The Ad For American Apparel Giant Van Heusen The World 's Largest Shirt Company

Back to the 70’s the biggest campaign was using sodas, like 7UP's "Un-Cola”, Coca-Cola and Pepsi. We also see more advertisement on television and marketing teams looking at trends to see how and why such campaigns worked and which were flops. Moving into the 80’s and 90’s we see that computers are slowly starting taking over advertisement. It isn’t until the 2000’s when we start to see more and more marketing strategies and in the 2010’s we see that platforms such as Google, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter start to influence and branch out to different

The “ Dove Drops an Ad Accused of Racism” article can be connected to the short story “ A Rose for Emily”, the new generation is trying to end with racism but the past generations is not allowing that to happen. The Dove commercial showed a black girl removing her brown shirt and underneath it was a white girl with a white shirt. So what most people interpret was if you are black than you are considered dirty, and if you are white you are considered clean. So if the black person wants to be clean they must use Dove. The ad received a lot of backlash from the people, and that was not the only time they made a controversial ad, in 2011 the ad had three girls side by side. One was darker than the other, they tried to show before and after. The black girl had bad skin, while the white girl had the smooth skin. It been over 100 years since slavery ended, racism should have stopped with it. Before Trump was elected as our president, it was believed that racism was slowly fading away, Obama was making more and more people enter our

Not everyone reacted in such a comical way. Nationwide attempted to defend their argument as to why the dark commercial was necessary, but were attacked in the process with angry mothers commenting on the article. Young mother, Jennifer commented under foxes article very angered by what she had just witnessed, “Do you really think that commercial saved any lives? I'm concerned at how many people seem to think that the fact that bathtubs and bleach are dangerous to babies is somehow new info. (@jennnn)” After arguing her case in a long well thought out comment, she gets to the main point that most viewers would agree with, “That ad was about shock value, not genuine concern for the well being of children.” (@jennnn) All 3 of these comments connect back to the main point of this essay, that advertising such as this creates the illusion that if you don't buy this product, something bad will happen. The fear factor makes works in Nationwide's favor because most of the people viewing this commercial have children, and the thought of losing them is enough to get them to purchase this

Within the advertisement they broadcast systemically reenforced and exaggerated a large number of stereotypes about both men and women. Some may wonder, however, how this really effects everyday life. If someone sees so many ads in a day what is one more, one that is just a bit more sexist than the typical beer ad. While this it is true that the average person is overstimulated by the number of ads as it is there is still something to be said for the content of the ads. Even if a person doesn’t mentally acknowledge them the brain still notes them and stores them in the brain. If time after time one sees women in the submissive role or treated as objects, chances are they will start subconsciously believing it. On the other hand if men are constantly portrayed as stupid and hormone driven then that bias will start to seep into reality. There are also significant moral issues with this ad, if time after time women are portrayed simply as a visual feast it changes how they will be treated for the rest of their lives. Next time they walk down the street theres a chance a man may catcall her, acknowledging the fact that she was in some way appealing to him. He doesn’t do this because she is smart, funny or kind he does this simply because he was pleased by her appearance and may even think he is complementing her. However, by doing this he reenforces what the media has

people making the advertisement saw nothing in it that would render it offensive under the New

H&M had an add that had a little black boy who modeled wearing a green hoodie with the words ”coolest monkey in the jungle”. Also in 2015 H&M launch a store in South Africa, but people that have noticed that they only had white models. H&M replied saying only right models create a positive image for companies. The mother of the model came out saying two people who found it racist that her son wears hundreds of clothes when he models. she even had an argument with a woman named Lovetta Gallows, who believed that the ad was racist.

Although I agree with Saaret’s article, I cannot accept that this is just a commercial thing that is not present in many other forms of the media. It is ever so often viewed through out many media platforms including social media, the depiction of black women. Some of those depictions stemming from movies others from real life events. Those labels giving to black women are often demonstrated using media platforms by the same black women who looking at it through a different angle deem it offensive. To some they tend to adopt those labels, qualities, and characteristics because they feel that since its already popularized that black women act a certain way that it is okay to live by those very same characteristics or qualities without it being deem odd or different. Granted that many movies placed black women in very comical roles, others in more serious and dignified roles, the way black women are perceived will lean towards the stereotypical point of view. To me if you find an Ad offensive, but don’t find a movie containing similar personas represented in the commercial offensive then you are turning a blind eye and choosing when to find the depiction of black women “offensive”. The only way to create a stability for this would be to alter the role of a black woman in media to garner respect and divert from the

The advertisement could approach its viewers in a more light hearted manner. By using a celebrity endorsement appeal, the targeted audience would want to be more like the person purchasing the coffee. They would feel like they are getting approval from someone they admire. The other appeal that could have been used was bandwagon. By using bandwagon, the targeted audience would feel pressured into buying the product. They would feel like an outcast if they were the only one to not buy it, which is not how the 1950’s was at the time. Everyone wanted to be just like everyone else, whether it was by clothes, looks, appliances, food items, etc. No one wanted to stick out like a sore thumb because it was wrong. The advertisement also could have been improved changing the violent illustration to a celebrity using the product or a crowd of people going after the same product because of how desirable it

When I was a kid in school, I was told that there were the basic things that you needed like clothes and food and there were the things that you maybe want but don’t really need. Advertisements do not have any effects on what we need. We don’t watch and add about how we need to eat food to stay alive; we have hunger for that. However, Advertisements greatly affect what we want.

The fact that they used an African American kid for this commercial is highly prejudice. Prejudice is when a negative attitude is felt against an entire group of people (Schaefer 2015). This advertisement gives that image that all African Americans are drug dealing monsters. This type of imagery has led to discrimination against African Americans because they are looked at like they are criminals when that is not the case. Discrimination is when a group of people is denied the same rights and opportunities because of prejudice (Schaefer 2015). Something that is disturbing about this advertisement and the group that was behind making it, Partnership for a drug free America, is that they were funded by over two hundred major American corporations. These types of images that were played on television and backed by so many large companies show that institutional discrimination is a problem in this nation. Institutional discrimination is when a group of people are denied opportunities and their rights are taken away during the normal operations of society.

The Miller High Life One Second Ad is one of many PR case studies profiled in the textbook, Public Relations Cases. In collaboration with Dig Communications, Miller High Life developed a newsworthy, attention-getting, beer-selling campaign where a series of one-second ads were televised during the Super Bowl game in 2009. This was not only a great commercial, but it was a smart commercial; one that continues to be studied today.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. Your personal story of your experience with commercials, brought your posting to life and made it real for me. Very well put, but I am a lot older than you and I can tell you commercials in the 60's and 70's, when I was a kid, were horrifying and very racist. These images are disturbing and shocking, as you see the casual way in which businesses have deployed racism to sell their products. These images don’t just go away, and we’re still dealing with these issues today. Commercials like, Aunt Jemima, Yum Yum Brand, Apples, Fritos, etc. At one-point people were and are still, outraged by these racist commercials and most of these ads were banned and pulled from the public eye. But things

Controversial advertisement is something that you see a lot of compared to the 1900’s. You see homosexuality being pushed a lot more than it use to be, I mean god forbid you see something on t.v. back then that was promoting homosexuality. In one of the advertisements I gave evaluation on you have the brand Ben and Jerrys ice cream that has an oreo and has put the gay color rainbow in the oreo. What is that saying, well its saying we will accept you for who you are so you do not have to stop buying our ice cream, and if you are gay we especially want you to buy our ice

In 2013, UN Women launched an ad campaign that revealed the prevalent and rampant sexism and discrimination against women worldwide. Memac Ogilvy and Mather Dubai, the creators of the advertisement, placed authentic Google search text boxes over the mouth of the woman pictured, as if to silence her voice. By using a Muslim woman in a hijab, real searches via Google, and highlighting the true, subconscious feelings and attitude of the audience, the advertisement attempts to expose the negative biases towards women, ranging from stereotypes to blatant denial of their rights.

In 2010, the Italian clothing company Diesel released an advertising campaign titled “Be Stupid”. The advertisements consisted of pictures of men and women performing risky acts with captions such as, “Smart has the plans, stupid has the stories,” and, “If we didn’t have stupid thoughts we’d have no interesting thoughts at all.” One ad in particular shows a young girl flashing her breasts at a security camera that is captioned “Smart may have the brains, but stupid has the balls.” While many have heralded this award-winning ad campaign as being artistic, edgy, and well representing of both men and women, the messages that they’re conveying in the campaign must be examined critically. In the documentary Killing Us Softly 4, Jean Kilbourne points out that, “ads sell more than products. They sell values, they sell images… To a great extent they tell us who we are and who we should be,” (Killing Us Softly, 2012). This advertisement works to set up several dichotomies: smart/stupid, cowardice/bravery, and boring/interesting. These dichotomies work to categorize people into two distinct types, making it easier to dehumanize or “other” undesirable traits. Further, although it claims to challenge femininity, the message that Diesel is sending makes attractive traits synonymous with masculinity and maleness. This ad pushes its viewers to be brave – but only within specific contexts that attempt to use