You Had Me At Kerouac: Response to Readings

I’ve been contemplating buying a pair of Nike Frees since they hit shelves. I don’t exactly know the dynamics of how they work, but since there is a relaxed sole the shoe helps build balance and leg muscle while walking – two vital things any athlete needs. The problem with them (being as I am fashion conscious) is that they’re a shoe predominantly for the gym. You’d look somewhat ridiculous wearing them to the bar, beach, or even on your friend’s patio in summer heat.In a recent ad I glanced at in Surfer magazine there were a pair of shoes boasting the same dynamics as the Free but in an ultra cool relaxed way that you could easily pull off wearing regardless of circumstance. They were aptly titled The Kerouac (after famous beat generation writer Jack Kerouac) and made by Sanuk Shoe Company.

I was immediately sold and have scoured skate/snowboard shops for them ever since with no success. When I read Christina Harold’s article “Pranking Rhetoric: ‘Culture Jamming’ as Media Activism” I immediately realized how easily I was sold off on a pair of shoes with a clever name.

Harold writes, “The Gap's infamous appropriation of the likenesses of counter-culture heroes Jack Kerouac and James Dean to sell khaki pants inspired a similar response from the adbusting community. To the Gap's claim that "Kerouac wore khakis," a group of Australian subvertisers responded with the likeness of another 20th century icon who wore khakis as well - Adolf Hitler. As such, Gap khakis were recoded as a means not to rugged individuality but genocidal totalitarianism - the conformist impulse writ large.” (Harold)

Once again as a consumer I have sold myself short just because an admired writer has had a shoe named after him that has absolutely nothing to do with him. I’m not familiar with the ad campaign that Harold writes of, and I’ve always worn khakis, but I would probably be tempted to pick up another pair now knowing film legend James Dean and writer extraordinaire Jack Kerouac wore them. The sad thing about Harold’s article and the Aussie subvertising campaign launched to ridicule khaki wearers everywhere by stating Hitler wore them too is that I just don’t care. I’m sure 95% of consumers don’t care… in fact; when I read that Hitler famously wore khakis I thought to myself, “Hitler was responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews, but at least he looked good doing it.” The same applies for the Kerouac shoe I’m so hard pressed to find. They’re probably manufactured in sweat shops in Thailand for all I know, but the fact remains for me and other consumers that they exist and are there to be bought.

The same applies to ad campaigns to counter smoking. I have smoked off and on since grade 8, and the first time I picked up a cigarette was because I wanted to be the rebel. I’d read a bit of Hemingway, everyone was always smoking, I’d seen a few James Dean movies, and I wanted to be a trailblazer just like them and become the first kid in class to smoke. You will also notice the Jack Kerouac picture at the top of the page depicts him smoking a cigarette as he contemplates something deep. As Harold states, “Smoking is what distinguishes you from the pack. It is what makes you a rebel.” (Harold) The desire to be the individual is what drives everyone in consumerism and that drive will always be there, there is no changing it. I’d seen antismoking ads prior to my first cigarette, I knew the risks, but I also knew while every other kid was eating their dunkaroos and salami sandwiches they’d say, “Guys check it out… Pritchard’s over behind the portables hacking down a dart. Whoa, he’s bad ass. I wanna be bad ass too. Let’s start smoking.”

In conclusion, while some may be swayed by pranking rhetoric and subvertising, the general public and consumer population is not so easily affected. I’ll still be buying my Kerouac’s regardless of how they’re made just because of a clever title. I still smoke from time to time no matter how many times I’ve visited stupid.ca or seen one of their ads. The desire for individuality just won’t be crushed by an ad campaign. Consumers are much more easily won over than anti campaigners may realize. Needless to say, if anti campaigners win over the few then good for them, some is better than none. I just hope I don’t get an anti-campaign launched against me when my Hemingway hiking boots with a lighter and bottle opener and corkscrew in the sole launch next fall.

Works Cited

Harold, Christine. "Pranking Rhetoric: 'Culture Jamming' as Media Activism." http://www.informaworld.com.cerberus.lib.uoguelph.ca/smpp/section?content=a713696057&fulltext=713240928 September 2004

Sex and Consumerism: Response to Readings

Heath and Potter’s article was quite informative to me and I really enjoyed Monday’s presentation on the article. I think it resonated so much with me because of the filmic referencing of Fight Club and American Beauty, and more importantly, because of the four tenets of capitalism/consumerism, particularly the third one.

Heath and Potter’s third tenet of capitalism/consumerism is as follows: “Capitalism requires sexual repression. In its drive to stamp out individuality, capitalism denies the full range of human expression, which includes sexual freedom. Because sexuality is erratic and unpredictable, it is a threat to the established order. This is why some people thought the sexual revolution would undermine capitalism.” (Heath & Potter) Although this statement is quite true in its analysis, I think that capitalism attempts to stamp out individuality by means of promoting individuality – which then sets a double standard. For example, consider the hundreds of ads for weight loss products, acne medications, axe deodorant spray, or anything else that has to do with making us as consumers most desirable in the bedroom. The good majority of these advertisements are aimed at the average Joe/Jane and promise to transform them into the few/the elite/ best in show by clearing up acne, shedding that belly fat, making you smell good, etc.

Heath and Potter also reference Naomi Klein’s No Logo and state: “Unfortunately for Klein, zoning changes in Toronto (changes that were part of a very enlightened and successful strategy to slow urban sprawl) allowed yuppies to buy their way into her neighbourhood. This led to an erosion of her social status.” (Heath and Potter) This illustrates my point brilliantly; due to the fact that the average people started buying into Klein’s neighbourhood, it abolished all interest in it because it became the norm instead of promoting Klein’s individuality.

This whole third tenet provides a bit of a double standard, consider the scene in Old School where Will Ferrell and his new wife talk about their sexual fears with a psychiatrist. Frank (Ferrell) says the other day he found himself looking at the waitress serving him and wondering what kind of panties she was wearing, “Chances are they’re just plain cotton panties. But maybe they’re silk. Maybe it’s a thong… maybe it’s something so cool I’ve never heard of it” (Old School) In the drive to stamp out individuality (the plain cotton panties), the consumer society has provided us with a wide range of alternatives: thongs, crotchless panties, g strings, etc. Does this not then mean more alternatives = more individuality? And does society not deem that individuality is sexy in modern society? By this example, it seems that Frank is more interested in the waitress if she is wearing something ‘so cool he hasn’t heard of it’, instead of the norm. Therefore we can conclude that in the drive to eliminate individuality and repress sexual desires, consumerism sets a double standard that reinforces both consumerism and individuality.

Works Cited

Heath and Potter - "The Rebel Sell"
http://www.thismagazine.ca/issues/2002/11/rebelsell.php

Old School. Dir. Todd Phillips. Perf. Will Ferrell, Luke Wilson, Vince Vaughan.

Comics or Graphic Novels? Response to Class Discussion/ Readings

While listening to tonight’s class presentation on fake news and reading a graphic novel, “Persepolis” by Marjane Satrapi, I was able to draw a pretty clear parallel between the world of fake news and the graphic novel.

Having grown up reading comics, I’ve always held them in high regard as a way to communicate with an audience. I also respect the fake news because being in the demographic that fake news is targeted to it goes without saying that I am a consumer.

The Jeffrey Jones article states, “I argue that even though The Daily Show is a fake news show, its faux journalistic style allows the show’s writers and host to question, dispel, and critique the manipulative language and symbolizations coming from the presidential campaign while simultaneously opening up deeper truths about politics than that offered by the “objective” reporting of mainstream journalism” (Jones). As a consumer of fake news, I feel that this analysis is bang on. There is something about the black ties, suits and mahogany desks that alienate our generation from coming away from a CNN newscast with the vital information. With fake news, since it entertains us and catches our attention quickly, we are more likely to engage with it.

I felt this relates to my opinion on the graphic novel. Since people today are in such a rush, reading a full length novel is a hassle to most. However, since graphic novels advance reading through cutting description because images are displayed, it is quite time efficient. My view is that with an increased stress on time, the next generation will grow up reading more and more graphic novels. It seems to me that comics may not be just a children’s vice anymore, but a much more concise and clearer way of conveying things to the audience.

My other point regarding the graphic novel is that it captures an audience’s attention immediately with its illustrations. The illustrations seem to make reading more enjoyable and give reader’s something to look at while they read so it isn’t just word after word with entirely mental pictures. “Persepolis” is a novel about the Iranian revolution and a young woman’s childhood and transition to adulthood. To some, this may be boring if they had to read dates and facts about the revolution, however the images entice me as a reader and draw me in. Take a look at the images above… would you rather read a historical text about the revolution? Or gain your knowledge about the Iranian revolution through Marjane Satrapi’s graphic novel? I know where I stand – with fake news and graphic novels, a product of the next generation of infotainment, with a finger in the air to the bland and boring.

Works Cited

Jones, Jeffrey P. " 'Fake' News versus 'Real' News as Sources of Political Information: The Daily Show and Postmodern Political Reality" http://www.odu.edu/al/jpjones/fake%20news.pdf

Satrapi, Marjane. Persepolis. Toronto: Pantheon, 2003.

But He Has Bud Light

Labatt Blue commercial - It's the weekend

Guinness ad - Rugby World Cup 2007

Beer Me - Duncombe and Beer Advertising: Response to Reading

Beer – the world’s oldest and most popular alcoholic beverage. Most people can’t list the breweries in their country alone – especially in beer hot spots like Germany, The UK, The US and Canada because they are so plentiful. It goes without saying that beer ads are all over the place(usually with scantilly clad, sexy women helping to sell to the predominantly male buyers) , and beer conglomerates will spend millions if not billions in advertising to lure certain types of drinkers in. Being that I work at Canada’s third largest brewery, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at Duncombe’s chapter on advertising and how it translates to the beer industry.Of course, dissecting my own company’s ads could hurt buyers, which could then put me out of work, but we can take an in depth look at big players from Canada (John Labatt’s Blue), Ireland (Guinness) and The US (Budweiser). This will hopefully shed some light on the international beer scene.

In the opening pages of his chapter on advertising, Duncombe states, "ads make their pitch not to our heads but to our hearts (or anatomy a bit lower)"(Duncombe 79). By this Duncombe means that advertisers aim to pull consumers in by appealing to what means the most to them, whether its sport, weekend antics or sex. Consider the above ad with the Bud Light girl - "Life is good" boasts the ad. Bud Light is trying to convey to consumers that life is good when you consume their product, but also that sexy women drink their beer. What kind of drinker would buy this beer if the ad depicted an unattractive or average looking woman - very few. Drinkers want to consume the same products as beautiful people do in order to become beautiful, special, etc.

"All advertising is about transformation. The product advertised will transform you from what your are (incomplete, inadequate and thoroughly normal) into what you would like to be (fulfilled, successful and completely special)." (Duncombe 80) Both the Guinness and Labatt video advertisements above play on this principal. With the Guinness ad, Guinness tries to imply that by consuming their product the average Rugby viewer or Rugby player can be carried by their team through spirit and unity to glory on the pitch. However the Labatt's ad seems to work on many different plains with respect to this principal. The average joe, office workers, etc. are all shown coming out of their shells and becoming weekend warriors while drinking with friends. Blue is trying to promote their product by showing that the average joe transforms into a hooligan and can embody youth and exhuberance while drinking Labatt's. Although Labatt's shows these average people becoming fulfilled, the ad also works to show people who are already successful and fulfilled being transformed to the thoroughly normal. In this way, Labatt has made itself accessible to a much larger demographic than Guinness or Budweiser. It is important to note that Labatt's is domestic - meaning the price is neither cheap nor expensive but mid-range, and this advertising ploy helps to maintain the average drinker but also may draw in people who spend more money on imported beers, as well as those who spend less money on beer.

Individualizing advertisements is difficult for most advertisers, but where there is a will there is a way. Of individualizing the product, Duncombe writes, "It is natural for advertisers to address the individual. They want individual people to buy individual products, and their model world is composed of individual units in pursuit of self-gratification." (Duncombe 85) The Bud Light TV advertisement above helps to illustrate what Duncombe is referring to. The man hitchhiking with an axe and case of Bud Light is individualized, and picked up by the average joe and his girlfriend merely because he is a Bud Light drinker. Bud Light is attempting to say 'if you drink Bud Light - you're a good person" through this advertisement, which also plays on Duncombe's theory of transformation. However, this ad individualizes its drinkers by showing an axe weilding psycho, which leads me to believe it was probably aired around Halloween or on some horror movie network in order to grab the attention of people who are fascinated with horror. The Labatt Blue advertisement above also individualizes with the pictures of all different sorts of their drinkers and their weekend antics appearing before the 'Cheers to Friends' slogan. Guinness also plays upon this by directing their ad at Rugbyer's (please take note this ad was aired during the Rugby World Cup 2007 during match commercial breaks).

Works Cited

Duncombe, Stephen. Dream: Reimagining Progressive Politics in an Age of Fantasy. New York: The New Press, 2007.