4/6: The Changing Face Of Video Games

Recognize this game? Yes? No? Maybe you do, because we're pretty much the generation who have lived through the very end of the '90s only to be immersed into the age of technology. (By the way, the game is Pong!). I'm pretty sure if you asked a younger child, maybe 10 or 11, they wouldn't know. What would they know? They'd know the new X-Box 360, PS3, and Wii games. Also, I'm sure they'd find it boring. Games now have gotten far more exciting, with fighting, exploration, sports competition; with this new and wide variety of games, the whole sitting in front of the screen time has increased far more. You hear about kids playing the newest Modern Warfare game for hours on end for days until they reach the coveted 70th level. 70 levels.


What about those beneficial games, such as Wii Fit or BrainAge? They make it easier for the modern person to maintain their physical and mental health, no? Well, yes and no. It does help to a certain extent, but I don't think it should completely replace other types of stimulating activity. Instead of playing Word Scramble, why not play Scrabble? It takes more thought to create words that share letters and then you need to count your points up as well. Also, Wii Fit's jogging game has easily replace actual jogging for many people, so they can't get the fresh air they should be getting (unless, of course, they live in a very urban place that is dangerous and has very bad air quality).

So to answer the question given on the course blog, I do think video games have evolved into something more. They've become this huge part of people's lives, with them spending hours on end playing them. They've replaced exercising outdoors or reading a book. It's like they've provided this whole other virtual life for humans. And I do not feel it's a good thing.

3/6: Social Awareness Contradiction

Hey, girls! Look! An ad campaign not telling us to be thin! I think the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty is a good thing. At first, one might be thinking, "Wait a minute, doesn't Dove sell beauty products? Wouldn't that be a bit hypocritical?" But the thing is, Dove really sells care products. Products that just help us take care of what we have and who we already are. It isn't pressuring us to drop 10 pounds or cover our "real beauty" with the latest winter colours. In ads everywhere, we see models who are probably near size 0's who have glamorous hair and make-up. But in the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty ads, we see real women with their real beauty.


To the right, we see a beautiful model with the classic "smoky eyes" and a high-fashion up-do. Ask any woman on the street, or even just look out on the street, how many women do you see how look like that? Females get pressured into looking this certain way, so that those who achieve it feel some kind of exclusive beauty. The thing is though, most women already have a different kind of beauty, almost the same way a flower can look pretty without having to airbrush it (perhaps that was a bad example, but you get the point, right?).
Basically, I'm just glad someone high up in the media advertising hierarchy is realizing that it's time to stop asking women to be who they're not and to remind them that they're already beautiful.

Now for a not-so-great campaign. The Axe body deodorant brand has always played situations to make women seem helpless to their products' effects. They always make men seem like women just can't resist them because of the spray. In the Axe Effect campaign, the guy is on some remote island and of course, hundreds of bikini-clad women are stampeding and swimming oceans to get to him. Something I noticed at the end of the commercial were the words "Spray more, get more" and that reminded me of this next commercial, an older campaign for the Click spray.



At first, I honestly couldn't tell what the commercial was about because I didn't see Affleck use any products really. But the whole underlying message of all these Axe campaigns are that they're sprays and such will make countless numbers of women desire them, again objectifying them. Sure, there is some ironic humour in the Click ad because the actor got 1000 flirts less thant he dorky-looking guy, but it's almost like encouraging guys to just count women off as flirts, or just count them for their attractiveness.

So do I think the parent company should have responsibility in what the branches are preaching? Yes. It's just a plain contradiction. That's all I can say really. To be a company people can believe, you need to have constant standards.

2/6: Ads Of The Past

The ads shown in the course blog may seem absurd, but advertising isn't exactly perfect today either.

The first image shown advertises tape worms to make you lose weight without eating less. Tape worms. The thought of it probably makes a few of us a bit queasy. Why would this be allowed to run? They mention that fat is shortening our lives, so there's the medical/health aspect to it. People have always been conscious about their weight and appearances, so the ad makes tape worms look like a safe and logical solution. The ad portrays a woman choosing from a large variety of tape worms, prepared in different ways. In America today, back then, and everywhere, women have always been more directly pressured to look a certain way. However, the idea of tape worms itself is still in people's minds today. On an episode of The Tyra Show, there was a guest who sold tape worms for the exact same reason. People may suggest that the product is simply for health reasons, but it is implied that you should be skinny for aesthetic reasons.



Again, in the second ad, women seem like an easy target. Though the advertisers are appealing to men to buy their cigarettes, they're saying that women are easy to seduce. A mere puff of smoke will make her follow you anywhere. It's degrading to women, and makes men seem arrogant. This ad doesn't even cover the health risks one can get from smoking.

The ads showing a "doctor" smoking a Camels brand cigarette and the one showing the "happy" family (from eating lard) are bordering hypocritical. I say bordering because I can't make out the fine print and it may be trying to explain that it is less harmful than other brands. However, that doesn't really make up for the fact that they're trying to make smoking appear like a healthy habit. No matter what, the effects of smoking are harmful to your body, and the same thing goes for the lard. Lard is fat. People already take drastic measures to meet the media's image of the ideal women, but to eat lard? People say eating does cheer them up if they're having a bad day, but to eat the fat as is? Doctor's today wouldn't even suggest that to feel happy.


Women have always seemed like an easy way to sell products. Whether it's by selling their bodies or by stereotyping them, there has always seemed to be a major prejudice. For example, the ad to the left completely says that men shouldn't have to cook because that's what the wives are for. The ad at the very bottom is supposed to be advertising a radio station, but all that's really seen is the back of a girl wearing a tank top and underwear. When you think of radio stations, that's not what most people have come to mind. The last ad I have here shows Brad Pitt wearing a watch. The company is using their endorsement to sell the product and are appealing to women who find him attractive.

Advertisements today may not seem as stupid or blunt as they may have back then, but they aren't perfect either. Advertisers play on stereotypes and objectifying people to sell their products. Sadly enough, it works.