Check out more videos made by kids taking on big marketing–like this one, specifically about the color pink:

Click here to learn how to submit your own broken commercial to LAMPlatoon and join the movement fighting back against big media!

When this commercial first came out in 2010 during the Super Bowl, it hit the big time and soared among the most popular Super Bowl ads for the year. It’s got everything–upbeat music, humor and small animals (and we all know animals are candy for online video traffic). But a closer, critical look reveals a subtext which hinges on stereotypes of race, class and even gender. This video focuses on the racial stereotype, and reveals that even though the mice have light fur, most of us as audience members read them as black. Maybe it’s because a lot of us connect the 1991 song, “The Choice is Yours” with the hip hop duo Black Sheep, who are also African American. Or maybe there is something else happening in the way the mice act that sends us a signal about their race. It seems a little ridiculous that mice would need to be coded as a certain race, but imagine how the commercial would change if the mice were replaced by humans. By using mice, which have no ethnicity, the producers of this commercial are able to skirt making any obvious and potentially offensive statements about race, and most viewers can turn away from the commercial thinking it was harmless and fun. Look closely, though, and consider the assumptions you make as you watch. Why do you accept them, and are they fair?

If you’re interested in shining a light on other stereotypes and assumptions you see in commercials, email us today to join LAMPlatoon and take action. Next week, it could be your video in this space!

For the latest news and insights on media and media literacy, follow The LAMP on Twitter: @thelampnyc

Obviously, the tobacco industry is not happy. Without branded packaging, it will be far more difficult for consumers to differentiate between brands and types of cigarettes. For example, when I look at a rack of cigarettes in a store, I know that the Marlboro cigarettes with gold are Marlboro Lights, I know that the ones with red are Marlboro Reds, the greens are menthol and so forth. Most of us can tell pretty quickly the difference between Camels, Parliaments, Newports and the rest, but a rack full of cigarettes that all look essentially the same would be dizzying, and would diminish brand loyalty. (Disclaimer: I started smoking at age 17. I quit seven years ago.) This is all on top of Australia’s existing limitations on tobacco advertising, which are pretty harsh. For example, according to tobaccoinaustralia.org, absolutely no international or sporting events in Australia have been allowed to carry tobacco sponsorship since October 2006. For my part, I cannot begin to imagine what a NASCAR racetrack would look like without cigarette advertising, but that is the case in Australia.  With this latest measure, then, the government is essentially amputating the last limb of tobacco advertising in Australia (not counting arguably more discreet promotions, such as stars smoking in movies).

Let’s consider what would happen if this measure were taken in the United States. The backlash from the tobacco industry would be harsh, especially in an economic downturn. I imagine we would hear opponents talking about how our country is rooted in a culture of tobacco, beginning with settlers in Jamestown and Plymouth. The “babysitter” argument would also be made, where people bemoan their government for trying to make choices for them about their personal health and lifestyle. Further, just as the New York City subway ads against sugary beverages and smoking have been called overly graphic, there would be those who complain that the federally mandated packaging is just gross and they shouldn’t have to look at closeups of cancer-ridden lungs while they pay for their groceries.

But there would also be people like me, who would claim that education is the key, and that if the number of smokers continues to rise, then our current programs aren’t working. I do not think we will live in a world where tobacco is fully banned; we will always have smokers. We can, and should, take other measures which restrict tobacco advertising, particularly to people who are underage. However, from a media literacy perspective, I fear that Australia is going too far. I think it is more valuable for us to have branding and be taught to make our own decisions as consumers, just as it is my responsibility to learn how to read a nutrition label. While I am glad that I can go into any bar or restaurant in New York City and know that I won’t be faced with second-hand smoke, I do think that this is a decision best made by the independent establishments. Then it’s up to me to choose which of those places I want to patronize. People smoking around me does impact my health, but the presence of branded cigarettes behind a counter does not. Taking them away removes my responsibility to make my own informed decisions, begins to smack of censorship, and frankly makes the world a little too baby-proofed for me.

–Emily Long

My first thought was, “What’s stupid about creating?” The ability to create requires a lot of intelligence–maybe not to create something like eyeglasses with balloons tied to them (left), and perhaps it doesn’t necessarily require the type of intelligence one gains from formal education. Playing devil’s advocate, I thought, “Maybe they’re talking about when things are created without a lot of heady, intellectual ideas behind them.” But even if that is what is meant, it’s still a false statement. I fully believe that a large part of the creative process comes from a visceral place, but that alone is not enough, and it’s not stupid. Intelligence, whether it is emotional or intellectual or something else, is needed to create just about anything.  In my life, I have worked with a good number of designers, directors, actors and writers, and regardless of what I thought or felt about their work, I could never reduce it to “stupid.” There is always something happening behind it.

Moving on, I grew more annoyed by the first statement, “Smart critiques.” If the only critiques made about anything in this world were carefully constructed arguments, then yes, you could say that only “smart” people critique. I don’t want to take the time here to hash out examples of what I consider to be poorly-made criticisms, but for the most part, you don’t need to look very far to find them. And, put up against the rest of the tagline, it seems to say criticism is the opposite of creation, criticism is destructive. This simply isn’t true, and messages like this perpetuate a stereotype of intelligence as snobbery and elitism.

It’s hard to be smart. It’s easy to be stupid. It’s much more difficult to think critically about the world around you and make informed choices than it is to stumble through it without thought about your actions and the actions of others around you. I don’t think people need to be encouragement to be stupid, and I’m a little appalled that any company (especially one that sells $100 jeans for toddlers) would want to brand itself as the mantle of stupid people.

I do hope there is something more behind a campaign which is ultimately sending a message that it’s not cool to be smart, all in the interest of selling clothes. I hope there’s something more that I’m just too stupid to see, but then again, here I am writing a critique of the campaign. I don’t agree with Diesel that this makes me smart, but I’m proud to say that it’s not stupid either.

–Emily Long

***See more “stupid” ads at The LAMP’s Ad It Up! Ad Archive, and send us pictures of your ads!

So, holiday shopping tip number three: Beware of “spend to save” deals. (Missed our earlier posts? Check out holiday shopping tips one and two.) Offers like this are tempting, and can be useful depending on your shopping plans, but they can also bring you to spend more than you may have originally intended in order to pass the  threshold of, for example, $35. You buy what you set out to buy, but then your basket totals only $30, so you throw in something else just to get the deal. Yes, you’re saving money, but you also had to make an extra purchase and are now saddled with some extraneous item, just so you could say you got a bargain.

Again, sometimes “spend to save” offers can be genuinely useful, but think carefully before you buy. Remember that the job of advertisers and marketers is to create need. Before you enter the ring and start shopping, make sure you’ve thought ahead so that you, and not the advertisements, are in control.

–Emily Long

Before you buy something, do the one-year test. This one is pretty self-explanatory. It means that, any time you’re about to make a purchase, think about where that item will be one year from now. Maybe your child absolutely has to have the pricey toy today, but one year from now, it is likely that he or she will have moved on to something else. Or that sweater you’re coveting–will it still be in style in November 2010, or will you consider it dated and stuff it in the deep recesses of your closet?

Of course, especially when shopping for the under-18 crowd, the rules change a little. It’s part of figuring our your own personal identity to go through phases, and denying your teen the ability to experiment can be harsh. And for younger kids, it’s a fact that they will have outgrown those clothes by next year, but they still need clothes. Toys are designed to stimulate different age groups, so it’s unrealistic to expect that a puzzle which fascinated your two-year-old will still hold his or her attention at age five.  In cases like these, it can be helpful to consider two things: durability and excess.

For example, those clothes–are they made well enough that they might be suitable to hand down, or give to a Goodwill or the Salvation Army? At the very least, look for things that may have more than one life in them. And for the teen, it’s okay to indulge their punk rock phase, but to a point. They don’t need every album or every t-shirt, and it’s ok to ask them to prioritize. Perhaps this is lofty, but giving kids the “perfect Christmas” with their entire, completed wish list under the tree, might not be the healthiest thing in the long run. It’s good to learn that you can’t always have everything.

So when you’re waiting in a checkout line, resist the urge to buy all the little things they try to get you to buy on your way out, like purse-sized perfume spray or a Lego accessory. Those impulse buys add up, and when you find them stuffed under the bed or in your junk drawer a year from now, you’ll wonder why you ever bought them in the first place.

–Emily Long

Reese's Puffs, named one of the least nutritious but heavily marketed cereals

A few days ago, Yale University released the results of a study conducted around the television advertising of cereal to children. Also a few days ago, according to an editorial in this morning’s L.A. Times, the Food & Drug Administration made some noise about plans by the food industry to add “Smart Choices” labels to cereals and other foods which are high in sugar and other non-nutritious additives. On the one hand, I applaud the FDA for stepping up to protect consumers from misleading information, but on the other hand, I’m still furious it took this long. Really–the FDA is just noticing this now? For far too long, it has been too easy to slap a “Smart Choices” label on less-than-smart food.

Among the findings of the Yale study was research demonstrating that marketers in the cereal industry are pretty liberal with their health claims.  For example, Lucky Charms, Golden Grahams, Cinnamon Toast Crunch, Cookie Crisp and Reese’s Puffs average three or more health claims per box.  A look at the Nutrition Facts box on Lucky Charms reveals that although it does provide several vitamins, it also contains a lot of sugar–14 grams per serving, and that’s a one cup/35 gram serving. And, that one serving fills 10% of the recommended daily intake of both carbohydrates and sodium. Perhaps I’m being cynical, but on top of this, I doubt that most kids eating Lucky Charms are only eating one cup.

Ok, so Lucky Charms is only advertising its strong points. That’s typical; if I wanted to sell a product I would also choose to accentuate the positive while downplaying the negative. But the real trap here is that most people see those few positive things, and forget to ask about the rest. In my opinion, the fact that Lucky Charms is 41% sugar outweighs the benefit of the calcium and vitamin D in it, since I can get my calcium and vitamin D in lots of other ways that don’t also require me to overload on refined sugar. Plus, research shows that fewer consumers under 30 years old are looking at nutrition labels.

The application of media literacy to  this issue is clear. Consumers and children are not asking questions about how something is being marketed to them (why are all the kids cereals on the bottom shelf at the supermarket?), nor can they identify the constructed message which may not tell the whole truth up front.  Like I said, I’m glad the FDA is doing something, and I hope the momentum continues. Better late than never.

–Emily Long

That said, is the ad campaign going too far if it does succeed in getting people to drink less soda and sweetened drinks? Are cause campaigns exempt from common standards of decency if they effectively market against something which we can all agree is a problem?

I’m inclined to say yes. As we move closer to Halloween, I’m bracing myself for disgustingly graphic ads for movies like Saw. I don’t like ads that are overly graphic; I find them numbingly disgusting. However, until and unless formal standards are put in place to prevent graphic ads from being published, I think the Department of Health has just as much of a right as Saw. Let it also be said, though, that this where media literacy comes in, because I think it’s important for consumers to understand why an ad might be exceedingly graphic. The team that designed the ad campaign set out to make a point. And that, they did.

What ads do you think are too graphic? Share them with us by emailing info@thelampnyc.org, with a brief explanation of your thoughts and where you found the ad. Visit The LAMP’s Ad It Up! Ad Archive to comment on other ads.

–Emily Long

1. See an ad. This can be any ad that makes you stop, whether it’s in a magazine, a billboard, a newspaper, online…
2. Take a picture of the ad, or send us a link to the image.
3. Email the photo to info@thelampnyc.org, OR tag it in Flickr with #aditup. Be sure to note when and where you saw the ad.

And that’s it! We’re hoping to collect ads from all over the world, and get a sense from you about what advertisements you think are worth a little proactive thought (ahem…media literacy).

Hope to hear from you soon, and join us on Flickr!

In 2007, the FTC issued a set of guidelines that advertisers should give surfers the chance to opt out of having their data tracked by advertisers. Again, these were just guidelines, and not legally binding, thus empowering advertisers to regulate themselves, and in turn putting the onus on consumers. The report yesterday was a review of these guidelines, and mostly redefined the terms of what is considered behavioral advertising (for example, serving up an ad based on one search term is no longer considered behavioral advertising). However, it did nothing to address the issue of self-regulation, which, in the wake of the report, seems to be the thing most advocacy groups wanted the report to discuss. So really, not much has changed. Self-regulation can continue to remain at the bottom of an advertiser’s priority list, if that’s where they want it.

Should the FTC have a heavier hand in regulating advertisers and behavioral advertising, or should we, as consumers, take responsibility for what we do and don’t want to see? Some argue that if the FTC did more regulating, it could squelch an industry which is constantly moving and thrives on innovation. I see that point, and I understand that advertising is an important part of new media. However, I also think that nobody but me should be responsible for my media choices, and we all should know our rights as consumers. Right now, opt-out information is usually buried in fine print, demonstrating that advertisers still know the meaning of subtlety. I should be given the option of whether or not I want to be bombarded by ads when I’m just trying to search for directions online, and I think advertisers should have to give me that right and let me know my choices, loud and clear. The power to surf ad-free? Now, THAT’S innovation.