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.