With the increased number of smokers in our society these days, many advertisers found the need to educate the public about the harmful effects of smoking. Some dissuasion methods they undertook were obviously ineffective in getting the message across, because they aroused another set of issues that were even more provocative than addressing smoking itself. The above advertisement on anti-smoking stimulated much debate when it was first released as it mimicked the 9-11 attacks. Because the advertisement had negative political connotations that could possibly suggest a mockery of the 9-11 tragedy, it was banned. Furthermore, it was seen as an act to exploit the mass media. This illustrates the Moderate Effects Theory as the audience reacted strongly against the advertisement, showing that they are not passive receivers of information.
This advertisement on anti-smoking is yet again provocative and seen as violent. The public was afraid that because such images are widely displayed on billboards, buses and pillars on sidewalks, it may have a harmful impact on young children.
Such advertisements, like the Gucci one above, were considered as risque and had sexual connotations implied, hence were not suitable for the consumption of the general public. Such advertisements were especially frowned upon by the older generation as they found such imagery crude and unsuitable to be seen by adolescents and children as their social make-up is still very volatile. Adolescents and children may think that such images are 'cool', hence mimic them. The movie ''The Rules of Attraction" was not successfully aired because of inappropriate content.
If you remember, there was a period of time in Singapore where religious advertisements on God were publicized widely. This act was initiated by 150 churches that came together to form the ''Love Singapore Movement''. Because the love churches were too successful in making God omnipresent in the media (with a budget of over $1 million to place commercials on TV and the newspapers), the government banned such advertisements to be displayed on national TV as it was seen as a violation to the multi-racial community in Singapore. An example of the banned content is shown below.
This is an act of Agenda Setting Function were the media (in this case the 'Love Singapore Movement through the media') repeatedly broadcasts a certain issue to raise the importance of it. However, was not successful because Christianity is important to a certain group of people, but not to others. It was not successful also because in this time and age, the audience are aware of the advertising gimmicks and are able to discern for themselves, the content that can be trusted and the content that is appropriate for viewing purposes (Moderate Effects Theory at work again).Therefore, unlike the past, people are not so well-accepting to information that are fed by the mass media. It is good as it prevents propaganda(ref: WWII) and reduces the strong effects of the mass media for the better.
This is very true in the context of our time. Audience nowadays are definately more discerning to what they watch and are not passive recievers of information. This is evident not only from advertisements but also from other forms of mass media, like the newspaper. Newspaper forums consist of the thoughts, opinions and comments of their readers and this is an outlet for them to voice out.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. The audience do not blindly believe what they watch on the media (although I do have live examples of some who still does). I guess it does depend on how far an individual wants to form their opinions on a particular subject.
ReplyDeleteHowever, even though the government has placed all these rules to 'protect' the minds of the young, I kind of feel that sometimes they do overstep. no?
Hey Amadea!
ReplyDeleteIndeed, times are always changing and so has to mass media and people's reaction to the mass media.
Mass communication is a complex thing. It involves many people, mediums, techniques etc.. For media companies, they have to carefully choose the medium, communication technique, taget audience and so on so that they attain their purpose!
However, with increased literacy and intellectual levels these days, people are more aware of the techniques and gimmicks used by the media. Thus, they are less receptive to what the media says.. The media companies these days have to try doubly hard in order to get their message across!!
Random but I was just thinking, do you think there would come a time where the mass media has almost completely or completely lost control over the masses?
Heys amadea! yes yes times have changed, and the factors are still pretty clear here because the people who are in control and power over such things are mostly part of the 'Older Generation'.
ReplyDeleteOn one hand, the older generation were mostly socialized into being conservative individuals, and this has led them to reject and complain about things such as these posters to be too liberal. Some may even consider such things as taboo.
Whilst on the other hand, the younger generation are more exposed to subjects like sex and violence(from the media) at a younger age, and in turn this leads them to be much more liberal with ideas like this and generally more accepting.
Actually, these posters are really effective in catching attention, but because of the effects of socialization and conservativity, we end up having to ban these posters.
Those are some provocative ads indeed! I think it was right for them to be banned.
ReplyDeleteAs we all know, the media is a great influence on our perceptual sets. So in order to prevent the shaping of perceptual sets in an undesirable way, the government has resorted to banning which can be seen as the moderate effects theory. Children are who they are most concerned about pertaining to the provocative ads as they would be sending the wrong message that this obscenity and vulgarity is acceptable in society.
The Singapore government is able to filter whatever information they find non-befitting in a multi-cultural society and hence, they are the "gate keepers". To prevent island-wide outrage from non-christians, they disallow any ads biased towards a certain religion.
Hi Dea,
ReplyDeleteI love watching creative commercials but I do agree on the level of sensitivity that the commercials must have. In our country, race and religion are very sensitive issues, thus I am thankful that our media authorities censors and prevents certain advertisements from reaching the mass public.
I used to argue against their decision, thinking that the media authorities are too strict in censorship however, I have grown to realise that not everyone share the same type of humour and can take certain provocative advertisements as insults.
Even with the censorship, those advertisements are not totally out of our reach as we can use Youtube or the internet to look for them.
Hello Amadea,
ReplyDeleteYeah i think a lot of commercials these days tend to be crossing the social boundaries that many societies are unable to handle.
Many commercials tend to want to shock, or create some sort of novel stimuli so that the idea or message is being clearly embedded into the person's mind. In this case, bad publicity is still publicity, and that's what they're trying to achieve.
The teddy bear advertisement on "The Rules of Attraction" reminded me of this Swatch Watch campaign that featured the new line of watches, one of which containing images of ragdoll rabbits engaging in what seemed to be like a sexual position in one of the watch designs. It's odd that such a campaign didn't get torn down, despite its risque connotations, but then again, it could just be my wild imagination that bunnies were fornicating. They really seemed like doing it, though!
ReplyDeleteAnyway... I do suppose the public has a right in deciding an advertisement being inappropriate since as recepients of the message, they have the power to accept it and reject it as well.
Advertisements are all around us, exerting a heavy and at times unhealthy influence on us. Hence, it is no surprise that we, as audiences, and the government, which serves to protect the interests of its people, are taking measures to ensure information that is being disseminated is first deemed as acceptable.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the banning of the advertisements you featured in your commentary. What kind of messages are we sending out to our younger generations (ourselves included)? This is happening in Singapore too, with a recent advertisement by Subway promoting its "foot-long" burger being banned because many Singaporeans thought it was suggestive. Even as we do modernise and progress, and subsequently open our minds, inching slowly away from the conservativeness of the past, I think we shouldn't forget the importance of remaining sensitive to delicate issues such as those you mentioned, including racial, religious or sexual topics.
Hi Valerie,
ReplyDeleteYes, with increased literacy rates, people are less susceptible to believing everything that is portrayed by the media. Receivers of information are also well aware of the advertising gimmicks used to market goods at an extensive level, hence show that they participate actively in the exchange of information between the media and its receivers. This also shows that they have moved from being under the notion of the powerful effects theory to the moderaten effects theory where retaliation/disapproval of advertising content is evident.
However I will not say that mass media will completely lose control over the masses as it still has an element of persuasiveness that largely influences the audience. While there is more feedback from the audience, the mass media ultimately serves as a tool to educate and transmit information to the public.
Hi Jaslyn,
ReplyDeleteYes i do agree that the active participation of the audience with the mass media does not limit itself to advertisements alone but is evident in newspaper forums as well. The moderate effects theory could very well tie in with the liberalization of culture worldwide such that people are more opinionated and vocal.
Hi Jere,
ReplyDeleteInteresting point! Yes i agree that certain advertisements cater to different target audiences; some may be acceptable to the older generation, others may not. The above examples of banned advertisements were probably considered crude and risque, especially to the older generation. However, i do not agree that all these advertisements were disapproved by the older generation alone. Some advertisements were just simply too offensive to be publisized. Political matters are more sensitive in this aspect. Governments would not want to risk having their laws ridiculed etc, therefore request the media product to be banned. In this case, the higher authorities are part of the audience too, and have the power to retaliate.
Hi Mandy,
ReplyDeleteThank goodness for censorship in Singapore right? Our children can thus be protected from excessive violence, crude and gory images. However do you think that censorship in Singapore stifles their creativity to create interesting advertisements?
nice blog.. the pics showed disturbing images for an ad to be shown publicly..
ReplyDelete