Conclusion

After eight weeks of being in class and learning about the various laws and ethics that deal with advertising, I feel that I have really grown to understand the industry. Now when I look at an ad I think about how it could be improved to really impact the viewer and what kind of message the ad is sending. I also look at ads that I do not like and understand all the reasons why perhaps I don’t like it. Rather than saying “I hate that ad” I can say “I hate that ad because...” These journal entries have also got me considering what actually happens in the real world of advertising. Though there are rules and regulations, many people don’t abide by them because of the “self regulation.” I find this very interesting and it makes me wonder more about the industry and how I can be part of it.

Journal 8- Pharmacies vs. Doctors

During class this week we learned about what pharmaceutical companies can do for advertising. I found this very interesting because my mother is a pharmacist and was working for a pharmaceutical company.

The lesson included that basically, the USP and the brand cannot be advertised at the same time. This creates problems for consumers who may want to go to their doctor about a product but may know what it does or may know what it does but not the brand. This can be very ineffective for companies who want to advertise their products but are not able to do so in the way that they want. However, this can create very creative advertising.

What I found most interesting about the lesson was the conventions that doctors hold and what they are or are not allowed to do. After hearing these regulations I compared it with pharmacist conventions that my mother has been to. In the lesson we learned that companies are not allowed to give doctors gifts like golf clubs with the company logo but are allowed to have samples of products for their own use or educational items. However, this included pens, mouse pads, samples of products, post it notes and various other supplies. My mom recently went to a convention and got all kinds of free things. I found it interesting that pharmacists are getting random free things from companies but perhaps doctors are not allowed to. As much as these items are small, it is still promoting loyalty from doctors to a certain pharmaceutical brands. Doctors may prefer to go to certain brands because they know they will receive free office supplies from them. Also, if this goes to the consumer it may affect their buying habits. If the consumer is using pens in the doctor’s office from a certain brand they may want to try that product. Or if they see their pharmacist using post it notes, or highlighters from a certain company the consumer may believe that that brand is the best.

In the class lesson we learned that a certain percentage of doctor’s conventions must be educational and the rest can be pharmaceutical companies sampling their products and advertising their product to doctors. I compared this to pharmacist conventions where pharmacists also have a large portion of the event spent in a classroom setting. My mother described these events as “continuing education type events” where pharmacists come together to learn about the new technologies in the pharmacy world. My mother also informed me that the event is also fun, filled with dances, and depending on where it is located, site seeing and comedic acts.

During pharmacy conventions, there is also time for pharmaceutical companies to show new products to pharmacists. They give away free items which can include sample products, pens, mouse pads, post it notes, etc. Though I’m not sure if this is the same in doctor conventions, my mother assured me that doctors do indeed get many free items, mostly samples which she said that doctors are allowed to give patients free samples of products while the pharmacists are not. As much as most of these items are small office supplies, it is still promoting loyalty from doctors and pharmacists to a certain pharmaceutical brands. Doctors may prefer to go to certain brands because they know they will receive free office supplies from them. Also, if this goes to the consumer it may affect their buying habits. If the consumer is using pens in the doctor’s office from a certain brand they may want to try that product. Or if they see their pharmacist using post it notes, or highlighters from a company the consumer may believe that that brand is the best. My mother also informed me that pharmacists are allowed to use advertising materials such as posters, pens, etc. while doctors are not suppose to. This again increases the chance of a consumer using a certain brand if the pharmacy uses products from one company.

In conclusion I found the advertising by companies in conventions and the use of branded items and free gifts between doctors and pharmacists to be unfair. Both are health care professionals and should equally be responsible for what the consumer is being treated with. If the point in disallowing doctors to have branded promotional items in their office available to consumers is to protect the consumer then why are pharmacists allowed to do it? I think that the advertising laws should apply for all health care providers and if doctors are not allowed to accept gifts, it should apply to all gifts and should also be applied to pharmacists.  

Journal 7- Zoo

This ad campaign was for the Buenos Aires zoo. It features the price of a stuffed animal and the corresponding real animal and how much it costs to see it the zoo. The campaign's slogan is "Get more for much less" and it is a print ad.
I think these ads are very clever, appropriate, and effective in getting the message across to the target about the brand. It is clever that it shows the corresponding stuffed animal beside the real animal along with the costs to either buy the toy or see the animal. This is appropriate to the brand because to buy a life like stuffed toy of a lion a consumer would be paying top dollar and it is still not the real thing. For much less the consumer can go to the zoo to view the real animal as well as purchase the toy in the gift shop. This makes the ad effective by visually telling the consumer how much it costs to visit the zoo compared to buying a toy perhaps at their own gift shop. The consumer can see just how much they spend on their child buying toys that resemble real animals compared to going to see it. This is also appropriate to the brand because in other advertisements they use clever humour to portray their zoo and what it offers. This is continued into this ad.
It is appropriate to the target with targets being parents of younger children. For parents to view this ad they can see how much they are spending on toys for their child compared letting their child see the real animal and learn about them through the zoo. Also if children were to view this ad it may attract them with the toy and the real animal causing the child to tell their parents.
The ads are also very interesting and cute which would generate interest in people to do further research into the zoo and what it offers. This makes it effective to the brand. It is also appropriate to the brand because it features animals that are actually at the zoo. Consumers aren't being mislead to believe that there are lions and giraffes when perhaps there is none. This is not the case here.

The message is also very appropriate and effective. As I stated before the customer is able to see how much it costs to go to the zoo compared to perhaps buying a toy. The message "Get much more for less" is shown here visually which is effective because it makes the consumer more aware of what they are actually spending.
Overall this is a very good ad. It is clever while still delivering the message.

"Brilliant Buenos Aires Zoo Ads." Design Ideas and Tech Concepts - Toxel.com. 28 Aug. 2008. Web. 12 Nov. 2010. <http://www.toxel.com/inspiration/2008/08/28/brilliant-buenos-aires-zoo-ads/>.

Journal 6- Never Say No to Panda

Never Say No to Panda

This commercial was aired in Cairo Egypt. The video features several ads from the campaign. The basic overview is that a person offers someone else cheese, the person says no and then the panda appears. When the panda appears soft inviting music starts to play then the panda becomes violent and starts to destroy things.

The message that this ad is sending is that if you say no to Panda Cheese then Panda will come to hurt you. This message is not appropriate to the product. The product is cheese, it is not something that people can’t live without, making the message seem over the top for the product.

I think the ad is appropriate however, for the target. The target (16-25 year olds) would find these ads funny which is something this audience group looks for in a commercial. Since the panda does unrealistic things to people, making the ad funny, this makes it a very effective ad for the targeted age group. The message is also very effective in instilling fear to the unexpected. If a young child were to see this ad, the child may become afraid because the panda can come out of nowhere to harm you if you don’t purchase the cheese.  

This ad, if aired in Canada, would be banned because it uses fear and violence to make a sale. This goes against clauses 10 and 11. In these commercials, Panda comes out of nowhere and destroys property, pulls out an IV, destroys a restaurant’s food, and pushes over a shopping cart. Throughout all the ads, fear is the primary selling point; if you don’t buy the product then something bad will happen to you which plays with people’s safety and fears.

In my personal opinion, when I first saw this series of commercials I thought they were hilarious. Now when I look at the ads, I think the beginning ads should not have been played because of the extreme amount of violence (a sick man gets his IV unplugged) but the later ads are more silly (panda is jumping on food in the shopping cart). I think that if the pizza shop ad and the shopping cart ad could be played during the day, that way the unintended audience might also find it silly and not be scared after watching the commercial. The ad with the office setting could be played at a later time, targeting an older age group when children are less likely to watch this commercial. The hospital ad on the other hand should not be aired at all. I think that playing with fear while someone is in a hospital creates way too much controversy and people would not find it funny.

"YouTube - Never Say No to Panda!" YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. 18 Sept. 2010. Web. 12 Nov. 2010. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X21mJh6j9i4>.

Journal 5- Cystic Fibrosis

Cystic Fibrosis Mall Ad

At the Oakville Place mall there is an ad for cystic fibrosis played on the TVs in the food court. I managed to find the ad on Youtube where it has sound. If you play the video without the sound on, you get the same effect as if you were in the food court seeing this video because in the mall the TVs do not play sound.

When viewing this commercial for the first time, I had no idea what was going on. I had previously seen posters in the mall about cystic fibrosis so I had an estimated guess about what the ad was. For the viewers who have not seen a cystic fibrosis ad before, whether it be in the mall or in general, this commercial is very confusing until the end where it says "help fight cystic fibrosis." Viewing a young child in water, floating, then appears to be the child drowning, then coming back up for air is a very confusing image to grasp.

This media chosen for this ad is not appropriate for the brand or the message. For people who do not know what cystic fibrosis is or how it effects people would have no understanding of the disease from viewing this in the mall. This makes the message ineffective and inappropriate. It also doesn't help the brand (cystic fibrosis foundation) doesn't tell people about the disease and how to help without the voice over. When choosing the appropriate media for this ad, they should have chosen TV ads for in home rather than out of home. The foundation should have viewed this message without the sound to see how it would effect people seeing it in the mall. Though it was a good choice in media because there is a high traffic volume in the Oakville Place food court it was not appropriate to have it without the sound.

Because of the lack of sound in the video, the video also becomes unmemorable. Viewers will look at the images and not think about it because it is lacking the emotion that is portrayed by the child with the voice. It is much more dramatic and understandable when the sound is played. People may watch the video and not care about what is happening which is the point in the ad, to make people care about helping people with cystic fibrosis.

As far as an unintended audience is concerned, with no sound there really isn't an unintended audience. It is not going to be disturbing to young children because they may not pay attention to the TVs without audio and older people also may not pay too much attention to it because on one screen is the commercial and on the other screen right beside it is the news. An older audience would most likely be paying attention to the news compared to the ad which they won't understand.

Overall the commercial with the media chosen is not effective at all. Had this commercial been seen on TVs in the home with the audio it would be much more effective. The audience would be able to hear the child talking about the disease and how to help compared to the images of a child possibly drowning but the audience is not sure what is happening.

"YouTube - Drowning on the Inside." YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. Apr.-May 2008. Web. 12 Nov. 2010. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQajfUGWcIo&feature=related>.

Journal 4- Nutrigrain Banned Commercial

Nutrigrain Feel Great 

I was shown this ad when I was in high school (approximately seen in 2004). This was supposed to be a commercial from Nutrigrain. Since it was made in 2003 I do not know if it was ever aired and if so when and where but I do have some suspicions as to why it was banned.

The target audience of this commercial is probably people 20-30 year olds. Specifically people who are bored with the office life and want to “feel great” while eating healthy. This becomes a good age group because at this age and in the office environment, there is little time to eat so they would take a cereal bar like Nutrigrain to go.

I think this ad was very effective. I have showed it randomly throughout the years after first seeing it and many people said they would go out and buy the product because it was so funny. It is a very memorable ad which helps consumers to differentiate the product from other granola or cereal type bars.

This ad is highly inappropriate as it plays on stereotypes and gender roles. In the first few seconds there is a man shown with a pair of women’s underwear at his desk. Also the woman in the commercial is only there because she is “hot” and wants to make lots of babies. This greatly exaggerates office stereotypes and the role of a woman in the office place. It is also inappropriate because it greatly exaggerates what the product actually does. It makes the people in the office “feel great” enough to quit their job and not care when in fact the product would just satisfy hunger. This can be compared to how Red Bull has the slogan, “Red Bull Gives You Wings” when in fact it does not and they now have a disclaimer about it.

For the age group I think it’s effective because this age group is interested in the humor. People like watching commercials that make them laugh. For older or younger audiences however, they may find it offensive or receive the wrong message. Children as old as 8 years old may not understand what is going on. There is violence in the commercial though and since young children are impressionable, they want to punch someone in the stomach to see how great the person feels. For and older audience, people 60+ may find this very offensive. Older women would most likely have had office harassment in their lifetime and be offended that this commercial is either making fun of it or perhaps they may see it as supporting that behavior.

This commercial also breaks a few laws that we learned through the Advertising Standard’s Council.

It breaks clause 1 accuracy and clarity by having a deceptive illustration. It sends the message that people will feel great when eating this bar when in fact they may not as it is only a hunger satisfier. Clause 14 unacceptable depiction and portrayals is broken through the stereotyping of men and women. The man wants the woman only because she is good looking and she agrees to marry him on the spot and have lots of children like that is the only thing that is important in her life. The commercial also demeans women because it is sending the message that only a woman’s looks matter. Violence is also used with the man punching the “feel great” man. It also depicts an unreal situation in where the man who does the punching says he shatters his hand and yet he still smiles and feels fine because the other man feels great.

"YouTube - Nutrigrain Ad." YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. 5 Dec. 2005. Web. 6 Nov. 2010. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6rE0EakhG8>.