Getting back all the responses from interviews now, results show that product placement does not appear to play a role in impacting the interviewee’s lives; the amount of time they spend on the computer and internet browsing overshadows both television viewing and watching movies, yet more than 60% of the surveys returned can recall brands from shows they have watched, so is it an unconscious understanding that the brands have already infiltrated their minds? Or is it as Martin Lindstrom describes smokers' choices when undertaking his survey (Lindstrom, 2009, p.15)
It wasn't that our volunteers felt ashamed about what smoking was doing to their bodies; they felt guilty that the labels' stimulated their brains' craving areas. It was just that their conscious mind couldn't tell the difference.
Gathering main discoveries from each week’s progress report:
- Brands need to know their audience before selecting airtime in the case of product placement; consumers themselves must also play a part, as they need to know or have minimal knowledge of products available in the market first. For children, brands have to understand both the children (their main audience), and their parents (the power of purchase). More than 75% of the UK audience were not aware of the meaning of the ‘P’ marque; the notice for product placement that is shown before programmes that have endorsed brands embedded in them.
- If campaigns are strong enough to create an impact in one’s long-term memory, the idea of the campaign will eventually become a brand. From this, it can be said that anything can be considered as a brand nowadays; products, companies, people, even metaphors and gestures. Gestures such as the ‘thumbs up’, ‘thumbs down’, ‘OK’, the Crucifix and their behaviours as a result of the usage are well-known internationally, can we therefore brand with gestures due to the known significance of them?
- As a follow up from the discussion with Eugenie in the last tutorial, can negative branding therefore be made positive by increasing the seductiveness of them? The seductiveness of eating healthily and living well, can it be made better?
- How do children, whose minds are developing, differentiate between positive and negatives before knowing the difference between right and wrong? We implant ideas into our minds with the increasing types of media that we are exposed to – books, newspapers, television, movies. These types of media are created through someone’s ideas brought to life visually or in literary senses. In both cases, both ideas are implanted into people’s minds by adding visuals effects, and in literary ways, the extensive use of descriptive words.
- Product placement, very much like advertising, is an adult invention, perhaps something which may be too advanced for children. As a result, a new materialistic culture has been produced as a result of the adult concept of product placement and advertising; the increase in commercialisation of childhood has dynamically changed the development of children.
- The notions of childhood have very much changed since the days of fairytales and fables, where it was the platform for understanding moral values and notions; the modern rendition of fairytales takes place in forms of magical worlds (i.e. Harry Potter series, or Ben 10 etc.) where there is a merging between the fantastical and of the real, but more dangerously, these are not ideals of teaching moral values and notions, but rather a franchise to increase commodity. This shows the major extent of how brands have infiltrated our minds without much control and from the brands' point of view, it is about providing the children values of a different kind.
- So has brands, become the modern adulthood to the modern childhood? As substantiated from previous research, parents have decreasing importance in guiding children's development; from Nicholas Ind's Living The Brand (2004, p.32-3) He explains the notion of modern-day society using the Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs:
we work because we have basic needs of safety and security...there is a real fear of not being able to afford the necessities of life...Maslow, with his belief in humanistic psychology, recognized that, although people do have basic needs, they also have social needs, and needs for esteem and self-actualization...they do want to be recognized by others for their worth and they do want a sense of fulfilment.
- Our generation is a generation that is the advertised, as well as the advertiser. Branding has become the dictator to children, to childhood.
I have begun to realise that the points I have made not only emphasises on the modern ideals of children is to become older than they are; to be seen to be older and more mature than their peers – brands exploit this notion to implant themselves into the unconscious and morph social norms.
In product placement's case, where it can be defined into several stages, or phases of embedding into children’s minds in a sentient manner to become part of the children themselves. As a result, the connection between the child and the consequence of their perception of the world from an overexposure of brands has been initiated.
The adult’s dream of childhood can be traced in the history of the fairy tale. For the most part, we assume fairy tales are stories for children that perhaps we engage in as adults only as a form of nostalgia. We understand the fairy tale as a staple of the child’s world, a world of fantasy left behind with the maturity that comes with adulthood; fables provide a more realistic point of view by providing a moral of the story, which would make it more apt if I were to concentrate on just fables, rather than fairytales as well.
How can I present this concept and push it as the outcome?
From my research and experimentation, what is the problem?
Branding has become such an integral part of society that childhood and their development of values and morals have been jeopardised; childhood has now simply become a period of time where brands exploit by infiltrating their developing values, rendering their lifestyle increasingly materialistic.
The social implications of such an impact would mean that this Generation X, or more recently called the Generation M^2 (meaning MultiMedia) would be working to live in order to satisfy their materialistic desires; as morals and spiritual values become decadent. The loss of innocence, along with the childhood, tender mothering and care that is supposed to accompany innocence by parents has been gradually handed over quietly to the technological gadgets and their branded siblings. Children growing up too fast these days prefer to spend time with their gadgets than their parents, who on average spend only 82 minutes with their children each day.
How has branding therefore, impacted childhood?
The main issue that I discovered that has been hounding the ideology of childhood is that the modern-day child is becoming increasingly obsessive about consumption, this can be interpreted in different ways; whether in food or other products, we are becoming increasingly materialistic in our values, and the age of desiring and obtaining materialistic luxuries are getting younger. Why? Advertising. The stressful lifestyle that the majority face in this metropolis are beginning to show strains and their children are also noticing too; reports show that parents spend on average only 82 minutes of their day with their child. Where has the time normally spent with children gone? Adults begin to go through the routine of wake up, eat sleep and work, and less time is being spent with children; bills to pay, mouths to feed. The sense of stability of a secure job with secure pay, as compared to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, combining this with the strategic methods of advertising and the overload of information everywhere, there seems to nowhere to hide, and children are being brought up in an environment where advertising is the norm that one probably gets exposed to more than their homework or more time spent with advertising than their own parents.
How am I going to solve it or raise questions that may help deal with the problem?
I initially proposed a visual journey of the gradual overtaking of brands within our sights, using fairytales as the starting point, where morals and values are taught through storytelling, much like brands. Using snapshots from fairytales, a vernacular of childhood innocence, with a twist into their context with brands can aid in raising awareness of the impact of brands have in our lives and the gradual loss of innocence that childhood as a concept was supposed to attach to. By placing brands in such a context, it shows that brands have embedded themselves into everyday language, enough to create stories out of them.
It is creating visuals that help raise awareness of the increasing amount of advertising, hence dealing with the problem from the roots, rather than providing a solution itself. A solution cannot be created in the scale that is required of the vast industry.
The feedback from the seminar held today (15/9) was not particularly sound; the ideas presented on negativity were given the most praise, but the outcome proposed did not support the rest of the research involved. It has been advised to focus on one societal aspect and focus the rest of the development, although the focus has been based on the collision between the increasing development of materialistic values over the spiritual from the beginning…
In retrospect, since the research that I have been conducting all along has been about materialism, it is therefore only justifiable that I can brand materialism as a concept – the justification of creating such a brand would be to increase the awareness of brand terrorism that faces us everyday, to the point where we are not allowed to choose a branded product over another due to the monopolies that particular company has purchased, and we, ourselves, become the advertiser; a walking billboard. It is merely the path of research that I undertook which took me to this point in a different way, but it will also be the research direction which I undertook which should wield interesting results.
The target audience has very much changed from the beginning of the project; instead of focusing on modern-day children, the audience, in itself, has also grown up, and now concentrating on those that do not believe that they have been impacted by brands, as described at the beginning of this report.
The main question now is: How does the research there fit into the research question, and produce an outcome showcasing critical reflection on the project?
Bibliography
Ind, N. (2004) Living The Brand: How to Transform Every Member of Your Organization into a Brand Champion. Kogan Page: London
Lindstrom, M. (2009) Buyology: Truth and Lies About Why We Buy. Random House: London
