Monday 27 February 2017
ESSAY 2
We
are drawn to consume because we are so widely exposed to the adverts and
branding we see around us. They influence our choices as a consumer and are
often fueled by how they are presented to us; a celebrity on the front of the
advert is more likely going to persuade the consumer to buy the product,
creating more excitement around the brand compared to a plain, regular advert.
As
mentioned in my previous essay, Beyoncé signed a 50 million pound deal with
Pepsi, however she has also done work with Coca-Cola, again another
multi-billion pound company. It could be argued that both companies took
advantage of her high celebrity status in order to get maximum money from their
advertising, ‘The two companies
have spent over $330 million on campaigns involving entertainment and sports
figures. The Times notes that both brands each spent $148 million on domestic
advertising in the first six months of 2012.’[1]
Ultimately proving that companies like Coca-Cola will stop at nothing to feed
off our consumer culture to gain maximum profit. The colours in this specific Coca-Cola advert come across as
almost seductive; red ignites connotations of love and passion, acting as a
lure to draw in consumers to buy the product. As this would have been widely
viewed by an American audience it would of received a lot of attention,
especially as they have so many platforms to broadcast their adverts and
Beyoncé is considered an important influential figure by the USA. Since the
1930’s ‘the press developed into the leading medium, a position that was
sustained over generations’[2],
thus meaning it became increasingly easy for them to take advantage of adverts
using celebrities to earn maximum profit. This certain image immediately
conjures the idea of consumerism and brand competition because its slogan is
challenging other drink companies insisting they are ‘refreshingly better’,
especially with the use of Beyoncé.
The colour differences between the two adverts are the most
noticeable dissimilarity; although they use their logo colours therefore their
brand identity the Pepsi advert doesn’t have the same seductive charm about it.
I think the tone of this advert is completely different, it has a much more
consumerist and capitalist feel to it, due to the image of Beyoncé having lots of
Pepsi cans in the trolley. To me, this harbors up connotations of mass
consumption, encouraging the audience to buy excessive amounts of Pepsi.
However, this also reflects negatively on Beyoncé herself as she is allowing
her status to advocate to our needs as a highly consumerist culture. Her stance
and clothing highlight Pepsi are taking advantage of having a female model pose
for their advert as she is luring the consumer into buying not only the drink
but the brand itself. It could be argued that this advert falls into the
category of the male gaze, objectifying Beyoncé in order to sell products,
while presenting her in a seductive light. Going back to the book review of
“Consumerism as a way of life”, Bauman himself says ‘everything is a potential
object of consumption’[3]
and ‘a major function of consumerism is to produce consumers’[4],
this is exactly what Pepsi are doing with this advert, they know they have a
huge audience to attract so they are taking their audience and seducing them to
become huge consumers of their product.
Moreover, I have chosen to look at the work of Barbara Kruger for
the final image, this particular piece of works relates to the consumerist
themes I have been exploring. “I Shop Therefore I Am”, immediately brings to
mind the idea of consumption, especially materialistic consumption, it is
saying that we are what we buy into, you buy a brand then you become part of
that brand. Olins himself says, ‘The brand wasn’t in the shop. It was the shop.
And the brand was also the staff in the shop.’[5] It
is interesting that Kruger’s image was created in 1987, as it still has an
incredible amount of relevance today, highlighting our society has now been
consumers for generations now and we are obsessed with materialistic objects. A
similar bold red colour has been used on this image and Coca-Cola’s
advertisement, giving them both a striking impact when viewed by an audience,
therefore immediately grabbing attention. Kruger’s work consistently uses this
shade of red to evoke emotion from the audience, in this case it could be
debated anger is created due to the images ideological message. Her work
challenged consumerism, greed and powers, which lead it to being driven by the
mass media and it began to bring a change within society at that time with how
people were viewing the media. Sadly, however the impact her work did have has
not been as long term or to as wide of an audience as some would of hoped,
everything she criticised by the media is still being created with branding and
advertising today.
[1] Makarechi, K. (2012). Beyoncé &
Pepsi Ink $50 Million Deal With A Twist. Available:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/beyonce-pepsi-deal-50-million_n_2270365.html
[3] Bauman, Zygmunt (1999). Reviewed Work:
Consumerism as a Way of Life. London: Oxford University Press. 395.
[4] Bauman, Zygmunt (1999). Reviewed Work:
Consumerism as a Way of Life. London: Oxford University Press. 395.
ESSAY 1
'Although
on the surface the nature of design may appear to be relatively
inconsequential, it might well be said to play a formative role in the history
of capitalism and, in turn, in the social expression of capitalist practices.' Miles, S. (1998) Consumerism: As a way
of life. London: SAGE Publishing.
Most consumers are guilty of
it, whether it being perfume, shoes or food, the audience become influenced to
buy products because celebrities are plastered all over it. The picture
perfect, airbrushed photos are pushed into the faces of the public wherever
they look. Open a magazine and Cara Delavigne will be inside advertising
herself wearing Rimmel London, despite her supermodel status and the
unlikeliness she wears this low-budget brand. So why do so many companies
endorse celebrity advertising to promote their products? Is it because the
audiences are brain-washed with idiotic ideas that it will make them superior
to others or do companies finally realise consumers have become gullible and obsessed
with celebrity culture in todays society.
In 2012, there was a $50
million deal between Pepsi and performer Beyoncé Knowles, this was more than
just advertising however, it was labelled a partnership deal. The $50 million
was not going directly to Knowles, it was being split to mostly media
placements and around the world promotions, with what’s left being split into
her fee and creative development fund. Pepsi’s deal was quite unconventional
because not only was it the standard commercials and printed advertisements, it
was to supply her creative projects such as events, photo shoots or music
videos. On the surface this deal seemed respectable, with Knowles telling the
New York Times, ‘Pepsi embraces creativity and understands that
artists evolve. As a businesswoman, this allows me
to work with a lifestyle brand with no compromise and without sacrificing my
creativity.’[1]
This partnership was not just about paying a celebrity for the sake of
increasing sales, they had a different goal, and they wanted to ‘enhance its
reputation with consumers by acting as something of an artistic patron.’[2] On
the surface, Pepsi make this deal seem unflawed with the promises to help boost
someone’s creative career. Nonetheless, each year Pepsi continue to spend an
excessive amount on advertising, ‘Brands are increasingly disingenuous and duplicitous
in their relentless pursuit of our money and they will stop at nothing in their
overwhelming imperative to manipulate us.’[3]
Which concludes that despite what brands will give as their explanation or
motive in spending so much, money and power will always win over reality and
morality.
One man,
who would agree with this profoundly, is Wally Olins, a British practitioner of
corporate identity and branding. He published a book ‘On Brands’ in 2003 and it
explores branding in the 21st Century, concluding that the links
between business, brand and consumer are vitally important for commercial
success. Olins explains that branding has significantly changed, today it is
all about making money and branding is now part of the ‘mainstream commercial
culture.’[4] This
reinforces the fact that the partnership deal with Pepsi and Beyoncé is nothing
but a money making scheme with no intention for it to have any influence on the
world around us. To Olins, branding and consumerism ‘creates something too
commercial for it to have a true identity’[5],
it is something forced and superficial, feeding to the consumer in each and
every one of us, hence why so many companies use celebrities to fuel their
campaigns. Despite this, Olins also points out that brands are important to
consumers, they form what they think are a reliable and friendly source to buy
from, creating a bond of trust so they constantly return to that company
because their experience has been enjoyable. He says ‘Branding enables us to
define ourselves in terms of a shorthand that is immediately comprehensible to
the world around us.’[6]
Therefore it can be argued that brands use celebrities in order to reassure
their customers that they can trust what they are buying, they are buying
something with great quality and luxury. It is often found that the more
luxurious brands will use a famous face within their advertising, yet will
still keep their products at an affordable price, this is a great strength
within the power of advertising as brands can still keep their place within the
global market and their products are still being reached by millions of people.
Additionally
to the points made by Olins, within Steven Miles, ‘Consumerism is a way of
life’, he takes a more positive spin on the consumer culture as it stimulates
individuality and ‘prompts and encourages individuals to be self-reliant and self-assertive.’[7]
Consumerism has now become an everyday part of modern life, it cannot be
ignored as much as we mute the television when the advert break comes on,
ignore the pop ups on Facebook based on our browser history or abruptly walk
past the shop windows. So why wouldn’t companies take advantage of this and pay
a celebrity thousands of pounds to model if they are going to make millions
themselves out of it. He goes on to say, ‘Nothing would be consumed unless the
marketplace arouse and seduce consumerist desires’[8], which
means brands will always play to the idealistic and materialistic desires of
the consumer through celebrity endorsements.
Overall, the
argument of whether using celebrities within advertising and the branding of
products is all that moral and trustworthy will always be a split view and
brands themselves will always have a different opinion compared to some
consumers and observers. Branded products will always have the upper hand on
retailers own despite the price increase; this is down to loyalty and luxury
between the brand and consumer, often fueled by the face of a celebrity. It is
very apparent that the 21st century is concerned about having the
upmost best products by the brands with the upmost ‘amazing’ stars, as
consumers lust after using the same brands as their idols. This ultimately
means that companies will always be one step ahead of consumers; they will
always know what moves to make in order to get the most sales and make the most
profit. Therefore, despite these brands taking advantage of the shallow nature
of consumers, there is not much to stop them from using celebrities to
brainwash us because they will stop at no costs to make as much money as
possible.
[1] Sisario, B. (2012). In Beyoncé Deal, Pepsi
Focuses on Collaboration. Available:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/business/media/in-beyonce-deal-pepsi-focuses-on-collaboration.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=2&adxnnlx=1355158996-/KtNdTyHQ24HogRh8TIKAg.
[2] Casserly, M. (2012). Beyoncé's $50 Million
Pepsi Deal Takes Creative Cues From Jay Z. Available:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2012/12/10/beyonce-knowles-50-million-pepsi-deal-takes-creative-cues-from-jay-z/#4ee936de3bf8.
[3] Paterson, Mark (2006). Consumption and
Everyday Lifeq. USA and Canada : Routledge; New Ed edition. 215.
[7] Bauman, Zygmunt (1999). Reviewed Work(s):
Consumerism as a Way of Life. by Steven Miles. London: Oxford University
Press. 394.
[8] Bauman, Zygmunt (1999). Reviewed Work(s):
Consumerism as a Way of Life. by Steven Miles. London: Oxford University
Press. 395.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)