Deconstructing Advertisments

Part 1:
The two images presented from adflip.com are both selling the same product in drastically different ways. The first advertisement, obviously a much older one, is extremely “wordy” and almost seems complicated. In keeping with the polite, socially consciousness of the time, the advertisements gets a consumer’s attention with the large “Are You in the Know,” at the top of the ad. While the pictures are enticing to the eye and hold the viewers attention, I feel the paragraphs explaining the product and why it is so good is a bit much.
In the latter advertisement, however, the model herself is used in selling the product. Her eyes draw the consumer to look at the advertisement, rather than having words to capture the viewer’s attention. “Be a question. Be an answer. Be a beautiful story.” Simple phrases help to sell this product, and that makes the advertisement more memorable than the older one. The model is looking straight at the camera, making eye contact with the consumer. She is portraying a message that sells straight to the woman looking at the advertisement.
While the two advertisements are representative of advertising during drastically different times, the 1940’s, and the 1970’s, the different approaches taken are quite interesting. Looking at these advertisements from a historical context makes them easier to understand. Obviously, since society was more conscious of women in the 1940’s, the first advertisement is not surprising, as it is selling a woman’s product. However, fast-forward to the 1970’s – a time of liberation for women, and it is easy to understand why this type of advertisement would be chosen for Kotex products. The way in which the model is positioned makes her look “approachable” to the consumer.
Looking at these examples truly does reflect a historical context and a worldview of how differently women are looked at during specific times. During the 1940’s, women were looked at as proper, and always trying to be pleasant. I feel that this is why the advertising technique used is such a good reflection of the time. What to do when you’re a houseguest, dining on a train, or meeting new people are all situations that women at the time dealt with, as was choosing the “right” sanitary napkin. Using all of these techniques is what makes this advertisement successful for its time.
The second advertisement is more like what we have all around us today – a model selling a product, using a few simple words or phrases to grab the consumer’s attention. The older advertisement sells its product in terms of what other people will think about you, how to be polite, and look your best. This ad, though, takes a different approach. It sells directly to the consumer, telling them all of the things that they can be, selling to the newly liberated woman who can be a question, an answer, a beautiful story, etc. In comparison to the older advertisement, I feel that this one is much more successful in getting its point across and its product sold. However, these need to both be considered in relativity to their own time.

Part 2:

These advertisements, both from adflip.com, show comparative ways in which a product can be sold. The first, a Movado watch ad from the 1940s, shows the watch close up. The second, a Gucci watch ad from 2000, uses sex appeal to sell the product. This is the epitome of what Susan Douglas discusses in her essay, and her techniques of deconstructing or “reading” an advertisement can be applied here.
A value system for the consumer is undoubtedly developed here, although it has changed drastically over time. It seems as if currently, there is a universal understanding that sex sells. Unfortunately, society buys into this and relies upon it. In the second advertisement, it is almost impossible to tell what is being advertised at first. The woman in her underwear, with tousled hair and natural looking (yet perfect) makeup is used to sell a watch. This would have been unheard of years ago, when women were still respected and their bodies were not used to sell products. Today, however, this is far too common, as Douglas discusses.
In the older advertisement, the image of the watch is used to sell the watch. The advertisement reads “Calendograph, from month to second.” The ad shows how good the watch is, its features, and where to get it. The second advertisement has no words; it is simplistic, with the model positioned in the middle of the page, and “Gucci” written across her collarbone. This advertisement is exactly something Douglas would discuss: the first ad uses the product to sell the product; the second ad exploits a woman’s body to sell a product. The value system here has definitely changed over time. The media takes consumers for granted, and almost makes it seem like the only thing that grabs their attention is sex. Isn’t this undermining the intelligence of the public today? I think that Douglas’s call to closely read and deconstruct advertisements can definitely be applied here, and it is interesting how we simply accept seeing all of these ads today that use sex or a woman’s body to sell something. Most of the time, the product being sold does not even have anything to do with a woman’s body or sex. Yet, the media thinks it is what people want to see. This idea has obviously evolved over time, and would have been completely appalling at the time of the other watch ad.