Subliminal (drink Pepsi) Advertising

Advertising is always trying to manipulate us. That's why ads sell, they are made to manipulate the mind of the consumer so that they become motivated to purchase a product. However, I believe the idea of "subliminal" advertising is bogus. Though hidden messages in commercials and even movies are known to exist, the average consumer is not necessarily aware these bits of "subliminal" hints are even there. 

  It's a known habit of our culture to read too much into things, so I feel the same goes for advertising. Yes, ads do use subtle clues to persuade their audience to feel a certain way about their products, or to commit a certain action. For example, using sexually suggestive images is nothing new, especially for ads that involve things like lingerie or cosmetic products. However, when it comes to covert messages in ads, I believe that for most cases what may seem "subliminal" is really just a matter of a person's perspective. We are hard-wired to find controversy in things, so it makes sense people would want to pick apart ads and decode hidden messages in them when in fact there aren't any.

  Had the false study done by James Vicary in 1957 been a real thing, I think that even then, not everyone would pick up on the "messages" for popcorn and Coke inside them, at least not enough to cause mass-hysteria over the topic of brainwashing. The closest thing we realistically have to subliminal messages is priming, which does influence the thoughts and actions of the consumer subconsciously, also influencing how ads are interpreted by their audience. 

   Still, according to this article on explorable.com, priming can have a short-lived effect on a consumer's buying habits, but has not been proven to change people's way of thinking or behaving for a longer period of time. 

Humour in Advertising

Humour is a funny thing, pardon the pun. It's subjective, which means that in advertising, what passes as humour to one consumer is considered dull or offensive to another. Humour in advertising is always a risk; while I admire the companies that take the plunge and try something different to distinguish their product and engage their audience, I also realize that if the approach falls flat, the results can be disastrous for the product or its current campaign.

On one hand, having amusing, humorous ads grabs the attention of the audience and engages them emotionally in a product in ways a more serious ad does not. As a result of finding the ad more interesting and entertaining, they may have a new perspective or even respect for the product because it took successful risks to communicate a message, and might advertise it through word-of-mouth (e.g. "Did you see the Superbowl commercial about Doritos? Wasn't it hilarious?"). This increase in brand-awareness can be really rewarding for the company's image and improve their consumer base.

However, just because something is funny doesn't always mean a consumer will want to buy what's being presented to them. According to an article from the International Business Times, media analytics company Ace Metrix did a study about the effectiveness of humorous commercials, and found that though funny ads make a product more memorable and appealing to their consumers, these types of ads are not as effective when it comes to motivating the consumers to buy the actual product. 

The effectiveness of the "sell" factor in humorous ads depends on several components, one being whether the product is presented in a way that makes not only the funny concept memorable, but the product itself that is associated with the ad. Every now and then, a commercial or ad comes along that is unique and elicits a laugh or two, but the brand behind it is obscured by the humour, either not strongly present in the ad enough for the viewers to recognize it, or too forgettable compared to the content of the ad. This represents a worse-case-scenario of humorous advertising: an unusual approach becomes too effective, and the key message/selling point is lost.

Another factor is the preferences of the demographic itself. It's hard to know exactly how people will react to your ad; although there are merits to knowing your target audience and appealing to their sense of humour, there will always be those that didn't enjoy the ad, or misinterpreted its intent. The worse case scenario here is that the ad is so ineffective and rubs the consumers the wrong way, trying to be clever and funny but failing to the point that the product's reputation is damaged and this effects sales. 

So, is it worth the risk trying to make a "funny ad"? Because humorous ads aren't guaranteed to work, it's definitely safer to go with the serious approach, which has a higher chance of communicating the product properly and selling it to consumers. It really depends on the type of company, and whether they feel comfortable putting their image and success on the line. In the case of brands that need reviving or want to reach a wider base, taking such a risk could be extremely rewarding, and they have less to lose than those brands that are more established. Personally, I would stick with the bland route, because in the end an ad has to sell, that's why it was made in the first place.

Advertising and Obesity

Advertising is only part of the reason there is a high level of obesity these days. Ads are extremely persuasive, and we are subjected to them all the time from a very young age. Certainly they would account for some people craving junk food and impulsively buying it as a result, but obesity is a combination of several factors. Although many food ads promote unhealthy eating habits, it's up to the individual viewing them to decide to follow the bad examples set by the media. In the case of young children, they may not know what they are seeing is bad for them, so it's primarily their parents who set the example by taking them out to fast food restaurants, choosing quick pre made meals as opposed to making wholesome balanced ones, etc. As the children get older and have their own money to spend, they make their own decisions of what they want to eat. Yes advertising would sway their decisions, but the point is, it's about how individuals are raised, and how they are personally that makes them buy unhealthy items. If they are introduced to healthy eating habits early they will eventually adapt them into their own lifestyles, choosing when to give into the pressure of advertisements or not.

Class can also be a factor. According to this article poverty can lead to obesity because those with a minimal income can't afford to buy and prepare proper meals, leaving them with unhealthy alternatives. Also, society itself has become increasingly inactive, part of the lazy attitude of the modern lifestyle, resulting in more people being out of shape.

Advertising can definitely help prevent obesity. If there were more ads promoting healthy lifestyles and food choices at least that would help combat the barrage of junk food promotion, and show people that there are enjoyable, healthy alternatives to what they may be craving. Because advertising is such a powerful, ever-present force in our society, it could help raise awareness about the risks of being overweight, and present people with actual solutions for this. 

Although I understand advertising is all about making people want to buy products, the food industry can get carried away with how they depict food in order to entice people to eat it. For example, this blog shows the differences between the advertised fast food and the real thing. If these items were shown as they really are, people would not want to go out and buy them. 

Still, the consumer is the one who makes the final decision about what to consume, and how much of it.  Ads have their influence, but the person and their environment really determine their chances of being obese or not.