Sut Jhally’s article reminded me of a video he made with Edward Said: “Edward Said on Orientalism” (2002). If you have time and if you haven't watched this video before, I would like to recommend this because it will give you a critical perspective to view today's media and their hidden agenda.
Echoing with some arguments Jhally and Said made in the video, Jhally, in his article, states that the media is privately owned and controlled by corporations whose aim is to create costumers for their commercial products. His article struck me most is his discussion on the roles of advertisements and the relationship between advertisements and commodified culture. He cites Smythe's claim that “the principle product of media is not ideology but audiences” (49). Media cares more about the exchange value rather than the use value of the commercial products. They care about how much the products can sell rather than how the products fit our actual needs. In addition, media also provides a space for advertisers to buy “access to audiences.” Audiences are sold by the media to the advertisers and thus become commodities as well (54). Media go hand in hand with advertisers to create consumers.
One of the older blog postings includes the videos of “Target Women.” They interested me a lot and I found some others in YouTube. I'm impressed by their critical way of interpreting today's advertising culture. The advertisement of “sexless birth control” is also interesting.
Target Women: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oDyCx3A6Ao
"Seasonique" commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xsnKcNgZW8&feature=related
Birth control pills are taken out of the context of sex. It creates the impression that you are taking the pills not because you are sexually active and want to avoid unexpected pregnancy, but you want to live a "painless," happy woman's life. The one-minute commercials of both “Seasonique” and “Yaz” illustrate Jhally's point that the power of the visual image subordinates the messages you get from listening. What the advertisers sell are “feelings and emotions rather the products directly” (57). Look at how the women in the commercials look like: They are happy and care-free (no negative emotions like irritability and pain from period), healthy (you can stay energetic and active in outdoors activities and sports thus keep a good body shape all the time), confident and charming (look at how the women's outfit in the commercials. Also, there's a contrast between a nerdy office lady and a hotter, sexier lady in “Seasonique” commercial), and successful (you manage your work, social life, and family at ease).
Last but not least....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iISzYPZYqqI&NR=1
Watch it until the end and you’ll hear “this video is sponsored by …NO ONE!.”
(sorry, I tried to upload the videos but it didn't work. So I could only provide the links. Sorry for the inconvenience!)
I agree wholeheartedly with this blog. It’s important that as consumers we realize that companies are selling us a product, not because it’s something that will provide the best and most healthy results for our lives, but simply because it makes them money. Amazingly, according to Jhally “There are no historical laws governing these processes, but, in general, groups that benefit from the existing distribution of power and rewards work for stability, whereas groups denied access to power and resources work for change (47).” This is very true in that there are groups out there working for the improvement and provision of more care via the agency of advertising companies, but not only are these companies not consumer friendly (with regard to our needs), but they are also only looking at the economic bottom line. None of these companies are contemplating that maybe a woman has a period 12 times out of the year because that’s what her body is biologically designed to do. No one considers these things; perhaps it’s completely unhealthy for a woman to only have 4 periods a year.
ReplyDeleteThey have taken the idea of our bodies and placed them in a space of convenience and efficiency to maintain a completely false image of what womanhood is supposed to be like and it’s completely irrational. Jhally also states, that according to Smythe “…too much attention has been paid to the way in which media produce ideology” and this, too is very true (49). It is overly important that we see and try to comprehend what the media is conveying to us, but we also need to take a critical look at the results of these varying ideologies. How are women establishing a conscious perception of themselves with regard to birth control and children? What are the missing links here between the things spoken in commercials and their real-life effects on the women that view them?
As you said Jhally states that, "the media is privately owned and controlled by corporations whose aim is to create costumers for their commercial products." And when it comes to birth control ads I feel that this is exactly what they are doing. This blog posting really made me see how much of a commodity birth control pills have become. Aren't these pills designed to stop pregnancies and to regulate irregular periods? Since when did birth control pills become a way to completely mess with how your body works and become something that eliminates your period completely and even bring it down to having it 4 times out of the year rather then 12?
ReplyDeleteI think the blog brings up a lot of great points when it comes to birth control ads and how they portray woman and how happy they could be if they were to take this NEW and improved birth control pill...it is also interesting to see how convenience and how easy something can be is more marketable than advertising more standard birth control pills. Convenience is what is being marketed in these birth control ads rather then marketing something that is good for your actual health.
The term "consciousness industry” coined by Hans Enzensberger is the best way to describe why the media operates as a catalyst to produce a message for consumers to absorb that benefits the corporations that controls them. This should not come as a surprise to any of us because the reality is large corporations have never been about the best interest of the people, they have always been interested in what can yield them the largest profit. This why healthy concerns of women are not a major factor when these birth control pills are produced until someone files a lawsuit. This is clearly shown in the birth control commercial advertisements at the very end they rush through the side effects that can experienced while on the pill. Do this because they don’t care what the side effect maybe they just want you to buy the pill.
ReplyDeleteIn "The Spectacle of Accumulation", Sut Jhally talks about how corporations are granted almost complete freedom of speech through advertising, and though this is an American ideal, when private business interests collide with the public sector this can be problematic. I had a bad feeling about Yaz right from the first time I saw their weird commercials. They try to have the advantage over other birth control by talking about their "better" cycles. Now, I see commercials for law firms that start, "Have you or a loved one suffered health problems from taking Yaz?" I think that the pharmaceutical industry is an area that could use a little bit more government regulation, because as it continues to expand, the power is being transferred more and more into private hands, who much of the time are not so worried about a couple of lawsuits after all of the profit they are making.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all the post, but I more so connect closely to Bola's response. Her discussion about Han's "consciousness industry" is exactly how I feel about the commercial. As we all no they are commodifying the idea of women wanting to not experience the down side of being a women that mainly involves their period. But it also is very disturbing to see that such a idustry would market something that can cause such high health risk. I have never understood the idea of getting rid of a period yet alone altering the functionality of my body. I feel it is un safe and unhealthy for the body. I also feel that it is a shame that people are willing to risk ones health to make money. The perks sound good but when reality sets in we are actually dealing with a problem.
ReplyDeleteWhat bothers me most about these ads is the repeated mantra "who says?" in the Seasonique commercial. Seasonique is going for the theme of independent, liberated women, but... they're assuming that everyone wants to forget the small fact that birth control contributed hugely to women's sexual liberation. You'll never see an ad in which a woman says "who says my boyfriend and I have to use condoms?!" In their defense, they're probably assuming most people don't need convincing to use BC in the first place, but they have to differentiate their product from the others. They're using this angle of the convenience of fewer periods to get more market share, BUT as the clip points out, Yaz only has different dosage instructions. Birth control isn’t the only reason I distrust pharmaceutical companies, I wrote a paper for MS 264 on the subject and realized that Sarafem, a drug created to help with Pre-Menstrual Dysphoric Disorder, actually contains the same generic active ingredient as Prozac. Incidentally, Prozac’s patent was expiring around the same time Sarafem was introduced. While a small percentage of women may suffer from depressive episodes that are hormonally induced (and therefore different than Major Depressive Disorder), I don’t think this validates disguising Prozac in a new pink and purple pill. It comes down to handing depressed women a pill and telling them that it’s just their lady problems that are causing their emotional distress.
ReplyDeleteI’m really glad you brought this up because the pharmaceutical industry is arguably the worst case of commodifying differences and manipulating the public for a profit. Almost every other country in the world has laws against direct-to-consumer advertising for medications. In the U.S, advertisers often create a market for a drug before it’s even left the lab. If you really want to know, of the drugs introduced between 1998 and 2004, only 14% were new formulas, and 8% were slightly improved formulas. The rest of the drugs were made with the same generic ingredients. This means that companies are trying to differentiate their product in the same way that soda and cereal ads do, through emotions- and when that doesn’t work, they create a market for a new disorder. They spend WAY more on marketing on than on research! I could go on about this all day.
This blog was interesting..See as the people before me said, the companies don't care about how it works with your body, but they are concerned about who to target to get them some money. As we always see in the media, they explain how it can help you, but on the other hand, in fine print the side effects are painful or they say it so fast that you can barely here what they are saying. They know women want a product that is a good commodifier for their health, but in reality it doesn't always work.
ReplyDeleteOh wow..these products are so expensive too, but they don't work in our bodies appropriate.
ReplyDeleteI did enjoy the marxist rooting of this piece saying that the media are more interested in exchange value rather than use value and that there is too much focus on the ideology that is created. I do however think that the ideology critique is important.
ReplyDeleteThis made me think of Progenetorivox: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZjTDTvQaHo
Its a pseudo ad that shows how we are willing to pay any and everything, top dollar really, for 'the drugs we need' even if they are killing us. I am not a doctor, nor do I play one on TV, but I am always deeply concerned when I see this ad.
What really bugs me about this ad is the enlightenment-like rationality/emotional split in the ad. The ad operates on the premise that we have a logical self and a rational self. With the enlightenment, The logical and rational self (left brain) was superior to the (right brain) emotional self. White men were thought to be the most rational and thus more fit to rule. Women and minorities were to be ruled because they were more emotional and less rational beings--feeble minded. In this ad, emotional wears a dress and frollics aimlessly in the background as the pant outfit 'rational' researches the medicine. Like with the enlightenment, this privelages a certain type of epistemology and ontology. Things like intuition, spirituality and other forms of knowing and being are dismissed. They have been culturally colonized. As such there is a philisophical white supremacy, patriarchy and euro-centric ideology that is being promoted even with the structuring of this ad. African-centered theory would reject that there even is a rational self and a emotional self to have dialogue and certainly wouldn't put the rational over the emotive. Emotional intelligence is egually important.
That being said, It is still important to pay attention to ideology. Not ideology just on the surface i.e. how many people of color are in an ad, are they sexualized etc. It is important to look to the philisophical underpinnings of such presentations. The enlightenment thought also projects a certain type of control over nature and the body. It is fitting then that this type of thought is employed for a birth control ad. For more on this type of cultural and ideological warfare, I find Da Silva, and Dr. Marimba Ani's work to be helpful.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePre-blog Kelly Necastro
ReplyDeleteJhally argues that the institution of media does not serve the public good because it is controlled privately by corporations, of which are profit-driven (48). Also, inextricable connections between media and the economy greatly influence the cultural realm (48). As an industry, media produces a certain consciousness to perpetuate its “exploitative system of social relations” (47). In our hyper-consumerist culture, the line between media content and advertising has become blurred. Despite the fact that the media institution is supposed to be democratic, it works to commodify audiences and commodify culture, often in service of the power-holders.
As with many drug commercials, value is placed on sale of the product rather than public health. In today’s society, there are drugs, and medical diagnoses, for just about anything you could imagine. Advertising thrives on this notion. This makes me think of the following clip from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-15-2008/the-jimmy-legs
In the Seasonique and Yaz commercials, I would argue that the female body is commodified in that the pill is depicted as “hip” and “natural” when really it is manipulating nature. Even though it is cool and convenient that you only get 4 periods per year, there are serious risks including blood clotting, stroke, and heart attack! Advertising is building off the notion that, in our culture, it has become normal for women to be on birth control, whether it is strictly for contraceptive methods or not; some are merely on it for convenience or to control skin problems. The idea that such advertised pharmaceuticals are marketed as being the solution to all of your health issues, when really such drugs can have risks that outweigh the benefits, is extremely misleading and often overlooked. This speaks to our culture though, in that we like to take the easy way out, which often ends up biting us in the bum in the end regardless. Look at processed foods and obesity, or the housing crisis and recession, etc. As media and advertising become one of the same (unfortunately), the goal of having a well-informed public sphere becomes increasingly unrealistic. It is inevitable that through media, audiences and culture are going to be commodified, but in order to work towards a more democratic media institution, there needs to be a paradigm shift, which takes power out of the hands of big business and into the hands of a lively public sphere. A public that is more critical and aware of the realities of the system would be part of this.
That image was a phenomenal onslaught of color and orgasmic monthliness. Those commercials are also interesting because they not only remove sex from a woman's routine, but they remove sexuality from her identity. Interesting that men-sex commercials (for, say, viagra) are all about him getting it up for a RAUCuOUs time! and a WOMAN targeted commercial is about "the aches and pains" of that DAMN uterus.
ReplyDeletemakes ME feel cramped! (get it?!?! ha!)
The reading and this text seems to be in line with the investigation that Naomi Klein writes about in NO LOGO in that the industry of producing goods went from producing things to producing the ideas of things and lifestyles where it is not about the use value anymore but abstract exchange values. The birth control seems to be an example of this where like you said before, it is not about preventing pregnancy and retaining a level of control over one's body but also now just a level of control that represents empowerment that is not necessarily tied to reproductive rights.
ReplyDeleteJhally's discussion of consciousness industries and subsequent discussion of the creation of audiences was particularly relevant to this discussion. There are some pretty big assumptions that these advertisements make, one big being that women's "irrationality" is tied to her biological sex. These ads, and many like them, tend to portray birth control pills as this miracle drug that will make women's lives easier. The foundation of this "logic" is that women's bodies are inconvenient and irrational things that must be manipulated in order to be more manageable. Our bodies are not actually this way, this is preposterous. I'm not living in my skin everyday, thinking, "God, this is so uncomfortable and inconvenient that I have a uterus and a period." Yet, the discourse of Seasonal and Yaz advertisements construct such an image - which encourages us to purchase their products.
ReplyDeleteTo tie it back to Jhally, the nature of the commodification of culture allows for this sort of marketing. This image of the highly emotional and irrational woman does not just exist in advertising, we see it in TV shows and movies all the time. And while a direct influence of the "hypodermic needle" model is a little outdated, it is important to understand how this type of discourse is pervasive in all our media.
It seems to be the general tread of all pharmaceutical products on the TV to sell this image of their product as your generic happy go lucky product. The one miracle drug that will make you feel better. Now I know nothing about birth control pills, never really bother much to learn, since I'd never use them. But just taking from this post. It's crazy to see the power of media, in as to how far it can commodify anything. It can take something so horrid, and put a price, a value on it. It takes me back to cigarette adds in magazines. What is the value placed on ciggs, is it the fun in the sun, or do we something different. The same can go for birth control. I think it's right now here when birth control is valued as something positive.
ReplyDeleteJhally's article's discussion on the way that democracy functions without government regulation but then the people who have the power are those with vested interests in broadcasting networks and regulate what information the media do and don't bring into the public sphere.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of these birth control pills, we're given a speedy snippet of the ridiculous health effects of these products. However, would the media ever go over what these really mean? Absolutely not because the "media are not public institutions but private ones...controlled by the corporations who have concentrated wealth and power in their hands" (48). These advertisers are basically funding the media and stopping them from doing what they were intended to do- which is to educate the public on products and issues such as these.
These ads are marketed to a specific audience and demographic which the media creates through their programming and functions. As Jholly discusses, the implication of the connection between the media and the economy are "immense" and as well they work to continue the disparities between the elite class and promote those with the power's agenda.
I completely agree with what everyone said i 've always found it scary to use birth control as a way of changing how your body functions but it is something that has become so common. Companies are making so much money doctors are now getting paid to advertised. I think that's risiculous !
ReplyDeleteThis image is priceless...Anyways, I always thought these commercials were hilarious, for it makes it seem like all women who are on birth control are active, less emotional, and more fun. I think the correspondent did an excellent job of spoofing what major advertisers and doctors do to target women and to make more money.
ReplyDeleteThere are doing a good job though, for I swear that I had that NuvaRing song in my head for at least a week, singing the days of the week. Unfortunately, what has become a commodity is not only women, but menstruation and human life.
Awesome blog I definitely never thought about how the media focuses on the exchange value vs. the use value. As a consumer I was greatly considering looking into using Vaz because of the way that the commercial perpetuated a sense of happiness that the product provides. After viewing the commercial and seeing the FDA commercial stating an official disclaimer about the product causing them to rephrase the content of the aid, I realized I forgot what the product was truly advertising, birth control, because it was framed in a way that emphasized a relief from a women's period. Just like Jhally states in his article, the media is only focused on what they can profit vs. quality of a product. In away I feel that the media is this way due to the lack of accountability. The media is a product that is hard for citizens to stop consuming because our nation has been greatly infused with technology.
ReplyDeleteI did my review on this book, so I figure, I'd let ya'll know of some of Jhally's great metaphors for advertising. In the context of your ad targeted to the typical adult, the advertiser is a drug dealer. He saves his choicest metaphors for advertising targeted to children, where the advertiser is a child abuser, then a child molester.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all of you. The commodification is not in the woman alone but the nature of the female body. It kills me to see how advertisements try to limit a woman's right to her body and sexuality and make it as a negative thing to be free and logical. First, I'm all for women being free to showcase their sexuality. However, I disagree with birth control being advertised for the sole nature of putting reigns and limitations on what females do. I think, where are the feminist at? A lot of things is associated to Judeo-Christianity..believe it or not...the female body was the subject to sin (Adam and Eve) in which seduction was seen as a bad thing. Therefore, society operates on these same ideologies that are the frameworks for the operations of society..and believe it or not..consumerism...
ReplyDelete