- In chapter 13 of our text book it’s written on page 384:
"The greatest potential for awareness and memorability of ideas, according to John Rossiter and Larry Percy, lies in the use of dynamic pictures (video), static concrete pictures (print), and concrete words (audio or print)."
These kinds of ties can be drawn from cultural, emotional, past experiences, and a whole list of other things. A peace sign poster with only the sign can alone create a whole array of different meanings and representations for different people. Another example could be the “hope” poster of Obama in the paint like silhouette. As a receiver of different advertisement and public awareness campaign ideas, do you feel that the use of any of the three, dynamic pictures, static concrete pictures, or concrete words can be used by themselves to create as great an impact as the three of them combined? Or does the combination of elements add to the understanding of a wider audience?
- On page 390 the authors discuss setting realistic goals for advertising and campaigning to be successful. They believe that in order for something to achieve its overall goal it should be “duplicated many times.” The idea that only once isn’t affective makes me think about television adds during the super bowl. The companies that pay millions of dollars for that airtime rely on the success of that one commercial to reach millions of people sometimes only once and for 30 seconds. In your opinion do you feel that companies are able to successfully send a message that sticks into consumers heads after only one viewing? Is there a particular ad you can remember and identify as sending a clear message to you while viewing the commercials during the Super Bowl?
- Page 392 talks about the use of “a sympathetic figure or key icon to communicate your central idea” and how the use of the World Trade Centers now carries a very different meaning than it did before September 11th. The War in Iraq is another example of a subject that has changed since it started in 2001. Approval ratings of the war have significantly dropped since it began, so the use of the war whether it’s to gain support or being used as a campaign tool has to be used very carefully. For those from different cultures do you think that it is smart for emphasis to be put on subjects that have certain meaning for U.S. citizens compared to the rest of the world? What kind of interpretation do you believe is made by those from other cultures and backgrounds about these sympathetic figures for America?
