02162011/

This article is about the TLC show Extreme Couponing
http://www.walletpop.com/2010/12/29/the-perils-of-extreme-couponing/

Celebrities: Harmful or Beneficial?

Celebrities are in a majority of TV commercials and ads.  Many people think that celebrities can sell the product by just being associated with the company.  In some cases this is true.  When people see a celebrity associated with the endorsement they think that since a celebrity is using the product, they need to also.  People think that they will be just like the celebrities in the ad.  We also think that since this celebrity is using the product, the product must be reliable.  Celebrities also make the company name known.  Some people remember the product because their favorite celebrity was in the ad.

While some people think celebrities will sell the product by just being associated with it, others disagree.  Celebrities can also be harmful in advertising.  If a celebrity gets a bad rep with the public, this can be detrimental to the company.  Tiger Woods for example is the face of the sporting good company Nike.  When Tiger was in the media for all the negative things that were going on, people looked at nike differently.  I know my father wouldn't buy Nike for some time because he didn't like Tiger.  Michael Vick also signed with a company called Unequal Technologies.  When he was arrested for having dog fights, the company was worried about having him as the face of their company.  Most company feel as though just having a celebrity being the face of the company will help their marketing.  Sometimes they forget about the rest of the commercial or ad and it doesn't attract many people.  Some people don't typically like a celebrity that the company uses.  If half of the people watching an ad don't like the celebrity, naturally they will change the channel thus the company loosing half of its potential customers.   There was a recent study done comparing celebrity commercials to others without celebrities.  The results showed that those ads that did not involve celebrities rated higher than those with celebrities.

I think that a company should use celebrities in their advertisements.  I understand that if there is a negative impact with the celebrity in the media, this can harm the company.  However, I feel as though people will remember the companies advertisement if there is a celebrity associated with it.  I was watching TV and an Amica commercial came on.  I was thinking about how there was no way I was going to remember this company because the commercial just involved "regular" people talking about the service.  Commercials such as the Progressive insurance with the annoying spokeswoman are commercials you will remember.  If you can remember the commercial you'll remember the company more.

Do you think companies should think twice before signing an endorsement deal with celebrities?

In Response to Kristen Begin's Post

With the popularity of DVR, companies are definitely taking a hit with loosing advertising during TV shows.  DVR allows everyone to skip over the annoying commercial breaks.  I think that companies are going to have to depend more advertising through the web or billboards.  No matter how interesting a company tries to make their commercials, most people just don't feel like sitting through them anymore!  I don't think companies should waste the billions of dollars on TV commercials that run during daytime TV shows.  I think companies should put their money into opportunities such as the SUper Bowl or the Grammies where there is more of a live audience watching.  Certain shows that run on a weekly basis are the shows that are typically taped because some people can't be around to watch the new episode live.  Those commercials are the ones people skip over.  I do agree that TV is a huge part of our society and is still a great way to advertise but I don't think companies need to put so much effort into them.

In Response to Abby Hajec's Post

In Abby's post, she talked about the marketing practices that Apple uses.  I agree with everything that she says.  I think that the Apple has created a great phone that has many different  aspects to it.  This company has thought of every customer demand and put it into one phone.  Having the ability to look up anything, or have such a variety of applications is extremely beneficial.  My dad, mom and my sister all have the iPhone 4.  Me on the other hand, I have a blackberry.  While I think the iPhone is a brilliant phone, I personally do not like it.  I have an ipod touch and I've used my families phones and I just can't use them.  My decision between a blackberry and an iPhone was a personal choice.  Apple has done an amazing job marketing their phones.  Not only are their advertisements everywhere, but they have created phones, computers, AppleTV and other gadgets that can pretty much sell themselves.  My father is always boasting about how awesome his phone and laptop are.  He could easily be Apple's biggest fan!  I don't think Apple needs to put in too much effort with their marketing because their service and their products speak for themselves.  I haven't met anyone who has negative things to say about the products they create.  Having good customer reviews can really help out a company.  Most people listen to what other customers or their peers have to say more so than reading into the advertisements.

Don't like it, Don't buy it.

Social responsibility plays an important role in marketing today.  Companies are always looking for new ways to keep the relationship they have with their customers.  Our book calls this notion "green marketing."  Green marketing is the strategic process involving stakeholders assessment to create meaningful long-term relationships with costumers while maintaining, supporting, and enhancing the natural environment.  Some companies do community work in order to get their brand name out to the public and to build a good reputation.  Customer loyalty and trust is what keeps most companies afloat.  Especially with our economy being unpredictable at times, keeping a good reputation is key.

Some companies struggle being able to maintain good customer relationships.  With one bad marketing move or a simple mistake, you can loose most of your customers.  BP for example has lost a good amount of their customers because of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  In Milwaukee, a BP station owner said that their customers have stopped using his gas station.  There are Facebook groups called "Boycott BP" and other movements to stop people from using their gas.  This incident in the Gulf has caused the BP representative a lot of trouble in trying to regain their reputation.  Someone who is in charge of a product or a company always have a target on their back.

I feel as though cigarette companies have the most troubles with the public.  Obviously it is public knowledge that tobacco is not good for your health.  In the 1950's it was common to see a smoking advertisement trying to make smoking look "cool."  The negative side effects on your health was not known by many people.  Today, a cigarette company has to have the surgeon general's warning on the advertisement and several other restrictions.  When the public became aware of how bad tobacco is for you, many people stopped smoking which ultimately decreased cigarette companies profits.  These companies had to find other ways of targeting their customers in order to stay in business.  Most companies target teenagers because they are the most influenced by the media.  Fully aware of the health side affects and even environmental affects of cigarettes, the companies continue to sell their product.  There are many anti-smoking commercials and advertisements.  These commercials mostly consist of people interviewing the CEO's of the cigarette companies.  The commercials are aimed at making the public aware of the health risks with cigarettes but they are also trying to make the owners of these companies look bad. The commercials give the CEO's a bad reputation for fully knowing they are selling a harmful product to the public.

In my opinion, I feel bad for the CEO's or tobacco executives of cigarette companies.  In USA Today in 2003, there was an article about tobacco executives launching an attack on the anti-smoking ads. Tobacco executives went to court to try to ban the anti-smoking ads from portraying them as "callous killers who try to get kids addicted to nicotine."  They understand the advertisements saying the health risks of smoking but targeting the executives for being killers is a little too far.  These executives are not "callous killers."  They are trying to earn a profit.  Yes, tobacco is very bad for you.  Yes, teenagers especially should not be smoking.  Yes, the companies are fully aware their product is not healthy.  But tobacco sells!  I feel bad for the executives because they are just trying to make a profit.  I am not a smoker and do not like cigarettes at all, but I understand that these people are just trying to make a living by selling tobacco.  I feel bad for the executives being portrayed as "killers" or people saying "how can they live with themselves!?"  The executives aren't putting the cigarette to your mouth, you are.  They are just trying to make a living by selling tobacco.  Companies have a lot of pressure with their customers and the social responsibilities they have.  With companies that sell dangerous products such as tobacco, I think people need to give the executives a break.  We are all trying to make a living somehow.  It may be selling not the most socially acceptable product but if you don't like it, don't buy it!


These are some articles I read to write this blog.
http://www.smokinglobby.com/tobacco-news/tobacco-execs-launch-attack-on-antismoking-ads

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/20/magazine/how-do-tobacco-executives-live-with-themselves.html?pagewanted=3&src=pm