Recently I had the pleasure of seeing the touring exhibition, “Posters of Paris: Toulouse-Lautrec and His Contemporaries” at the Dallas Museum of Art.  This exhibition was particularly special for me as an advertising student because Lautrec’s widely-recognized promotional posters are regarded as some of the most well-respected examples of the crossover between advertising and fine art in recent history.  In fact, his posters are so widely regarded as true "fine art" that many people today are unaware that the posters were ever advertisements to begin with.

As the title of the exhibition suggests, it wasn’t just Lautrec who popularized these artistic promotional posters.  There were many other artists who helped develop the style of the “affiche artistique” (artistic poster).  Before visiting the exhibit I had only been familiar with Lautrec, but I quickly learned about the many other artists involved, including “father of the poster,” Jules Chéret, (credited with being the first to bring the style into the public eye), and later artists like Pierre Bonnard, who refined the style to the degree of high art that punctuated what came to be known as the “Belle Époque” (Beautiful Era) of French history.

Seeing the ads in person, I was amazed to find that the majority of pieces were between four to six feel tall!  The word “poster” really doesn’t really even do them justice.  They’re more like small murals.  If anything, they were probably the historical equivalent of today’s billboards, except placed on the sides of buildings instead of alongside highways.

Something I learned that I found really interesting was that “buzz advertising” techniques were common practice even back then.  For example, our guide told us that artists would sometimes fake the theft of one of their elaborate promotional posters just to get a story in the newspaper about the incident and generate public interest in the posters.  

Apparently these fake thefts were successful in making the ads seem valuable to the public.  Gallery owners started paying artists for extra copies of ads to display in their shops, and collectors paid for personal prints as well.  By framing (no pun intended) the prints as art rather than ads, the artists got an extra buck and the products advertised in the prints got extra exposure.

However, as with most things that become popular, there was a backlash.  Once everybody jumped on the bandwagon and posters were a dime a dozen, they lost their panache.  The wealthy moved on to more expensive and unattainable things, and the posters became “poor man’s art.”

There were also some who detested the ads from the very beginning and went out of their way to trash them. They believed the posters could be either art or ads, but not both, and they resented the artists for trying to blur the lines between the two.  Even back then there was a stigma against advertising.

Despite the naysayers, the prints still managed to leave an enduring legacy on French art history, and the posters are credited with providing the foundation for many later art styles, including Warhol’s “pop art.”

Seeing these early ads presented in an art museum as “fine art” got me wondering about how people will perceive today’s advertisements 30-40 years from now.   Even ads from the 50’s and 60’s tend to be regarded as artistic to an extent (although we certainly don’t hold them in as high esteem as the French posters), and some people even create art meant to resemble old-fashioned ads because the style is so popular.

Perhaps the reason people are able to appreciate ads of the past is because time takes away the commercial stigma, allowing the artistic qualities of the ad to be seen without an anti-ad bias. Instead of thinking “get this ad out of my face,” people start to view the ad with a sort of nostalgia, as a relic of a certain time period.

I hope that this is how the ads of today will be perceived in the future, but even more I want people to look at them this way today.  I think to really have an impact, advertisers should take a tip from the artists of the Belle Époque, and consciously strive to create contemporary art with their ads.  It may be difficult to do so, but the payoff would enormous if they pulled it off.

I wanted to share some news I’ve been seeing the past couple days surrounding AT&T’s decision to issue credits for additional data, voice, and text coverage to AT&T customers in hurricane-impacted counties. This is a powerful example of the positive impact a brand can make, and it is also a wise business decision as the philanthropy has already paid off in an outpouring of PR coverage for AT&T.
 
While philanthropic efforts almost always generate a positive response toward a brand, this particular initiative was especially impactful due to three key ingredients:
​
1. Relevancy – The philanthropy directly responds to a current national crisis that is impacting not only those in the affected areas, but also their networks across the US.

2. Timeliness – AT&T issued the announcement of waived fees and extended coverage on August 26th, the day Hurricane Harvey began to cause unprecedented flooding and destruction on the coast. The early response to the disaster highlighted AT&T’s proactivity and eagerness to help those affected.

3. Connection back to the brand – While AT&T could have simply donated funds to help those in impacted areas, they instead found a way to link their philanthropy directly to the AT&T brand by helping victims stay connected through extended coverage and waived fees. In doing this, AT&T found a way to make a meaningful impact while sensitively and subtly keeping the brand and its services top-of-mind.
 
As marketers, we should keep AT&T’s response to Hurricane Harvey in mind for future philanthropic efforts, and always ensure relevancy, timeliness, and connection with the brand when developing initiatives like this.

Relevant links and press:

• Initial announcement from AT&T: AT&T Newsroom: Waived Fees for Customers Impacted by Hurricane Harvey
• Today’s updated announcement including additional coverage and waived fees: Hurricane Harvey: Response & Live Updates
• Initial Twitter announcement and announcement of extended support
• AT&T’s inclusion in AdWeek article: Here’s What Brands Are Doing to Help in Texas Communities Devastated by Hurricane Harvey
•  ABC 11 News: AT&T waives fees for customers impacted by Hurricane Harvey
•  Dallas Patch News: AT&T Won't Charge For Overages In Hurricane Harvey-Devastated Areas
•  Saintpetersblog.com: AT&T helping Texas hurricane victims stay connected, waives wireless fees

Yesterday I had the pleasure of watching To Inform and Delight, a documentary about one of the most prolific graphic designers and advertisers of our time.  If you’re curious about how and why certain ads take off and become ingrained in our culture, I highly recommend this film.  Before I watched the film, the name “Milton Glaser" didn't ring a bell for me.  But about 5 minutes into it I realized that I recognized the majority of his work, including the iconic “I Love NY” ad campaign, as well as his psychedelic Bob Dylan poster.  In fact, there were few projects shown in the film that I hadn’t seen at some point or another. His work spans all media—advertising, logos, packaging, illustrations, newspapers, posters, books, albums and even interior design and architecture (including the layouts for supermarkets).  He left no artistic venue unexplored.  His portfolio is truly legendary.

You’d think a man with so many famous projects under his belt might be a little bit pompous, but he’s actually quite the opposite.  The documentary paints a portrait of a man who is compassionate, endearing, and humble.  He seems confident, but never cocky, and happy to help others by sharing his timeless advice.  It’s clear that this is a man who didn’t set out to hit it big, but ended up with an extremely successful career because of a sheer talent for communicating with people visually.

The title of the film comes from a quotation that Glaser found while searching for a “proper definition” of art. While he concedes that there is not one standard definition, he says that this quote from Horace --“the purpose of art is to inform and delight”— encapsulates his personal aesthetic.

I also found it interesting how Glaser reflected on his first company, Push Pin Graphics.  He sounded nostalgic and proud, but also somewhat annoyed when describing it.  He called the company, “the epitome of fun in design” and said that it, “opened the door to eclecticism in a way that no other firm had done,” but then added that “the company’s success defined us too much…Push Pin became a style, and I don’t trust styles. I had to redefine myself.”  This is the exact opposite of what I would expect to hear from such a profound graphic designer, a man who practically creates ‘styles’ for a living…and it’s even more ironic when you consider that he is credited with creating and popularizing the graphic style “Psychedelia” in the 1960s, the most distinct style of the era .

Perhaps his aversion to style is really more of an aversion to being "typecast," so to speak, for a specific type of style.  Although, with his accomplishments, I don't think he's in any danger of being seen as repetitive any time soon.

His portfolio is filled with demonstrations of the power of advertisements, probably the most well-known being his complete turn-around of New York City’s image with the I heart NY campaign.  The story is truly incredible: In the mid-1970s when New York was on the verge of bankruptcy, Mr. Glaser was asked to create a campaign that would rebuild the city’s image from crime-ridden and dangerous back to a beautiful hub of civilization.  Less than a year after his “I heart NY” campaign launched, New York saw the biggest boost to the tourism industry they’d seen in decades, and their economy boomed as a result.  Of course, we can’t give all the credit to Milton Glaser, but I think it’s safe to say that the “I heart NY” campaign had something to do with it.

While his accomplishments are jaw dropping and numerous, the real takeaway of the film for me comes from the random nuggets of wisdom that are scattered throughout his narration.  Here are some of my favorites:

• “Art has no real meaning other than what each generation assigns to it—it’s only purpose is to create commonalities between different groups of people, because without mutual interests, we’d kill each other.”
  
• “A smart strategy is to create work that appeals to the problem-solving part of the brain by creating simple visual puzzles.”
  
• “Everything is related to its opposite—light requires darkness; truth needs lies.”
  
• “It’s good to explore the spiritual side of life, but hold your beliefs lightly.”
  
• “Design is not a service; it’s a cultural value.”

And this final piece of advice is what really stuck with me: “pursue creative hobbies that bring you satisfaction.” He says the trick is to find ways to incorporate the things you love to do into the things you have to do (he did this by using his love of food as the inspiration for different advertising concepts).

Although the idea of “doing what you love” may seem like a trite concept, it really stood out to me in this context.  It’s easy to get so caught up in our responsibilities that we forget to enjoy life, but the smart way to avoid burning out is by making sure that your responsibilities are things you enjoy doing. Luckily for me, advertising is a fun and rewarding creative outlet for me, the same way that design is a creative outlet for Mr. Glaser.

Until recently, I had always thought of Dove's marketing campaigns as an unquestionably positive force in advertising.  They're the "good" brand, so to speak, bravely taking a stand against all the shallow beauty ideals women constantly have the deal with in the media.  Or at least, that's how I used to see them.

Lately, some things have been brought to my attention that make me wonder whether they're actually an ally to women, or an antagonist in disguise.

It all started a few weeks ago, when I read an article on AdAge that mentioned that Dove is actually owned by the same company that owns Axe.  "That's strange," I thought, "How could two products with such vastly different brand messaging be produced by the same company?"  Dove is the champion of the "real woman," whereas Axe has produced some of the most sexist advertising on television.

Upon greater research, I found that the article was correct.  Axe and Dove are both owned by the parent company Unilever.  Furthermore, there's been speculation that Unilever has set up this dichotomy purposefully, as a marketing ploy.

After reading about all of this, I felt skeptical, but I decided to give Dove the benefit of the doubt.  "Maybe the people who are actually working on the ads really do care; they probably just don't have a say in other brands that Unilever owns."

But just as soon as I was beginning to forget I'd even read about dove's situation with Axe, the brand was brought to my attention again.  And this time, I couldn't bring myself to drop it.

What caught my attention was their most recent “Real Beauty Sketches” video, which practically clogged my Facebook news feed due to its popularity among women.  I watched it, wanting to see this incredible uplifting message my friends were seeing, but what I saw instead was pseudo-empowerment and fake-feminism.  But before I start tearing into it, let's talk about the ad itself.

For those who haven’t seen it, here’s a rundown:

Dove conducted a “social experiment” with several female participants who (Dove claims) did not know what they were signing up for.  One by one, the women arrive at a building they had never been to, where they were told to get friendly with a person they’d never met. Then, they were called back into a space where a professional forensic artist was waiting with his back to them, separated by a curtain.

Then, each woman described her physical appearance to the artist, and he sketched them according to what they said. After that, the stranger who met and spoke to each woman came in and described the participants from their perspective, and the forensic artist drew a second sketch based on this description. At the end, each woman came back to see the two sketches, and to notice the difference between how they describe themselves and how others describe them. They all agree they look more beautiful when described by strangers, and that they are more beautiful than they think. Then they talk about how important it is for us to realize that our self-perceptions are overly harsh, and they say that we should spend more time appreciating the things that we do like. Finally, the words, “You are more beautiful than you think” scroll across the screen, and the video ends.

Well that sounds wonderful, doesn’t it??

In some ways, it is.   The video definitely makes some valid points.  Most of us are our own harshest critics, and it’s clear that Dove is trying to spread an uplifting message by reminding women to appreciate the things they admire about their looks.

So there’s the admirable part.  Now let’s dig a little deeper….

First of all, the ads are still drilling in the idea that women are supposed to aspire to be beautiful as a primary goal in life.  Sure, Dove found a way to put a positive spin on it, but the underlying connotation is the same as always: that a woman’s worth rests in how physically attractive she is.   Notice that it’s not called the “Dove campaign for real intelligence”.  The focus is on looks.  The only difference is they’re saying it in a pseudo-empowering way.

That’s my biggest beef with the campaign.  The folks at Dove are acting like they’re bravely challenging conventional standards of beauty when  they’re not actually changing the narrative at all.

In fact, their ad doesn’t even seek to broaden the definition of beauty.  The characteristics presented as “attractive” and “unattractive” are totally in line with cultural standards.

For example, when the women described their appearance to the forensic artist, these were some of the attributes that the ad presented as flaws (even if the women didn’t imply that she felt that way): “round face, freckles, scars, crows feet, moles, thick hips, getting old, etc.”

On the other hand, descriptive words that were presented as “positive attributes” included: “Thin, thin face (this was said twice), thin chin, ‘small cute nose’, blue eyes.”

On top of this, there’s very little diversity in the participants that Dove chose for the project  All four of the women are white, 3 of the 4 have blonde hair and blue eyes, all are thin, all are tall, and all are under the age of 40.  There are brief shots of people of color scattered throughout the ad, but we don’t hear them speak much.  Dove definitely isn’t going out of it’s way to promote more diversity in our perceptions of beauty.

I probably don’t need to spell it out because the problem should be so glaringly obvious at this point.  But I’ll say it anyway.  The ad not only accepts, but reinforces our society’s narrow definition of beauty.  If you tune out the inspirational music and listen to what they’re actually saying, it’s this: “You’re not quite as far away from conventional standards of beauty as you previously thought you were! Yay for you!”

Dove’s problematic message is summed up perfectly in a quote from one of the participants played at the end of the ad: “It’s troubling. I should be more grateful of my natural beauty.  It impacts the choices and the friends we make, the jobs we go out for, the way we treat our children…it impacts everything. It’s absolutely critical to your happiness.”

Let that sink in: Being beautiful is absolutely critical to your happiness.

Now where have I heard that before….Oh that’s right, it’s the core message of 90% of the ads I see every damn day.  Conventional attractiveness is treated as a prerequisite to happiness.  We hear it thousands of times in a million different ways, but it’s the same sorry message:

Physical attractiveness—the most superficial quality to judge a person by—is the most significant part of a woman’s being.

If Dove really wanted to take a stand, they’d be sending out the opposite message.  Instead of saying, “You’re prettier than you think,” they’d encourage women to evaluate themselves in more meaningful ways beyond their looks.  Instead of saying that beauty is “critical to happiness,” they’d tell the truth: that basing your happiness on well you meet society’s definition of beauty is a recipe for a miserable and unfulfilled life.

Sure, it’s nice that Dove wants women to know how beautiful they are.  But I won’t be impressed until they start praising women for something other than just being pretty.

This is seriously the happiest I've felt all semester.  It makes all of the stress we went through completely worth it!  We worked so hard on this project.  We truly did feel like it was our baby at the end of it all.  And learning that our judges loved it as much as we did is such a incredible feeling...I have never felt so validated in my life!

I'm still rubbing my eyes to make sure I'm reading it right, it just seems too good to be true!  It's not that I didn't think we had a chance, but I was so scared to get my hopes up for fear of being disappointed.  We put so much into it and we cared about it so much that I didn't even want to think about the possibility of it being shot down.  I can honestly say that I have never cared about a project as much as I did this one (although the final project in 345 is a close second).

The funny thing is, I had completely forgotten about the prize packages until Professor Dobias mentioned them in her email.  Winning is such a great prize by itself, anything more than that makes me feel spoiled!  Not that I won't appreciate my prize, but just knowing that our plan was chosen truly is the greatest reward in and of itself, and I think my entire group would agree with me on that.  The validation of knowing that we delivered what the judges were looking for is just such a great feeling I can't even begin to explain it.  All of the late (and sleepless) nights were more than worth it for this.

When I look back at how far we've come, it really is incredible.  It's hard to believe that just a couple months ago Danny was explaining the project to us for the very first time.  We were all so freaked out and clueless at that point.  I remember feverishly trying to write down every single word that Danny said because I was so lost and I was just hoping if I had his words down on paper I'd be able to piece them together later.

And then we had our first group meeting that week.  We didn't really know where to begin, so we started by compiling all of our notes about the project and trying to figure it out from there. The first week we were all pretty lost, but the second week we got our stride.  That's when the research really started kicking in, and we figured out what we needed to be doing.  I think that's one of the main reasons why we did so well—we did our research.  Before we even started thinking about the plan, we devoted a huge amount of time and energy just to researching AFI and its competitors.  We compiled pages upon pages of notes in our Google doc, and our vault of information never stopped growing.  If anything, we knew our client inside and out.  And that was the strong foundation we needed in order to build a great plan.

Looking back at Projects 1 and 2, I now realize that rushing through this cruicial step in the process was the biggest mistake we made that prevented us from finding big ideas.  We were always so eager to dive right in and start working that we skimped on the research aspect.  In the past, we figured we could do overview research to start, and then continue to research while we worked.  This strategy seemed more efficient at the time, but now I see just how wrong we were.  Strong initial research is absolutely vital for success.  Throughout the course of working on the final project, I found myself referring back to the information we gathered over and over, which made me realize just how much I needed it.  Plus, our strongest ideas came from insights that we would have never found if we hadn't studied our client so thoroughly.

The research was the soil that grounded and nourished our entire plan.  That was the first big ingredient to our success.  But the second main ingredient is less tangible—our determination.  From the very first day we met as a group, we all knew we wanted to have the best project more than anything, and we were willing to do whatever it took to get there.  We painstakingly reviewed each others work over and over to make sure everything was perfect.  We weren't quick to accept an idea just because we were tired and wanted to go home.  It couldn't just be good.  It had to be the one.  And we held out until we were certain that all of our ideas were golden.

This group was special because no one was willing to settle.  That's one of the most valuable lessons I learned during this project: if an idea isn't working, you have to move on, even if you're attached to it.  There were instances when we threw out ideas that we had been working on for a while, because we realized it just wasn't the right one.  Sometimes this was really frustrating for me, especially when it was something I was working on, but now I'm glad I had that experience.

The most educational (and painful) of these instances for me was when the team decided to toss an idea for creative that I'd been working on for several days.  The idea had been to create state-tailored ads based on the myths and folk stories that are native to each state that AFI was expanding to.  We had decided to go through with it, so I started working on the creative.  It wasn't until I was almost completely finished with the ads that the group decided the idea wasn't strong enough.  

They were right, and deep down I knew it, but I felt so invested in those ads.  It's true – when you work on something for a long time, a part of you goes into it and you start to get attached.  When my group decided we needed to scrap the idea, I felt pretty upset about it.  It felt like such a waste to let go of the ads that I'd worked so hard on.  But now, I'm so glad they were honest with me, because if we hadn't thrown out that idea we never would have dug up the really big ideas we ultimately came up with.  That was a hard lesson for me, but I'm glad I experienced it.  If the current plan isn't working, you have to admit it and just let go, and be confident that something better will take it's place.  

This project has just taught me so much about what makes a great team and what makes a great media plan.  Everyone in our group had a clear role and sense of direction, and everyone worked according to their strengths.  After spending so much time working together, we all got really comfortable around one another and we were able to give each other honest feedback without sugarcoating.  Occasionally, we got a little too comfortable around one another, like the time we pulled an all-nighter in the PCL while working on part 1 of the book.  After spending hours together with no sleep, we started to get short with one another, but it turned out to be worth all the crankiness when we saw how great our finished product turned out.  And on top of that, even though we were irritated and sleepy, we all realized at the end how lucky we were to be in a group with four other people who cared enough about the project as much as each of us did.  It's not often that you end up in a group where each member is willing to sacrifice a full night's sleep for success.  But that's just where we stood.  We all knew that every one of us wanted the project to be perfect, and that we'd stop at nothing to get there.

I just wish I could go back to 345 equipped with the knowledge and experience I have now...but at least I know I can do it right from now on.  I've learned so much in TexasMedia this semester, and I can't wait to take these skills and apply them to whatever challenges are waiting for us next semester.

The media book was looking a little bland, so I took it upon myself to create an infographic to show off some of the highlights of Atlanta in the digital space.  I've made infographics before, but this was my first time putting one together from scratch.  It took a while to make, but I'm pleased with the outcome!

I hope the judges are as smitten with it as we are at Uppercase Media! 

Can you imagine picking up a payphone and making a call to someone living 20 years in the past?

Right now in New York City you can do just that, thanks to Recalling 1993, Droga5’s incredible new campaign for the New Museum’s exhibition, “NYC 1993: Experimental Jet Set, Trash, and More Star”.

Since the exhibition was created to be a snapshot of life in New York City at that time, Droga5 had the brilliant idea of integrating the campaign with the city’s history itself.  The agency transformed over 5,000 pay phones on the streets of Manhattan into audio time capsules.  By dialing the toll free number 1-855-FOR-1993, callers can hear one of over 150 recorded narratives from actual New Yorkers.  The recordings are even geo-located by phone booth, so callers hear what was happening on the exact street they’re ringing in from.

Check it out:

The two things that really take this campaign above and beyond in my opinion are: 1) that they found a way to integrate their advertising into the existing environment, and 2) that they actually become a part of their client’s exhibition. Rather than creating more stuff to take up space in already-packed Manhattan, they decided to extend the exhibition into the streets by repurposing payphones that were already there.  And with all the buzz it’s generated, it looks like everyone in Manhattan is having a blast with it.

Talk about finding the perfect medium for the message.  Droga5 is doing it right.

According to AdAge, we can expect to see QR Codes disappear completely within the next few months, as they are quickly being replaced by new augmented reality apps that are much more efficient and easy to use.  The new apps allow consumers to simply wave a smartphone over content and immediately have access to digital features.

For example, a Japanese newspaper has already launched an augmented reality app that allows young children to scan specially-marked articles with a smartphone to get access to a more kid-friendly, simplified adaptation of the story, along with pictures and explanations to help them understand the content.

Another emerging technology that AdAge predicts we’ll soon be seeing a lot more of is an invisible, electronic linking code called Touchcode.  Once printed on paper, the code can be programmed to link any touch-screen device to an interactive display relating to the content on the page.

For example, advertisers could use the code to link readers of a gaming magazine to a free demo of a game mentioned in one of the magazine’s articles.  All a person would have to do is place a smartphone or tablet on top of the article and wait for the demo to appear on the screen. The technology could also be used to show visual demonstrations of products in a catalog, give out coupons and special event tickets, or even allow consumers to “try on” clothes in an virtual fitting room.

While QR codes did have a few very successful campaigns, they were often too difficult to access from the locations in which they were placed.  They frequently ended up on billboards, or worse yet, license plates, which made it practically impossible to scan the code successfully.  Plus, marketers didn’t do a good job of explaining how to use the codes to begin with, leading many potential consumers to simply ignore the codes entirely.

The good news is, we can learn a lot from the failures of QR Codes:

1. For one, the technology needs to be easy to use.  Consumers don’t want to waste time trying to figure out a complicated app.  It should be self-explanatory and obvious.
2. If the app is not completely self-explanatory, then marketers need to explain how to use the app in a very clear, simple manner.  If it can’t be explained simply, it’s probably too complicated.
3. Make sure you place the technology on media in areas where cell phone service is sure to be available.  The app is worthless if consumers can’t access it.  Subway tunnels and other obstructed areas tend to have block or lower service.
4. Only place the apps in locations where using it makes sense.  People probably won’t be interested in scanning the table to play a branded game at a fancy restaurant on date night, but they might be interested at a McDonalds when they’re looking for a way to occupy their hyper kids.

The point is, these new technologies are bubbling over with potential, but now it’s up to agencies to learn from past mistakes and use them more carefully this time around.  If done in a smart, creative way, these apps could stick around for a long time.

Alright, I’m going to go on a short rant because I am seeing an awful trend in digital advertising/social media that needs to be addressed pronto.

A lot of companies seem to think that simply being on social media platforms is an effective way to get consumers to fall in love with your brand.  Over and over I see companies making the same mistake of focusing on the spread of the message rather than the message itself.  Brands are purchasing retweets left and right when they should be investing that money into developing a creative message that will go viral on its own.  If the message is really reaching people and getting them interested in your brand, you won’t have to purchase retweets because your audience will be spreading your message free of charge.

Case in point: Oreo’s superbowl tweet.

The message was retweeted 10,000 times in just one hour, and 14,000 times that day.  And not a single tweet was paid for.

Oreo did it right.  Here’s how:

First of all, the content was relevant.  Oreo didn’t just put out any old ad.  They created a brand new message specifically tailored to the situation: a stadium blackout at the Super Bowl.  Why did this work? People like to talk about what’s happening now.  They want to be in the know.  And they don’t want to just have a boring old conversation about what’s happening either.  They want to hear something new and entertaining.  Oreo did all of the above.

Second of all, their team was quick and reactive.  The graphic was designed, captioned, and posted within minutes after the lights went out. Most brands would hesitate in making hasty decisions like this, but Oreo took full advantage of the situation the moment it hit.  They jumped on the opportunity and stole the show before any other brand could even think about putting their 2 cents in.  And do you think they just so happened to think of something clever and put it together?  No way, José.  Bet your bottom dollar they had a team of creatives and PR personnel standing by, just waiting to react to whatever situation was thrown at them.  They were quick because they were prepared.

Finally, the message itself was witty and unexpected.  The ad went viral on twitter because it caught everyone off-guard and resonated with them in some way. It was creative and funny and didn’t feel like an ad.  It broke the 4th wall by going meta and commenting on something extremely of-the-moment.  This sort of quick-wittedness isn’t something we see every day from a brand.  Oreo’s audience knew this wasn’t some ad that had been cooked up for months.  It was fresh, and everyone could feel it.

So there you have it, folks.  Oreo’s tweet went viral because it had a message that met at the intersection of content, relevancy, speed, and wit.  It may seem like a complicated formula to nail, but with as much money as brands are spending on retweets of irrelevant content, they would be making a very smart move to shift that part of their budget towards a more reactive creative strategy.

One of the best classes I’ve ever taken at UT was Intro to Sociology with Dr. Anthony Vigorito.  I initially took the class as a freshman just to fulfill a credit requirement, but it ended up having a huge impact on my perception of the world, and eventually, my choice of major.

A large part of the class involved analyzing mass media’s impact on society.   One of the clearest ways to see how our culture influences the world around us is by looking at the images it produces, and ads are a particularly powerful example because they not only create, but also reinforce social norms and power constructs (ex. ideas about race, gender roles, etc).   And because we are constantly bombarded with these messages from a young age, we often don’t even realize how much they affect us.

Professor Vigorito demonstrated this concept with harsh clarity on the first day of class that semester.  When we came in, there were a series of print ads projected onto the screen in the giant lecture hall. The ads portrayed women and men in various poses and scenarios, normally with men in dominant positions and women in more submissive poses.  Some of the ads showed women painted to look like the product being advertised, and others even went so far as to attach women’s body parts to the product.

We were told to write down our impressions of the ads, and share our thoughts with the class.

The responses varied, but most of the girls and a few of the guys said that the ads made them uncomfortable.  Interestingly, however, while many people expressed strong reactions to the ads, no one was able to pinpoint exactly what it was that got under their skin.

I was one of those people who sensed something was off, but couldn’t quite determine what it was.  I remember looking at the ads on the projector and having this kind of sick feeling in my stomach, but I couldn’t identify precisely why they made me feel that way.  Some people suggested that it was the overt sexuality of some of the ads, but I knew that it wasn’t sexuality alone that was hitting a nerve in me.  It wasn’t the sexual nature of the ads that was a problem, but rather, the context.

After we discussed and debated the ads as a class, Professor Vigorito had us watch Killing Us Softly 4, a documentary about the ways gender is used to advertise products.  If you haven’t already seen it, I would highly recommend watching it.  Here’s the trailer:

This was the first time I’d ever heard of the concept of objectification, but it made perfect sense.  It was like a lightbulb went off in my head.  I finally understood why those ads bothered me. It wasn't the sexuality of the ads, it was that the women were being objectified.  In each ad, women were presented as somehow less than human—as objects.

Since learning about this concept had such a profound impact on the way I analyze ads, I wanted to use my notes from my Sociology class to share a brief overview of objectification for those who aren’t familiar with it.

So what is “objectification,” exactly?

It’s essentially making someone into something.  It’s normally carried out in ads by giving the properties of an object to someone who is, in fact, a person.

It can be hard to explain in words exactly how objectification works, so I’m going to try to explain by giving examples of some of the most common ways it pops up.

In these pictures, human beings are presented as inanimate object.  These are some very obvious examples, but it's not always this black-and-white.

Then there's objectification by dismemberment.  Some ads take this kind of objectification one step further by not only dismembering the body parts of the person, but also presenting these parts as inanimate objects.

Sometimes it’s slightly more subtle, with the body being compared to an object rather than explicitly rendered as the object itself:  Here, the enlargement of a woman's breasts is used as a really awful "metaphor" (if you can even call it that) for the difference between low and high definition photos.

Advertising showing violence against women is harmful for a number of reasons. For one, these ads mock the seriousness of abuse and gendered violence, which is clearly a very real threat in our society.  Another problem with these ads is that they reinforce the idea that women are the property of men: a possession to be used, abused, and disposed of.  These ads tell men that it's okay, and even right to think of women that way.

But perhaps the most damaging message they send is that violence against women is not only acceptable, but “cool.”  And that is a really scary message to be sending to young, impressionable men, some of whom will do just about anything to fit in.

While it's true that most victims of objectification are women, that doesn't mean it never happens to men.  It’s less widespread, but men definitely get objectified to an extent as well.

A particularly common theme with the objectification of men is presenting them as animals:

In some ads, this human-to-animal objectification is reversed.  This Trojan ad uses actual pigs (well, computer-generated, but you get the idea) behaving like men, instead of men posing like pigs.  But the message is the same.

Another common form of male objectification is body dismemberment (although they normally aren’t presented as inanimate objects).  Teen outfitters like American Eagle and Hollister are notorious for this.

So what’s the problem with objectification in ads?

For one, repeated exposure can lead people (women especially) to internalize objectification and begin to view themselves the way they are portrayed in the media — as objects of desire.

Another negative effect is that sexually objectified women are seen as being less human and less competent by both men and women alike.  Some studies have even found that long-term exposure to stereotypical media portrayals of women is correlated with greater tolerance of sexual harassment and acceptance of rape myths among men.

But we can’t possibly know the full extent of how these messages effect us, since we’ve been bombarded with them our whole lives.  The consequences probably reach a lot further than we’re able to measure scientifically.  The media plays such a huge role in influencing and reinforcing social norms, and we have all been impacted by the mass messages we see, whether we want to admit it or not.

The first step to change is admitting that there’s a problem to begin with.  It’s easy to dismiss the issue, since we’ve never known anything else, but if we take a step back and look at what our society from the perspective of someone who isn’t constantly immersed in it, the cruelty and harmfulness of the media's "objectification habit" becomes clear.  We have to demand for it to stop now, before it takes on a life of it's own.