Turow Book Summary

Rachel Humphrey

Turow Book Summary


December 8, 2013


            Joseph Turow is the author of The Daily You: How the New Advertising Industry is Defining Your Identity and Your Worth. His book has really put things into perspective for millions of people. His goal in this book is to make people aware of what is happening in the media world under the hood. Knowing what is under the hood could change people’s perspective forever about the media and may bring people to be more cautious about their online use than ever before.

            The point of having advertisements and cookies is that companies feel like they need to know more about their consumers. There are consequences for doing that though like they need to be prepared to share data about their followers with publishers and marketers in the new environment.

            The media buying industry is something a lot larger than what some people lead on. Cable TV was allowing advertisers to advertise across channels and many demographics. When the Internet rolled around everything multiplied and made it harder for cable TV to catch up. A whole new world of media buying and planning companies emerged. Following people around on a website is an example of this difference from TV and Internet. Now companies can see everything you do on one website and then everything people do across a variety of websites. This process starts a chain reaction and creates a profile of people. A lot of people have realized how to delete cookies and that is one way that they can avoid this from happening to them. Because when someone keeps their cookies, it allows companies to target things to them specifically like; ads, discounts, world news, etc.

            There is so much competition now to have ads appear on certain websites and who is first in line on a Google search. Legacy media (print media) is going down in revenue because everyone is going digital. No one is spending money on subscriptions anymore because they can get their information from the Internet and the information is free. Legacy media is losing consumers and the consumers are moving into the digital age and they are losing millions. The companies who are doing this are destroying publishing ethics. The business side of publications should not speak to the editorial side of publications. The magazine world is failing because subscriptions are going out of the window and now people are questioning why magazines are even in existence.

            The point of The Daily You is that what someone does on the Internet defines them for life. Companies are keeping track of everything people purchase and even things that someone looks at. The issue with this is that no one has any idea of what is going on and what the implications will be. Of course it could benefit people because if they have looked at something they could really be interested in those types of products and want to be targeted, but sometimes people just look at random things and it does not matter to them at all. But making a profile and following someone on the Internet should not be the case until the person knows exactly what is going on under the hood. Turow is not against ad targeting, he is just against it happening when other people do not understand it. When marketers/advertisers do this without permission from the consumers, it could hurt them in the end because when people start finding out what is really going on and what it all entails, it could really change the world.

            Since each person has their own profile that means that whatever we see as ads is targeted to them specifically because of the things they have looked at in the past. Does this mean that people are being restricted by the marketing companies of what sort of deals and discounts they get because of what they have looked at before? That is exactly what it means. People are going to start realizing what is going on and they are not going to be too happy when they find out that someone else is seeing something completely different. These types of things affect the way people view the world. People may see different news stories because of what they have clicked on in the past that means that they may not see the same information or news as the next-door neighbor. Who gives the advertisers and marketing companies the right to target people? Who gives marketers/advertisers the right to follow them? There are major privacy concerns because people are going to start questioning why someone else gets a piece of information and they do not. If the marketers/advertisers track and follow the right way then the public will feel safe. If they do it any other way, then it will destroy their system and cause a riot.





Turow, J. (2011). The Daily You: How the Advertising Industry is Defining Your Identity and Your Worth. New Haven: Yale University Press.            


The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. (2012). Knowledge@Wharton. Big brother: have new advertising models become too aggressive and intrusive? Retrieved from http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/big-brother-have-new-advertising-models-become-too-aggressive-and-intrusive/


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Ad Critique 7

Rachel Humphrey

Ad Critique 7


November 24, 2013


On the website AdBusters.com I cam across the ad “The More You Consume The Less You Live” for the Buy Nothing Day campaign. The whole campaign is about trying to stop the outrageous buying of items that people do not need. Every day shopping has become out of control. People all around the world have used shopping as an excuse to forget all of their problems. It is possible to buy things that we need but people take it to another level of buying what they want as well. The best real life example of over buying is on Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving. In America it has become another holiday because it gives people the opportunity to over shop and spend money that they do not have.


In the ad “The More You Consume The Less You Live” is the perfect example of how life has evolved over the years. Children and teenagers have become obsessed to buying items that “in”. We have iPhones now and it seems like everyone has to have the same phone now. We also have game systems and people are pre-ordering the PS4 and then selling it for double the market price because it is sold out right now. As consumers we have become a society that needs a certain item right now. If we can’t have it right now, then what is the point of existence? The teenager in the ad has fast food wrappers in her room, a plant in an aquarium, and a TV with a video game console hooked up to it. It looks as though she has been buying whatever she sees. She didn’t think about the items as something that she needed but since she saw it or came in contact with it, she had to have it and she had to consume it. She barely has her bed to sleep on because her room is full of junk.


As a culture and society of major consumerism, we need to take a stand. It is hard to imagine that our whole lives consist of what items we purchase. Is our life just the items in our room? She looks like she has all she needs but is she living? We need to start teaching our children that living is not a box on the TV, and living is definitely looking out the window from your bedroom.


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

IO2 – Advertisement & Culture

Rachel Humphrey




Informed Opinion 2


November 15, 2013











            I think that we all know when photos are altered, but it would be helpful to younger generations for ads and TV commercials to state that the photos have been digitally altered. I don’t think that it would stop advertisers from altering photos, but at least we as the viewer’s know can differentiate from what is real and what is altered. I don’t think banning altered photos will help anything, so my point of view is that we should have disclaimers indicating that the photos have been altered and we should have the right to view the original photo.


            In Britain and France have been trying to get advertisers to disclaim the alterations done in photos (PFanner, 2009). Women are looking at these ads and feeling bad about themselves because they want to be like the woman on the magazine. Little do they know that those photos are altered and the woman most likely does not look like anything like the photo. Valerie Boyer from France made a statement that said these photos can lead people to believe in a reality that does not exist (PFanner, 2009). It can really hurt a person’s self-esteem by thinking they can be like a person on the advertisement. The photos are Photoshopped and any women would not look like that in real life.  Robin Derrick of Vogue magazine says that he has spent the first 10 years of his live making women look smaller, now he has spent the last 10 years making women look bigger (PFanner, 2009). Consumers actually no longer want to see stick thin figures on their magazines. The more natural, the better.


            Photoshopping images are sometimes a good thing because a lot of people don’t want to look at blemishes or a horrible scar on your arm, but it is getting out of control. It’s not just used to cover up scars or blemishes, it is being used to change models sizes and to change the makeup usage on people. Faith Hill was photoshopped on a Redbook magazine (Brown, 2011). They made her arms look thinner than they actually are and probably her waist size as well. They made her look like she was still 22 years old. In the article they explain that they studied how much a magazine is rated determines how much retouching happens on the photo. If not a lot of people view the magazine, then it is more likely that the photo is not retouched (Brown, 2011). But like for example in Vogue, it is viewed by a lot of people so that means that the retouching on a photo would be a lot.




Our perceptions of what our bodies should look like is changing drastically because of the images we see on a day to day basis. When we are in line at a store and then we see the magazine pictures and the women are smiling but then you notice that they have a perfect shape. You wonder how you can get to be that size. You start comparing your lifestyle and even your size to that person and then our minds start to make unrealistic goals for us to be that same size of the person on the magazine.


            There are few examples of photoshopped images on a couple of magazines. The first one is of Demi Lovato on the cover of Cosmo. The article that she is in talks about her struggle with bulimia and drugs and her struggle through life as a teenager. They decide to ignore that she is spilling her heart out about her struggles and put a gorgeous photoshopped photo of her. Her face looks like they slimmed that down and then her waist line is slimmed down almost double. Someone was nice enough to put a before and after picture together in the same time frame of when the photo was altered and when she was on the red carpet with no alterations made (Kite & Kite, 2011).



Another example is Kate Winslet on a GQ magazine. She has been altered in a way that you can hardly recognize her. We all love and adore Kate Winslet the way she is. We know that she is curvy, but she is also, in my opinion, one of the most gorgeous women in Hollywood. There is no surprise that she is on the cover of GQ. The shock is that they thought men would like stick thin legs with no curves on her. I think that men actually like a few curves, no one anymore really wants a stick thin figured woman. They made Kate look really tall and made her look like she had lost 30 pounds. She even made a statement after the magazine had been released that she is 5’6 and it looks like they made her 6 feet tall (Kite & Kite, 2011). She said that she would never just go out and lose 30 pounds for a photo shoot. Below is the before and after of Kate Winslet (Kite & Kite, 2011).




Ann Taylor a woman’s fashion clothing store, has been caught by altering photos when they supposedly believe in natural beauty. The woman behind the feminist website Jezebel found a leaked photo of a before picture from Ann Taylor and a picture after the alterations. The founder of Jezebel called Ann Taylor out. The hip and thighs were slimmed way down to the point that it doesn’t even look natural (Kite & Kite, 2011). Ann Taylor fixed the photo back to what it looked like before the alterations and apologized and stated again that they believe in real beauty and they may have gotten carried away and will be more careful in the future. Below is the picture of the before and after alterations (Kite & Kite, 2011).



After doing all of this research I still think that retouching and altering photos should not happen. These articles just backed up my point because looking at these before and after pictures really makes you realize. If you didn’t have these comparisons to look at it, you may think it’s normal. After doing the research I think that advertisers should post up the before and after or at the least state that they have been retouched. It will make for a healthier world. Especially with teenagers in this generation, it could get really dangerous if there isn’t something done about altering photos on magazines and even on TV, because I am sure that is next.






Works Cited



Brown, E. (2011, November 29). Digitally altered photos and body image: Look at the retouching . LA Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/29/news/la-heb-photoshop-altered-photos-ratings-20111129


Kite , L., & Kite, L. (2011). Altering images and our minds. Beauty Refined . Retrieved from http://www.beautyredefined.net/photoshopping-altering-images-and-our-minds/


PFanner, E. (2009, September 27). A move to curb digitally altered photos in ads. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/business/media/28brush.html





Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

IO1 – Advertising

Rachel Humphrey


IO1 – Advertising to Children


Advertising and Culture







I do not think that advertising should be allowed. Advertising as Culture mentions that children’s brains are not developed enough yet to make up their own views (Wharton, 2013). Children’s brains are like a sponge and will soak up anything. Most of the toy or fast food commercials are during a Disney channel show or Nickelodeon. Even though children don’t exactly understand what they want, they know they want that McDonald’s toy that is being advertised on the commercial.  It’s not all about the fast food commercials but the ads are also supporting obesity by dangling sugary drinks in front of children’s eyes. Coca Cola has vowed to know target children under the age of 12 (Coca-cola vows to, 2013).


In response to the question, should media companies that make brand placement deals be required to disclose such partnerships to consumers/viewers? I do not think that is should be required to disclose that information to the consumers/viewers. If I were told every time a brand placement ad was put on television, I really would ignore it. I wouldn’t care about all that information. Right now, it is okay with me to not know who owns what with the brand placement. Some consumer groups are discussing that advertising and brand placement is a deceptive way of giving out information. They are also upset because they don’t realize that they are being advertised to.


I believe that advertisements to children need to be approved by certain companies before they become official and allowed on television. FTC (Federal Trade Commission), CDCP (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), FDA (Food and Drug Association), and DA (Department of Agriculture) are all on that list of companies that should be contacted before the advertisements go on television.


Obesity is something that is surrounding America even now more than ever. 17 percent of kinds in the United States are obese. Our genetic code has encouraged us to consume as many calories as possible, nowhere in our DNA is it written that we need to eat Big Macs, drink soda, or eat candy. These habits are taught and engraved in our brains as children. That is why advertising to children is not a good idea because they will inherit bad habits.


As a student of an advertising class I have recognized the different types of brand placement on a lot of different shows and television ads. I just saw a McDonald’s (Sifferlin, 2013) commercial on television just now and they were trying to advertise the kid’s meals now have apples as their side instead of French fry’s. The children have books in their hands, does that mean that children who eat fries are not as smart as children eating apples? I just thought that as interesting because they do not want to advertise to children to promote obesity, but they want to promote regardless if it is a bad message or good.


            Brand placement is when media companies make deals with brands to show in films, TV shows, and other forms of media. A lot of the time consumers watch a certain TV show or movie and there is a brand in the media content without even realizing that it is there. Brand placement is very clever and sneaky, but a lot of people are not huge fans of it because of that very reason. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has not made any rules that require disclosure of any product placements n films or television. I guess there are some rules that require disclosure of companies that they are partners with in blogs and social media. Because of people’s personal lives on blogs and social media it is almost necessary for they’re to be information disclosing who is involved. Like I mentioned before, I do not think it is necessary for there to be disclosures to be made to consumer/viewers about certain products being put in films and TV shows.


            Brand placement is everywhere you go, there is no getting away from it. It almost seems like it would take away from the message if at the end of the commercials it gives you all the details of the media company that it is partnered with. It doesn’t make sense to have all that information being disclosed, I mean what is the point? Brand placement is to help intrigue different audiences while they watch a show or movie. The placement of these brands is to connect to the viewers and reach a variety of consumers. It does cost a lot of money to do this, but in the long run they are reaching millions of people all at once and the US is the number one in the world with product placement.


            I guess the reason why consumers are concerned with this issue is because they feel like the placement of these brands are pushing at their subconscious because they don’t realize that they are being advertised to because of where and when it happens. For example at the grocery store or even when you buy a bag of candy there is brand placement. It is tricky how many times you will buy something because a character is on the package or the store is in support of a certain company and that is why you shop there because you saw a famous person where it on a TV show or a movie. They believe it not truthful, basically unethical because it attracts a consumer/viewer without knowing.


            I believe in the 21st century brand placement is probably the best idea to promote your product. There is not much else you can do now these days because people don’t read magazines or newspapers like they used to. The content they watch to get their information is all on the Internet or the television. I think it is a very good idea and if I ever have a company I will be looking for a media company to help sell my product doing whatever they can to get my product out there. The brand placement will keep growing as long as there are outlets to get product placements out there.






Work Cited


Coca-cola vows to reduce advertising to kids. (2013, May 8). Advertising age. Retrieved from http://adage.com/article/news/coca-cola-vows-reduce-advertising-kids/241359/


Petrecca, L. (2006, September 10). Product placement you can’t escape it. USA Today. Retrieved from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/advertising/2006-10-10-ad-nauseum-usat_x.htm


Semuels, A (2008, July 30). Tracking product placement on TV. Chicago Tribune. Retrieve from http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2008-07-30/features/0807280334_1_product-placement-pq-media-advertisers


Sifferlin, A. (2013, August 9). Forget the food: Fast food ads aimed at kids feature lots of giveaways. Time. Retrieved from Coca-cola vows to reduce advertising to kids. (2013, May 8). Advertising age. Retrieved from http://healthland.time.com/2013/08/29/forget-the-food-fast-food-ads-aimed-at-kids-feature-lots-of-giveaways/


Wharton, C. (2013). Advertising as Culture. Chicago: Intellect.


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Ad Critique 6

I found this video on YouTube when I was thinking of what advertisement I was going to do. I thought of what product makes an average man look more or seem more attractive and AXE popped into my mind. Axe is known to make less attractive men more attractive by the smell that they give off.

In this commercial they show a women with short shorts and a nice figure. You see her sports bra and then they go and they focus on her abs. You see her looking at something but you aren’t sure what until they show the window. In the window is a very average man who is basically drooling over the women on the ground. She uses a catapult to break the window and then she used a pole-vault to be able to get into the window. The reason why she is trying to get into the window is because the guy is wearing axe spray. She gets into the window and starts to strip.

The message that this ad is giving us is that if the man wears Axe then he can get any women he wants. It gives a very false view of what happens in real life. No product can just make you look better than what you are. If you are average looking then you will stay average a product will not do that for you. I think that this is false advertising and there is so much out there now a days that this is not the only ad that has false advertising and there really is no way to stop it. The ad that I picked for Axe is not the only commercial for them that show the average man; that is their main point of all their commercials and ads. The average man gets the hot sexy every time.

Leave a comment

October 21, 2013 · 1:26 am

Ad Critique 5 – Advertising – Racism

Ad Critique 5 - Advertising - Racism

Rachel Humphrey
October 12, 2013
Ad Critique 5


Dove is a soap brand that has been around for a long time and white women do most of the advertisement for Dove. Now it is not so much the physical appearance, but it is about the race that is not apparent in these ads. The ad that I picked is four white women standing side by side.

In a lot of cultures white is beautiful and it means that you are the most pure because you have white skin. People believe in other sides of the world that God curses people who do not have white skin. It’s interesting to find out this information because I am white and I always want to get tan in the summer.

The ad is not saying anything directly but it is basically saying that white women are better than any other race. They are on the ad with hardly any clothes on and they are saying, “Hey look at me, I use Dove, it’s for white people”. Are they implying that white people are clean and fresh and other races are not? I am still trying to figure out the message they are conveying exactly.

As I was going through the ads for Dove I did not see many black women in the ads for Dove. I did see a few, so I guess they are saying that black women can use Dove as well, or are they using them for comparison purposes? I just hope that Dove’s policy is to not have all races in their ads or do they think the same as the rest of the world that white is beautiful and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

You are who you are; you shouldn’t have to have certain products for certain skins because of the color difference. I like ads that apply to everyone and not just one race. As for now, Dove has not attracted me to their product by placing only white women in their ads.

Leave a comment

October 12, 2013 · 3:57 pm

McDonald’s and Minions Ad Critique 4

I decided to do my ad critique on a McDonald commercial that is definitely targeted to children. I found the video on YouTube. In the video there are the minions from Despicable Me 2 movie. They are at the counter and they order a happy meal and then you see them joking around. At the very end of the commercial you see a little kid with his mother and they are eating a happy meal as well. They said that it’s a healthy choice. I really thought that was false advertising. Children are going to think that McDonald’s is a good choice and that they can get toys with their meal as well. The advertisement is showing a negative value because they are teaching children that eating unhealthy food is okay as long as a movie or TV show is representing them.

It’s interesting to hear that children are being pretty much brainwashed with advertisements. Children are sponges and when they are little they are still learning and developing values and habits. The advertisers know that and they know they will earn money off of little children because their parents won’t be able to say no to them because they want their children to have the best and fit into school with the other children. I don’t see any thing wrong with wanting the best for you child, but I hope parents come to realization that McDonalds is not the best for their child because of the unhealthy foods that they serve. McDonald’s is trying to become better because they now offer apple slices and yogurt, but before it was just chicken nuggets and fries. It amazes me what parent’s will and will not do for their children. The forum suggested that parents should be the factor and I really believe that they are the factor in what their children soak in.

Leave a comment

September 28, 2013 · 7:42 pm