Please read "Advertising and PR."
Let’s go back to the quote from point #4 from the reading assignment:
Let’s go back to the quote from point #4 from the reading assignment:
“Offensiveness arises from (1) the manner in which religion is used executionally; (2) the cultural context of timing, that is, when the messages ran or aired; (3) the specific religious images, icons, or representatives used; and (4) whether those images are indeed religious (derived from an established religion), or merely ‘spiritual’ in nature.”
Let’s try and define the idea of “offensiveness” here. Where do we draw the line on the use of religious imagery in advertising? What is acceptable? Note that the author even mentions a recent local campaign that affected the LDS Church. A Taylorsville coffee shop used the symbol of the Angel Moroni to promote it product (it printed T-shirts showing coffee flowing into his trumpet). Where is the line? I want you to think deeply about this. I would like you to attempt to respond to these questions.
Finally, I’d like you to do a little research on your own (on line) to find other examples that would either illustrate ads that are OK or are not OK, in your opinion (and explain why).
Finally, I’d like you to do a little research on your own (on line) to find other examples that would either illustrate ads that are OK or are not OK, in your opinion (and explain why).
**I couldn't post on the other page, so I'm posting here!
ReplyDeleteThe first thing I thought about was a coffee shop in Salt Lake called “Jack Mormon” coffee shop. I think there is also a brewing company called Jack Mormon Brewing Co. In addition, there are many beers, especially in Utah, that poke fun at Mormon culture and history. There is Polygamy Porter, Provo Girl, Outer Darkness, Unfaithful, Jack Mormon Sour Monk, and a few others. I am not offended by any of these beer labels or companies, because they are used to attract a certain target market and achieve their goal – sell more product. All advertisements, religious or not, are trying to target a certain demographic and make an impact. The company can do so any way they choose, but run the risk of tarnishing their own personal reputation for anything that is overly offensive. In other words, there is an automatic check in place – the sentiment of their target market. If the ad is overly offensive it will likely not sell much product, but if the ad is funny or strikes a chord with the target audience, then it will likely not have been too offensive. Anything extremely offensive will not do well in the markets because it is just too risky to put out there.
The second and third ads in this video compilation here, I feel were properly used. (Careful, some ads in this video are risqué) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1K5ILXpmeE0&app=desktop. They were funny without being too critical of church or religion. One counter-argument though is that maybe I thought they were funny because I’m not Jewish. The first made light of reciting the Torah for the first time, and the second made light of Ramadan and having to fast. I personally thought both were funny and effective, but someone that is Jewish might have a different take on it. For someone who doesn’t belong to any religion, ALL religious ads are probably funny because they make fun of all the different quarks of each religion.
I am definitely sensitive to religious symbols that are used in advertising to sell more product. However, I definitely feel that freedom of speech is important. If we want to worship any way we would like, I think we should be willing to let our religious imagery be used. If we don't like the way it's used, I think that boycotting or protesting is ok, but these companies should have the right nonetheless. Although Carl's Jr.'s ads are not offensive because of religion, they are sexually explicit and have been protested by many. For me that seems like the reasonable route to stopping or discouraging bad taste advertising.
ReplyDeleteIn doing my own research, I found an ad for Federichi chocolate where a nun is eating chocolate ice cream with a tagline that says, "immaculately conceived." Although I am not Catholic, I imagine this could be very offensive, especially when speaking of something very sacred. However, I feel that ads like this are pretty much self-defeating without the need of protest, since they overshadow the brand and create controversy. Like I stated before, protest of these type of ads would be fine, but outlawing them could lead to further problems. Branding like that will lead to damage to the company in the long run, I would speculate.
Although it is difficult to determine boundaries in using religion in advertising, I think the 4th point with in the 4th point you gave us could be where you draw the line. I agree that religion can be a great way to sell. In advertising you only have a few seconds, or a few words, to catch someone’s attention, and when you use a subject that many people understand the context of, you increase your potential impact on the viewer. However, while I see the validity in using religion in media communication, I don’t believe any religion should ever be defamed.
ReplyDeleteI think that its ok to use aspects of religion that don’t hold to much sacred value, as long as they are used respectively. I googled “religious advertising” and the images that came were mainly produced by religions and trying to sell religion. I then changed my search to “advertising using religion” and the images were opposite. It seemed that none of the uses of religion were meant to build or emphasis the positive aspects of the religious messages, but they were all in opposition. Within those advertising messages I think that there is another line we must draw. To use the example from the reading, I don’t agree with a coffee shop using the angel Moroni to promote their business. The LDS faith doesn’t drink coffee and everyone in their Utah market knows that, so their actions are clearly trying to oppose the Mormon faith. However, that is their choice and I wouldn’t stop them. In this case, I don’t think they crossed the line into the sacred aspects of our religion—they were close seeing as the angel sits atop our most sacred building—but they didn’t attack our actual doctrine we deem sacred.
It’s difficult for me to discuss this topic because I don’t know much about the use of religion in advertising, i.e. I haven’t had much personal experience with it. What I can say, however, is that modern-day advertising companies are much more conscious of cultural, social, and religious boundaries than they were in the past. For example, I found the Levy’s Rye Bread commercial featuring the young Japanese boy very offensive – it’s using a person’s physical appearance to categorize them as distinctively “non-Jewish,” which is essentially racial stereotyping. This type of advertising doesn’t just present religion-related problems, either. Until pretty recently, advertisers used racism and sexism to get their message across, too. It made sense as to why this was the method of choice – only within the last 20 or 30 years has media taken a step in the right direction when it comes to being racially, sexually, culturally and religiously conscious, and has begun avoiding the use of these things to create “edgy” advertisements. Personally, since I’m not very familiar with older advertising ploys (other than knowing that they were significantly more racist, sexist, and played off stereotypes), I think newer advertising campaigns have a tendency to take into account what all audiences may find offensive before launching something potentially hurtful.
ReplyDeleteThis isn’t always the case, though. Like in the reading, “shock works, as a combination of norm violation and surprise.” Shock has always been a huge thing in advertising, but as more and more inherently “shocking” things become acceptable in today’s media, it’s hard to find something that will draw the eye to an advertisement. One thing that came to mind is an ad I saw on some silly Buzzfeed post about controversial advertisements – it’s a series of ads for gelato, surprisingly, that depict priests and nuns doing things against their faith (there’s a link below). Even though I’m not Catholic I find this offensive, since the advertisers took shock value over respecting a religion and culture. It makes me think, was there anyone, at any point during the creation of these ads, that though this might be a bad idea? I think it’s just important to be sexually, religiously, racially, socially, and culturally literate/conscious when creating advertising. There are plenty of ways to get people’s attention without offending an entire belief system.
Here’s a link to two of the most shocking gelato ads: http://heartstrace.weebly.com/uploads/4/3/0/2/43021109/4501222_orig.jpg
It has always fascinated me about how many businesses use religious topics in their advertising. This concept is especially displayed across the Utah Valley with the Mormon culture. In the blog entry, I found it interesting when it said, "the use of religious imagery appears to be more frequent, more daring, and more controversial." Why is there such an emphasis on this usage of religion becoming more frequent in society? Why is it becoming more daring and controversial? How do people use their religion to market their business? I guess that this advertising could go both ways and not just on the negative side. There is a small Mexican food restaurant in Salt Lake City. In the window, a sign hangs that reads, "The Prophet Monson eats here!" Is this an appropriate promotion strategy? They are not trying to be rude or controversial, but yet they are advertising their business based off of a major religious leader. People find humor in controversial advertising. This humor can be shared throughout social media and draws much more attention than a normal ad would. The shock factor causes individuals to remember the promotion. I think that there is a thin line of what is appropriate and not appropriate. This line is different for everyone, but sometimes crossing the line will end of benefitting their business.
ReplyDelete