OMFG! GET OVER IT!

I really don't see why everyone is freaking out about Gossip Girls new ad "OMFG."  Come on people, when was the last time you walked down the street and DIDN'T hear the F bomb?  I'm guessing it probably dates back to a few years ago.  And besides, lets be honest here - if the campaign was simply "OMG" people wouldn't notice.  And last time I checked... oh ya... produces WANTED their shows to get noticed.

Maybe I'm overreacting in thinking this isn't a BFD, but that's the type of content that sells these days.  It may be sad, but the truth sometime stings.  Besides, little girls who find this slogan offensive should not be watching the show anyway.  Now I realize this cannot be controlled, but hey if they are watching the show, seeing or hearing those four words is not going to be a shock.

Maybe it's because I'm older, but the last time I said OMFG I was at dinner with my mom and she laughed... I guess she was happy I didn't actually let the F word slip pass my lips... but she definitely found today's new abbreviations entertaining.  I'll agree that it is somewhat unfortunate that our culture has resulted to such extreme forms of advertising, it really isn't fair to cast blame on the agencies.  Rather, it is our own faults that we have let our culture develop into such a derogatory state.  It's completely acceptable for girls to call each other sluts and bitches as a compliment, and guys are praised for how many girls they sleep with in a month.  Media is just putting what we do behind closed doors on a screen... it's not their fault we've done a great job of supplying them with an unlimited amount of material. 

If parents are so concerned about their children's sensitivity, they need to take a peek between the blinds and observe the neighbors and even their own children to catch a glimpse of what reality has evolved into.

It might be shocking, but really we have no one to blame but ourselves.  More to Norway if you want a more sheltered life.

We almost all died? What!?

It's crazy to think of the world with no humans on it, but it almost happened 70,000 years ago according to a study from Stanford.  About 70,000 years ago, there were about only 2,000 humans on earth - mostly centered around Africa. The reason? Drought.  So what would the world be like without humans to keep things in order?

Would animals take over?  I mean we credit monkeys with demonstrating similar human traits, but can they run the world? If this were to ever happen, what would become of society?  I personally think the earth would crumble because no one would be around to take care of it.  Some would argue that there would be nothing to take care of, but if we all just disappeared one day, we better believe there would be side effects left in our wake.  Who would be in charge of controlling harmful substances being released into the atmosphere?  Who would take responsibility of all other things left in existence?  This may be a little far-fetched, but I don't think the world would still exist if human disappeared.  I know it survived until we came along, but it was reduced to dust and some plants.

Today, there are more than 6.6 billion people in the world, but yet there's still chaos.  So where is the balance?  Would you rather live in a world with too many people, or one where there's a shortage of humans?

X Ray vision

Ever since 9/11 it's easy to recognize that our privacy has been invaded by the government. Security at airports is the perfect example. These people search through ever little zipped up pocket in your carry-on luggage, and then lecture you to death when you accidentally forget to take a tube of chapstick out of your pocket. Not only do they then proceed to search you, but any information they ask you, no matter how personal, you are required to give them or else you might as well turn around and go home - there's no way they will let you on the plane if you're withholding information.

But now, there's another way to spy on the public! Scientists in London have invented a camera that can see through someone's clothing. Now before all the guys go "wow that's cool" let's think about this a little more...

Scientists have justified this new technology as another way to protect against terrorists, but really? Is scanning crowds of people to see what's beneath their clothes really appropriate? Wouldn't it be easier to just use this camera on people who seem suspicious? I don't understand the point in using this new technology when everyone knows it's going to cause people to feel their privacy is being invaded even more.

I don't think it's fair that the government puts this new spy technique into effect without first alerting the public to the idea that cameras can now see through their clothing.  If we are supposed to be able to fully trust the government, then they need to alert us to new technologies that while they are helping keep us safe, can also be a very big inconvenience on people's lives.

For more information about this new camera, visit:  http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/16/camera.england/index.html

Let It Be - Across the Universe

One of the most powerful movie scenes I have ever witnessed...

Don't doubt the little guys

After seeing this ad in class and hearing Young and Rubicam made it I was very surprised. Y & R is a monolith - not really an agency known for producing such unique and popular work. Seeing this ad and learning it came from such a cookie cutter mold of an agency opened my eyes to something new though. You can't doubt the little, lesser known guys in an industry.

Just because Young and Rubicam doesn't have the reputation of say Wiedan and Kennedy, doesn't mean it's not capable of producing such amazing work. Or just because a kid happens to be the shortest and skinniest guy on the basketball team doesn't mean he's not the fastest and most agile athlete. It's because of these common misconceptions that our society continues to be criticized for judging those around us so harshly and missing out on some great opportunities.

If we continue to underestimate our competitors, sooner or later they are going to surpass us. Just because Y & R isn't known for producing the best ads doesn't mean it never will. The "crazy" ad blew people's minds when they saw the work the agency was capable of.

Maybe it's time we start paying a little more attention, and respect, to the little guys we encounter on a daily basis.

Hide and Seek

You know the movie "I Know What You Did Last Summer?" I think they need to make a sequel called "I Know Where Everyone Lives."

In my reporting class today my professor showed up the Dallas appraisal website that can direct you to anyone in the Dallas area's address. So say for instance you wanted to find out where that professor who gave you an "F" on your midterm lives, all you would have to do is type in his or her last name, and VOILA! The address pops up. The site is even knind enough to connect you to Mapquest directions, leading you from one doormat to the next. Ya... creepy.

When I first saw this, I thought it had to be illegal, but apparently home owner's records are public records. This means ANYONE can access where you live if they know your last name.

Now what about that physco ex boyfriend from high school who still calls you? Ya, bad news, he can find you too!

But wait, it gets even better! There's a website that can also give our your phone number. Someone could type your phone number in, and up pops your full name and address (map directions included).

So why doesn't the government do anything about this? My professor explained that this is all public information, and once you buy a house, apartment, business complex, whatever, that information is fair game to the public.

I've always been relatively careful about giving my phone number to people, but rarely do I give out my address. It's not exactly a relief to know this information is already available online if the person knows my name. I guess in such a technology dependant industry, we can't be too surprised that all this information has leaked... but what I want to know is, what can we do? I guess I can have my number blocked... but people would still have it. I can move... but my new address would shortly be available.

I guess in today's world we just have to adjust to this new wave of available information, and accept the fact that our whereabouts are constantly being narrowed down.

Ethics

After reading the article by Jelly Helm I had mixed emotions about the various topics he discussed. While I do agree that advertising has led to an increase in our society's needs and desires, it is not solely responsible for turning us into over-consumers who seem to care nothing about the environment. Advertising is no different that observing our personal surroundings. Think about it, we go into malls are are overwhelmed by people toting designer bags and showing off designer jeans. While this could be considered a form of advertising, the agencies cannot ultimately be held responsible for our purchases. They simply suggest and point out new and exciting products, but never do they force us to purchase something.

I do agree that targeting lower classes is unfair, but advertising cannot be blamed for this. A lot of these people do not know the difference between a Louis Vuitton handbag and a Target clutch. If we presented two print ads to these people - one from each brand mentioned above - there is no guarantee the lower class would immediately choose the more expensive Louis. We can blame advertising for making the lower class feel inferior, but in reality, and this may sound very rude, they probably don't know the difference, and would be happy to just receive the product.

As for the three suggestions mentioned at the end, I do not agree with the suggestion to promote only those products that benefit humans. Every one seeks different benefits from different products. If advertisers were to determine what is beneficial vs. what is not, many popular products would cease to exist in advertising. There is no fair way to distinguish between what is and what is not considered beneficial to everyone.

Second, I do not think advertisers needs establish guidelines to prevent reckless spending. It is not the responsibility of the agencies to control the spending habits of humans. If we see an ad showing off a $5,000 pair of shoes - then let someone buy it! Agencies should not feel guilty for advertising an expensive product just because the majority of society cannot afford it. We may not really need everything we buy, but everyone can admit that without some of their favorite luxury items they would be much less satisfied.

Third - I do not agree with the idea of eliminating advertising to children under 12 years old. Even if children are not directly targeted by advertising as they grow up, he second they go in public they will be subjected to various products, brand names, and other endorsements just by the people around them. There is no realistic way to control that young children will live an ad-free life until they are 13.

In response to "Beyond Obligation" I do somewhat agree that clients and agencies should take it upon themselves to serve in the best interest of people, but it is not their sole responsibility to protect society. Agencies should be free to advertise a product how they see fit (within reason of not using extreme measurements). The issue of stereotypes falls into this category. I agree agencies need to be careful when creating how a message is to be interpreted, but it seems that everyone falls into a negative stereotype today - and most are now laughed about when portrayed in the right light. We cannot continue to blame agencies for using stereotypes that we so often joke about. There's not difference than talking about them with friends than seeing them in a magazine.

People are going to always interpret messages on a different level, and it's impossible for agencies to determine what will and won't offend the masses. Catering to one group discriminates against another - no matter what the final decision comes down to, someone will be offended and controversy will surround it. 

Rather than it being in the hands of the agency to shelter humans from what may or may not be ethical, society needs to accept our culture as what it is - an array of ideas, beliefs, and products that are tailored to appeal to a variety of people - not just one single consumer.

Boo, you whore!

When did it become acceptable for women to call each other a slut, bitch, whore, skank, and any other derogatory name?  Let alone, when did it become acceptable to shout this in public in the form of a compliment.  Girls take "you dance like a ho" as a compliment, and "you look like a slut" translate to "you look hot."  Appalling.  I guess though, all girls do it.  But why has this form of flattery developed?  Back in the "old days" these words were barely whispered, and even then it was shocking to hear them anywhere but in one's own mind.

In movies and even society, all the "hot" or attractive girls are called "sluts" by other girls.  Is it a way to make women feel empowered?  Maybe they think by putting other girls down they are making themselves look better - but really does this work?  It's one thing to joke around with my friends, but after I label a stranger a slut I really do feel bad for not even knowing her.  When did we all become so quick to judge and bash other girls because we envied them?

Most important, when did we take it as a compliment to be called such mean names?  Maybe we get drunk and laugh at it, but I'm sure I'm not the only girl to be truly hurt when a friend tells her she's a ho.  We can't control the guys, but at least the girls could up the respect factor a little bit - maybe the guys will follow.

It's amazing how some things stay in our mind no matter how many years go by. When I saw this article about child abuse I could remember in almost perfect detail a book I read about five years ago. "A Child Called It" is a book chronicling one of the most severe child abuse cases of a young boy in California who was abused by his alcoholic mother. As I said earlier, when I saw this article on USA Today all the horrible details of the book came flooding back to me, and made me wonder why certain events become engraved in our memories forever while others slip away.

Maybe it was the severity of the issue that keeps it so close to the front part of my brain, or maybe it's the connection I feel to the book after meeting a child who was abused in elementary school. Why then can't I always remember what I did three holidays back? I'm sure this celebration was filled with laughter and many memories, but unless I see pictures it's nearly impossible to recall the exact events of that day. And trust me, I don't have some kind of twisted selective memory.

I think whenever we connect to an idea, event, or other element on a personal level it embeds itself in the back of our brain until it is later triggered by even the faintest hint of the same idea. This one spark then ignites an entire string of stories and memories that all stem from my original thought. It's crazy how we immerse ourselves in one concept and watch as it branches off into dozens of other ideas.

When I thought back to the book "A Child Called It" I immediately forwarded to thoughts of my old neighbor, which led to a bbq the summer after my first year in high school, which branched out to high school, and now reminds me of my times spent here at SMU. (Even as I'm writing this you can see how scattered my thoughts have become as I bounce from one subject to another).

Maybe it's just how we're programmed that we can't help where our thoughts stray...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-04-03-infant-neglect_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Beauty and the defeated

Everything these days comes with some price to pay. Doctors worked wonders for men and women of all ages with the use of Botox - but now even simple beauty procedures has more to it then just a lofty price sticker. In a recent article on Fox News, scientists have found that pieces of the injection from Botox can travel from the face to the brain. Now, before you form even more worry lines, relax - this study has only been conducted in mice. I find it ironic though that something that is said to make people so beautiful is actually harming them.

After reading this article I thought about a lot of things that people say are beneficial to us, but can actually be very harmful. The closest thing I can think of is tanning.  Ok so maybe this isn't "beneficial" but there are many girls who find it very necessary to be tan in the summer, and maybe even all year round. The thought of developing sin cancer rarely touches the mind of these men and women as they bask on the beach or fry their already dark bodies in tanning beds.

So why do we keep subjecting to these harmful activities if in the long run they can hurt us? Should we blame society for pressuring everyone to be wrinkle-free and burnt to a crisp? Or is it just a personal trait that some people take too far? Now I know I'm tan - thanks to tan in a can, but as for risking my intelligence so I look like a 12 year old? No thanks!!

Besides - look how cute the dog is with wrinkles :)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,345068,00.html

The value of an education

We take our education for granted. Most of us never doubted we would progress through elementary school, move on to middle school, continue on to high school, and graduate on to college.  It never crosses most of our minds that our path will be blocked. 

Sadly, for many inner-city school districts this form of fiction for us is becoming a reality for many students. For example, in the Detroit City school district in Detroit, Mich. only 51.8 % of high school students graduated in 2003-04. Now I realize this data is a little late, but I'm not very optimistic that this rate has improved over the years.

It's disturbing to learn that these inner-city children really have nothing to aspire to if generations ahead of them are casting such a dark shadow over everyone. While suburban children flourish in college and beyond, their peers across the railroad tracks are busy living off the streets.

The main element to blame in all of this is classroom size.  I pride myself on going to a university where my professors (for the most part) know me on a first name basis. Going to a small school you have the opportunity to form a more personal bond with students and faculty. However, I went to a public high school, and while my professors knew who I was, it was always a chaotic scene in the classrooms and hallways.  Students who needed additional help were never given it because they could not be sought out in the sea of other students. Because os this overcrowding in inner-city schools, I feel many children are simply giving up because they feel they are being ignored by their teachers. The rich kids can afford a private education - others can't - by no means does this make sense.

All children should be offered equal education rights, no matter their class, ethnicity, intelligence - whatever it is. The only way for my generation to prosper and be successful in this country is for all human beings to make their contribution.  How are we supposed to do that when half of some cities cannot even produce decent graduation rates?

To read more on this issue, visit the link below.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-04-01-cities-suburbs-graduation_N.htm