Cheat Commercial

Communication Theory + Criticism

5/23/06

Narrative Analysis


“Cheat” Commercial

Seymour Chatman’s approach to narrative analysis divides it in two parts: story, or content; and discourse, or expression. While these are tied together, separating them helps understand the structure of the narrative. Story is not the same thing as plot. In the Guess “Cheat” commercial, the plot is simple, but parts of the story are left out. These are the parts told by subtext, by the “how” of the plot.

From the very first image in the commercial, we are given the impression of an upper class setting. While the rudimentary plot is being presented by the “girlfriend” character, she & the detective sit in a spotless looking futuristic house on a hill, with a view of the city in the background. It’s definitely the type of house that gives one the impression of wealth. We can even see a maid or nanny walking outside with a child, which we may not necessarily assume belongs to this couple until seeing the commercial more than once. These bits of story create expression or discourse about a perceived upper class.

In another scene, the detective describes the man he’s supposed to be testing for relationship fidelity. “He’s got it all – looks, money, likes blondes,” the narration says, and we see the image of another beautiful woman, the detective’s employee. She’s looking at the photos of this guy with apparent interest and calls him “Mr. All America.” This is the story – but the expression or discourse tells us that this upper class guy is living out the American dream, and that this dream consists of money, good looks, and blondes.

When the detective presents this employee of his to the audience, the woman who will attempt to seduce, he tells us she “was just trying to get through college” as we see her sitting in a diner, “and I’m going to make sure she does it”. The expression here is to say that: this is a working (lower or middle) class girl who’s going to make something of herself one day by going to college.

The story then continues to show how she can pay for it: by flaunting her sexuality. “I try not to think about it- I mean, it’s a scary situation,” this working-class girl says, as her boss pins a microphone to her bra. “But it’s a job and the money’s great,” she finishes, shaking her bosom in the mirror and looking satisfied. This expresses to us that for the working-class girl, flaunting sexuality is not shameful, and that she should derive her confidence from men’s attraction to her body.

When a little later the upper class “Mr. All America” man meets the working-class girl in a bar situation, and the two flirt in a booth. She asks him a series of questions as we watch either the two of them in the bar, or his girlfriend listening in. Asked if he’s married, he says “No,” pauses, and then says “The relationship just didn’t work out.” So now, the expression is that this upper class all American man can’t resist the lure of an attractive woman in a bar, even if he has a girlfriend back home.

As the commercial closes, the detective tells us “my girls look so good that people ask me: ‘is it fair?’ and I have to tell them no.” This is the conclusion of the commercial; it quickly flashes the Guess jeans logo. The expression of this detective’s speech at the end is more than what he says: the discourse is that it is perfectly alright and expected for this All American upper-class man to not be faithful. On a whole the commercial presents the “upper class” as a place where everyone is white, men have all the power and women are their to use to their ends (the upper-class girlfriend at home with the baby worried, and the working-girl being used for her sexuality by the detective as a part of his business.

Ad + Soc, "What Would I Do" Paper

“What would I do” Paper 3
5/27/08

Mario eats candy

There is a marked debate between certain parties about advertising such as the upcoming candy ad placement in a game, which is rated E (“for everyone”). Product placement in video games offers whole new paradigms and possibilities for advertisers, as video games have moved to a more and more mainstream audience and as their environments allow for the chance that users can interact with the product which has been placed virtually; for example, in a crime game, Visa’s credit protection system “alerts players to a stolen credit card that helps crack a murder case” (Brown, Forbes).

It has been argued that product placement in children's’ programs, in some cases, can be deceptive or subliminal advertising, because research has shown that children can not always tell the difference between a fantasy show they are watching and the ads in between, or between the show and the real world, depending on their age and experience. It has also been argued that candy and other junk-food advertising especially in this manner causes harm by teaching negative health habits to children.

The FTC specifically prohibits product placement in programs “originally produced and broadcast for children ages twelve and under” (Campbell, Angela, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review). While the intention of this restriction has been to affect broadcast television it is arguable that video games offer a more-immersive version of what is essentially more TV. E-rated games especially would seem to fall into this category of “for children ages 12 and under.” The subliminal argument fails when we consider that product placement is visually obvious. If we look, we can see the product as it is placed in the game environment; it does not “fall below the level of consciousness” as the definition of “subliminal” would suggest.

While advertising junk-food as health-food or as a major part of a healthy diet would be misleading and clearly deceptive advertising, product placement in games wouldn’t necessarily have to be misleading in this way. A conscious effort made to ensure that the way the junk-food product placement is represented does not suggest that it is healthy or important to a healthy diet should prevent this problem. Media are only one of the sources of role models and lifestyle information available to children; their parents and their educators are major influences on their choices of food and everything else. The responsibility of advertisers is to honestly represent, not to teach.

As a media planner in charge of such a project, I would personally play the game and determine whether I thought the representation of the candy bar in the game was honest. If the game gives characters a chance to eat, do they ever eat real food? If eating the candy bar increases health or “life-force” of a character, is it a short-lived increase like a sugar rush? Then I would consider the game itself and wether or not the product fit into the game’s environment and demographic; some games take place in incompatable background environements. If the placement seemed responsible through these categories, I would definately proceed. If it didn’t, I would find ways to change the way the candy bar was placed to make it responsible. Candy bars are “E for everyone” products (except diabetics), and there is no reason why they shouldn’t be included in an “E for Everyone” game if the circumstances are right.

Bibliography
Brown, Erika. “Product Placement on the Rise in Video Games.” Forbes. 21 July 2006. Accessed 27 May 2008 at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13960083/.
Bulik, Beth Snyder. “Dynamic Ads Push Video Gaming to High Score in ROI.” Advertising Age. 5 February 2007.
Campbell, Alison. “Restricting the Marketing of Junk Food to Children by Product Placement and Character Selling” Loyala of Los Angeles Law Review. Vol. 39:447. Accessed 27 May 2008 at http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/foodmktgtokids-pra/526194-00014.pdf.
Sheehan, Kim. Controversies in Contemporary Advertising. 2004: Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks CA.