Followers

Thursday, December 4, 2014

Three bottles of beer on the wall

Coors 1979 - Taste the High Country
Actors: All male, rugged, big beards, out doorsey, jumping from cliffs, hang gliding skiing, cowboy stuff. Mostly white guys, not working, or shown finishing work - playing hard.

Music: not quite country, but up beat, something you may hear in a John Wayne or Clint Eastwood western as they're getting ready to save the day. repetitive "taste the high country - taste Coors". insinuates that the rocky mountains is the only place to brew a suitable rugged beer.

Dialogue: Narrator sounds rugged, says "once you taste the high country no down stream beer will do..." "its no down stream beer, its no city beer".

Targeted Audience: mid-20's to early 40's - rugged type guys, or those who want to be perceived as rugged and manly.


Budweiser 1979 - This Buds for You
Actors: Busy, hard working, people "average American's" hard at work at what could be any viewers job. Industrial work, construction, fishermen, secretaries, lawyers, athletes. Mostly men and one woman working, another woman is present, but she is playing the role of good wife and serving her hard working husband a beer. Many different races portrayed to really exude the all inclusiveness of hard working people.

Music: Sounds up beat, more like something you'd hear in a Dirty Harry or Rocky movie as they're working hard at chasing down the bad guys or getting in shape for a fight. Repetitive "this buds for you, for all you do...."

Dialogue: "To everybody who puts in a hard days work" deep voiced narrator sounds hard working & authoritative but not bossy; someone who you work with not for. The last line in the ad is a smooth sounding "Heeeey this Bud's for you." the voice sounds cool and relaxed- and maybe it implies that he's already had a Budweiser after a long day of work and is passing on this great drink to help you unwind.

Targeted Audience: Working American's. Probably aimed at mid to late 20's to mid to late 40's workers; there is one woman in the ad, so they don't want to exclude women (especially in the time where equal opportunity is starting to kick off.) but it is mostly aimed at guys, maybe on the grounds that guys enjoy beer more than ladies.


Pabst Blue Ribbon 1979 - Patrick Swayze
Actors: Patrick Swayze- well groomed, Hollywood actor, young and hip. Gorgeous blonde girl, lots of young hip people enjoying them selves at a disco.

Music: young and hip disco sounding - repeating "I've got Pabst Blue Ribbon on my mind." song implies more of an evening out having fun partying at the latest hippest clubs.

Dialogue: Narrator sounds young and hip, tells you it's naturally good & it's premium beer - catering to a younger crowd that maybe wants the newest and best stuff. Later says "a lot to look forward to" implying that it's a beer that will stick around with you and you can enjoy later in life as well.

Targeted Audience: late teens and early 20's - mid 30's, definitely targeting a younger demographic that is really into going out and partying at night clubs.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adrienne Allen
ENG 101
4 December 2014

 In the adult world there seems to be three companies that dominate the beer scene, and depending on who you ask, the go to beer is going to be one of these: Coors, Budweiser, or Pabst Blue Ribbon. What’s even more interesting is the type of people that drink each beer. While there are some exceptions, it seems to be that Coors drinkers are typically the outdoor adventurous types; Budweiser is the brew of choice for the hard working blue collared individuals, and PBR seems to be the go to for young adults who still like to party. How is it that we’ve fallen into these niches’, and almost naturally stay in them? The answer lies in the advertising world. In the late 70’s beer advertisements started to become more televised and thus a larger audience could be targeted by the various breweries. While it would be nice for each company to completely control the beer scene; it is rather impractical, partially because of location but also due to the consumers varying tastes. Instead it would be easier to target specific audiences with their ads thus ending up with a demographic of devoted consumers and a peripheral clientele that could be swayed into their brand from time to time. Taking a look at three commercials from 1979 we can see each brewery take a bite out of what would eventually become the cliché for each demographic.
 Coors brewing company, based out of Golden Colorado, is nestled right at the foothills of the Rocky Mountains. Having already cornered the local market it seemed only natural to keep their advertisements in line with what could be considered a typical Coloradan. In their 1979 “Taste the High Country” ad every actor is a rugged looking, adventure seeking, hard playing man. It opens with an upbeat song, reminiscent of something out of a John Wayne or Clint Eastwood western. A slurry of extreme sports and activities, that perhaps only the bravest and most adventurous would dare attempt, is shown to the viewer with an enthusiastic chorus of “taste the high country” in the background. A peppering of action shots of bottles being opened and mugs being filled joins these images. While the display of courage and product continues a deep-voiced man smoothly begins to sing the accolades of the illustrious mountain range and implies the only beer that could possibly compare to their majestic reputation is the one and only Coors. The chorus returns to reiterate our masculine singers point; “Taste the high country – taste Coors.” At this point the ad is 40 seconds into its 60 second window and has created a strong case for further associating their brand with a lifestyle that many people have, or at the very least wish they had; appealing to an audience’s sense of adventure is a bold, but usually highly effective and rewarding strategy, and does just the trick to gain the loyalty of the like-minded audience. To earn the stragglers and fence sitters of the demographic the commercial continues with a narrator confirming that Coors is the superior beer and its ingredients are as unique as the rocky mountain wilderness. The quintessential cowboy then proclaims “It’s no downstream beer”, followed by his lumberjack-esq counterpart declaring “It’s no city beer.” A handsomely rugged mountain-man completes the testimonial with “It’s Coors.” In the tree seconds it takes to get this message across, nearly every male that sees the ad can identify, in one way or another, with these three men; they are each the culmination of man-hood in three diverse yet relatable ways. The commercial ends with its resounding chorus and an action shot of a bottle of Coors being poured into a tall frosty mug; the action is enough to get any beer lovers mouth watering. Based on only the actors the advertisement uses, Coors seems to be specifically targeting the late 20’s – mid 40’s male population; their consistent use of adventure and ruggedness appeals to the average male in the hopes of being viewed as all that is man. While there are no women in this specific ad; I don’t believe that it was derogatory in any way, they were just a smaller populous that advertising beer to may have been useless.
 In Budweiser’s 1979 “This Bud’s for You” commercial, I believe they are appealing to a similar age group as the Coors ad, but a different variety of consumers. Vice the masculine adventurous approach, they angled more for the working and middle classed folks. Their central theme is highlighted by the hustle and bustle of many hard-working men and women and how refreshing an ice cold “Bud” is after a long hard days’ work. Like the Coors ad, Budweiser starts with a catchy tune. This time sounding like something from a Dirty Harry or Rocky movie as they're working hard at chasing down the bad guys or getting in shape for a fight. A narrator, that sounds like he could be the guy next to you at the bar, jumps in with “Everybody who puts in a hard days’ work…this Bud’s for you.” An array of laborious jobs, from industrial work and construction, to welders and truckers, streams past the viewer’s eyes. A catchy chorus that that is nonspecific enough it could be singing directly to each individual viewer, but personalized enough that it instantly makes the audience feel appreciated compliments the imagery. The assortment of jobs continues and every worker is shown deep into their daily grind. A sense of satisfaction is conveyed as the camera pans through their scene; a few of the people shown working look up and smile at the camera, and others are so focused on the task at hand there is no room for complacency. Budweiser uses almost identical product placement techniques as Coors does; action shots of a bottle being opened and poured into a chilled glass, mixed in with what could be considered the plot to the commercial. As the ad comes to a conclusion the workers are obviously completing their daily work and are sitting down at home, and in bars enjoying this “well deserved” beverage. The last line in the ad is a smooth sounding "Heeeey this Bud's for you." The voice sounds cool and relaxed; and maybe it implies that he's already had a Budweiser after a long day of work and is passing on this great drink to help you unwind as well. Throughout the entire commercial the spoken parts sound as though they’re coming from someone who’s just as hard working as the people being shown; he also sounds authoritative in knowledgeable way without coming across as bossy; someone who you work with not for. This really helps the viewer relate to the suggestions of making Budweiser the perfect end of day drink.
 The third and final ad is Pabst Blue Ribbon’s 1979 “Blue Ribbon on My Mind” starring Patrick Swayze. The targeted audience is completely different from the previous twos’. They seem to be reaching for a younger crowd that is maybe more carefree and hip. There is no implying that the beer will make you manlier, or that after a long day’s work will be more enjoyable. It starts with a poppy disco-era soundtrack and a gorgeous Patrick Swayze obviously getting ready for a night out on the town. As he leaves his modest yet stylish city apartment; lyrics that could be sung by any disco star begin. The tune has an overtly catchy ring to it, and almost gets the viewer’s dancing in their seats, and energized for a fun night out dancing. Swayze makes his way to pick up an equally lovely girl at her house. As they head down the steps of her place, disco themed lighting flashes across the screen to the beat of the song. A poppy chorus of “I’ve got Pabst Blue Ribbon on my mind” begins as Swayze and his date dace the night away in what could be any city’s hippest club. Again the same product placement of Coors and Budweiser is being used, this time with minimal descriptive dialogue to accompany it. The fact that they’re using a Hollywood actor and a nameless gorgeous blond seems to be that PBR is trying to target younger women and men who think if they drink PBR it may not only help them pick up better looking partners, but they may have more of a fun time doing it as well. The entire commercial really focuses on cutting lose and shamelessly enjoying a fun night out.
 All three of these companies through the years have used almost the exact same techniques and targeted almost the exact same populations as the 1979 ads. Whether it’s because they've gotten the recipe right and don’t want to risk spoiling it, or because there are no more slices of the pie to cut off I can’t be sure, but the bevy that goes with each brand has rang true for over a quarter of a century.






Tuesday, December 2, 2014

pg 181 questions

1. The insight Melissa Rubin offers in the coca-cola ad she analyzes is that coca-cola was a company that has been synonymous with the american culture since its invention. Throughout her entire analysis she describes ho well coke has appealed to its consumers without much overt effort. The tactic coke used in this specific ad was to really target the middle and working class, which primarily made up the U.S. population at the time. The conclusions Rubin came to are in line with my own after looking over the ad.
2. She incorporates historical context in a very fluid way. There was no obvious points when i realized i'm being filled in on historical times; it was natural with her analysis and not something that could have been considered boring or forceful or excessive in comparison to her analysis.
3. Other questions that could have been answered about an ad would be: -Who is the target audience, and why are they being target specifically? are there other outlying demographics that may also be reached or intentionally not reached with the advertisement? how does this advertising style differ from similar ads in a more present time?
4. A contemporary ad that projects the values of the era we live in would be a modern day coca-cola ad. they use many of the same techniques; targeting the middle class population, but now include various ages, races, and genders; no one specific demographic stands out. Also the ability to reach so many people because it is a video ad and not a print one, coke really has to make sure that no matter who watches it they personally can identify with the commercial without also maybe offending someone else.

Thursday, November 20, 2014

Questions from pg. 175.

1. I believe Heather Havrilesky's main insight of the show Mad Men is one of an almost disdain; not entirely towards the show its self, but I think more on the ideas the show accentuates. In her opening statement she makes it very clear that the american search for upgrades has become a "sickness that's infused in our blood..." The show very cleverly portrays that reinforcement of needing to have the next best thing, but also, though it may be lost sometimes in the glorification of the main characters, that having the best doesn't actually fulfill the void we want it to. As Heather continues on she really covers  almost every main character's struggle with keeping up with the appearances of the relation of happiness and objectivity, and their true struggles to maintain such a facade.
2. Havrilesky establishes her authority to write about the show in her first few paragraphs by summarizing the similarities between the show, and our real lives, emphasizing our ridiculous need to never be satisfied with what we have.
3. When Havrilesky wrote "...millions of aspiring 3-year-old princesses hum "someday my prince will come!" to themselves, turning their backs on the sweetness of the day at hand." it really tugs at our heart strings, because many of us young girls have seen the glorification of princesses sitting around and waiting for their prince to arrive instead of going out and living our lives, maybe even meeting him on the way.
4. I have seen Mad Men before, and actually quite enjoy it, and I do think this is a very accurate description of the show, and the points she's made in her article are definitely ones that have occurred to me and have impacted me while watching the show.

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Analyzing websites.

Vacation Packages

Priceline.com
  • Minimalistic; easy to navigate, great if I already know exactly what I want.
  • Not too overwhelming  in the sponsored stuff /adds; makes it very easy to find the smaller links to what I want.
Expedia.com
  • Has an extensive  list of not only their featured deals but also their top deals. Nice in case you don’t already know where you want to vacation to.
  • Each different advertisement for the different deals is bright and eye catching, really drawing me into the different adventures.


Currently I'm more partial to Expedia than I am Priceline simply because I don't have any idea what sort of vacation I'd like, and Expedia privides so many choices right off the bat. I find that a bit amusing because I usually prefer Priceline to Expedia usually because they offer more for a better price. Since I'd have to really start digging through Priceline's website I would probably use Expedia as inspiration to find my perfect get away. I did find Expedia's webpage a bit overwhelming as I slogged through the various deals they provided, and eventually got irritated at how much they were pushing on me, this did make me enjoy Priceline's minimalist version a whole lot more. Once I got deeper into Pricelines website I really noticed how consistently easy they made it. Expedia also kept with their cluttered theme; and the adds didn't match what I selected...so when I looked into a vacation to Cancun the add on the side of the page was for Alaska...which isn't even remotely close to what I'd currently like in a vacation. So while my initial vote was for expedia - because of my undecided-ness - I will more than likely use Priceline because of it's ease of use and minimalist style. 

Decisions I Make

Easy things:

 Breakfast is crucial during my school week, so no matter what I need to eat something substantial to help me get through my day. I do generally keep it high in protein but due to time constraints, that protein may vary. On my weekends I merely need to maintain the habit; so depending on what all I need to accomplish that day, I usually reward my diligence with a tasty alcoholic beverage or two. 

Hard things:
While deciding weather or not to buy a car is a lot harder than deciding whats for breakfast, I feel my motives are a lot clearer and the actions I'll need to take are very cut and dry. No matter what the need is, my decision will 100% come down to money in this case. My actions following my decision to spend the money or not will vary, but in the case of replacing my car, this is a much easier decision for me. 



Thursday, November 13, 2014

 A lot of people argue that without a government or law enforcement that our society would erupt into violent chaos. There would be murder, mayhem and thievery as far as the eye could see. Did the word anarchy just pop into your head? Well it shouldn't have; the association of anarchy and violence is kind of a new thing. While it does mean that there would be no government or law, the violent stereotype associated with the word has become a form of fear mongering that has been planted in our brains by those who are truly afraid of how beneficial and progressive a stateless society could be.  I for one believe that without the state, the very opposite would happen. Our government and its subsidiaries commit these grievous crimes on a daily basis under the pseudonyms of war, imprisonment, and taxes. There has been very little societal progress during my short time on this planet, and what we do consider progress is something that should have never been an issue to begin with such as race, gender, and sexuality. If America truly were the land of the free, our national debt wouldn’t be in the trillions, people wouldn’t be kidnapped from their homes and families for “crimes” such as owning a certain plant, and the millions of innocent lives that have been lost due to war could have been spared. The American society has become complacent to the hypocritical double standard our government enforces.

 Taxation is theft. Many people argue that they voluntarily pay their taxes, and maybe they don’t really even mind them. Honestly the idea – aside from forcibly having our hard earned income taken from us - seems noble. With our tax money we can help with the funding for schools, hospitals, transportation, protection, and even our own entertainment! After all; education, health care, and roads, are essential for success in our modern world, and it is nice to take in the occasional national park. Unfortunately this money also goes to people who contribute little if anything to our society, whether they are a government official such as a congressperson or just a welfare recipient who refuses to pull their weight. There is also the added down side that if I don’t pay my extortion fees, for whatever reason, someone will show up at my door, kidnap me, and throw me in a cage. That doesn’t sound too voluntary at all…There are numerous other ways for us to educate ourselves, ensure our health and even pave roads without being robbed. If our hard earned money wasn’t being taken away to fund all the things we hate about taxes, we probably wouldn’t mind contributing to the things we do enjoy. In fact, not having any government involvement would essentially eliminate the middle man and their ridiculously high income; and since I’d no longer have to worry about the kidnapping and caging for not paying for something that I may not even use, I can turn around and voluntarily give my money to the things I actively want to keep.

  War is murder. This ideal is usually a tough one to swallow; after all many of us, our friends, or our family, at some time or another, has served in the military. While I do acknowledge and applaud the bravery of many of those service members, I find it hard to support the violence and corruption the military embodies. Barging into a neighbor’s house, and killing them, their children, or even just their pet, simply because you do not agree on something, or they have something you want is the same as going to war with another country. Occupying my neighbor’s home until they have forfeited their beliefs or property is in no way shape or form acceptable for a single person to do, why then do we support it on a much, much larger scale? According to Google, “There are more than 133,000 individually recorded civilian deaths since the 2003 invasion of Iraq due to direct war related violence and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been wounded.” These are all people, who up until their untimely deaths were more than likely going about their business just as we are right now. We can try and justify it as some and say they were part of a terrorist organization, or maybe their religious beliefs would have led them to eventually kill us; kill or be killed, but in all honesty they were just humans, the same as you and I, trying navigate their way through life. We’ve all heard the saying “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”, it all comes down to perspective, however violence only begets violence. Murray N. Rothbard, a renowned libertarian, once said "If no man may aggress against - invade - the person or property of another, this means that every man is free to do whatever he wishes, except commit such aggression."[1] If we were to model our life after these words alone, the death machine that is war would cease to exist.


So without the government and the military how do we achieve the illustrious freedom that we, as humans, are all entitled to?  The best answer is through a free market economy and society. In Rothbard’s article found in The Consice Encyclopedia of Economics, he defines the free market as such: [The free market] “is a summary term for an array of exchanges that take place in society. Each exchange is undertaken as a voluntary agreement between two people or between groups of people represented by agents. [2] This model would essentially become the foundation for our interactions with each other. If everything we do is based off a voluntary agreement between two consenting people, the majority of petty crimes would be eliminated. There is always the exception to the rule, and someone somewhere would commit an act of violence, but in a society where it would be just as easy to boycott a bad business, we could basically boycott the offender. In extreme cases imprisonment or exile may be necessary but only after absolute guilt has been proved. The use of the free market and reputable private parties can also help define the blurry lines of justice that many of us call for. Using Rothbard’s nonaggression principle and adding in a free market economy for structure is the perfect recipe for true freedom and maybe even a little happiness.
















collaborative commercial analysis

Subway Crop fit
Main message: suitable diet for whatever fitness fad. play on cross fit and it's silly extremes. 
Crop fit- extreme farming fitness - satirical 

regular looking people eating subway, doing healthy things.