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.