Response to "Advertising Within Shows"

This is my response to Jackie's blog post, which can be viewed here: http://jackiejesusblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/advertising-within-shows.html

Hey Jackie! You make a great point about how irrelevant and insubstantial some advertisements are starting to become. I agree with your comment that "since commercials tend to have a lackluster effect on many people, advertisers have turned to television shows and movies to sell their products". You raise the important issue of insubstantial advertising and marketing - more and more companies depend on popular TV shows, music videos, celebrities, songs, and films to market their products instead of simply advertising the products themselves.

The commercials that you have mentioned, most especially the perfume commercials, wholly portray how companies are increasingly becoming more dependent on popular culture to market their products. The Gucci Perfume commercial (which can be viewed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVHcqjjjnFY) features various models spontaneously breaking out in dance to Blondie's Heart of Glass. I couldn't exactly find a relevance between dancing models and the product itself. Like you said, "most perfume commercials have nothing to do with the scent of the product" and I could not agree more. This is just one of the few exemplary advertisements that illustrate the insubstantial relationship between the advertisement and the product.

You also mention advertising in popular television shows. At first, I noticed the subtle depictions of product placement in shows such as The Office, where office supplies are claimed by characters to have been bought from Staples. But nowadays, there are far more blatant depictions of product placement; some shows even focus whole episodes on certain brand labels. Shows like Modern Family built an entire episode on the Apple iPad as well as How I Met Your Mother, where Microsoft was the prevalent brand of one of the episodes. These blatant depictions of product placement signifies the advertising industry's growing dependency on popular culture to market their products. As a result, brand labels are starting to become more associated with their celebrity-studded advertisements instead of the actual products that they sell.

But like you said, despite the product placements and irrelevant advertising and marketing techniques, consumers should always be aware and practical when purchasing products. This is pretty much the most logical approach to avoid being sucked in by the advertisement agencies.

Christian Media: Television

In our recent lecture, Professor Harris talked about the significance of television within the study of religion and popular culture and how Christianity and religious elements are applied in secular TV shows. We were shown various examples of popular shows that depicted Christian-oriented themes and/or characters, which ultimately signifies the integral relationship between secularism and religion, or more specifically, popular culture and Christianity.

Most of the TV shows that Professor Harris presented to us were all Christian-related in some way but also included secular elements. Shows like Joan of Arcadia, Oz, and The West Wing all consist of religious themes and characters: Joan has the ability to communicate with God, Father Ray Mukada serves as the main religious authority of the show as the chaplain of Oz, and the depiction of President Josiah Bartlet as a realistic Christian. These shows were critically acclaimed and positively received by audiences and it is partly due to their incorporation of Christian characteristics.

Professor Harris also provided us with Nothing Sacred, a show that depicts the life of a Jesuit priest in the 1970s. Nothing Sacred, unlike the shows stated earlier, was generally void of any secular elements; it was a realistic and explicit portrayal of Catholic authoritative figures and followers. It is primarily this reason that The Catholic League for Religious Civil Rights decided to boycott the show and eventually, the show was canceled after its first season.

This got me thinking about the significant differences in boundaries and  restrictions between secular TV shows with Christian elements and shows that strictly depicted Christianity. It is clear that secular shows that merely incorporate Christian elements are more free to depict almost anything without severe consequences. Oz portrayed explicit material such as male rape, extreme violence, and male frontal nudity. However, the show still incorporated religious subplots through the character of Father Mukada. Oz managed to garner critical acclaim and aired for six seasons, which exemplifies the leniency of wholly secular shows depicting both explicit and religious material.

In contrast, Nothing Sacred was based solely on the life and experiences of a Jesuit priest; it was a show that centered around Catholicism and Catholic leaders and followers. As a result, it was absent of secularism and was generally regarded as show that strictly depicted Catholicism. This allowed the show to become more vulnerable to criticism and threats from conservative viewers. This certainly brings up the issue of rights and privileges on how religion is portrayed in secular TV shows and how they are portrayed in religious-oriented TV shows and ultimately, how it affects contemporary society.

Thoughts?

Response to "Do I Define the Labels, or Do the Labels Define Me?"

This is my response to Leah's post, which can be viewed here: http://popculturedisciple.blogspot.com/2011/02/do-i-define-labels-or-do-labels-define.html

Great post, Leah! I'm glad you touched upon the subject of brand loyalty. It's obvious that there's some kind of symbiotic relationship between a person's identity and what they wear, own, and buy. I completely agree with you when you say that "consumers have become more brand loyal to those things that are trendy, and the almost cult like loyalty begins to become part of their personal definition".

With that said, I think your post raises several important issues on how brand loyalty and personal identity can defy one another. Since consumers are more prone to become brand loyal to the things that are trendy, what happens when these trends start to garner unfavourable reviews? Will the consumer stay loyal to the brand, or abandon it just like any other trend? Furthermore, if the consumer chooses to revoke their loyalty from a brand, will they still have a personal identity?

Take Crocs footwear, for example. I don't even know if you can consider calling them a fashion trend in the first place, but I personally don't like Crocs so I'll try to restrain myself from being biased. But anyway, I remember seeing almost everyone donning Crocs a few years ago. It was the trend back then and some of my friends managed to get sucked into buying them. They even bought the same style in different highlighter colours (ugh). It was brand loyalty at its finest. But as the months went buy, I noticed less people were wearing them; my friends stopped wearing Crocs altogether. More and more hate reviews were given about Crocs and even a website dedicated to eliminating Crocs was created.

So going back to what I was saying earlier, do the consumers who were then loyal to Crocs but ended up abandoning the brand still have a personal identity? I think this is when the relationship between brand loyalty and personal identity become ambiguous. Possibly, people just moved on and substituted their brand loyalty to Crocs for something else...hopefully something more substantial.

All I know is, my friends never want to speak of it again. But of course, the occasional "Omg, do you remember when you used to wear Crocs??" comes up every now and then.

Spiritual Advertising: Messages From God

Today in lecture, we learned about the many different types of advertising and marketing schemes prevalent in mass media. Although there was a multitude of interesting and creative advertising concepts, the one that stood out the most (well, for me anyway) was Spiritual Marketing and Advertising. Just the fact that advertising agencies intentionally incorporate Christian elements to market a brand signifies the quintessential example of how religion is used in popular culture. More specifically, how religion functions socially, hermeneutically, and existentially in modern society.

The award winning 'God Speaks' campaign created by The Smith Agency in 1998 exemplifies the power and influence of spiritual advertisements by serving as public service announcements. The campaign consisted of different messages all "signed by God"; the ads were spread throughout South Florida on billboards, bus sides, and bus interiors. A total of eighteen messages were used in the advertising campaign:

1. Let's Meet At My House Sunday Before The Game. – God  
2. C'mon Over And Bring The Kids. – God  
3. What Part of "Thou Shalt Not..." Didn't You Understand? - God  
4. We Need To Talk. – God  
5. Keep Using My Name In Vain And I'll Make Rush Hour Longer. – God  
6. Loved The Wedding, Invite Me To The Marriage. – God  
7. That "Love Thy Neighbor" Thing, I Meant It. – God  
8. I Love You...I Love You...I Love You – God  
9. Will The Road You're On Get You To My Place? – God  
10. Follow Me – God  
11. Big Bang Theory, You've Got To Be Kidding. – God  
12. My Way Is The Highway – God  
13. Need Directions? – God  
14. You Think It's Hot Here? – God  
15. Tell The Kids I Love Them. – God  
16. Need A Marriage Counselor? I'm Available. – God  
17. Have You Read My #1 Best Seller? There Will Be A Test. – God  
18. Do you have any idea where you're going. – God

The ad campaign's purpose was to "get people thinking about God" and to create a spiritual climate. Other than the obvious notion that these ads reinforce Christianity onto society, these advertisements clearly serve existential and hermeneutical functions of inspiring and helping people to become more spiritually aware. Moreover, the ad campaign serves a social function through its usage of language and humour. In the messages, God speaks and uses humour in a pretty modern, in the 'now' kind of way. The employment of modern language and humour to deliver a timeless, Christian message signifies the relevance of the advertisements to contemporary society. As a result, a majority of people are able to fully understand the meaning behind these religious messages, thus providing them a sense of community and belonging.

The campaign was hugely successful in influencing people to reignite their Christian faith, where "some folks actually took the hint and went to church". This raises an important issue in the world of spiritual advertising/public service announcement: Would this advertising campaign have the same influential impact if they simply consisted of Bible verses or Scripture? Furthermore, would it make a difference if the advertisements preached rather than used humour and wit to denote the messages? I believe that in order for spiritual advertisements to successfully deliver a meaningful message, they must consist of elements that promote secular spirituality. The ads should incorporate secular advertising features that encourage people to live spiritually and commit to a spiritual idealogy without being bounded by a traditional religious framework. This way, the advertisements are applicable to anyone, thus extending the message to a wider audience.

This notion of using secular elements to denote a religious message is, safe to say, highly debatable. Thoughts?

If you want to read more about the 'God Speak' ad campaign, here is a link to one of the first articles written about it: http://www.csmonitor.com/1999/0409/p1s4.html