Merry Consumerism!

It’s that time of year again (excluding Easter and any other excuse to push products down customers buying throats)….. yup… CHRISTMAS!

I hope you haven’t forgotten to buy your gifts, and remembering what Christmas is all about… presents exchange! (not some religious guy’s miraculous rebirth).

Now I’m not religious at all, buy I’m pretty sure when I was young, and at High School this is what they teach us about the real spirit during this festive time.

It’s interesting at how much society and consumer spending has transitioned with the propelling nature of advertisements and companies pushing their products in the weeks leading up to Christmas.

Let’s not forget extending trading hour’s at all major shopping centres either. How joyful!

Merry Consumerism… and have a happy new year!

Gucci; destroying the world one bottle at a time

As previously mentioned in an earlier post – I would be doing something with an image of the Gucci by Gucci advertisement –subverting it. From the tools and research I have learnt this semester, I will perform my own culture jam (with my awesome paint skills), adding to the effect of the environmental spin towards the product (and company) I am encoding.

To understand what I have done and why, you need to know the background to the situation.

Gucci is a well-known global brand that deals within luxury fashion and beauty products. The Gucci Group, an Italian company owns this brand, which sell luxurious accessories and products. After decoding the ad, my research uncovered three issues that I believe should be brought to attention in this ad.

These are Gucci’s contradicting stances towards Climate Change as well as Capitalism and “true beauty”. I chose these to focus on (there were more) but I believe they bring a truth to the ethos of the Gucci Group to consumers and shift people’s consciousness and mindshare. I make these changes through a collection of visuals, textual changes and associations of colours and tones.

CLIMATE CHANGE:
This ‘jam’ informs others that often there is a lot a company decides to avoid when promoting a products campaign. With this being said, my intended message in my ‘jammed’ picture highly comments that the Gucci perfume; the product, is just one of the several forms of dangerous chemicals that contributes to the environmental issue of climate change  (when used in large consumptions). In 2009, the Gucci Group teamed up with the Rainforest Action Network to protect endangered forests from climate change. I found it hypocritical that a product they produce and sell at upmarket prices is contributing to the very issue their company is trying to prevent at a larger scale; and are as result – destroying the world as depicted by the burning world in the model’s hands (notably replacing the original perfume bottle). This connotes the argument of the perfume contributing to climate change, which is effective in its message, that buying this product, you are a part of the cause of global warming. This is added by the fact of changing their slogan, to include a “pollution” cloud that the fragrance achieves.

By playing on the same communication and media, as well as logos – the product and company are still recognised, yet with a new message. This is how the most effective culture jams operate as I have said in other posts. If you can manipulate small changes in an ad, people can still understand what is going on.

CAPITALISM:
The wash over tone of red of the ad symbolises power being capitalism; this is because the company is pushing a product and driving a consumerist need to obtain the product – without them thinking of the ramifications from the chemicals inside. Gucci wants profits; and if a fancy smelling perfume will do this – then who really cares about climate change anyway?

TRUE BEAUTY:
The conflicting yellow glare (yellow associates with sickness and disease which can be brought about from being too thin is not healthy) on the model’s skin. It has an almost ‘x-ray’ vision that connotes to skeletons and thinness as an underlying message of the ‘true’ beauty behind the photo-shopped figure is not so beautiful at all. As well as in the industry of beauty products it is only concerned with participants in a consumerist society, which often is driven by the choreographed, photo-shopped women presenting them and forming such ideal’s about what society builds to be considered ‘beautiful’.

These three issues are the most important I believe to touch on, as they definitely paint a different picture towards Gucci than the image they promote through their advertisements and partnerships. Culture Jams inform publics of the real issues at hand that companies try to sweep under the carpet.

If anyone has any other information about Gucci I should include or comments about my jam, please let me know; it’d be interesting to hear what you think.

A brief history of advertisements and consumer culture

Consumer culture lies deep into history and the rise of advertisements that drive this movement. Since the mid-nineteenth century, the American business market changed in dramatic ways. From a steady rise in industry and formulation of a market economy, banking systems and wages, it created what is now known as a capitalist society. Around the 1840s, the concept of modern advertising emerged in American society, which predominately targeted women as the consumer good influences in the household.

The 1880s saw advertisements focusing on the “wants” and “needs” of the growing consumer population. By purchasing this product (i.e a stove), it would reduce the toil and labour of the kitchen providing more time to nurture a family. Through creating wants and needs to consumers, advertisements were instrumental in paving the way for successful capitalism in America, which is driven by large corporations advertising their products in all media forms.

Across the world in Australia during the 1800s , advertisements played the same role – to convince consumers to buy goods that will make their lives easier. These ads however painted a lifestyle of the “Australian life” surrounded by beaches, sun and playing outdoor activities, providing a more relaxed and ‘realistic’ variation of life.

Our histories show that ads capture aspects of our lives and how they can help make life easier. They drive us to think a certain way and purchase certain items that we believe we need and want. Consumerism encouraged by advertisements create an illusion of demand that likewise created an overabundance of supply in cars and similar products. And after decades of being told what to buy, culture jams act to reclaim the public space. We are what make society and know our wants and needs, and we have the power to speak/act back.

Take for example costly water bottles. You don’t really need them (spending up to $3 on 600ml is outrageous!) when tap water is perfectly fine [are somewhat free] to drink. Marketers draw us with words “natural”, “springs”, “pure” and “crystal”, making the water – a natural resource – appear almost magical and special. It changes how we think, and influences our purchase decisions even if we know what’s logical and the best for us.

Why in America and not Australia?

My ongoing question is the difference between the consumerist culture of North America and Australia, as well as why the term ‘culture jam’ is not commonly used here (in Australia). This blog will be in two parts. The next to follow shortly.

The term ‘culture jamming’ was coined in 1984 by American West Coast-based performance/activist group Negativland to describe a variety of activities. These include communication tactics as the alteration of corporate advertisements by the Billboard Liberation Front, the parody of corporate and nongovernmental organization (NGO) websites by the Yes Men, and the appropriation of consumer goods through shoplifting and rebranding by Yomano. Most of these activities are chronicled in the magazine, Adbusters.

For a term that has existed for nearly 30 years, it’s only something I’ve (an Australian) learnt about in the past 12 months! Interesting enough, I learnt about this term whilst studying an advertising course in North America. It shows that in today’s society, terms like these are embedded into North American curriculums as an everyday topic, acknowledging the negative impacts of advertising that American consumers seem to be aware of. Whilst my experience at an Australian university has only taught me the positive sides of advertising (to an agency/company) – increasing sales, product awareness/market share etc. But why is this?

Are Australians narrow-minded to think about what advertising does to us? Or is it that there is no need to respond?  (We realise what advertisements to listen to and not) and have control to what we believe. Of course I may be a bit biased, as deep down I’ll always picture North America as a consumer culture where products and brands heavily define how people identify themselves.

But again, this brings me to the point that why teach courses about culture jamming in North America (disguised as an innocent advertising class)? I’ll admit my professor was a bit, okay well, very anti-capitalist and ‘out there’. But she helped us all (the class) open our minds and think about what advertising meant to us, and to question everything we see. We shouldn’t take in every single message that comes our way as they’re one-sided and leave no room for information processing.

It wasn’t until this class, where I myself was enlightened and realised “wow, so what I’ve been taught back home doesn’t take into consideration how it affects consumer culture and influences peoples’ identities”. It was almost disheartening to learn as well, after 2.5yrs of learning how to plan/create an ad/campaign can ultimately mean nothing to culture jamming. I don’t think it’s a waste of time to learn one side or the other of advertising, but find it intriguing that Australia was pro, and this particular North American class was anti advertising in the classroom. This itself can appear as influencing how these cultures look at ads and the power they hold. As well as teaching vital tools (of both sides to ads) that us, as communicators should be aware of.

As previously referenced, Carly Stasko, a culture jammer said “I don’t condone this [jamming], but kids should know about it… not necessarily be encouraged to do it, but knowledge is power”.

Quick Poll – would you buy this product? (Part 1/2)

Do you believe what you see in an advertisement? How about the message it is sending to you? Do you trust what is shown before your eyes? Do you relate with it? Are you informed about the product or service advertised? Is there a search for perfection present?

In terms of this example below, would you buy this product (perfume)?

Comment back yes/no/maybe & why.
Also state why this product would/would not appeal to certain audiences.

Gucci by Gucci

**Sorry, I tried to make a poll, but wordpress and polldaddy is NOT working for me 😦 So please comment your answer instead.

Informed or idiot consumer?

One of the very first things I questioned about this topic is how strongly consumer driven American Society is, compared to Australian Society?. This is one of the reasons culture jamming appeals to me so much, as to my experience I believe both cultures are incredibly unique and react (or do not) in different ways. I find it fascinating how people from both countries position themselves and (depending on their own ignorance) how they see an advertisement.

In my first post, I stated American culture has a stronger desire to seek perfection, with brands and products having influence on what people construct as their identities. Note the word ‘stronger’. I do believe Australian Society still seeks the same perfection, but are a lot more aware of what advertisers throw their way. Perhaps this is due to less impact of ad space in consumer ‘mind share’. It could even be less frequency of the ad to an affected consumer, or something which I believe in as celebrity power where actors/musicians align their images to a particular brand product.

I thought it would be quite ironic displaying a culture jam highlighting idiocy

Leading Advertising expert, David Oglivy stated “the consumer is not an idiot. The consumer is you and me”. Well, Mr. Oglivy, I guess your statement can be somewhat true – consumers won’t purchase just anything without (usually) an informed decision. But I still think that there are a lot of consumers out there who only listen and purchase from what the masses do (i.e. copy a friend), instead of acquiring their own knowledge about a product/service. I don’t think there are a lot of people in the world, who have the time, or resources, to independently research about each individual product we are told to buy. Consumers only hear the messages (and product features and benefits) that advertisers are selling to them, so although consumers may not be a ‘complete idiot’, I still think they rely on fancy packaging and selling points, rather than knowing about where that product came from, or how it was made, god knows – even how many people died to make it! This was actually publicized recently after Apple INC CEO was made aware of ten suicides sparked by stressful working conditions at the company’s Chinese Factory, Foxconn (who manufacture Iphones and iPads) in lead up to the iPad launch. Do you think consumers of these products care or even acknowledge what went on behind the scenes in order for them to happily own one of these? Most likely not.

The advertising industry alone spends a US$400 billion on advertising each year in the world (with over US$200 billion in the USA alone). That is more than half of the world’s total! A clear indication how consumerism is pushed down the throats of society who are bombarded with messages they can’t help but take it in. It also explains a stronger desire to seek advertised perfection, as this ideal is constantly enticing them to reward their happiness with products.

Compare this to Australian figures recorded that traditional media advertising spending had fallen 10.5 per cent compared to a year earlier. I couldn’t find the exact spending figure, but this itself supports my idea/experience anyway, that Australian consumers may be more aware of advertising persuasion, as they have more space and time to read their environment and decide what and where they want to listen.

Of course how I decipher these hard figures is my interpretation but at the end of the day, it all draws down to the consumer, and how that product/brand fits into their needs and wants. It’s just a different pathway to how that consumer decides to purchase it. Be either they are an informed or idiot consumer. You be the judge.

A picture is worth…

I just trolled the net and found these culture jam examples.

Just so you all get a better idea of exactly the types of jams that happen and to what extent they deconstruct an existing advertisement and implant a new meaning with the same media tools.

Most of these are American ads – Walmart and Calvin Klein.
One theme targeted often is  portraying realities where people are imperfect and “obsessed” to look as good as the figure on the ad.

I particularly like the ‘branded baby’, highlighting from the moment we are born, we exist in a world of brands and products and those are what identify us as a person.

Mac 1 – Ashleigh 0

We grow up living in an environment that appears natural to us – it’s something we’re used to so we don’t question a thing. I am talking about the existence of advertising that constantly shows us the way, what product to be interested in, what to buy and where to buy it through its permanent residence in our mind/world. It feeds us what information “we need to know” to pay attention and result with an action; usually a purchase. This is marketing and advertising, and of course us (Communication students) are now aware of this and the certain processes and models each product campaign follows to succeed.

Fast forward the latest phone and a mp3 player later, and we come to realize “was this my choice, do I really need that?” . I admit, for several years I was anti Apple/Mac (Dave can actually vouch for this!), then all of a sudden when my whole environment was saturated with cool images and features of iPods and iPhones, something sparked off inside me that made me yearn to have ownership of such a senseless product that I had despised earlier.  What made me impulsively change my mind?

Now even though I love my iPhone as much as my iPod, I think strategically it comes down to the driving advertisements, especially on my television saying “I’m a Mac (cool) and I’m a PC (not cool)”. Where I will confess, I was embarrassed to even be associated with a ugly, heavy, suit nerd. This shows the power [Mac] advertising had on my brain and the perceptions it helped create against brands. Mac 1 – Ashleigh 0. I am a victim of media consumption that filled my empty void with a product that made me happy.

Since when are your eyes for rent?

In the video below, Carly Stasko, a culture jammer questions “we’re just ‘spose to sit back and take in like all the streaming commercials and television and messages and I’m just ‘spose to take it in… and it’s all ‘spose to stay inside?? no way!”

Carly discusses the point of creating a dialogue where there isn’t one; something I did not do.  Our environments are filled with messages and it impacts us as people, but sometimes we should impact back with a response.

Like most teenage girls, Carly felt terrible whenever she looked at a teen magazine; “buy this lipstick”, “wear size 8 miniskirts”, “look sexy”. Do advertisers really want a mindless tramp army of teens? Well I guess if they’re selling their products (and making sales!), that’s all that really cares (to them).  This is where culture jamming comes into play.

In order to jam an ad, you have to understand it so you can manipulate it to speak in the same language.  This is something I was lucky enough to learn in my third year of my undergraduate course – deconstructing an ad, understanding the semiotics of it. Everything in an ad is there for a reason. Sometimes this reason can simply be to portray an expensive taste to a product, right down to hiding macro issues of the company or product itself, take for example Nike.

Nike was under fire in the 1990’s when it came to light their products where manufactured in sweatshops in third world countries. These people were underpaid, worked in terrible poor conditions, whilst the products themselves would sell for hundreds of dollars. This may have been one of the most recognisable culture jams to the world, as it played on memes that anyone anywhere could understand the restructured message to the brand.

One more important thing Carly brings up is the term “Mind Share”. This can be explained as the constant war for brain territory, that companies are more concerned with their mind share in youth population and exactly how you perceive and recognise their brands/logos. For me, Mac certainly now how a segment of my mind share, invading my own privacy to thought and decision making. With culture jamming, it threatens these companies’ mind share to consumers, as it makes individuals think for themselves and become educated about issues and facts that are often hidden and not discoverable on the front of an advertisement.

So since when are your eyes for rent? As it appears, they always have been. Always on the lookout for another catchy tenant who will pay the bills with product lines and the oh so great feeling of consumption.  But once that consumption is overfilled, it’s only a matter of time before the landlord / YOU can step up, kick them out and have a say back, in a form that only that tenant understands.