Williamson Blog & DQ

| No Comments

I connected with some of the points but I don't understand/agree with some of her dissections of some of her examples. I think she's reaching or looking in to it too much when she examines the object's connection with other objects and the creation of meaning through that. Maybe I just don't understand it. But I definitely agree that advertising is rooted in the culture, that meanings are specific for particular societies, classes, and periods of history. Advertising now would not work in the 1950s. If it doesn't relate to the audience's culture, it's not gonna have much of an effect. It needs to be directed towards something they can relate with so meaning can be communicated to them.

Also, it's amazing how much advertising has changed with the Internet too. With Facebook releasing consumer's information, advertisers are able to pinpoint possible customers. It's popping up everywhere you click, literally. It has become so in-your-face on websites like Yahoo! where it takes up the whole screen and hard for you to click away from it. It's going to be interesting to see where we're headed with advertising and how it will affect us and our kids.

DQ: Do you agree with the author's analysis of advertisements and the object's relationships with the consumer? And do you think that we're too saturated in advertisements and are there serious effects from over-saturation?

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by bloo0206 published on November 25, 2012 9:08 PM.

Brent Stensrude Decoding Ads was the previous entry in this blog.

11/26 Judith Williamson: Discussion Question is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.