Advertising and Public Relations, Part #1
Thought and Reflection
The article, “From the Sacred to the Profane: A Critical Analysis of the Changing Nature of Religious Imagery in Advertising,” raises some interesting questions about the use of religion and religious imagery in advertising. Should the use of religious imagery be taboo in advertising?
Let’s begin by considering one of the author’s basic premises:
This study pulls together a body of evidence suggesting that infrequent, beguilingly innocent connections to religious subjects used in advertising in the 1950s and 1960s are gone. In the last decade, the use of religious imagery appears to be more frequent, more daring, and more controversial.
Why Religion Works?
The author offers several reasons for the increased use of religious imagery and symbolism. Here’s my summary of them:
1. Advertising has to cut through the clutter of the endless messages we see and hear each day. Getting an audience’s attention has become a challenge and advertisers are desperate.
2. Religious symbols may be as effective as using sex to sell (in fact, sex may be less effective because we are so used to it).
3. There has been a general coarsening of culture and an acceptance of what was once considered profane.
4. Appropriating religion may no longer be seen as offensive. He notes (in his explanation for this) that “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.”
5. The general secularization of religion in our culture. He writes, “there is also argument for the opening up of religious discourse in the media following the decades-long decline in the power of religious institutions and corresponding rise in personal religiosity (Roof, 1999). Perhaps we are seeing more religion in ads because secularization has turned religion into just another cultural referent in the creative idea bank.”
6. A decreasing emphasis on words and an increase in the use of visual imagery in advertising.
7. “Religion packs a powerhouse of emotion, yet another route to effective persuasion.”
Why Shock Works
According to the author. It’s all about shocking audiences to get their attention. Here’s why shock works:
Advertisers need to shock media audiences out of their complacency in a world where little shock value remains. The last taboo? Religion—religious symbols, icons, and imagery. There is much support for the role of shock in communication, as Vezina and Paul describe, “…it is strongly dependent upon transgression of a social or cultural taboo : : : with provocation more likely to occur when a substantial portion of the audience is shocked by what they have seen” (as cited in Pope, Voges, & Brown, 2004).
Shock works, as a combination of norm violation and surprise. Research by Dahl, Frankenberger, & Manchanda supported several pertinent hypotheses: (1) shock is very good at getting attention; (2) shock is better than other types of appeals in that regard; and, most important and contrary to expectation, (3) people remembered the information in the advertising and engaged in message-relevant behaviors (2003).
Some History
The author gives us a bit of history, starting with some relatively benign campaigns, one of the most famous being the Levy’s Rye Bread ads (this bread is still made and is very popular back East). One of the most famous ads featured a native American eating a sandwich made from Levy’s Rye Bread and had the headline, “You don’t have to be Jewish to love Levy’s.”
Here’s that ad:
Here’s an old TV version of a Levy’s Rye Bread ad:
Another highly recognized ad, was the Brother Dominic Xerox ads from the mid-1970s. Here’s a classic which ran during the 1976 Super Bowl:
What do you think of these ads? Do you find them offensive in any way? Shocking in any way? How do you feel at this point about the use of religion to sell product?
From a “nod and a wink” to moral outrage?
To illustrate how things have changed, the author refers us to a early-1990s Benetton ad featuring a nun and a priest kissing. The ad initially appeared as a billboard and drew a number of protests.
According to the New York Times (Oct. 19, 1991, “Benetton Ad’s Opponents Fail”), the Catholic Church called it “a particularly serious offense to Catholics” and an advertising watchdog group said it went “against generally accepted beliefs.” A court motion was filed to have the billboards removed, but the court sided with Benetton and said the ads were not “anti-Christian.”
Apparently, Benetton loves controversy. In 2011 it ran an ad, as a part of its anti-hate campaign, showing the Pope kissing an Egyptian imam. After the Vatican complained, the ad was withdrawn. I should note that this campaign also include an ad featuring Barack Obama kissing Chinese leader Hu Jintao. Go figure.
Seems nuns are popular advertising targets. Here’s a 2010 ad for the Nashville Screenwriters Conference:
From Journeys shoes:
This is true outside of the US. Here’s one from the Czech Republic (perhaps more goofy than offensive):
Today’s Blog Assignment
OK. Let’s go back to the quote from point #4 above:
“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).
This is a subject I haven't really thought a lot about. But it makes sense, religion is one of the last lines that hasn't been crossed yet.
ReplyDeleteI will have to admit that I didn't find the commercials you posted as distasteful. I think religion may have its place in advertising. But there is a line. I did some research and here's a couple of my own Nun videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEf7MoQYgzE
This one I thought was well done. It wasn't insulting and showed how a religious woman could do anything. I think this one was ok because it was using her own experiences to tell the story and share the ad. It wasn't mocking anything, she just happened to be a nun who did ironmans. The next one I found wasn't so good (watch at your own risk).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHX-4cKEQH4
This one I could see people finding upsetting and insulting. Some people see statues and images of Christ as a way to communicate with him. So taking something that is so sacred to so many people and making fun of it. That's not ok.
That is where I think I would draw the line. If you're sharing an ad and someones religion happens to be a part of it, a part of their story, I think that's ok. Religion is a defining trait in many people. However, if you take someones beliefs and make fun of what they hold sacred and go out of your way to point that out. I think it's too far. I know that this doesn't make the most sense, but that's because I think it's a very fine line between the two. So I think it would be smart to try to stay away from religion in general when making ads.
The first thing that came to my mind after the reading was the "CTR" condoms promoted by Planned Parenthood in Salt Lake City this past summer. Their main purpose in creating the condoms may not have been to make money, but it was to promote an agenda and create something that would shock both members of the church and nonmembers of the church. Many members of the church were outraged, and eventually the church even sent out a statement saying CTR is a trademark owned by the church and so Planned Parenthood never ended up handing out the "CTR" condoms. But, their efforts to "advertise" their idea and get people talking about it, just from their post on Facebook made a huge stir and got a lot of people involved. This is exactly what they were going for. The fact they tried to use a trademark illegally, I don’t agree with. But I honestly don’t have a problem with them using the idea to get promotion for their cause. I think it was creative and was very effective. And I, myself, am a Mormon and I was not personally offended. So in this regard – since it seemed fairly light-hearted and clever – I don’t think it was wrong.
ReplyDeleteNow, if an advertiser were to use something religious that would end up being extremely defamatory for that religion, I might have more of a problem with it. I think depicting Jesus Christ as anything but moral and pure would be crossing the line and largely offensive. But for someone who does not believe in Jesus Christ, they would probably feel very differently. The author in our reading said “cultural context of timing” affects what is and is not appropriate, but I don’t necessarily agree. In regards to the situation I just shared, disrespecting Jesus Christ would be inappropriate today or 200 years ago. I think percentage difference is the number of people who would be offended by it is probably less now than it may have been in past years. I think there is more offensive religious material out there today than maybe there ever has been in the past. I went looking for a few ads, but personally I felt uncomfortable with some of the stuff I ran into, so I am using the example I used above with Planned parenthood to answer the second part of the blog assignment.
I am not an advertising major so today I am not sure how much religion is used to persuade consumers in the media, however I didn’t feel anymore persuaded to buy any of the products that we watched YouTube clips for. For example, in the Levy’s Rye Bread commercial the whole commercial literally is just “You don’t have to be Jewish to love Levy’s.” Maybe I don’t know the brand well enough, but I wasn’t any more persuaded to buy the bread from their slogan. I didn’t find the commercials offensive but I just didn’t relate to the “stereotype” I guess. In relation to the author’s definition of “shock” though, I would say that the commercial could work for some people because it has a memorable slogan. I am not sure how often religious commercials were used in the 70’s but I feel like if there was just one commercial telling me to buy bread I would probably remember because it was different from the norm. I was more offended by the Xerox commercial than the bread commercial, and journey’s shoes commercial. If someone said, “You don’t have to be Mormon to love a Dirty Dr. Pepper” I would probably laugh and think that was good marketing because I understand their marketing strategy and who they are appealing too, I probably wouldn’t be offended. However, if someone was usuing the temple or something very sacred to us to sell a product, I would be offended.
ReplyDeleteI think the biggest time that an advertising or PR agency offends using religion is when they mock or offend the religion that the ad is portraying. I did some research on my own and found a link to a BuzzFeed article entitled “Shocking Religious Advertisements.” I was a lot more shocked and offended by these than I was with the commercials we viewed for class. I think I was most shocked by a billboard that had a picture of Mary (a picture that resembles what we think she looks like) holding a pregnancy test. I don’t know why but I just felt like that was kind of disrespectful—it made me uncomfortable. I think it is hard just like it was when we discussed religion in television to draw a line of what is okay and what is not okay. I think the biggest factor that plays into this is making sure that advertising to does not mock sacred religious beliefs to sell a product.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/ivanr4/witty-and-shocking-religious-advertisements-1uq3
(I didn’t look through all of these, discretion advised!!)
While watching the Levy’s Rye Bread commercial, I wasn’t offended at all by the religiosity of it however I was offended at the stereotyping that was done against the asian boy. The harmful aspect of that commercial is not the voice-over saying “you don’t have to be jewish to enjoy the bread” but what was harmful was the stereotype. I think that religious advertising has to be extra careful when as to not perpetuate harmful stereotypes or messages that are offensive. Generally speaking, I am never offended at religious advertising and I often have found myself having an affinity towards it. I feel like advertisers usually make religious commercials and advertisements amusing and laughable, lighthearted and fun. When advertisements are made in this manner, I rarely find them offensive.
ReplyDeleteA religious ad that comes to mind is the Dirt Devil exorcism ad where a woman is seemingly possessed in a giant scary house and a catholic priest comes over to perform an exorcism on her. We later find out that the woman is not possessed, she is merely being lifted from her bed by the vacuuming strength of the Dirt Devil vacuum that an old lady upstairs is using. I think this is one of the most brilliant ads I have ever seen. It doesn’t fall into the four steps of offensivenesses from the article in our reading because one, the manner in which religion is used exceptionally, not executionally; two, the cultural context of timing when the message was aired was spot on because at the time, many exorcism themed horror movies were on the market; 3, the specific religious images represented were perhaps less sacred than other religious icons. We often see priests both in media and in real life; and 4, although the images are religious, they are common in our world. Although I wasn’t offended by this because I am not Catholic, I know that it was a very successful ad around the world. Everyone knows about Catholicism and the practices of exorcism and it was comical to see that serious situation made into a lighthearted commercial that all plays into the brand’s name “Dirt Devil.”
While it is sometimes a thin line to cross between humorous and offensive, I feel like a lot of advertisers try to be offensive to gain the shock factor to their ads. I don’t find this effective and I believe it leaves a bad taste in viewer’s mouths.
I don't think religion should be able to be exploited for advertising, but I don't think it's a horrible thing if religion is referenced in a useful and respectful way. In my opinion, both of the ads (Levy bread and Xerox) were done in a relatively respectful way. Since Levy bread is a primarily Jewish product, I think it makes sense to reference Judaism. The Xerox ad was a little edgier but I don't think it crossed the line.
ReplyDeleteBesides these ads, I honestly couldn't think of any examples of religion in ads I've seen before. But in our society that is becoming less respectful of religion, I wouldn't be surprised if I started seeing more of it. But thankfully it seems that not many people are willing to cross that line at the moment, so hopefully it stays that way.
I had to look kind of hard to find an example of an ad with religious elements that I felt crossed the line. There was an ad for Doritos & Pepsi Max in 2011 called "Feed Your Flock" where some priests receive "inspiration" to use Doritos and Pepsi Max for the sacrament bread & wine, which gets a ton of people to join their congregation. Although it's not extremely offensive, it does exploit a very sacred and special religious ceremony, and it doesn't feel right that the advertisers take it so lightheartedly and are using it for humor.
Here is a link to the Doritos/Pepsi Max ad:
http://www.adweek.com/video/doritospepsi-max-feed-your-flock-120438
I don’t find these ads to be very offensive. They didn’t really include any of the 4 things, which make ads offensive. The Xerox one actually made me laugh just because it was so predictable and very unrealistic. However, that was effective advertising.
ReplyDeleteI think nuns are often used in ads because everyone has an idea of who they are and how to recognize them. People associate them as being extremely religious so putting them in any ad kind of makes them stand out. I think the line is drawn when we make fun of or use very sacred or meaningful elements of a religion within our ads. There needs to be a line when religions mix in negative ways or the elements are exposed doing inappropriate things. For example, the Angel Moroni crosses the line because an important part of our religion is being shown doing something we don’t take part in. In example of the nuns wearing sneakers, it isn’t seen as inappropriate as much as it just wouldn’t ever happen. I can’t imagine wearing sneakers is a sin for nuns; rather it’s just not part of their traditional wear. It seems a bit selfish to create attention to our product due to the embarrassment or disrespect towards a religious organization.
I don't think the advertisements were offensive. The point of advertising is to try and convince people to buy products and if religion can be appropriately to help people connect or understand the significance of a product then I think that's completely acceptable. I think a line can be drawn when the advertisements are not truthful about a religion or if it goes against the religious beliefs and practices. I don't think that all religious advertising should be banned just because it might be offensive to someone that their religion is being broadcasted, because you can't regulate something based off opinion because each opinion is unique.
ReplyDeleteSince false advertisement is illegal if a product is misrepresented, I think the same rules should apply if a religions is misrepresented. In fact I researched it a little bit more and found out that there are rules on religious advertising and it is okay as long as it does not cause social harm or deceive the public in any way. Religious advertising could actually very beneficial to both the producer and the consumer if referring to the religion helps the producer get the correct message across and if the consumer is able to identify it's use and then use the product to help solve their problems. Do depending on the target market, religious advertisements could help get the point across and make the ad more relate-able which is helpful.
I think anyone will be offended with anything. There will always be someone upset, but the general idea of advertising is not necessarily to offend but to get attention from consumers.
ReplyDeleteFor me I think the line should be drawn when sacred beliefs or rituals are violated by exposing them or distorting them. As I have said several times in previous posts, there is truth behind any stereotype but it doesn't mean that the general population of the group fits into that stereotype. People will always be offended if a particular religion or other social group they are a part of is portrayed through the stereotype. I personally don't think that it is offensive and I know that not everyone fits into certain stereotypes.
I understand how the ad with the nun kissing the priest was offensive to the Catholic church. Nuns may feel that being a nun is a sacred privilege and they will hold the values sacred. Though the ad was very ironic and very good at catching people's attention, Benetton was out of line. Think of how offended Mormons would be if there was an ad with a picture of the prophet drinking a beer. It is the same kind of issue.
I found an interesting ad that was banned that is a parody of painting by Leonardo Da Vinci, "The Last Supper." The original painting is a depiction of Christ and His disciples eating the last supper and Christ telling the disciples that one of them will betray Him. The parody of the painting was done by fashion designers who claimed that the photo was not a depiction of the Bible, it was a depiction of a painting. I thought that was super interesting that sacred religious experiences not only come from the Bible, but also depictions of the Bible story. So when the painting was turned into something different, Catholics were very offended.
http://www.artpoker.net/articles/the-last-supper
I agree with the author and with the premise that religion can be used in advertising in a way that can be very clever. The few that were included in the blog post I found the be rather funny and in good taste. I thought the Journey's one with the nun's sitting on a bench and being given "trendy" shoes was funny, while still being respectful.
ReplyDeleteI did some research like you asked, and it didn't take me long to find a website that had spent some time aggregating pretty offensive religious ads, and of course it was Buzzfeed. Here is the link to their article: https://www.buzzfeed.com/ivanr4/witty-and-shocking-religious-advertisements-1uq3
Now, I found most of these to be offensive. Especially the "God was a hard act to follow." That one made my jaw drop a bit and feel weird inside. I don't think I like when an advertiser combines religion and sex- I think that is where I draw my line. If I had been a Catholic during the time that commercial was released with a Pope and a Nun kissing I would have been offended. The role of a Pope and the role of a Nun are very sacred to them, and to sexualize their pledge to celibacy is pretty low. Imagine if some company had tried to portray President Monson in some sexual way- even innocently- Mormons wouldn't like it.
I think there is a way to use religion in advertising that sends a positive and light hearted message. I don't agree with advertisements that are meant to completely destroy religious traditions or shine light on some taboo issue. I know that isn't very specific, but I guess I just know where my line is and I would know it once I actually saw it. I feel like there is an appropriate way to use the "shock factor" in advertising and an inappropriate way. The problem in advertising though is that you can't please everyone, and so how do you know how extreme is too extreme for the majority of people? How do they normally gage that?
As long as the commercial is broadcasted with good intentions and doesn't cause social harm to the institution then I think it should be allowed. It, for some reason, it is deceitful or causes defamation in any way, then of course it should be taken down. I don't know much about the laws of advertising, but I would assume that's what they follow. Although, the "shock" factor may also work if the drop a controversial commercial, it gets a lot of negative media, and then they take it down. It may have been taken poorly, but it got a lot of news time and I imagine there will be many who will think it's funny and buy the product solely because it offended another person. Interesting how advertising works. So, I guess in some cases, crossing the line may work but in general I think it's a bad idea.
When considering topics used in advertising I would have never considered religion as a source of persuasion or point of focus to sway the audience to buy a product. It was interesting to watch the commercials listed in the reading. I wasn't personally offended by the levy commercial but I thought it was a little offensive that they showed an asian boy to demonstrate that he wasn't a jew. The Xerox commercial wasn't offensive either and according to the four ways that an ad is considered offensive it refrained from using any of them. It worked because it wasn't based on the religion aspect but of the times and how Xerox has saved so much time and effort.
ReplyDeleteWhile researching for good and bad examples, I mainly found bad ones. One in particular that I thought was so obviously offensive were posters distributed by Ad agency, Muckmouth Auckland, which displayed the headline, "Religion is Garbage." One poster displayed the prophet Muhammad holding a bomb and stating, "Tick-tock Muhammad." These posters were so disrespectful to numerous religions from depictions of the Pope in jail to Christ with X's over his eyes and his tongue out. These were so blatantly disrespectful and clear about its message that it was hard not to be offended.
Another campaign that was really interesting to me was one that depicted Christ with tattoos. My first response was immediately shock and disapproval. This campaign was led by evangelicals on the website, Jesustattoo.org. The most interesting was the difference in my perspective of the campaign from the billboard image vs. the video on the website. In the video, customers come in and Christ transforms their negative tattoos into positive ones. Then at the end of the day, Christ removes his shirt displaying his body covered in the negative tattoos covered by his customers. Although I don't think Christ displayed in tattoos is appropriate, it posed such a deep and meaningful concept that related to people in today's day in age. The concept that, "No matter what you've been marked with, faith in Him and love for others will transform us." Here is the link to the website: http://jesustattoo.org
I feel like religion that is used to promote religion works. Religion that is used in ads for more secular promotion for the most part aren't very successful. It presents a lot of awkward and uncomfortable situations that detracts viewers from the product or brand. Although there are ways religion can be used like the Xerox commercial. I feel like the four ways that an ad can be offensive is an accurate guide to where the line is.
I'm not very familiar with this blog post. I have never thought about the media using religion to promote something. I mean, I have but not to this extent. But, at the same time, I don't find these ads to be offensive because you know that the people who created them were being stupid to make a dumb point. I could see how the nun kissing the priest could be offensive though because a nun is such a sacred responsibility for these women. I'm a News Media major and so I don't have a lot of experience paying close attention to ads on the media as Advertising students might, but because I am involved with the media proves that I have some experience with ads because they are everywhere. I haven't seen many ads like what we are talking about. I did do my own little research though and I found this stupid ad from PETA. But it said, "Lamb of God, Choose Life! Go Vegetarian." I don't agree with this ad because these PETA people are crazy, but there is an example.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things I really took from these commercials was that the content and the humor that was being brought across would appeal to some abstraction of the religion or of a stereotype, but it was never clear that they were meant to be funny because of that stereotype. The Super Bowl Ad about a monk getting his copies Xeroxed could have been funny simply for the thought that it offers of a guy in a work environment going to an outside source to expedite his work process so that he could be a bit lazier. Sure, the viewer has the ability to recognize that the commercial was a reference to the meticulous copying practices of early monks, but without that prior knowledge all the audience might see is a guy in a robe trying to make his work load easier. Likewise, the Czech IBM commercial with the nuns was a funny one because the audience brings in its own speculation on what life as a nun is actually like. We don't expressly know and the commercials of these nature offer a humanizing speculation to a religious order that many people only hold stereotypes of. In fact, these commercials may even be humorously bucking the set stereotypes of nuns and monks as too-pious for the comforts that the uninitiated believe only apply to them. Sure, the base of their humor is to poke fun at these groups, but in the end we see that they are deconstructing and invalidating a stereotype.
ReplyDeleteI honestly don't think I can say where to draw the line. I didn't personally see much problem with the Rye bread commercial, and only recognize that it might be distasteful to make religious assumptions about a person based on their apparent race. That being said, I think an effective litmus test for an ad that uses a religious connotation may be to talk to the people acting it out. I'm not sure what the specific social limitations are on nuns, but if one could ask a members of the catholic church to depict the nun and make the judgement call to go forward with the script of the commercial, based on their reaction to the request and their willingness to be a part of it, I think that could be very telling of where the reaction might be for a commercial. It's obviously not a perfect answer, but I think if an advertiser were to be able to say that they ran the commercial by adherents of the faith that they are depicting (even loosely) then they might build up some resistance to tasteless advertising decisions.
It's hard for me to judge based on the commercials I saw what would be considered offensive or not. Most commercials, including the ones I found on my own, made fun of the Jewish or Catholic faiths. I, as a Mormon, am used to television and movies portraying my religion in a humorous way and am not offended by it. It makes me laugh and we do it to ourselves a lot of the time. So I would think that members of other faiths would often see it the way I do. It is funny and inaccurate, but I'm not offended by it. So i'm guessing that if I was a member of the Catholic faith and saw these commercials, I would laugh it off.
ReplyDeleteI feel like the reason that nuns are used so often is because almost everyone has a perspective and a stereotype of a nun that is similar to the rest of the world. Very devout, strict on their beliefs, dedicated to their work. So they are easy to use in advertising because a lot of people see them the same way. Also, since they do have such strong beliefs, the "shock factor" is easy to use on nuns, because of their practices. If you change something about a nun, it is noticeable. I watched a separate commercial about a Gay Conference. They used nuns looking at other women to advertise about it. It is something you'd never guess, so it shocks you when you watch it.
I personally, don't know where the line is with religion and advertising, because I'm not easily offended. I feel like it has gone so far already with what we have on tv today. I think it might be when the ad places a flat-out negative judgement or opinion on a religion. I'd hate to see an advertising agency that would try to bring down a religion with their ad. It's hard to say where the line is, also, because everyone has different levels of sensitivity. To some, the line may have already been crossed.
I think there is definitely a line with when it is ok to use religion in advertising and when it isn't. In my opinion, the ads making fun of nuns were pretty tasteless, because I didn't see the humor in them anyway, so the whole point was completely moot in my mind and could've been addressed in a much more creative and appropriate way. However, the one for xerox was stellar, because it wasn't disrespectful towards religion in any way. Rather, it illustrated how innovative Xerox was by showing how helpful it would've been in historical times, choosing to use a religious setting to illustrate it. I think that is the tasteful and appropriate way to bring religion into advertising because it isn't crude or belittling, and any misrepresentation of the religion is simply to prove a point, one that is very obvious to the audience.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the Angel Moroni being used to sell coffee, or CTR used to promote condoms, I do find those mildly offensive. I don't really care what those companies want to do, but I think it's distasteful because it's a misrepresentation in something that our religion is actually against. Monks are not against Xerox machines, historically they just didn't have access to them, so they had to write everything by hand. This just showed how much easier that aspect of their life would've been had they had Xerox machines. If someone used Mormon story to sell airline tickets from New York to Utah, or any of the historic mormon sites in between, that would be funny and tasteful, because had the early saints had access to airplanes, that definitely would've made things easier.
I'm not sure the line is very easy to define in words, but in my mind, you can see when it's been crossed, because you start feeling distrust toward the agency or team that pitched that ad, like they are choosing to misrepresent a group of people in hopes of selling a product. Real advertising shouldn't need to rely on distasteful representations to build brands and generate sales, the messaging and creative should be able to do it in a way that leaves (almost) everyone content (even if they dislike the ad or product).
I was so surprised to hear that statistics show sex is less effective than religious symbols to sell. This is something I’ve been thinking a lot about lately is how desensitized we are to sexually explicit content. I find it especially with music. I’ll find myself listening to the radio and then I actually listen to the words I’m hearing and I feel uncomfortable. My family used to have a rule that if my siblings wanted a certain radio station my mom would explain the lyrics of the songs to my siblings.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first started reading the blog I felt offended hearing about religion was being used as a selling point. Then watching he ads I found them funny and entertaining and all in good fun. If I were in this situation I could see myself thinking of similar ads. But the question is, where does it become inappropriate and offensive? Will that line ever be drawn?
I don’t think there is a line. I think we will always set a line just to be desensitized and push it back further.
https://www.asa.org.uk/News-resources/Media-Centre/2015/Advertising-and-religion-Avoiding-offence.aspx#.WCFp1hIrK-o
I found this article about how is appropriate. It tells advertisers to “use common sense”.
I found another list of offensive ads and I had it in here as an example of what is crossing the line. I went through and looked at the other ones and deleted to article because it was too bad. I felt sick after just looking at them.
After I viewed the clips of religious advertisements, my first reaction was that I was a bit confused. I don’t know if I was shocked or offended; I was just more surprised that such tactics work. However, I felt that I was proven wrong after I read this quote in the reading, “Religious symbols may be as effective as using sex to sell (in fact, sex may be less effective because we are so used to it).” That really hit me. It’s true, religious is more taboo, even over the topic of sexuality. That’s interesting to see how people are so gravitated towards something that is unknown or less likely to be talked about.
ReplyDeleteIn the commercial with the bread, I think it’s not the scandal of something unknown, but that it was such a different culture. I think this commercial could be considered offensive for its time, but for today, it would just be a statement of fact. For today’s standards, everything has to be eye catching. Often, this results in making fun or exposing religion in a way that is sac-religion and disrespectful. Maybe this is too idealistic, but I try to think, “Would I tag my friend, who is of this faith, to this commercial?” I think if the answer is no, it shows how inconsiderate the commercial actually is.
In all honesty, I think advertisements that include any religious jesters are almost always disrespectful. It’s because it’s only to sell you on the idea of the product—nothing more. It’s just using religion. That’s where I see the wrong in most commercials. Although I wasn’t able to find specifics on commercials that include religion undertones, I found a commercial during the super bowl that was interesting. It’s by Coke. During the ad, it shows all different faiths and people. That’s great. I just don’t like the agenda. It’s only for Coke’s glory so that they get higher ratings. That’s just one example of how I feel about religion in ads. But, I’m sure there a lots of positives! That’s just what stuck out to me.
Watching ads that employ religious imagery was very interesting. I actually really enjoyed the Xerox ad and thought it was very clever. It didn’t attack or demean any facet of the Catholic religion but instead played on history. Other ads, like the one with the priest and the nun brandishing guns, could be offensive to some. In my opinion, advertisers using superficial elements of religion is okay, like the Xerox ad using the stereotypical medieval monk to promote their product. If an ad used a stereotypical missionary companionship, I would probably enjoy it. However, I think that advertisements become offensive when they use deeply sacred religious elements. For example, if an ad were to use LDS garments in any way, I would be seriously offended. Moreover, when I read about the Benetton ad, I imagined what it would be like if one of our General Authorities were used in such an ad. I think that I would be offended by that as well.
ReplyDeleteAs I was researching ads that played on religion, I found that I was more offended than I thought I would be. Many ads used the images and themes of the cross, divinity, Mary and her miraculous conception to promote a product, person, or service. I reaffirmed my above conclusion that advertisers are fine to use superficial religious elements to advertise, but using sacred imagery or topics quickly becomes offensive.
Haha. I liked the Journey ad with the nuns. Not sure how well it ended up doing. But I didn't find it offensive. If anything, these ads, people protesting against the church, or "brighams brewery" or the book of Mormon play, only gives more publicity to the church or any religion, in that it causes people to ask questions. I agree with a couple of the previous posts, in that it is totally acceptable, as long as it is truthful and authentic, not personally attacking/distorting the doctrine.
ReplyDeleteIn one way or another, everyone is "religious" meaning that the believe in something. Whether they call that religion, morals, values, people, music, etc. Thus, for the most part, we are poking fun at humanity (our selves) in these ads. I think it is free game, as far as the line of direct or indirect attacking isn't made (attacking/defaming, being the purpose or message), rather than simply using something common to relate with a wide audience.
Like many of the other students said -- the earlier ads that refered to the jewish bread and the monk making the copies didn't seem too ofensive. I do not feel like this advertising has crossed any major lines. But I would have to say that advertising in general has continued to push the limits on what is sacred.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with the author when he says that "Shock works, as a combination of norm violation and surprise." The industry has continued to try to push the limits in order to grab attnetion. This has certianly been done as advertisers have used religious themes to communicate messages.
The link I am including below this paragraph is a good example of this. Although there is nothing in this Ad that is blatantly explicit -- it implies that the user of the product will be like God if he does. This representation of God is sacreligous and has crossed the line in my opinion.
While it has crossed the line, I am unsure if such things sould be regulated by the law. I am of the opinion that agencies should avoid such material by nature but to regulate it is another question.
http://www.advertolog.com/focus/religion-in-advertising/8928855/
I feel like the line is when religion is used to draw attention and controversy.
How something positively or negatively effects someone else can be extremely variable. Taking offense can often require someone to have a personal connection to the media presented. Specifically about religion as discussed in the article, what determines how offensive something presents itself as has to do with the actual symbols used and the context in which they’re used.
ReplyDeleteAs I expected, the commercials mentioned in the article don’t offend me personally. The symbols and religious references don’t attack my religion or personal beliefs, so my natural reaction was not to be offended. However, I’ve tried to put myself in the position of being a Catholic or Jew and I do see how it would affect them to a greater degree. However, these commercials definitely seem more mild and made for entertainment. Because nuns are a very well known figure in society, I imagine advertisers don’t necessarily target them because of their religious affiliation, but their commonality with society.
I’ve thought about where the line is in relation to religious figures in advertising. No matter what the religion, race, gender, or other identifying characteristic is represented in the media, someone is bound to get offended. I believe that as long as something is not profane, crude, or violent in nature, we should be able to poke fun at each other. As discussed in other blog posts, I definitely think that the consequences for creating conflict with say, Islam, is something that although not prohibited, could create dire consequences for the advertiser themselves.