Hi everyone! Usually I try to avoid anything political (or personal) on my blog(s) because I just don’t want to go there if I don’t have to. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and just because I may not agree with something I can accept it and cross my fingers that the same is done for me. Anyway I recently saw an ad for Obamacare created by a pair of non-profit groups encouraging women to get health insurance. Not so bad right?
To be honest I’m not one to be easily offended but even this had me shaking my head. They make the women in the ad seem shallow and eager to hop in bed which is NOT the only reason women use birth control. As someone who used birth control in the past I find this generalization really offensive because I needed it for medical reasons. I wasn’t on it for the heck of it, I needed it for my health. These ads don’t acknowledge that, instead they go for the kill and suggest women who want to have sex should get insurance so that birth control is covered.
They even use Ryan Gosling in one of the ads! It could have been successful ad had the airhead language and content been changed. Overall this was not a good way to encourage women to get insurance and did more harm than good. It comes off as more of a joke than a statement, which shouldn’t apply to anything linked with health insurance. As always a link to the original article is below.
Hey Everyone! I recently saw an article about a Barney’s window display featured some thinned down Disney characters. I wanted to talk a little bit about this because I think it brings up an important idea about working with well known cartoon characters in design. I think when you’re working with a design for a cartoon character you really have to use a lot of caution as a designer. I know that a lot of adults like Disney characters but I think we can all agree that a majority of cartoons are created for children. That being said I think that by modifying these characters to look like twigs was not a well thought out idea.
The idea for these designs were to show that Disney characters can be fashionable too however the message seems to translate into something else. To be fashionable or a model you need to be skinny. Not a healthy weight, but super skinny. I think this promotion could have been more successful if the characters kept their original forms but were given a makeover another way. When I first read the headline I thought that maybe they had glammed Minnie up a bit but they totally changed her image.
Which makes another statement that you can’t be yourself. If Minnie has to change to be beautiful and high fashion what does that say to the kids who are going to see this? Overall I just think they should have thought about the kids who would see this considering Disney characters are for kids. I feel like this is similar to the sexy Big Bird costumes being sold for Halloween but let’s not go into that. You can read the article I found here: http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/skinny-minnie-mouse-inspires-petition-194641110.html
Hey Everyone! I know this is a pretty serious topic to talk about, especially my first day back at this, but I think it brings up some good points. Recently an advertisement about drinking and rape was pulled because of the message it had. On the poster/ad the text reads “She didn’t want to do it, but she couldn’t say no”. Although the picture itself may seem
Advertisment that got pulled
controversial I think the text is what really got the ad pulled. When I read the text I get two different interpretations out of it. One on hand it makes me feel like the message is saying that because the girl was drunk she couldn’t do anything to stop this from happening because she was so intoxicated. On another hand it makes me feel like it’s the girl’s fault because she was pressured and didn’t say no. I think the words don’t send out the message that the designer or company who wanted this ad had in mind. Had they used another phrase the ad may have not gotten pulled. I thought this story was a good lesson for designers because it shows how words can be interpreted in different ways. And how you need to careful as a designer to not offend anyone while still promoting a message. Thats what I got out of it but if you want to read the article for yourself here it is: http://news.yahoo.com/pa-liquor-board-pulls-ad-heavy-drinking-rape-164139006.html
Hey Everyone! Its been so long but my summer has been busy and fast so I haven’t had much time to dedicate to this blog. Something did catch my attention and reel me back to my blogging ways though! Recently there has been a pretty big controversy surrounding the use of airbrushing in advertisements.
Retouched Lancome Ad.
My first thought when I saw this article was ‘What’s the big deal? Isn’t airbrushing used all the time?’. Not that I think airbrushing isn’t misleading and often times over used but this just didn’t seem like anything new. I’m not going to talk too much about the article itself, since you can read it in the link down below but it did bring up some interesting things. For one thing I didn’t know how strict the UK was getting about these advertisements and although this might not sit to well with businesses it would probably help consumers. Think about it, if the effect of the products shown on the models are not enhanced or exaggerated it would be easier for consumers to see the true results of a product. Although this would be helpful to consumers the though must be very scary for a lot of companies, especially cosmetic companies. Another article showed one advertisements that wasn’t retouched by Make Up For Ever and I had to say it looks a lot better than the controversial ads by Lancome and Maybelline.
Unretouched Make Up Forever Ad.
The model in the ad looks naturally pretty and doesn’t look fake or non-human. A lot of over retouched photos, in my opinion, look way too fake to the point you know that glow isn’t natural. I think that having ads that aren’t retouched are not only refreshing but they show the confidence the company has in its products. My final thought is that retouching isn’t bad when used in moderation if your product isn’t good enough to stand on its own without retouching then it may need more developement.
Read more about the over retouched ads click here:http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/beauty/loreal-ads-of-julia-roberts-and-christy-turlington-banned-for-airbrushing-2516498/
To see the unretouched ad click here:http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/beauty/finally-the-first-ever-unretouched-make-up-ad-2465394;_ylt=AgrLEva8zygTT9MXdBgAwqppbqU5
A free mortgage? Impossible right? Wrong. The company Adzookie has thought up a new and unique way to advertise for their company and give homeowners a free mortgage. The company is planning to advertise their business by painting houses with an advertisement representing Adzookie.com. Adzookie is willing to pay the
An example of what the house may look like
mortgage of the homeowners who get their houses painted for every mont that the house stays painted. Personally I think this is a great deal for homeowner’s with a really tight budget and who may need the help. A lot of other people also agree because Adzookie has gotten over 1,000 applications already and they’ll probably get even more with the publicity they’re getting from doing this. The publicity will not only mean more applicants but also more visits to their website and an increased general interest in the company. So as far as advertising goes I think this was a great idea to get their company noticed. As for the design fo the houses it isn’t bad; it’s not overly cluttered or painted in neon colors. Plus your mortgage is getting paid for so can you really complain about the design? I just really wanted to talk about this because its such a great way of advertising, at least I think so. 🙂
Learn more here: http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/for-a-free-mortgage-house-becomes-a-billboard.html
I first found about this ad on the Today show and it really spiked my interest. The ad shows the president and creative director of J.Crew painting her son’s toe nails with a bright pink polish. The ad is meant to show a small glimpse into the life of the president while advertising a certain product. I like the concept but I’m not sure if it was worth all the attention, positive and negative, that she may receive. I personally have nothing against painting a boys nails but at the same time I’m not sure if I would publicly put such a controversial subject that involved my child in a
magazine that would be seen by millions. Actually this advertisement made me think of something that happened to me a couple of years ago while babysitting. I was babysitting for two girls and their brother when one day the boy asked if he could have his nails painted too. The only reason I didn’t let him was because he wasn’t my child and I wasn’t sure if his parents would be okay with it. He continued to ask the whole time and even made a case to me that older boys wore nail polish sometimes. In the end I made a compromise of letting him wear clear nail polish until his mom told me anything else was okay. He didn’t take my offer and still wanted to wear some green nail polish. This experience made me think about how I would react if he was my son and what I would do. I came to the conclusion that even though it wouldn’t bother me I would be worried about what other people think. I feel like I shouldn’t care or have to worry about what other people think about me or my child, if I have one 🙂 and the way we look. This is what makes me undecided on how I feel about this advertisement. On one hand I feel there is nothing wrong with the ad but on the other hand I don’t know if this was the right choice for an ad. In the end the boy is just a kid and I feel like this advertisement shouldn’t be a big deal.
Read the article here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110413/ts_yblog_thelookout/hot-pink-toenailed-boy-in-j-crew-ad-sparks-controversy
To be honest this is somewhat like my Lovely Logos series, but different! I got another list from tuttoaster.com, this time “30 Inspirational Email Newsletters”. The difference, besides the topic, is I’m going to be more selective with this with list. Meaning that I’ll only be covering a few of these newsletters which will include the ones I like the most and ones I like the least. So, without further ado, let’s get started! The first newsletter that really stood of to me was the email from Kate Spade. There is just something about the newsprint used in the design that I really like. It kind of makes me feel like I’m back in an old-time period when sales and advertisements were mostly words. I also like how the information about the sale was made larger and surrounded by a large red circle. I’m actually not really sure why I’m so attracted to this newsletter, I just am.
Something that caught my eye in the news recently was the topic of an advertisement being changed for a certain audience. The advertisement for the clothing company H&M was deemed too revealing for the company’s market group in Dubai. The ad features famous model Gisele Bundchen in clothing that many Americans would feel isn’t very revealing at all. Since a more modest way of dressing is popular and more socially acceptable to the people of Dubai the ad was tweaked to gain more popularity and less controversy. Reading about this really made me think about how companies, and designers, really have to get to know their audience/customers. It’s a known fact that you can’t please everyone but you don’t want to disregard their beliefs or cultures when you’re trying to sell a product either. What they did to modify the ad was just to Photoshop in a white t-shirt underneath Gisele’s clothing. I actually thought the first image looked pretty nice. I really just wanted to shed some light on this because it reminded me that as a designer you always have to be thinking about who is going to see your design. It also showed how cultural beliefs could play a large part in how your design is perceived.
Check out the ads here: http://omg.yahoo.com/blogs/thefamous/giseles-h-m-ads-digitally-altered-for-dubai/931?nc