"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.

My Love-Hate Relationship With Media

My relationship with media of all sorts is quite complicated, like most human relationships. Sometimes social media and media as a whole can be very helpful and dependable. For example, if I want to find out the latest news from CNN or Daily News, I can access this either from snapchat via the live discovery stories on snapchat or "News" app by just one click of a button. Or if I watching videos on Youtube and it just so happens that there is an add about a sale going on at my favorite department store, media and advertising come in handy. However, like some boyfriends/girlfriends, media can be very clingy, in a way. Wherever you go, media will follow. It will update or change itself based on your standards and/or likes and dislikes. Media will always find ways to be with you, appeal to you, and mooch money off of you. Within my complex relationship, I try to avoid advertising alone as much as I can, if even possible. Like when I'm watching TV, listening to the radio, watching videos, and so, I try to change channels or find ways to avoid ads and commercials. Then, there's those channels or commercials that publicize, sponsor, or display one product 24/7. You know those commercials for the Nutri Ninja Blender or other useless, overpriced products for the little things that can be done with what you already have. These are the ones I stray away from the most. Some families were raised in homes where they would see these commercials, call the number on the screen, and order the product for "3 easy payments of $19.99." I, thankfully, was not raised that way. However, having said all of this, I do enjoy social media. It can be a stress-reliever, a distraction, publicity, or entertainment, depending on the situation. For example, every day when I walk to school and walk home, I check Snapchat, for stories and my "streaks," and Instagram, the two apps I use most frequently. Then, when I'm finished, I continue and finish my walk off listening to Spotify. In the scenario, social media is both a unsafe, unhealthy distraction and a stress-reliever. But that's not where it ends. When I get home, in between homework assignments, and after I finish my homework, I watch either Youtube or Netflix to end my night. From my perspective, this a nice way to just not think and get away from school and life for a bit. I know this is all really complicated. But I think I know when I can relax and when media is too much. I'm just doing what I want with what I'm given.