| In Which Patricia Lost her Dinner |
They let that be played at school? Now I've seen everything.
And I wish I didn't.
As I write this, I'm eyeing that nice, refreshing can of soda that continues to tempt me with its awesome, fizzy and caffinated contents. In fact, as I reach over for it, I remember the commercial.
Acursed thing.
To be honest, I never really liked the taste of Coke, Pepsi, Mountain Dew, Sprite, and other such sodas. The only thing I drank out of a can was Crush and Nestea. But that doesn't really make a difference, does it? I don't think so. Sodas are sodas, regardless of what's on the outside, or what its flavours are. Sugar, flavour and caffeine are common in anything that comes in a can or bottle of soda.
And it scares me to think that until now, I've been drinking the stuff like water.
That said, I do agree that the aforementioned commercial is an effective scare tactic. Or rather, it's a disgust tactic. But is it worth showing on TVs across Canada? In America, perhaps, because the rate of obesity there is much higher than up here. If they tax junk food in America, I do believe that it would affect us here. But don't we already pay taxes here anyway, or am I missing something? Nevertheless, by taxing pop and other sweet confectionery, I think that the junk food business would suffer because of a decreasing consumer population. It's universally known that when prices go up, customers levels go down, and this is no exception.
But that isn't necesserily a bad thing. Higher prices for chips means more people would be drawn to the lesser-priced healthy equivalents. Things like yogurt, dried fruits and other such things could replace the unhealthy snacks, but are also delicious and good for the body.
There are positives and negatives to taxing pop and other junk foods. If the government decides to implement that law, then we really can't do anything about it.
And now if you excuse me, I'm going to cleanse my stomach with carrot juice. |
|
|
|
| Real beauty is good...but why is Edward there? |
First things first: Robert Pattison is not good looking. If anything, put Taylor Lautner there. At least he looks moderately good looking. Team Edward fans may throw tomatoes now.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled blog.
Photoshop is like a superpower. So, in the great words of Uncle Ben Parker, "With great power comes great responsibility." And that's exactly how we should treat Photoshop, or any other image editing software in general. We can use it to help others, or for our own personal gain. But something like Photoshop takes time to fully master, and even the professionals have their moments. Take these two, for example:  You look me in the eye and tell me that doesn't creep you out.
 Hooray for anatomically incorrect women!
When people see these ads, what would they think? Would they be creeped out, or would they wonder how they could also get long and perfect legs like the second woman? Are these the messages we really want to give to the society and the younger generation?
I'm not saying that using programs like Photoshop are bad, it's just that programs that lets people manipulate and change things could be used for wrong reasons. They could be used to promote the wrong things and make people self-conscious instead of helping the society. But creepy and anatomicall disproportionate ads aside, Photoshop can be used to accomplish many things, and a lot of them are beautiful. They almost make you wonder if it's real, or a digitally manipulated image. One such example is the image below: Picture courtesy of http://www.worth1000.com/ The moral of this story, or blog for that matter, is that we should think about what we see in the media. Are they real, or were they digitally manipulated. We know how to use programs like these to benefit others, not the other way around. Finally, we need to understand that although you can use Photoshop to make you look thinner, nothing beats good ol' fashioned excercise. |
|
|
|
| There's a Cooking Mama 3?! |
Woo-hoo! The best post yet, the Video Game post! Oh, I am going to have fun with this one...
I am not a video game person. I don't own a Playstation 3, or an X-Box. I have a Wii, and my parents only bought it because of Wii Sports. I also owned a Gamecube, and a Nintendo 64. In the Philippines, I had a Super Nintendo. If you hadn't already guessed, I'm a Nintendo person. (I also had one of those old-school Pong machines)
I fully support the statement tha video games have evolved for the better. Not only in graphics and gameplay, but also, especially in the Wii, player movement. Back then, the only part of your body that moved was your fingers, though sometimes, you'd swing your arms, especially while playing a racing game. Today, with a Wii, you have to jump, punch, swing, twist and move around to play. And, with a DDR Dance Mat, you actually have to get up and dance (although Playstations and X-Boxes have this too). Point is, video games have become more interactive, forcing gamers to get up and move around. Don't even get me started on Rockband...
But that's not the only thing that's changed. The visual graphics have improved dramatically. Remember when videogames were 2D and obviously pixelized? Me too. Let's take a look at one of my favourite games, Metroid.  Back in the day, it was a 2D side-scrolling game (Left). Today, it's a 3D first-person shooter (Right). The only thing that remained the same is that Samus is still a girl.
Not only that, but videogames have developed in its content. Back then, videogames were pretty simple. You either have to shoot things, punch people, or save your princess (who, much to your dismay, was always at another castle). Nowadays, there are videogames about cleaning, brain-training, having pets, being a fashion designer...the list goes on. There are even games that lets you take care of a virtual baby! (as if taking care of a real baby wasn't hard enough.) .jpg) I've never been big on video games. I don't have much free time, and when I do, I would rather be doing something else beside play my Wii. But if I had to choose, I think I'm happier playing today's videogames. After all, last week, I lost a pound trying to out-hoola-hoop my mom on WiiFit. Take that, Jenny Craig!
Cooking Mama: Lets you make virtual dishes. Mmmm... |
|
|
|
| Wow, I Totally Missed the Point |
Apparently, we were supposed to talk about the ads that was found on the Teacher Blog. Well, since I'm far too lazy to delete the other blog, and I adore the picture of the demonic She-Demon on the bread ad, I'll just do another blog. This time, for real. So, let's get started. Ad No.1. The 'Blow It in Her Face' Ad. According to Tipalet, the company behind this ad, if a man blows cancer smoke into a woman's face, they will follow him anywhere like a lost puppy. I actually find this particular ad very sexist. Why on earth would a woman follow a man around just because he blew smoke in her face. Firstly, the smell of smoke is disgusting. And it's dangerous to a person's health as well (Second-Hand Smoking, anyone?) If anyone blew smoke in my face, I'd probably slap them. In fact, why would a woman follow a man around in the first place? I'm pretty sure, as a member of the female species myself, women have brains too, adn can think for themselves. So why on earth would a woman follow others, especially a man who blows second-hand smoke into their face?  Ad No.2. The More Doctors Smoke Camels Ad. I actually find this ad hilarious, and very ironic. The irony in this ad is the fact that it's usually doctors who tell patients to quite smoking for the sake of their health. So...what happened with these doctors? Aren't they the patrons of healthy living? What happened to cancer? Are doctors immune to it, and that's why they can smoke without consequence? Seriously, if more doctors smoke Camels, then more doctors die from it too. Ad No. 3. The Tapeworm Ad. I don't understand this ad. Aren't tapeworms parasites that invade a human's intestines? Why on earth would someone advertise that? *an explanation is given* Oh! ...EW! What on earth? Why would anyone purposely ingest tapeworms? I find that disgusting. Tapeworms are parasites that invade a host's digestive tract and can cause diarrhea, anemia, and in some cases, headaches and seizures. It doesn't matter if you stay young forever by eating worms. You're still eating worms. There are side effects to eating not just worms, but live ones that can obstruct your intestines and cause major health risks. Is doing daily excercise too much of a hassle? This ad is wrong on so many levels, especially with the message they're sending to people: "Hey kids! Eat worms! It doesn't matter that it can cause disease...you'll stay skinny forever!"  Ad No.4. The Happy Lard Family. This is my favourite ad out of all of the four. Why? Everyone looks so happy. Why? Because they're eating the most dangerous fat in the world, that's why? Now, I understand that lard is used to make all sorts of foods, and is an ingredient in making shortening and other such things, but lard is extremely fatty and unhealthy. The child in the ad looks to be about 3-4 years old. No child that age should be consuming lard. One thing about this ad, though, is that a lot of people think that it's promoting the consumption of pure, untouched lard. I say otherwise. I think that this ad is promoting the use of lard in everyday cooking. It has a low smoke point, and a distinct taste. A lot of chefs and bakers use lard because it works so well with other foods. I'm not saying that lard is good, but maybe...the ad isn't focusing on the actual lard itself, but the application of lard in cooking. But that's just me. |
|
|
|
| Personally, Dove Smells Better |
Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty is probably one of the first companies that I have seen do this kind of marketing. Instead of showing obviously edited pictures of attractive women, Dove decided to focus on real women of all ages and sizes.
What other companies out there focus on the beauties of real women, instead of models? Very few, and Dove is one of them. Their ads are trying to teach young girls to be happy with how they look, and that each person is beautiful. Their take on beauty is unique, with videos, posters and campaigns that has postive impact on women everywhere. They want everyone to feel and look beautiful.
Axe, on the other hand, is a different story.  According to Axe, this is the 'Axe Effect'
Axe's take on marketing is the opposite of Dove's, firstly because they have different target audiences (With Dove's being women, and Axe's being men). Secondly, while Dove promotes real beauty, Axe promotes...women running after men after using their body spray. A simple equation can properly describe a standard Axe commercial: Man - Axe = Loser. Man + Axe = Women Simple, yes? As a member of the female population, I don't necessarily find these ads wrong or disturbing, just a little...humerous, if not somewhat disgusting. This is especially true for the visual ads, in which it is implied that women are doing...er...'things' to men who wear the body spray. Some are okay, and actually funny, while others border on being sexual. I'd post a picture of one, but I'm not sure we're allowed to do that. Despite their opposite marketing strategies, both Dove and Axe are owned by a company, Unilever, their 'parent company'. I don't think Unilever is responsible for either Dove's or Axe's marketing campaigns. Just like a parent, they can advise the 'children', but in the end, it's the child's decision in the end, or in this case, the individual companies. Dove is for women. Axe is for men. Obviously they're going to have different ads. You won't see an Axe commercial showing 'real' women, and you won't see a Dove commercial with women chasing after men. The individual companies just want to sell products, and that's what their ads are trying to do. |
|
|
|
| What is lard, anyway? |
The 50's and the 60's were very...'unique' when it comes to media (Think of...Yellow Submarine. You couldn't POSSIBLY get any crazier than that.) Back then, not a lot of people had access to television, so advertising usually came in the form of posters, or magazine inserts. Some of them are actually quite funny, while some are...really, really creepy, it's almost funny.  ( Seriously, who came up with this?) But some ads, however, falls right between Wrongville and "WHUUUUT?" I mean, some of these ads project such a wrong message and image to the people, I wonder why those ads were released in the first place. For example,  Yes. Because we all know Domestic Abuse is a good thing. What kind of advertising company makes an advertisement about Domestic Abuse? Granted, it's not meant to be serious, but, still! It's not a laughing matter. And the ads for smoking aren't any better. This ad doesn't make sense to me! Why a baby? Why a happy baby? Was this ad created before people realized that a cigarette was an honset-to-goodness cancer-stick? If you GoogleImage the phrase 'smoking ads', chances are you'll probably get an assortment of anti-smoking ads, like:  This ad is pretty cool. If you can't read the words, it says 'Non-smoking area'. Get it? I think the reason that what we call 'vintage' ads were allowed to run back then because no one knew any better. Sure, people have been smoking tobacco for a long time, but cigarette companies like Marlboro and Camel had just came out, and wanted the public to think that smoking was a-okay!, even though it wasn't. The society was different back then, and people didn't have the technology and knowledge we do know. Besides, it's not like ads of today are any better. Just open up a magazine, and subliminal messages will pop out at you. Except instead of 'smoking is awesome!', you'll get 'make yourself throw up so you can look like this!' |
|
|
|
|
|
posted by p.relatado at 
