"Merchants of Cool"

   Today, now more than ever, millennials seem to be the focus and target audience of all media platforms. Whether it's social media like Snapchat and Instagram or magazine ads/cover pages that have bright colors, eye-catching, large fonts, and/or celebrities we all recognize, we teenagers seem to be the center of attention in advertising. But, if I've learned anything from Frontline's Merchants of Cool, it's that some sources of media are falling behind, aren't up to date, or "decoolify" popular trends. If advertisers aren't doing that, they're trying to sneak ads and/or commercials into every nook and cranny of every publication possible, which admittedly gets really annoying.

   As a teenager who uses social media platforms like Snapchat and Instagram, I see companies publicizing their product, unnecessarily I might add, all throughout both. For example, sometimes while I'm scrolling through Instagram, I happen to come across a cute, aesthetically pleasing photo, so I like it, naturally. But, I realize that the picture was sponsored by a certain company or brand after the fact. These companies and brands are like our parents: they try to be cool getting the latest updates, apps, clothing, etc., but it only makes the product less "cool." It's kind of selfish and conceited of us teens to think that certain trends are solely for us to make us look "cool" or "popular" or a "trend-setter." However, in reality these are used by everyone else, including your parents, family members, and friends. There's no use in trying to look cool and unique when everyone is trying to do or liking the same exact things as you.

   But what is "cool"? It's hard to give it one definition when everyone has a different perspective on it depending on their interests and style. According to the advertisers in Merchants of Cool, "cool" means that you are ahead of the pack, a trend-setter. For me, it's not one specific definition or stereotype. I like to think that everyone has their version of cool. But, as I always like to say, "cool" is not in my mental dictionary. I'm not someone who's "trendy" or follows/praises Kylie Jenner over her new looks and interests. I just do me. And if people don't like that then....ok. You do you. That's what "cool" is to me. Not some pair of Air Jordan's, iPhone 7, or Kyle Jenner Lip Kit. People who love how they look and live and own it are the people that are the coolest to me. Whether you follow the latest trends or don't know the difference between Instagram and Facebook, it's how you rock it and own up to it that counts.http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/view/

We're Surrounded: A Christmas Overload!

   It's that time of year again! That time of overplayed Christmas songs we all belt in the car (admit it, you do it too), last minute gift shopping, and annual family get-togethers under the tree, whether you like it or not. But, what about the other holidays around this time of year? I know that Christmas is the holiday most celebrated all across the world and it's always fun to see the lights decorations all around the neighborhood. Heck, even I'll admit I love singing Christmas songs with some of my family members. But how about some holiday cheer for Hanukkah and Kwanzaa?!

   I think we can all agree that Christmas can sometimes be a little overrated around this time of year. It's always the same depiction, that it's all jolly and happy and that no one can be upset during Christmas. It's a day full of presents, family, and food. Yet, this isn't always what it's like for all families. Some people don't even have a family to celebrate with; don't have enough money for presents, decorations, etc.; or even like the holiday, let alone celebrate it. Especially now, Christmas overloaded with commercials about "saving big" on iPhones or other new technology for your teens or a new car or toys for the young ones. And to top it all off, the same holiday movies played every year, like A Christmas Story, Elf, and It's a Wonderful Life. Again, I'm all for these movies, but minorities need a little spotlight too. 

   Having said all of this, I am seeing more shows featuring Jews and shining light on Hanukkah other holidays (i.e. The Goldbergs), but what about in stores and/or on TV or across other forms of media? Heck, has anyone even heard a Hanukkah song on the radio or listened to a Hanukkah album? And what about Kwanzaa? Although we're both minority groups, that doesn't mean we don't exist. We deserve just as much advertising appeal and publication as Christmas, especially in the decorations department. All my life, while all the other kids were making Christmas wreath projects, I was the only one making a paper menorah to hang up in the house. Even all around the school, I was surrounded by green and red, and maybe one Jewish star if I was lucky. I never really saw any reference to Kwanzaa either. I felt that I was left out of something or that I needed to fit into something that I wasn't.

   From my perspective, that's all that Christmas commercials, songs, advertising, etc. do to those who are outnumbered by the masses. Companies use the need for affiliation to emphasize that "all kids need this new toy" or "you're not going to find deals like this anywhere else." In addition, advertisers use certain colors like red and green show that's these are during Christmas time and it's all about saving big for Christmas and blah blah blah. What about us? Where's the need for affiliation with Hanukkah and Kwanzaa?  Like adding a pop of blue and white or a Jewish star or drawing attention to idea of family and culture and lighting the candles for both Hanukkah and Kwanzaa. It would just be nice to get a little more attention around this time of year, you know.

"Feminism" in Magazines

   Losing weight; eating right; clothing; sex appeal. These are just a few of the many things women are used for across advertisements everywhere. This mostly occurs in magazines. Although many women today refuse to be thought of as objects, they still use photoshop, editing, and "attractive" tips about losing weight or exercising or even tips about sex/how to get a guy to like you. For example, Jenna Dewan-Tatum, an actress, dancer, and mother, can be seen to some women as inspirational for juggling her lifestyle while being a mom and staying fit. However, on front cover of Cosmopolitan, she is all done up, wearing a two-piece outfit, and posing with the caption "NEXT LEVEL SEX". Is this really what young men, women, and even moms should be seeing on the front page of a magazine?! Women these days "talk the talk," but never seem to "walk the walk." I'm not judging models or anyone who wants to show-off their bodies, I mean I'm all for body and self love. But when you're someone's idol and young girls look up to feminist or just inspirational women, they need to see that women aren't just used as props or a marketing technique to draw you in. 

   I was at target the other day and I happened to pass by the rack of magazines in front of the register, including the one with Jenna Dewan-Tatum on the cover. I counted maybe twelve magazines with women on the front, five of which were about the typical female cover (as I mentioned earlier), about three on women's scandals/private lives, and the rest were miscellaneous. Only a few I saw actually pictured strong, beautiful, joyful women who weren't looking to be in the news, make a cover story, or share the same "tips and tricks" that magazines believe all women want read about. Times are changing and media needs to catch up. There needs to be more women on covers who aren't photoshopped or in sexy or revealing outfits. I know this generation is slowly on its way to that point, but it's still kinda off to a rough start. I just wish that these female icons and influences would follow the tips and advice they give to others not only through media, but even through magazine covers and headlines. Women and young girls need to actually see the women and young girls of today who inspire them. Not the photoshopped, picture perfect Barbie dolls they see on TV or in magazines. 

New Covergirl Model, James Charles, is Changing the Game

   There has been a change, or more like an upgrade to the system: James Charles! James is the new Covergirl spokesmodel and a beautiful and wonderful one at that. "Isn't he a boy?" you may ask. Yes, he is. But, now more than ever, a lot more men are getting into make-up and creating make-up tutorials. This most likely in partnership with the popular drag queen and king culture of today. "But what is a guy doing in the newest Covergirl ad?" Well, James was discovered this past year when he did his make-up for his senior portraits, which he slayed, and was discovered once he posted said pictures on Instagram. Now, James' career is just taking off. You can currently see him in the newest Covergirl commercial, featuring Covergirl regular Katy Perry. 

  James was chosen for his talent and artistry. It's not about gender anymore. It's more about the face of the company and the message that company's trying to send. Covergirl is trying to reach out to both men and women who enjoy and live off of doing make-up and cosmetics. They're trying to appeal to make-up artists in general, aspiring and already famous. Covergirl is using this new direction and message of equality to give their company an edge over the competition. By using this newly discovered face of make-up, no pun intended, they can reach a wider, more progressive audience than any other cosmetics brand. However, there are some pros and cons in their marketing techniques. 

   Covergirl's new direction is "equality." Yet, they still feature women and use them as their focus. That's not really gender equality. Although, they do feature many women of different skin tones, which very much racial equality. In addition, James' voice is the main voiceover of the entire ad, which is the voice you'll remember and associate with the product. Overall, Covergirl gets the idea. At least this company is more progressive than other cosmetic brands. They're actually trying something new and of this time. It's time for other companies to step up their game. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wS_wDhnxSmE

"Hairspray" LIVE!

   Recently, NBC debuted Hairspray Live on Wednesday, December 7th. As you may expect, there were several commercials over the last month or so advertising the musical, who it was starring, and the fact that it was live on television. Many of these announcements would give little sneak peaks of what was to be expected the day of. They also showed some familiar faces that would be starring in it, including Martin Short, Ariana Grande, Derek Hough, Jennifer Hudson, Harvey Fierstein--who starred in it previously and currently as Edna Turnblad--and many more. When holding auditions, I believe NBC wanted a combination of past, present, and future faces of acting and musical theater. For example, people like Martin Short and Harvey Fierstein are directed at the "middle-aged" generation, the past. People like Ariana Grande, Jennifer Hudson, and Derek Hough, though, are the more current faces of fame and appeal to the millennials. Lastly, stars making their television debut like Maddie Baillio and Ephraim Sykes were emphasized, trying to grab people's attention to support these up and coming stars. Overall, the plan was to grab everyone's attention; to appeal to all generations. But, in addition to TV ads and commercials, NBC used another medium to inform people and get them excited: snapchat.
    On the discover page, that all snapchat users most likely swipe to, users might have seen a live story of both stars/crew and viewers alike sharing their excitement about Hairspray Live. The stars would record themselves doing vocal warm-ups, getting ready in hair and makeup, counting down to and motivating people to watch the performance, transitioning into scenes, and more. This made viewers feel like they were truly apart of the "magic" that is live television, feel like they were actually on set with the stars, and/or were behind the scenes. On the opposite side of the spectrum, viewers would snapchat themselves watching, reacting to, or dancing/sing along with the performance, giving a more relatable tone to such a big event. The point is that NBC was trying its best to reach out to people of all ages, especially us teenagers who may not all be interested, to join in watching this live showing of Hairspray, utilizing as many media platforms as possible to get our attention. That is what I call desperation.

 

"The Persuaders"

   While watching the movie The Persuaders, I got a layout of how advertising companies do their job to speak to the public. The most interesting parts, though, were word choice, "voter profiling," "the cycle," and the fact that we are "roaches." Like I've mentioned in a previous blog, word choice is very important for any media source. Whether it's a newspaper, a campaign, a commercial, and so on, advertisers want to make their audience feel something and connect with what they're saying, or trying to evoke.
   Many mediums use words that are directed at or for certain people, while others may express an opinion that may manipulate the audience. This brings me to my next topic: "voter profiling." This phrase refers to political figures using words that adapt based on what voters want to hear, even if it's something everyone doesn't want to hear. Utilizing this technique, campaigns can easily be affected, negatively and positively, based solely on who they're trying to reach out to. This method, however, may and can lead to a splitting of a nation into "tribes," so to speak. It's amazing how one word can completely change how someone feels about a product or person in just one 30 second to a minute commercial, long speech, article, etc.
   The next topic is what I and advertisers call "the cycle." First, someone gets the impression that they must fulfill some type of need that they never knew existed. Then, they buy the product advertised, which ironically doesn't satisfy their "needs." So, they try to find a new product will supposedly "fulfill" their "need." This endless cycle can and might happen to all of us in some point in our lives. For example, my friend used to be an Apple user. However, he switched to Samsung later; I guess he just wasn't satisfied with Apple's products, prices, and/or coverage. Lastly, the most interesting and perplexing one: we are roaches. Obviously, this is a metaphor, comparing our attachment to marketing to a roaches immunity to bug spray. In today's day and age, we never realize how much our lives and our world is run by media and advertising. You can't go anywhere without running into some form of advertising. It kind of has just integrated itself and become apart our daily lives. We can't ignore it or escaper it. Advertising is everywhere! Only when we wake up and smell the roses are we going to do something about it.

Intel Ad: Michael Phelps & Jim Parsons

   So recently, I was watching Youtube and there happened to be an "unskipable" ad before the video I was about to watch. The ad was about upgrading to the latest PCs from Intel. Right off the bat, I realized that the people who made this ad were able to show it as unavoidable marketing for their product. They're trying to make sure they aren't ignored and won't be forgotten, which is pretty much like how all of today's advertising works. Anyway, as I continued watching, the first person I see pop up is none other than Olympic, 23-gold medalist Michael Phelps. He is then approached by Big Bang Theory star Jim Parsons, who has come to assist Phelps with his slow computer problem. Parsons, mocking him, mentions that he should "retire" his computer just like Phelps, who's retiring from swimming. But, the best part is the tag line: "Yet, here is the world's fastest swimmer on the world's slowest computer." That was the point! The irony of the world's fastest swimmer waiting for his old, slow computer to load.
   This ad is particularly interesting to me for a few reasons: 1) the play on words and 2) the use of specific celebrities. By using people as recognizable as Michael Phelps and Jim Parsons, the ad can immediately draw people in due to familiarity and wanting to like said celebrities. But, more importantly, this commercial uses certain word play that causes certain reactions in viewers. By connecting an old, slow PC to a retiring, yet phenomenal Olympic and medal-winning swimmer, the ad felt more light-hearted and relatable, in that it was a joke about what people "should" be doing with their old PCs, aka buying the new Intel PCs. It was both a reality check and a pun, which makes it that much more relatable and entertaining. Lastly, word play within the tag line just about seals the deal. When you see someone as fast as Phelps still using a slow, broken  down computer, some may feel like Parsons and want to buy a newer, faster PC of their own, so they don't end up as "miserable" and "annoyed" as Phelps. But even though the new PC may be the "fastest," it may not be the cheapest. How much does it cost? It's not clear from what I saw. Plus, people like Phelps and Parsons who have money to blow can actually buy these computers. But what about the rest of us? That's where this ad went wrong. They figure out who their audience should really be.

Same Topic, Two Connotations: Fox News vs. The New York Times

   These two articles about Donald Trump's speaking over the phone with the president of Taiwan really caught my solely because of the different wording of their individual titles. The article from Fox News is called "Trump Speaks With Taiwan's President, Risking China's Tensions," while The New York Times article is titled " Trump Speaks With Taiwan's Leader, an Affront to China." You can already tell which one is republican and which is democratic. I want to focus on the key phrases: "risking China's tensions" and "an affront to China." By using a word like "affront," in other words an insult, Trump's call sounds more serious, offensive, and more of a threat to relations. Yet, by rephrasing the same event that occurred as "risking China's tensions," Fox News is taking a different approach and making this sound more like a chance result or not as big of a deal as it really is. In this scenario, both news reports are using certain words that would motivate their prospective audiences, or parties in this case, to feel, believe, think, and talk about certain things from the writers' perspective on the issue or event at hand. Then, near the beginning of each article, you can see two distinct attitudes towards Trump's discussion with President Tsai Ing-wen. "President-elect Donald Trump spoke Friday with the president of Taiwan, a move that will be sure to anger China." (Fox News) The New York Times article stated, "President-elect Donald J. Trump spoke by telephone with Taiwan's president on Friday, a striking break with nearly four decades of diplomatic practice that could precipitate a major rift with China even before Mr. Trump takes office."
   Both are stating the same news, but from two entirely different angles. Compared to the Fox News article, the New York Times article makes the situation sound way more dangerous to our relations with China. Their article uses bigger, more elaborate wording that makes you see that there's something to worry about, while the other article states that this call will merely "anger" China, rather than promote a potential threat to our mutual agreements. As you can see, different newspapers and sources explain the same story in different ways to make the readers feel something, change their attitude, and/or make them believe or think something is what it's not. Media can really influence your views and beliefs just by one word, even if you don't realize it.