Perhaps the reason the public may feel Eva Longoria doesn’t make ads more compelling is because a lot of the time they aren’t believable.  Are we expected to believe that Scarlett Johansson really dyes her hair blonde with L’Oreal Paris? That is my only thought when seeing celebrities promoting drug store brands. I know you spent $400+ on that cut and color, and your stylist didn’t swing by Shoppers Drug Mart on the way to your five-star hotel penthouse suite to get the hair dye. At least if it’s a celebrity in a luxury brand ad it’s a believable sell, Madonna for Louis Vuitton, now that makes sense.

“Of course, all these responses leave one unanswerable question: Were the survey’s participants telling the truth when most of them said a celeb in an ad makes no difference to them and fewer than one in 10 said it makes them more likely to buy? In comments they posted along with their votes, a number of respondents were skeptical. As one commenter put it, “most of us would rather die than admit to being ‘swayed by glamour’ in a purchase decision.” Another offered a similar thought: “Perhaps most of us like to think that celebrities don’t have any effect on our buying decisions, but in reality, celebs may indeed have some power over our wallets.”

Advertisers use psychology to play on our emotions to sell us products, I guess it is only natural they stopped pretending it was a secret

With children’s increased exposure to computers it’s a trend that can only grow. It’s no surprise that advertisers aiming at kids are quickly switching from traditional adverts to join their target audience online. Many kids use the Internet for homework, to enter online contests, and play games. All of these aspects offer opportunities for advertisers’ to reach children. Competitions with toys as prizes have always been part of advertisers’ marketing strategy where kids are concerned - and with an interactive element ads can be even more influential.

An even more advanced approach is to get involved with one of the many massive ‘virtual worlds- Webkinz, Club Penguin, Build-a-Bearville- that are all the rage now. These huge online play grounds allow children to control avatars. By controlling an avatar, or being involved with online sponsorship, advertisers can effectively reach millions of children at a time.

The children’s market today is estimated to represent $500 billion, consisting of both personal spending of $200 billion–primarily for snacks, soft drinks, entertainment and apparel–and $300 billion in directly influenced spending in these same categories plus food, toys, health and beauty aids, gifts, accessories and school supplies. Another $500 billion worth of purchases are indirectly influenced in categories such as recreation, technology, vacations, etc. The kiddie market ends up being a pie worth $1 trillion, now that is a slice every corporation needs a taste of.

American Apparel is in search for the best butt. The contest is to find a model for the American Apparel underwear line, which has male- and female-aimed lines. (One of the men whose photo is already posted to the site writes that he shares his hot-pink underwear with his girlfriend). American Apparel aficionados send in pictures of their backsides to the website in hopes of becoming the ‘face’ for American Apparel. The picture is posted and the public can rate the bums on a scale from one to five. It is an interesting idea, however the rating system is pointless as the company has the last say in the end, and the use of comments should be disabled as a lot of the comments left under photos are nasty both when they praise ass in question and when they dismiss it.

The idea of this amateur style advertising is pretty obvious. By having you, the consumer, send in photos of your bum in their garments, you are not just signing up for a contest, you are advertising for them, the company, in the process, for free.  So even though the winner gets flown out to LA, and has their bottom up on billboards for all to see, how is that different from having pictures of their butt on the company website? In fact, the website gives your butt more exposure as it is more readily available. However the point is this, American Apparel has a new line of undergarments which is about to be launched, they need some way to advertise it, and who better than their shoppers. Question is this, do the consumers know they are being made an ass of? (Pun intended)

This was the hotel price, all I had to do was find a flight out to Mexico, and I would be golden-literally.  The site said this price was per couple, not per person, I thought even well, since I would be going with a girlfriend, we could split the price. I knew it was a stretch, and I could hear both my mother and Frankie Valli telling me it’s too good to be true.  Still, I whipped out my Visa faster than you could say Tequila and sat down to book my getaway while visions of big, round sunglasses danced in my head.

The site listed a ’90-120 Minute Resort Preview’ as part of the package.  No big deal I thought, I can deal with listening to a time share sales pitch. Then I saw it, the ‘Details of Participation’ link. I read it with the sound of the air being let out of my bubble in the background. These are the words that broke my heart:

“One of the participant(s) must be gainfully employed full-time or retired and have a combined household income of at least $50,000 USD per year. Participants must be married or cohabitating and both partners must attend the sales presentation together (cohabitating couples MUST both have with them a valid driver’s license with the same address). One of the participants must be at least 30 years of age and must be fluent in English or Spanish without the help of an interpreter.”

This isn’t the full criteria, but I quit reading because well, other than being fluent in Spanish, I didn’t meet any of them. Curse my unmarried, 21-year old, part-time working self! Cabo and the Americana Villas will have to wait.

Pam Spurr’s article in the Daily Mail starts off describing one of her clients, Anne who is “attractive, well-educated” and a “smart, savvy, career woman.” Spurr writes that:

“Rather than spending her evenings at the latest fashionable restaurant or gossiping over cocktails at a trendy wine bar, Anna instead spends up to five hours a night on her laptop – obsessively tracking the lives of her ex-boyfriend, old friends and acquaintances and work colleagues.”

Anna’s “whole demeanor is nothing more than a well-constructed façade,” a beard to cover up a life obsessed by Facebook and gossip sites. There is also Ellen, 42, who “would strike you as a well-presented and elegant divorcee who probably had to fight off potential suitors” but instead she spends her days and nights on dating websites scrolling pictures and not contacting anyone. And “Sarah, 31″ spent her hard-earned cash buying clothes online because it was hard to make new friends. ‘Agony Aunt’ continues, “When so many seemingly capable and sensible women are being sucked into a nightmare of prolonged internet surfing, it’s hard not to conclude a serious problem is developing in our increasingly fractured society.”

The serious reality of internet addiction linked with depression is not a surprising fact in the slightest. I have used the internet to turn a bad mood around by reading blogs or online advice columns. However, that said I do realize the effects of excessive internet use, and like any monotonous, reclusive activity, it is no supplement for human contact.

While I applaud Miss Spurr for drawing awareness to a growing problem that is probably not given the attention it deserves, as the internet is fairly new, so are the possible side effects that can arise from its constant use. The problem with the piece is that the author of the original article (link below) is operating under the false assumption that beautiful women can’t be antisocial. Internet addiction is widespread, even a possible candidate to be added to the revised version of the American Psychiatric Association’s handbook of mental disorders, due out in 2013. This is why I don’t understand the author’s shock that it can occur in “capable and sensible women.” There is also Spurr’s view of what women like Anna should be doing: visiting “the latest fashionable restaurant” or “a trendy wine bar.”  

With this article Spurr had the opportunity to shed light on a growing issue affecting modern women, and act as a reminder that loneliness can’t be cured with wine and a Macbook. Instead she used her position for something much more depressing, putting women into two categories: sad ,lonely, ‘internet addict’ or trendy fashionista.

Original Article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1250074/Yes-internet-DOES-make-depressed-Ive-seen-happen-far-clever-women.html

I remember my early teenage years when I spent hours of my time fixing up my profile page on MySpace. MySpace gave its users much freedom in that each individual user could make or change their profile page to their liking; this is done through a series of embedded html codes. A personal domain, and the freedom to edit, formate, create your own page on MySpace allowed people to feel  important; as one can say a part of me is on a website that can be accessed worldwide.

So it would seem that this encouragment of user generated content is what made MySpace so popular in the first place. This similar phenonmenon can also be seen with the website known as Youtube. Facebook,on the other hand, still encourages user generated content, but on a much smaller scale. Facebook users can find expressive means through the applications of wall posts, statuses, notes, upload of pictures and video. At the same time, MySpace also offers similar if not the same applications, in fact it offers users greater expressive means with the freedom of creating personal profile page layouts and formats. So the question becomes, why has MySpace been shadowed by Facebook?

Marshall McLuhan once said the dominate technologies of one age become the games and pastimes of a later age. This is what has happened to our society and the idea of consumerism; we have been trained to continuously desire for “the new” even when “the old” is perfectly functional. This can even been seen through simple networking, social, recreational websites such as the mentioned websites of Facebook and MySpace. I wonder what is going to replace the current online consumerism.

Britney Spears, Whoopi Goldberg, Ellen DeGeneres, these are a few of the names participating in an online auction to help the American Red Cross. Shoppers can log on to eBay and bid on Britney’s designer gowns, Whoopi’s sneakers, or jewellery from Nicole Richie’s line. While it is great to see big names making an effort to help the victims of Haiti, the act is not entirely selfless and I have to question their motives. Why an auction? Why not simply write a cheque to a charity? By publically embracing this online auction, these celebrities are receiving loads of positive publicity for being socially conscious and generous, without actually donating money themselves. It seems that these people are of the ‘if a tree falls in the woods’ philosophy, if you make a charitable donation and no one is around to praise you for it, does it still exist?

Here is the link to the auction where you can view further items up for bidding.

http://stores.ebay.com/Auction-Cause/Miley-Cyrus.html

It’s nothing new but it’s something we don’t think about. We may be aware that we’re targets for advertisers and that those ads do work but we don’t think about the ideological impact. With the help of the Internet one may think that hegemonic ideologies will die  down. On the contrary. Corporations and the elite just found a new medium to impose their ideologies on us. And they’re getting very  creative.

As we can see from my other blog posts, they’re coming out with new ways of advertising and getting the consumer to engage in the brand, but in the end it’s all a psychological mind game to get you to succumb to their ideologies.

In January, a brand called LOFT invited fashion bloggers to a preview event of its new line. As reward for attendance and reviews of the line the company was offering compensation.  The invitation read as follows:

“Come take a sneak peek at LOFT’s summer 2010 collection before anyone else!” “Bloggers who attend will receive a special gift, and those who post coverage from the event will be entered in a mystery gift card drawing where you can win up to $500 at LOFT!”

Noted in small print at the bottom of the invitation was somewhat of an unusual catch, bloggers who attended the event would have to send their posts back to LOFT’s publicist within 24 hours — and then she would show what value of gift card they had won. The least card value was $50. Thirty-one bloggers attended and the company president reports that each blogger received a gift card.

The coverage for the event generated positive reviews from the bloggers who attended, the bloggers however did not reveal their financial agreement with the company on their blog. Even though a gift card is not the same as receiving cold hard cash, it carries monetary value nonetheless, and $500 is a pricey gift card. Under Federal Trade Commission(FTC) laws, any online writer who fails to mention that they had received compensation for the review of a product, whether it be free products or money, is liable for fines of up to $11,000.

“They could write whatever they want. Obviously, there’s freedom of speech.”  Says LOFT’s president, Gary Mutto. However judging from a few of the generously positive reviews from online bloggers, they’re opinion’s seem to influenced by the gift card. Examples below.

“Very chic and wearable…I so love what LOFT is doing with their brand. The collection looks really fresh and modern while still managing to keep the ‘relaxed’ attitude that has always been the essence of the line.” — Saucyglossie.com

“Thanks to an exclusive blogger preview of LOFT’s (formerly known as Anne Taylor-LOFT) Summer 2010 collection, I have a new store to add to my weekly shopping routine.” —Splendicity.com

“A collection that makes us wish we could press fast forward and magically appear on a St. Thomas beach in their ‘Sailing Ferns Maxi Dress’ ($98). Or at a see and be seen Brooklyn outdoors brunch spot in their ‘Zebra Print Pencil Skirt’ ($69.50) and ‘Knotted Hobo Bag’ ($148). The LOFT Summer 2010 collection is targeting the young jet setter with an exhilarating mix of prints and luxe accessories. The brand even boasts an industrious team of trendsetters anchored by a Fashion Director who wore a sporty cropped trench over a dress with the sailing ferns signature print. The LOFT has your Summer 2010 must-haves down to a sartorial science.” — Clutchmagonline.com

“An oceanic pillage seemed evident when viewing the brightly colored coral and floral shaped accessories. Surfacing to another delivery the colors grew a little softer with airy ruffles and lighter fabrics. The last delivery favored a safari expedition; full of fiery reds and tangerines paired with earth tone shorts and jackets, with a touch of animal print. I adored how gallantly color and print were used, allowing a touch of graceful eccentricity.” — Johnsimondaily.com

“The collection contained everything a woman would need for the weekend or a vacation…Stop by your local Loft anytime starting in May to see the entire collection. You won’t be disappointed.” -Mylifeonandofftheguestlist.blogspot.com

Maybe some editors and bloggers are too intrigued by the opportunities for freebies to notice that it’s exactly these kind of fabricated reviews and judgements that take away from creativity, honesty, and credibility. The internet is suppose to be different,yet it is inching closer and closer to the likes of all the magazines found on newsstands, filled with advertisement and product placement, with an article or two lodged somewhere inbetween.

Original article:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/alltherage/2010/01/crossing-the-line-loft-trades-gift-cards-for-blog-coverage.html