Drew+S.+-+POSITION+PAPER

=Essential Question: =

REVOLUTION, REACTION, REFORM--

...............Is advertising telling the truth?.................

= **THESIS** =
 * As a society we need to develop restrictions for advertising in order to create a safer enviorment.**

Advertising can be seen or known as a way of persuading people to buy a certain product or even to be part of a movement. "...Advertising was not only increasingly devoted to making the public aware of goods and services but to persuade the public to purchase them" (Farr). Advertising has changed so much throughout the years due to the advances in technology. "Along with social pressures, the advertising industry was also faced with new technologies and media outlets" (Vidar). This can be a good thing unless the product is selling a image rather than the actual product. Companies would have to find a way to advertise there product through every demographic using as many different way's of technology as possible. In today's society we have a problem with eating disorders all the way to potraying this attitude and becoming "popular". It is a obsession that even though is hard to admit is something almost everyone does. With the advances in technology, advertising is everywhere. They persuade you using new forms of technology in order to get you on their bandwagon. It is not a bad thing to want to be part of a group or bandwagon but when the company shows you unrealistic images, words, or products it can cause harm to others. This is whats wrong with advertising today is that you see these unrealistic ad's that make you feel like this is the way to go. It is where you become accepted. This is a movement that yet can be very useful to company's and selling their products but can also be very dangerous. As a society we need to develop restrictions for advertising in order to create a safer enviorment.

With advertising being everywhere people start to become unaware of the actual product being sold but more to the actual advertisment. Companies are using sex, image, and the bandwagon effect in order to sell their products. For example the apple II commercial that aired during the 1984 superbowl had all advertisment but didnt explain what the actual product was until the end it stated "The Apple II". Another example is when companies use sex to sell their products. From Victoria secret so a sports car woman in provacative clothing are advertiusing the product. Usually the demographic for the Victoria secret is for woman. It makes woman think that being extreamly skinny is the "image" or way they will be accepted. This is great for the companies which will pull in customers to this unique but dangerouse way of advertising. The thing customers dont know is that these images are strictly for the companies bennifit. All woman and men in ad's no matter the advertisment are altered in someway using things like photoshop and other ways to make them look better than they really are. It is a image that is unrealistic and can potentially be very harmful.

Dove (The beauty franchise) had a campaign to stop this alteration of ad's. Its called the "real beauty campaign". This would take a everage woman and use her is the ad rather than a proffesional model that has been photoshopped many times. "Dove revamped its global advertising message to challenge the standard of supermodel imagery traditionally associated with most beauty and personal care advertising" (Howard). Many companies including Walmart lached on to this idea of using average people. This was the start of a new era. The only problem was people were already to brainwashed with this image that companies were portraying everywhere that it started to become useless. People started to expect all woman to look like that in ads which then started to lower average peoples self-esteem. The Dove campaign was a step forward but we need to stop using unrealistic ideas and images to advertise a topic. The main factor in this is technology. We have photoshop and other alternating photo editing things that companies cant help but hopping onto the idea of make the people in there ads look better. We as a society need to step back and look at the problem with this. There are people that starve themselves for weeks after watching a victoria secret show. Is this what our society has become? We need to revive this way and changed the image that is reapeated everywhere due to the overwhealming amounts of technology that have changed ads forever.

In 1704 the first newspaper advertisment was published in the Boston New's letter seeking a buyer for a estate. This started what will be known today as the most influential and informative way of persuading a buyer to invest in the company. We have been using advertising for years and it is a great way to advertise a product or brand. How else would people know about a product? Well its not the product of the company that could be potentially harmful but instead the ad itself. Advertisment has devoloped into something that can be harmful to almost everyone. Through the 1980's and early 1900's company's could only advertise through newspapers and posters. This changed a lot throughout the mid and late 1900's. During the holocoaust Hitler used unique ways to advertise himself. He was a person that was yet one of the biggest disasters in history also used the bandwagon effect to attract people to him. This also sparked other leaders including presidents in elections to start using this bandwagon effect in politics. Along with the leaders during the early 90's companys would be manufactering products for war. This was part of the great depression and individual consumer products wernt available because companys had put all their time and money into war products. "By the year 1950, the manufacturing facilities of North America had been converted from wartime production to consumer items. A bustling economy resulted in dozens of competitive buying options for the typical growing household income" (Hines). This was a time where companys would make a product and their advertisment would reach to all sterotuypes. This was great and worked all the way up to the 1960's. "As Americans strived to be unique and break free from the homogeneous categorization and stereotypes rampant in advertising, the industry was no longer able to market and sell one commercial campaign successfully to the masses" (Vidar). This cause company's to have to study the human population and have different ads for different people. Thats why you often see different commercials for different types of people.

As this happened people started to become very angry with company's. Woman would hate the ad's that depicted them using sex. This was a huge problem in the 1970's. "Arguably, the biggest change in the decade’s advertising was its depiction of women. In previous decades, women were often shown as bubbly, dim-witted housewives ecstatic over a new detergent or used as decorative objects to sell cars. However, as more women entered the white-collar workplace and began earning the household income as well as spending it, these stereotypes were no longer tolerable or profitable" (Vidar). This caused advertising companys to study and experiement trying to find the best way to sell their product. This took years to master but witht the advances in technology and the right minds it was accomplished. "By the 1990’s, advertising agencies had successfully penetrated nearly every form of communication in order to promote their clients’ services or products. From magazines to newspapers, radios to cinema, television to the Internet, and billboards to video games, increased consumption was the message intended to permeate every facet of life in the 1990’s" (Meyers). Through the 90's the technology advanced which cause certain products to rise in value and popularity. People now had a easy way to find out about a product. The advance of technology also started to promote some bad advertising and companys had now figured out that the ads selling sex, image, or using the bandwagon effect would now change advertising history forever.

It wasnt really until the 2000 when products started to become raunchy and very provacative. With all the advances in technology it also started to be everywhere. People couldnt help but to read or to watch them. "Advertisers want to sell products, so they design ads that make the products look as appealing as possible" (Blackwell). Advertisers dont care what the consequences of their ads are but rather they just want to sell the product. This has been a big problem in the past decade because people are becoming either self conscience or feel unaccepted. Thats exactly what companys want you to feel is not accepted. They want you to think that buying the product will make you fell part of the bandwagon. This is not okay because it can cause harm to many people. The reason it has been happening in the past decade is because the advances in technology. Around 2004 most everything was displayed electronically. "Internet advertisng grows to 80 percent of the size of magazine advertising, expanding at a rate of 34.5 percent since 2003" (Volo). People are attracted to ads that fit their likes or intrest. If a womans clothes line comes on a commercial a woman would be intrigued but is the woman that is advertisng the product to much? It causes woman to think that they have to look like that to be pretty or where the clothes they like. This is why the advance in technology has and still is causing harm to people everywhere.

There needs to be a big change in the way advertisment is potrayed. People all over the world are being harmed by the way companys advertise their products. It can be dangerous to health and can potry the wrong idea on life. Advertising again is not a bad thing. It is the best way to inform people on products or trends. The problem is that company's potray the wrong image and give people the wrong idea. "The first time we see an advertisement, we are likely to be aware of what it's telling us and what it is encouraging us to buy. From then on, we process it passively, absorbing its imagery and messages without contesting them, as we are no longer fully switched on" (Monbiot). People today spend to much time on the person or enviorment thats advertising the brand rather than the product. The commercial or ad sets a sterotype for there product making people feel uncomftoprable buying it if they dont fit the criteria. An example of this is "Dr. Pepper". One of there newest products from this company is the 10 calorie soda that quotes in its commercial "Its not for woman". "Dr Pepper is going out of its way to appeal to men — and potentially offending both sexes in the process. After market research revealed that men eschew diet sodas because they aren't "manly", the soda company decided to launch a 10-calorie soft drink called Dr Pepper Ten that aims to be more masculine" (U.S. Buissness). What companys are trying to do is to have their ad based on a certain group. This can cause many problems with creating sterotypes. The reason alot of these things are going on are because of the technology advancment. It has made it easy for companys to advertise whatever they want where ever they want.

There can be a big change in society in order to create a more clear and less harmful enviorment. Advertising can not be vanished. It has become a part of the economy, buissness, and many other things. "And yet ... few would doubt that childhood is over-commercialised, that marketers do sometimes devise unacceptably intrusive campaigns and yes, there is a feeling nowadays that you can never escape advertisements" (Marquis). This is part of what we need re-think about advertising. The change can be done a couple different ways. First, we can put restrictions on what the message of a ad is. For instance ask the peoples opinion rather than having officials do it. Second, is that we change the image. Like mentioned before we can use the dove beauty campain but for many more companys. This will allow for people to see ads and commercials with average people rather than computerized zombies. Lastly, we can protest. Yet protest would be a last result it will help make a change. Maybe stop going to that praticular store with a wrong imaged ad or stop buying their product. The reasons companys keep doing these ads is cause it makes them money. Thats why we need to show them that we will still buy the product maybe even more if they use a realistic ad. These are just some of the ways we can stop this image the advertising world is potraying and show people that this image is unrealistic. The best thing we can do is " as a society we need to develop restrictions for advertising in order to create a safer enviorment " ( Position Statement ).

Yet these ideas of changing the way company’s advertise their products should be enforced there are also those people who disagree. One of the big argument is that advertising buttresses our freedom and democracy. Tim Lefroy writes a article the argue’s the people who say some advertising in unjust and harmful. Lefroy says “Far from trashing our happiness, it helps society develop towards civility and tolerance”. Tim Lefroy is objecting the ideas that advertising is harmful and thinks it is a freedom and educational thing. “To attack advertising is to attack a system which, imperfect as it may be, does more than its fair share to buttress our free press, our freedom of speech, our democracy” (Lefroy). He declares that advertising should be open and free. Along with it being a freedom Lefroy says that it educates us. “We all, thanks to advertising, benefit from new products, better services and great ideas” (Lefroy).

Some of Lefroy’s ideas are true including that advertising is a freedom that informs the audience on a certain product. The thing is that there needs to be restrictions. If you think about freedom of speech you think that you can go around saying anything. This is false for example you cant go into a airport and yell “bomb” or yell “fire” in a public place. These are the restrictions on freedom of speech in order to assure the publics safety. My position is merely stating the same thing. What companies don’t realize is that people can get harmed from certain ads just like they can from the words people say. This shows how Lefroy’s ideas are unethical and are not true because if there wasn't laws and restrictions on certain things our society would be in chaos.

My position “As a society we need to devolop restrictions for advertising in order to create a safer enviorment” reaffirms the ideas that there is a problem in advertising. My position and changes are the most reasonable because advertising isnt something that we want to get rid of. It is something that our society would not be able to function without and helps the economy. The thing we need to change is the way advertising is potrayed. If we put restrictions on ads then we will develop a safe but useful way to use advertising.

The freedom of expression can be well represented as being a strong argument against my position. The thing is the opposers have not clearly thought over what they are arguing. "Freedom of expression has a special status as a human right because we need it to promote and protect all human rights. It embraces free speech, the sanctity of an individuals opinion, a free press, the transmission and receipt of ideas and information, the freedom of expression in art and other forms, the ability to recieve from elsewhere, and even the right to silence. We value freedom of expression because of what it means for us and what it helps us to attain" (Rishworth). The author of this article used this quote for the interduction claiming that everyone has the right to this freedom. This goes in to talking about how companys use this technique to make there ads.

One of the things the opposing side did not think over was that yet the companys have this freedom they are riding the line between freedom and overexposure. These agencies dodge every type of restriction by making their ads this way that it dosnt quite surpass these restrictions but it gets pretty close. There is a huge problem with this because companys are doing whatever they can to get around these rules. You may say they have the freedom of expression but they are defineatly taking advantage of it.

My position statement goes to greaten the restrictions against media advertising so comanys cant take advantage of this freedom. If we make the restrictions more strict then companys will have a harder time making their ads so harsh and dangerous. It should not be a freedom when it causes harm to others. They need to alter this law to change this. This is one of the reasons that the opposers arguments dont apply because it might be one law to alow the freedom of expression but it breaks another by letting these companys have some of the ads that they do.

Sneaking around the restrictions and laws of media has been easy for many companys throughout the years. The company is supposed to educate the audience on the truth of their product right? But to company's "truth" is a compleatly different word. Chris Moore from the "Advertising Educational Fund" claims that if companys find a way around truth then it should be allowed if it does not break any laws. "Let's start with truth in advertising. Telling the truth seems like a pretty basic ethical standard. But as any philosphy major can tell you, there's truth...and then there's truth" (Moore). This goes to show that company's dont really care if there information is false as long as people buy there products. Moore argues that there are set laws at the moment and with almost every situation even oputside of media people bend the rules or are boarder line on them.

This is a argument I compleatly disagree with. Companys are meant to show us reality because when we buy a product its not going to make the same effect at home. Which raises the question: What can you legitimatly simulate to illistrate truth? Would a higher purpose be served if Pampers and Kotex commercials showed the real thing instead of fake water. Ads give us this unrelistic imagery to make their products look better but this is not the truth.

There needs to be restrictions on what companys can call the truth. We cant go on thinking that these altered models and colored backrounds are what life really is. We need to know the truth on what we are purchasing. They do have some restrictions on truth like for medical ads they have to read all the side effects. This is to make sure your body does not get harmed. What about your mind? These ads are using false imagery and brainwashing people into their products. Thats why if we put restrictions on this we will be able to function better as a society.

Opposing sides may say that the freedom of advertising should stay as is. They may say that the freedom of expression, freedom of speech and the truth in advertising helps show that the restrictions in advertising are already harsh enough. But the facts and information that you just read prove differently. The way that companies brain wash their consumers is wrong and unjust. Let me remind you I am not against advertising but the ad that is being potrayed. It is a problem with technology being everywhere that these ads can be found on every screen, paper, and wall. This makes it easy for children to access these materials and content when they were meant for a different audience. If you watch a channel like Disney the commercials seen are directed at children. When you watch MTV the audience is mainly adults. But with advertising everywhere it has become so easy for these two groups to mix. Children have too much access to these ads. Also the message being potrayed in all ads is also the problem. If the companies didnt make these provakitive ads than it wouldnt be such a problem. There are many issues with advertising that need to be adressed. Should companies be allowed to alter their images to make them look better? Is this lying? This is why we need to strengthen the restrictions in advertising so that they are aimed at a family crowd. There shouldnt be this fake world that companies are showing because its unrealistic. It makes people think that the product they are buying will do this false statement. If we put restrictions on the content of the ad and age group there will not be so many problems with self-conciousness and children seeing all this explicit material. Companies need to tell the truth in their ads to help show a realistic society. "Advertising is leagalized lying" (H. G. Wells).


 * ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY **

CITATION=Black

ANNOTATION=Light Blue

Blackwell, Amy Hackney. “Advertising Outlook.” //ABC-CLIO//. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2012. < [] ‌Topics/‌Display/‌913328?cid=70&terms=advertising>. This citation is credible because it was found on the UAHS databases and it is from ABC-CLIO. The Author has also done many research papers on the way companies process which fits perfect with my topic. This was a perfect article because it really helped show how campanies try to make the product as appealing as possible without caring about the consequences.

Farr, Daniel. “American Advertising.” //Daily Life Through History//. ABC-CLIO, n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2012. < [] ‌Search/‌Display/‌1701151?terms=advertising>. This artical is credible due to the backround of the website and the history on it. Daniel Farr is a guest editor for ABC-CLIO and has written many articals on advertising and its ethics. I used this paper becasue it showed the different ways advertising is used in America and its progress through time. Shows what advertising does in a whole. It is a basic but well written essay/artical.

Hines, Randy. “The Fifties in American Advertising.” //Salem History//. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2012. < [] ‌doi/‌full/‌10.3331/‌1950_107prevSearch=%2528advertising%2529%2Band%2B%2528history%2529&searchHistoryKey=&queryHash=523d42d5ac37979e1825e27c136310fe>. This is a credible source because it was from a ebook thaty was found on the UAHS database. It also is from a book that is a published and very credible book on the 50's. There is a series of the books which also shows credibility. The source was nice because I was able to show and explain the process of changing from wartime products to personal products.

Howard, Theresa. “Dove ads enlist all shapes, styles, sizes.” //USA TODAY// 29 Aug. 2005: 7B. //USA Today//. Web. 10 Apr. 2012. This is a artical the I received in my Mass Media class and was very useful. It is a artical written by Theresa Howard who used real situations and quoted real people. This makes in credible while also being in the USA TODAY which has been a trusted site for years. This artical really helped me show what Dove is doing and gives a example of people who are actually trying to change the way that advertising is potrayed.

Lefroy, Tim. “Don’t knock advertising. It buttresses our freedom and democracy.” //the guardian//. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2012. < [] ‌commentisfree/‌2011/‌nov/‌01/‌advertising-buttresses-freedom-and-democracy>. This article was one of the most intresting that I found. This site is credible because it is sponsered by History encyclopedias and other credible sources. The article really showed a strong argument that I would have to degrade. It was some intresting facts and I learned alot. This was very useful as my first argument in memo 5.

Marquis, Simon. “Don’t shoot the messengers.” //the guardian//. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2012. < [] ‌media/‌2006/‌dec/‌18/‌mondaymediasection18?INTCMP=SRCH>. This was from the guradian whioch mentioned in the Tim Lefroy article is very credible. This article talked about people putting alot of pressure on the people that actually make the ads. This was intresting because it showed the process that companies go through to make their ads.

Meyers, Julia M. “The Ninties in American Advertising .” //Salem History//. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2012. < [] ‌doi/‌full/‌10.3331/‌1990_1003?prevSearch=advertising&searchHistoryKey=&queryHash=6ec061bf267d180ba1239e0cd62a6eba>. This was also from a Salem Press Ebook and was credible like the 50's book except this one was on the 90's. This showed exactly what I needed how the advance of technology is changing advertisng.

Monbiot, George. “Advertising is a poison that demeans even love – and we’re hooked on it.” //the guardian//. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2012. < [] ‌commentisfree/‌2011/‌oct/‌24/‌advertising-poison-hooked>. This is also from the guardian so it is credible. This is a article that Tim Lefroy quoted in his paper arguing it. These two articles were great because I could read both sides. This really helped devolop my memo 5.

Moore, Chris. “Ethics in Advertising.” //Advertising Educational Foundation//. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 May 2012. < [] ‌on_campus/‌classroom/‌speaker_pres/‌data/‌6000>. Chris Moore is a profesor and speaker at the advertising foundation. This is the organization that keeps media going. This article was what helped me devolop truth in my paper. He came up with great points helping say that advertising is "leagalized lying".

Rishworth. “Chapter 8: The right to freedom of opinion and expression.” //Humans Rights Commision//. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 May 2012. < [] ‌report/‌chapters/‌chapter08/‌expression01.html>. Rishworth works for the governement. This page was meant to show the rights and positions certain people have in the media world. I was able to use the freedom of expression from this to show that advertising agencies still have rights, but the limits arnt strong enough.

Vidar, Sara. “Advertising.” //Salem History//. John C. Super, n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2012. < [] ‌doi/‌full/‌10.3331/‌1970_745?prevSearch=advertising&searchHistoryKey=&queryHash=d39047c44eaf1904b2d40928724b6b98>. The next artical is from Salem history. This is a website that has ebook's and is a way to look at books but through the web rather than having to go find the book. The book is written by Sara Vidar and is written exactly to what my topic is on. It shows how the advance in technology could potentially be harmful with advertisers new ways.

Volo, James L. “Advertising in America: 19th Century.” //ABC-CLIO//. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2012. < [] ‌Search/‌Display/‌1334759?terms=advertising>. This was from a ABC-CLIO and is credible like the other ones being from the same site. This was a great article the showed the process companys use in order to attract people to their product. It shows every angle that companys use weather they are harmful or not.

Wakeman, Jessica. “Dr Pepper’s ‘not for women’ ad campaign: Sexist? .” //THE WEEK//. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2012. < [] ‌article/‌index/‌220181/‌dr-peppers-not-for-women-ad-campaign-sexist>. This was from THE WEEK which is like the new york times and is a very credible source. It was also found off one of the databases. This was a article that specifically talked about the problem with advertising in one ad. It devoloped the problem and said why this problem is not only in the Dr. Pepper ad.

Wells, H. G. “Advertising quotes.” //Brainy Quotes//. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 May 2012. < [] ‌quotes/‌keywords/‌advertising.html>. This was the final citation that I used. H.G. Wells is well known around the world. We have trust in his opinion. When he says that advertising is leagalized lying we really know that there needs to be a change. This was my favorite part of my paper because it is the conclusion. It is a perfect way to say it. Advertising is everywhere and for everyone to see. The limits are not strong enough to prohibit some of the explicit and harmful content that can be recognized. The quote shows how the limits are so low on meadia that advertising agencies can get away with it.