COM 210 - "This is wholesome"

For the longest time, if companies were advertising a product or service they would show a happy heterosexual, racially similar family with two kids in their ads. This became on the norm for what advertisements would be. Every advertisement was the same until companies began to notice this is wasn’t what the normal American family was anymore. Families just like people come in all shapes and sizes. A family can have two moms or two dads, a blended family, a family with only one parent, or an interracial family. Honeymaid, the graham cracker company, had a persuasive campaign to try to fix what we call a “normal” family.

            Launched earlier this year, the “This is wholesome” campaign showcased a whole array of families. It shows consumers how much the American family has changed. The ad showcases a two-dad family, a rocker family, a single dad, an interracial family, and a military family. These families would be considered broken but with Honeymaid’s #NotBroken campaign these families are shown like they are everyday people.

            Honeymaid knew that their ad would cause some controversy and it did as soon as it premiered. Social media was all in frenzy with supporters and haters just like with anything that causes main issues to be questioned. The main idea of the campaign some consumers were opposed to was the two-dad family.  Honeymaid responded to this by creating another ad taking all the information tweeted at them and making something out of it. The ad has two artists taking all the hateful comments to the ad campaign, which were but not limited to “This is disgusting!”, “Totally not wholesome”, and “I Do Not Approve” and made art with them. The artists rolled up the hateful comments, glued them together, and made the word love. The artists then took positive comments, which contained statements like “This makes me heart happy”, “I love what Honeymaid has done here”, and “This is beautiful” and filled in the rest of their art with them. The artists did the same process as they did with the hateful comments and they just filled in and outlined the word love with all the positive comments.

            Honeymaid wanted to sent forth the idea that family is first in their ad campaign. They also wanted the public to know that they are a family brand. It doesn’t matter what type of family you have, it’s how happy you are within that family unit. The “this is wholesome” persuasive ad campaign has two meaning behind it. On one hand, it is actually describing the product. Their graham crackers are made with 100% whole grain.  On the other hand, the hand is talking about how the families featured in the ad are wholesome. Honeymaid showcases how just because your family isn’t what “normal” is, doesn’t mean that your family isn’t just as good or even better then what the “normal” family is.

            This topic would work well with Robert Mapplethorpe’s work. Mapplethorpe was a trailblazer in exploring homosexual themes. Honeymaid’s ad called “Dad & Papa” explores a two-dad family as just an everyday family. The family does everything a “normal”, “traditional” family does. The ad shows the two-dads talking about being excited to be parents and taking care of their children.

 

Sources:

·      http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/honey-maid-and-the-business-of-love

·      http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/03/honey_maid_ad_responds_to_homophobia_with_love.html

·      http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2014/04/honey-maid-counters-same-sex-ad-backlash-with-unapologetic-sequel/

·      http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/honey-maid-didnt-test-its-wholesome-campaign-it-launched-160256

·      http://www.buzzfeed.com/rachelzarrell/honey-maid-had-a-beautiful-response-to-the-hateful-comments

·      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UMMn6oVtOc

·      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBC-pRFt9OM

·      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xeanX6xnRU

• Beeson, L. (2014). Art as Persuasion: Visual Rhetoric. In Persuasion: Theory and applications. New York: Oxford University Press.

COM 210 - BendGate, is your iPhone 6 plus safe?

 Is the whole "bendgate"of the iPhone 6 plus blown out of proportion?

Since Apple’s keynote, the iPhone 6 plus has been on everyone’s minds whether its people saying the phone is like a mini-mini tablet or how they are so excited for a bigger screen. Once it was released to the public in late September, the 6 plus sold out immediately. Suddenly, reports of 6 plus bending began to surface on the Internet. The reports stated that the iPhones would be slightly bent or curved when their owners would take them out their pockets. Instantly, people from the Internet came out to comment and test the problem at hand. Pictures of warped phones were all over social media and people began to call this event “Bendgate”. The most popular video showcasing “Bendgate” is the YouTube channel: Unbox Therapy. He shows how just putting a lot pressure on the side of it can bend the phone. He admits that bending it did hurt his fingers. Other YouTuber’s got to speak about the issue of the IPhone 6 pluses warping.

            Internet news show, “The Know” reports on the “Bendgate” scandal by talking about the straight facts allowing users to know everyone going on in the situation. Reporter, Ashley Jenkins, states “At 5.5 inches the screen [of the phone] is significantly larger than earlier models which means they can’t reposition as people sit down and they will be called on to bend more instead.” She also gives another reason why the 6 pluses are “bending”. Jenkins says the “new cases are made of aluminum… which addition to being light weight and Apple getting the weight down also means the frame is less rigid then other materials.” Jenkins also talks about Apple’s competition the Samsung Galaxy Note 3. The Galaxy Note 3 is much thicker then the 6 plus. The language Jenkins uses allows for viewers to have a little laugh with the important news, she remains unbiased throughout the video. So the question is “bendgate” making a point or just being blown out of proportion?

            “Bendgate” was blown completely out of proportion. Writer Samuel Gibbs of The Guardian, agrees "as smartphones become thinner and longer with bigger screens, their relative strength decreases while the force applied to them inside pockets can increase due to a lever effect.” Technology is always looking for the next big thing and usually going thinner, smaller, or bigger is what inventors do. The sales of the iPhone 6 plus weren’t affected by the “bendgate” scandal. According to the Huffingtonpost writer Timothy Stenovec, “a new report from Consumer Intelligence Research Partners (CIRP), a Chicago-based market research firm, says that 13 percent of all iPhones sold in the U.S. in the quarter that ended last month were iPhone 6 Pluses.” The language chosen for the articles were about getting the facts about the bending of the 6 pluses and dismissing any rumors given out by the Internet community. The Internet community blew the whole iPhone 6 plus scandal called “Bendgate” out of proportion. The videos went to the extreme with bending the phone and most people wouldn’t go around purposely bending their phones. Putting a case on your phone would stop this problem.

 

Sources:

·      http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/29/iphone-6-plus-bending-overblown-consumer-reports

·      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWxo8TElkWU

·      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/14/iphone-6-plus-sales_n_5982874.html

·      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znK652H6yQM

COM 210 - There are no BAD dogs, just BAD owners!

Dog breed specific bans or legislation are laws that regulate or ban a certain breed type of dog in hopes to reduce dog attacks on people. Some cities and towns have passed these laws into action for their citizens to regulate or ban dogs. Regulated or banned breeds include American Pit Bulls, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, English Bull Terriers, Rottweilers, American Bulldogs, Mastiffs, Chow Chows, German Shepherds, Doberman Pinschers, or any mix of these breeds as well as any dogs who simply resemble those breeds. Does banning or limiting a type of dog really help reduce dog attacks? Personally, in my mind these laws don’t do anything but cause frustration and heartbreak. I have met my fair share of these “banned” dogs and they are probably the sweetest dogs I’ve ever met. While on the other hand, I’ve seen some pretty aggressive “non-banned” dogs. The difference is the owner’s attitude toward the dog and how they raise the animal.  Articles from the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) as well as Modern Dog Magazine talk about how Breed Specific Legislations (BSL) are not good for the community, families, and most importantly the dogs banned for being “bad”. The two articles give two different incites on the same topic.

            The ASPCA article is more formal, giving the facts of dealing with reckless dog owners and their dangerous dog in your community and how BSL's aren’t a very effective way of getting these dogs of the streets. The Modern Dog Magazine is more informal, giving the author’s point of view and journey through seeing how these “banned” dogs specifically Pit Bulls are not monster but family members. The target audience for the ASPCA article for people who just want the straight facts of why BSL is wrong while the Modern Dog Magazine article’s target audience is those who are afraid of “banned” dogs and want to know how someone who used to be afraid of them learned about how it is the owner not the dog that controls the way the dog acts. The ASPCA article tells the audience the how, what, where, when, and why. It has bullet points as well as the article split into sections with clear divisions. The Modern Dog Magazine article is like a story for the audience. It gives the audience the author’s, Corey Van’t Haaff, journey of learning about how BSL is a terrible thing for not only the humans but for the dog as well. The ASPCA article has no emotion while the Modern Dog Magazine article has a ton of emotion packed between its words. The Modern Dog Magazine article uses real life cases in its article while the ASPCA article uses straight facts and statistics of how BSL is not working.

            Both articles agreed the breed specific legislation is punishing good owners and their good dogs. The articles says no matter how good the dog is; the owners is subject to having their dogs taken away, leaving the community, or try to legally challenge the community. Another the articles agreed about is what can be classified as a “banned” dog. Mixed breeds have risen in popularity and sometimes it is hard to tell what type of dog a mix is. Any type of dog can be an aggressive dog, it doesn’t matter what breed the dog is but solely on how the owner raises the dog. I believe BSL shouldn’t be argument up for debate. The ban on dogs is not only unfair to owners of good “banned” dogs but also for the breeds of dogs, which were used for aggressive things like dogfights and aren’t allowed to show what they are truly about which is friendliness and compassion.

Sources:

·      http://moderndogmagazine.com/articles/what-would-you-do-if-your-city-banned-your-dog-s-breed/35623

·      http://www.aspca.org/fight-cruelty/dog-fighting/breed-specific-legislation

COM 210 - Has Photoshop Destroyed Body Image in America?

Photoshop is something we see everywhere. We look at an advertisement of these flawless models and celebrities with their perfect hair and bodies and at some time or another or all the time have wished we could look like them. As advertisements continue to use Photoshop to change their own original photos to what is believed to be “beautiful” in American society, the question of body image issues come up. Has Photoshop destroyed body image in America? First, we must look at what Photoshop is. Photoshop is a product of Adobe Systems, which is used to edit graphics whether the graphics are taken with a professional camera or created within the program itself. Photoshop has many tools to help define and enhance the graph such as a healing brush to fix blemishes as well as a blurring tool to blur images you don’t want the focus on. The art of Photoshop is called photoshopping. The next question we ask is, have photographers abused their art of photoshopping causing America to see unrealistic human beings modeled on their favorite magazine or website?

As stated by Huffingtonpost contributor, Vivian Diller writes most people and celebrities dream of magically removing the extra pounds and their annoying wrinkles; more people are seeing Photoshop as dangerous territory. Actress Kate Winslet is among many celebrities who think Photoshop has gone to far with it’s editing and the American Medical Association (AMA) is beginning to agree with this. Winslet was one of the first to break ground when she took action against GQ magazine for digitally altering her body in its photographs by making her unrealistically thin. The AMA has announced its stand against image manipulation in advertising, declaring that modifications made through the art of using Photoshop can contribute to unrealistic body image expectations, eating disorders, and other emotional problems for younger audiences. This has gotten mixed reviews and reactions from the professionals who Photoshop and the public who view it.

There are two sides of this Photoshop argument, the ones who believe Photoshop isn’t the problem and the ones who believe it is. Elizabeth Perle, a HuffingtonPost writer, believes that Photoshop isn’t the evil one in this situation. She believes that it is the media are the ones who influence photographers and magazines to alter their pictures. Photoshop was created with the soul purpose of bringing objects into focus and not creating pieces of deception. The media has used this program to create an unreachable form of “beauty”.  The other side of the argument is that Photoshop helps contribute to the media instead of being the one being manipulated. Younger audiences who see the images plastered all over their magazines and favorite websites will more likely try to resemble the models. The AMA wants to raise awareness to show younger audiences that the models they see aren’t the same in real life as they are in the magazines. This begins argument brings up the question of is it ethical to be showcasing unrealistic and unreachable attributes to American audiences.

The use of Photoshop should be used for small fixes such as fixing minor things like undereye circles or blemishes but should not be used to make models skinnier or have more muscles. These extreme photoshopped images give younger audiences and even older audiences the wrong idea. They may cause the viewer to extreme diet to try to reach the unreal weight of the model. If a younger person does this extreme diet, this may affect their development not only physically but mentally as well.  The child might develop a serious eating or mental disorder due to this unobtainable “beauty” made by Photoshop.  Many companies are seeing the ethical impact of the issue of over photoshopping their images and are doing something about it. Aerie, a lingerie store from American Eagle, decided in the spring of 2014 to not retouch their models and allow everything to be real. It is proven from multiple surveys that young women's sense of body confidence is mostly influenced by the images of female beauty they see in media. While one ad campaign won't solve the complicated relationship between young women's self-esteems and images of women in media, it can certainly helps for women to see a brand shows off its cute bras and undies on bodies with real rolls, lines and curves.

Sources:

·      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-perle/photoshop-isnt-evil-there_b_888169.html

·      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vivian-diller-phd/photoshop-body-image_b_891095.html