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.
I found this ad on YouTube and Rick Perry’s campaign team is sponsoring this ad. The ad is about Rick Perry running for president. In Chapter 9, Wharton discusses that political ads are all about the outfits and the way they are trying to get across, like what is the meaning of the ad. In this ad they really made Rick Perry look like a down to earth person. His main focus was to talk about religion in our country. He wants people to realize that there is no praying going on in our schools and he wants people to know that religion is not a first priority with the other candidates. He is the country and has just a regular farmers jacket on I guess and he is trying to voice his opinion on religion and how it would change when he became president.
I feel like this is a good value to have and it is a positive value. The only thing to me is if he is really being real or not, but I guess that is not the point. He is trying to promote religion to his republican fans, which could benefit him and his values are favoring him for the positive. But in reality if someone from the Democratic Party, they could tear him apart for what he is saying.
In my opinion, I think that he is making religion more of a priority than our safety from international terrorists, and even education and medical care. It is confusing when the politicians want to promote one thing, but do they realize what they will be up against when they become president? They need to be looking ahead and not so much on one thing that they want to fix. It needs to be more than that to be able to come president. They need to look at all aspects.
The TV commercial that I have picked is from the car Soul with the “Applause” by Lady Gaga in the background. Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsJiGF_Groo
I found this ad at the Cinemark movie theater on the screen before the previews start; they usually are playing this commercial. It has always caught my eye and now I am able to use it. Kia is sponsoring this commercial for the new Soul that is coming out in 2014.
The song that is in the commercial doesn’t really have to do with the actual product at all. The song goes along with the hamsters and how they were able to lose weight, but I am still not sure about the connection. It’s talking about applause and to me that isn’t about the car or even the improvements to the car, especially with the hamsters. I think that the song was used in an effort to make the sponsor’s brand cooler and edgier. Lady Gage already has enough publicity and she wouldn’t need it even if the purpose were for her. Because the song makes you dance and it catches the attention of the audience. I was familiar with the artist, not the song, it was probably a new song of hers and it did help promote her new song.
The song was not altered for the commercial, except the muffled way of it sounding when the hamster went into the water. The song was fully used in the commercial and it even has the credits in the corner of what the song is called and who is singing it. The only stereotype that I would be able to say is that being skinny makes you get applauses. I don’t know. I just thought it was sort of far fetched in the commercial. The commercial is selling a car that looks the same in the new year. I don’t get it but I thought it was a great example of what we are studying this week.
In conclusion, I thought that it was promoting positive values. It is a good thing to exercise and in the end of all your hard work you get have applause, I just don’t get how it compared with the car that the ad was selling. It favored the ad very well I believe.
The ad was found when I did a search for “top women fashion ads” in Google. There were a lot to choose from but I thought this one really caught my eye and I could say a lot about this. The ad is for Dolce and Gabbana and it is not too clear on to what they are selling but I assume that they are selling the shoes that are lifting her up from the ground.
The values in this ad are saying that it’s okay to have four men looking down on women on the floor with no defense. There really is no value to this ad unless you think that this ad looks okay. This ad has very little to do with what they are selling. Wharton “Advertising as Culture” mentions that in glossy, expensive magazines such as Vogue and Harper’s Bazaar, there were advertisements for accessories, but these represented only a very small percentage of the advertising profile (page 85). The means that even though the ad was in a fancy magazine does not mean that the ad was selling what it was intended for.
This was a negative way to show the value of the ad. Even still I cannot figure out what the ad was really about. It looks like it could be shoes, but it could be selling sex as well. Sex is not a value that I believe to be positive and I don’t think Wharton would think so either. When you sell something, it should be right there and obvious. In women’s fashion ads that have nothing to do with the product is becoming more popular because it is selling the woman, not the product. That is why I don’t even buy magazines anymore, because it is all about the woman and their bodies, nothing to do with class or poise or even the product itself.
Photo Link Citation