Reflection

Though I haven't really changed my media consumption, I am more aware of what is being sold to me, whether it be a product, an idea, or an experience. Now I just watch commercials and list the needs they attempted to appeal to or the techniques they use. Occasionally I will pin the high concept they try to sell. When watching TV, I note the different concepts from Merchants of Cool and Miss Representation, such as the mook and midriff, or the portrayal of women.
I think it is important to have media literacy because otherwise, people would just accept whatever media explicitly tells them. When there is no push back against media, people lack any real personality, as they would just be what media tells them to be. A culture that completely accepts advertising is not a culture at all. Having media literacy would prevent this, as then people would be able to discern between their own needs and wants instead of what media tells them their needs and wants are. They would then be able to have a personality beyond media.
Being an educated consumer is also important because otherwise, people would just buy everything sold to them, no matter whether or not they actually need it and end up bankrupt.It would also cause people to become overly materialistic, as they would take what the advertisements say to be true, that all they need to do to be happy is to buy things. If people were educated consumers, they would avoid this. They would be able to see through the advertising and figure out if they actually need the product.

My Use of Media

(Now no longer me)

As a result of my study in media, I have become more aware of the companies behind the messages thrown out, allowing me to investigate the real intent behind them. It is clear that all media messages are manufactured for a certain hidden purpose, usually to make money or attract consumers. I can also now see through certain attempts at persuading me, either to buy a product or watch a show. I have become more aware of how much media is used to sell not only products, but ideas. Even news articles show bias with their phrasing of events, making one source's message vastly different from another's. While I always knew that ads sold products, I have only just begun to see how many ads sell experiences and concepts with them. My media study has allowed me to see through and understand beyond just what is shown to us. Now, I am able to break through the direct messages companies send out through media, and see what is really going on. Of course, I have still a lot to learn, but for now, I will settle for dissecting media messages.

A Series of Unfortunate Events

Recently, Netflix has released a new series, the TV adaption of A Series of Unfortunate Events, a book series by Lemony Snicket. Seeing as I thoroughly enjoyed the book series, I was delighted to watch the TV series, especially since Daniel Handler, which is Lemony Snicket's real name, was going to be one of the executive producers and one of the writers. 
One of the lines I noticed in the show went along the lines of:
"Nice girls shouldn't know how to do such things."
Klaus: "My sister is a nice girl and she knows how to do all sorts of things."
I suppose it caught my attention as I remember being told to do or not to do certain things, because "girls shouldn't do those things". Of course, most of those claims were ridiculous (like my mother telling me I shouldn't whistle). 
Another line would be:
"It's the friendliest snake known to man-- and woman."
A lot of the time people just reduce all of humankind to "man", really just excluding women.
In both of these lines, there is an appeal to feminism, but also a representation of their values. Perhaps it is an attempt to grab more viewers, or perhaps it is an actual genuine representation of values. Either way, impressionable viewers who are watching will be affected, and hopefull for the better. 

Parks & Rec: Strugles of a Woman in Politics

In the episode of Parks & Recreation, "Pie-Mary" (S7E9), the main character, Leslie Knope, faces what it is like to be a woman in politics. Though it isn't her first time dealing with unfair bias during an election, it is the first time that she is presented as a Congressional candidate's wife. Even when she wasn't running, she was still put out on display and dissected by the press. 
The episode begins with a meeting with her husband, Ben Wyatt's, campaign manager, who warns Leslie not to seem too smart or strays from stereotypical femininity. Sure enough, when Leslie chooses not to enter the pie making contest, a tradition for candidates' wives, she is immediately bombarded with questions, completely overlooking Ben's actual campaign. A conversation with a reporter goes as followed:

Reporter: Leslie, you made it pretty clear that you don't think homemaking is important. Do you ever cook for your children? And who's even watching your children right now while you're out God only knows where? 

Leslie: What are you talking about? I'm standing right here in front of you.

Reporter: Okay, take it easy. Let's not get emotional.

Afterwards the reporter also says:

What other traditions are you against, Leslie? Baseball? Hugging your children? How much did that haircut cost? 

Here we see an issue addressed in Miss Representation, where women in politics had focus turned away from any actual issues on to whether or not they were good mothers and their haircuts. We also see the portrayal of women being overemotional and therefore unfit.

Throughout the episode more conflicts turn up as Leslie and Ben decide what to do for the Pie-Mary, distracting from Ben's campaign. Eventually, Leslie finally gives her speech, as follows:

Leslie: I'm now gonna give you permanent answers to all the silly questions that you're gonna end up asking me, and every other woman in this election, over the next few months.

"Why did I change my hairstyle?" 

Oh, I don't know. I just thought it would look better. Or my kids got gum in it.

"Are you trying to have it all?" 

That question makes no sense. It's a stupid question. Stop asking it. Don't ask it.

"Do you miss your kids while you're at work?" 

Yes, of course I do. Everybody does. And then, you know, sometimes I don't.

Ben: And by the way, no one's ever asked me that question. 

No one asks me, "Where are your kids?" Or, "Who's taking care of them?" 

So, maybe Leslie doesn't fit your personal idea of what a candidate's wife should be.

So what? That's good, because there shouldn't be just one idea anyway.

Leslie: That's right. If you wanna bake a pie, that's great. If you wanna have a career, that's great, too. 

Do both, or neither, it doesn't matter. Just don't judge what someone else has decided to do.

Again there is an understanding of the many insignificant questions women are asked, all things men who run are never never asked. Leslie then goes over the danger of stereotypes, and the representation of only one type of woman. In Miss Representation this was symbolic annihilation, where people look towards what is advertised, and when they don't see diversity, it is slowly believed that there is only one correct way to be someone. Any deviation from the stereotype is attacked, and compliance to a stereotype is a invitation to being reduced to just another object to be judged. 

Though the events of the episode are exaggerated, it portrays a very real struggle for women, according to Miss Representation. The show puts this struggle into perspective and makes them seem ridiculously unjust through humor and having a character the audience has spent years watching and understanding face it.

Teens and Tech

In her article "Why Teens Are the Most Elusive and Valuable Customers in Tech", Issie Lapowsky goes into detail describing the importance of marketing to teens in the tech industry. She first goes over why teens are an important target group. First, teens are less likely to have formed any brand loyalty yet. Second, like in Merchants of Cool, she claims that teens have a lot of money to spend. She adds that because teens today were born into this tech infested society, they had a better understanding of it. For this reason, it is mostly teens that buy tech not only for themselves but for their parents as well. They are a gateway for trends and new tech. 
Lapowsky then goes into what teens want in their tech and social media sites. This shows how even in tech, teens still have the ability to choose what they want instead of being spoon fed new trends from brands. According to the author, teens have moved from certain brands to others based on what they see as important. In terms of Merchants of Cool, teens still have the control over what cool is, and brands must follow. 
Finally, Lapowsky discusses how tech should be marketed to teens. She observes that, like in Merchants of Cool, brands must not market to teens too directly. Doing so limits the brand's authenticity. She instead says that brands must "do it organically by meeting teens on their turf". Brands must show that they understand teens. In Merchants of Cool, this is described as a marriage between the company and the culture. Even after gaining trust from teens, brands must still change with what they want in order to keep their trust. After all, cool stays with the kids.

What Came First?

Cool or the Marketing of Cool

Did cool come first or was it the marketing of cool? The two are so closely related that it's impossible to tell. If cool came first, the marketing would come so quickly after that they would seem as if they were one. If marketing came first, the same would happen. 

On one hand, if cool was first decided by teens, media would be forced to catch up. However, after marketing the cool that teens first created, it would have to lose it's status as being cool. Giving the teens what they want would seem too close to letting their programming show, making the attempt to market cool obsolete. The changing of cool would have to be another decision by teens. So it makes sense that cool was originally from teens. But to change cool, there has to be a collective group promoting it, or cool would not be able to appeal to the teen's need for affiliation. It seems unlikely that any group of teens could change something as large as the concept of cool without media.

On the other hand, if cool was decided by the media, then teens would have to feel the need to fit in. So whatever media says becomes the mainstream, as most teens view media. Media being the creators of cool would also make sense because now a large group of teens look towards media to find what is cool, and therefore fulfilling their need for affiliation. But if media did control cool, why would it have to constantly change? If they did control cool, they could maintain the same definition of cool because teens would always be looking towards media to see what was cool. However, this is not the case, because cool changes when teens get tired of media controlling their interests. Therefore teens must control cool. But what is the likelihood of a large group of teens all turning to the same outlet for rebellion making it the new cool thing without the marketing? Therefore media must be controlling cool. And the cycle continues.

I think teens really control cool, but handed over that control when they saw that media understood them. That is why media must work so hard to not lose their interest and constantly change with it. And when teens do listen to media, the marketing begins.

Shane Co.'s Holiday Campaign

Shane Co. is notorious for their radio ads which have been running for decades. It is no surprise many have grown to despise them. However, this holiday season, Shane Co. has released a new radio campaign. In this series of ads, men present the various gifts they had planned to give their significant others, only to have the displeased recipients ask Tom Shane to give advice on "what she really wants". Tom then presents the various jewelry options Shane Co. provides. 

These ads appeal to the need for affiliation. They feature couples in which the men are told their gift ideas suck and that jewelry is the way to a woman's heart. In this way, the ads threaten men into buying jewelry for women in case they hate their original gift idea.  

The ads use "Simple Solutions" by telling men that if they want their partners to love them, buy them jewelry. They no longer need to worry about being a good boyfriend/husband, as diamonds will keep their girlfriends/wives happy enough. Forget getting her something she might actually use, give her a gold necklace no matter what, and she will simply adore you. 

While these ads are different from the older ads, they still generate the same irritation. This is the result of the reality assumption that all women want jewelry. The entirety of this series is men scrapping their gift plans under the notion that their significant others would rather have diamonds. Despite probably knowing their partners better than Tom would, they accept that women just want jewelry. Of course, Shane Co. depends on people buying jewelry as gifts for the holiday season, but giving out the message that jewelry is all she wants makes it seem that women don't care about anything but their appearances. 

There is also the lack of diversity in the couples in Shane Co.'s ads. This gives insight on who Shane Co.'s demographic is. A quick browse through their website reveals mostly straight white couples. Of course there are exceptions to this, but it is not hard to tell that there is definitely more focus on such couples.

Overall, Shane Co.'s new ads encourage the stereotype that what women really care about are appearances and jewelry. They seem to be really buying into the whole "diamonds are girl's best friend" idea. 

Secret Deodorant: Ladies Room

Secret aired a new ad which takes place in a surprisingly stressful environment: the bathroom. In this ad a trans woman, Dana, is trapped within her stall by her own fears and insecurities, as a group of women just move into the bathroom. However, by the end of the short ad, Dana gains the courage "to show there is no wrong way to be a woman". While this ad clearly gets its point across by depicting yet another scene of stress in women's lives, and therefore finding a place to sell their product, there are other layers to their message. 

First, there is their attempt to connect a larger concept to their brand. In this case it is the inner strength found in all women. By doing so they are no longer just a product but an idea that goes with it. They use these associations to sell their product. This can be compared to the use of pathos which persuades people through the use of imagery and emotions. By connecting their brand to these emotions, they use pathos to convince consumers to by their product through ads. This ad pulls consumers into the story, allowing them to feel what Dana is going through. Her victory becomes theirs and that victory is now associated with the brand.

The reality assumption is that all women experience stress going to the bathroom, for if they didn't this ad would not be relatable and would not appeal to anybody. If most women did not relate to the situation, they would feel they have no reason to buy the product. Then their ad would have obviously failed.

The value assumption is fitting in, as that is Dana's challenge. She that she can have a friendly experience, and when she does, the audience is supposed to be pleased because that is what is important. At the same time, another value assumption is individuality, as Dana shows that there is nothing wrong with being yourself. Consumers are supposed to value that and want to buy the product to gain the courage to truly be themselves. Another value assumption is courage, obviously, for if consumers did not value it, there wouldn't be a commercial celebrating it. In addition to courage, there is also the value assumption of equality, as if the viewers did not value equality, they would argue that there is a wrong way to be a woman, and only some can be one. 

Overall, the ad mainly depends on their ability to relate to women, and get the right positive emotions across. If they are successful, they will have made it clear to the consumer that they are the brand to go to when facing such a situation. 

Lovemarks: Apple

Lovemarks are a marketing concept created by Kevin Roberts, a British businessman, that suggests that both respect and love are needed to gain loyalty beyond reason. However, products themselves only give people material gain and no real feeling of fulfillment. Trends generate love but no respect as they are fleeting and short lasting. Brand names generate long lasting respect but not love. A lovemark would be capable of producing both by attaching their brand to emotional concepts.  By doing so, their brand is not just a brand, but a company that understands people. This makes their product no longer just a material gain, but something that can give people the emotional fulfillment that lovemarks attach to them.
It is because of this concept that many commercials become hard to decipher. It usually takes a while before it dawns that a certain commercial is for a certain brand, as now many just address large concepts instead of the actual products. 
An example would be Apple's "The Human Family" advertisement which shows off the new cameras on the iPhone. Backed up with a reading of Maya Angelou's poem, it features photos from all over the world taken by the iPhone. The ad conveys a message of human similarities that can triumph over human differences, a message timed perfectly with its air date at the opening of the 2016 Olympics. The images, videos, music, and poem come together beautifully and it is easy to forget that one is actually watching a commercial. If it weren't for the white borders and the caption font, I would not have recognized it as an Apple ad at all until the end. So instead of focusing so much on the product, the ad first attaches its brand to an idea. Now instead of it being just an iPhone, it is a way to connect with the rest of the world and conquer the divide. Now it not only has the respectability of the camera or the product, but the love of an idea that they have broadcasted. Apple's ad had ability to combine an idea and a brand, and will probably be headed on its way to become a lovemark, if it is not already.

Language in Media

[links to articles above]
On December 2, there was a call between President-elect Trump and Taiwan's President Tsai Ing-Wen, generating Chinese protest and a range of reactions in the US. These responses can be found in the very news articles that portray the event through the language they use. 

Take the article China lodges complaint over Trump-Taiwan call, from CNN. Throughout the article, it could be said that they were attempting to point out more significant and impacting consequences of the call, saying that it "could risk a major upset" and "risks throwing US-China relations into a tailspin". This would make Trump's actions irresponsible and thoughtless towards the delicate state of foreign affairs. Their referral to the negative consequences attempts to persuade readers of Trump's incapability. The go on to say, "It is perhaps the first major sign of the unpredictability that Trump has vowed to bring...", the word "unpredictability" implying negativity towards Trump and his volatile actions.  They also speculate "if this was a blunder by a team with limited experience of international affairs".  With words like "blunder" and "limited experience" that have negative connotations, they remind their readers of Trump's team's seeming incompetence. They close by quoting Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who says, "'That's how wars start'" and "'allies will walk if they have no clue what we stand for. Just as bad'", again attempting to persuade their readers that these calls will likely have a severe negative consequence.

Meanwhile in the article China lodges protest after Trump’s call with Taiwan, from New York Post, they attempt to downplay the significant consequences that could arise from the call using language. They instead address the praise Trump has gotten from his followers and Congressional Republicans. They begin by quoting said Congressional Republicans, one of whom, John Bolton, "pooh-poohed critics’ worries the call could undo decades of delicate diplomacy and lead to conflict between the superpowers. "Their use of the phrase "pooh-poohed" implies their belief that those worries were foolish and impractical, thus downplaying the possible negative outcomes of Trump's actions. They also seem to be praising Trump for his actions, quoting Rep. Pete King, "'Strong message to China. New day in Asia.'" It is mostly their avoidance of the possible consequences of the call that shows their attempt to persuade their audience that Trump's actions were not actually dangerous, and were even possibly good for the country. Certain words used to describe the situation between China, the US, and Taiwan could also be seen as attempts towards persuasion. For instance, "China’s aggressive territorial claims in the South China Sea". The word "aggressive" clearly has a negative connotation, painting China in a bad light. They defend Trump's disregard of the "one China" principle by supporting Taiwan. They describe Tsai as "democratically-elected" something that would appeal to readers. They end the article by quoting China’s Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, who again downplays the event, attempting to persuade readers that nothing severe will come out of it, and what Trump did was actually totally fine.

My Relationship with Media...

Like anybody living in the 21st Century, I have had my fair share of experiences with media. In the mornings I watch the news, on the drive to school I listen to the radio, while I work I listen to music, in the evenings I watch TV, and before bed I go through social media. The news I watch sends me through the day thinking about the recent events. Out of all the media, I engage the least with watching the news. The radio, which tends to be on the news of the day as well, also gives me a good idea of what is going on. However, considering the opinion section tends to be on when I listen, it also informs me of the opinions of others. Advertisements also plague my ride to school. Judging them has become a hobby of mine. My music choice is something that I believe to influence me more. It was only until a few years ago that I even developed any kind of preference of music. Since then I have continually add more artists that I liked and cut older ones out. My music tastes have allowed me to bond with many of my current friends. From time to time I listen to the current top 40, either to expand my music tastes or just to know what was popular. When I get the chance to watch TV, I tend to re-watch what I've already seen, lest I get hooked on to a new show that will drag my sleep to less than 4 hours. Other wise, my parents will be watching something and I will try to decipher what is going on in the middle of an episode, only to pay the most attention to commercials. Watching any movies is a rarity for me, as I prefer digestible chunks present in episodes, instead of full-blown epics found in theaters. I tend to only frequent social media from time to time, and prefer not to fully engage. However mindlessly surfing through my feed is permitted as I think about other things. I mostly use social media for myself, rather than friends, preferring to take in content without having to share it. Overall my relationship with media is not as extensive as some of my peers, but it is enough to give me the basic knowledge of what is happening. The rest I learn from those who do know more, due to their own relationships with media.