Adsussing – L’Oreal

UPDATE:

*******

It looks like someone has brazenly defaced one of the ads in Union Station.  Is nothing sacred?

Lea Michele With Facial Hair and A Questionable Tattoo

*******

So, ShesAllWrite and I do this thing, where one of us picks an ad, and we both discuss it.  It’s called Adsussing.  You know.  Sussing!  Of ads!

Anywho, here’s our topic for this post — an ad featuring Julianne Moore in Chicago’s Union Station.

 

Julianne Moore

 

Michael (first impression):
Hello, Julianne Moore. You have nice hair. I’ll grant you that. Why are you addressing Chicago? And when you address Chicago, do you really say, “Hey Chicago”? That’s kind of rude, Julianne Moore.

I’m used to seeing celebrities endorse products, but I find it very unusual that this ad purports to actually quote the celebrity endorser. It’s just plain weird.

So, did Julianne Moore REALLY say this? Does Julianne Moore know she is being quoted by a French beauty company? I presume she knows her image is being used to sell “Color Vibrancy”. But does she know they are using some possibly-made-up quote of hers in their ad campaign?

Are there are other train stations across the US, or even the world, where Julianne Moore has geographically-specific advice? “Hey Houston, watch out for split ends and dust devils.”

I want some sort of verification that she said this quote. Otherwise it’s a filthy lie, and I want nothing to do with these wonderful hair care products.

 

Carla (first impression):
My hair has a life? Why didn’t anyone tell me? Not surprisingly, this ad for hair color is painfully superficial. When I think about life-changing things, my hair never enters the picture. I get that keeping her appearance up can make a woman feel great, but L’oreal is trying to suggest that it will make her feel great to the tune of changing her life. How can you change your hair’s life without changing your own? Your hair follows you everywhere!

I think an ad like this is effective on 99.9% of people. Lives, like processed hair, become dull. Who wouldn’t want to believe that a $10 box of color holds the key to a brilliant transformation? Me and the rest of the realists, that’s who.

It’s not that I don’t color my hair, I do–I have a few grey strands I’m not ready to rock yet. But I don’t ever pretend dying my hair will change anything other than the color of my hair. I actually find it to be a tedious chore–even when someone else does it. There are a million things I’d rather do than sit with a wad of dye on my head. If L’oreal wanted to advertise to people like me, this ad would look much different. It would call out how easy it is to use, how quick the processing time is and how little it smells. But L’oreal doesn’t care about the exceptions to the rules. They want to talk to the masses, and the masses believe in quick, easy fixes to all of life’s problems.

One other thing that bugs me about this ad is that Julianne Moore is airbrushed to Bejesus and back. She’s 52 years old, and this photo of her has been enhanced to make her look like she’s in her early 20s. This sets unrealistic expectations on everyone’s part, and women lose big time. Men will always be able to find (and possibly date) women in their early 20s, but women can’t get younger. I wish female celebrities would grow a pair of ovaries and show us what they really look like as they age. There’s no shame in aging, but you’d never know it by the advertising industry.

 

Michael:
I am not so disappointed with Moore that she was airbrushed to hell and back, in that it’s the industry that creates these unrealistic images of women via all sorts of image manipulation. Wait, let me back up. Okay, she herself is taking the money for these ads, and unlike other ads (bottled water! a truck! microwave burritos!), selling beauty products while at the same time having every blemish digitally corrected does kind of make her a little responsible for these hokey standards of beauty being pushed.

Sheesh, I wasn’t even sure what this stupid ad was for. So it’s for hair coloring? I guess I focused so much on the stupid quote I didn’t get the ad’s stupid point. And I didn’t even notice that “CHANGE THE LIFE” line. I hope whoever thought of the “[BOLD!]CHANGE THE LIFE[/ENDBOLD!] OF YOUR HAIR” ad copy gets a case of mild diarrhea.

I neglected to mention that there were other celebrity women in this ad campaign at Union Station. They each had quotes attributed to them, but none of the quotes were Chicago-specific like Moore’s.

Lea MicheleJennifer Lopez

Eva Longoria

 

Whoops!  Now that I have looked at them, Eva Longoria totally has our number as a Windy City.  Bravo, Ms. Longoria!

 

Carla:
Now that I’ve seen a few more of these ads in Union Station, I see that they are not for hair color, but for hair care products (shampoos, conditioners, styling aids) for a vast array of hair types. The fact that I couldn’t immediately discern this from the photo of the first ad Michael sent me is the worst thing about this ad campaign. With any form of display advertising, a brand has 3-5 seconds to tell the consumer what their product or service is, what it will do for them and how it will do this thing better than any other similar product or service. L’oreal failed big time on this front. Another fail is that there are too many varieties of L’oreal hair products in this campaign–the value proposition messages are too scattered. L’oreal would have been better off focusing the campaign on one product type, or collection from this line–the color-protecting collection, for instance. There are too many calls to action in this campaign, and the ads don’t communicate clearly or concisely, so as a consumer, I have no idea which of these products I am supposed to want or why. I give this campaign a solid F.

#RapLyricsFree4Use

A while back I did a month’s worth of couplets. It was fun.

I haven’t really done any concentrated poetry writing or anything, but when the mood strikes me, I’ll zip one off to Twitter with the hashtag #RapLyricsFree4Use. I don’t know why I add that hashtag. Okay, I do know why. It’s a way of distancing me from the words I am writing.

I’m writing poetry, people! But If I put that silly hashtag on it, I can say, “Well, it was me just goofing around.” It *is* me goofing around, but I wouldn’t post something I didn’t like or didn’t want other people to see.

Anyways, I did a Twitter search and found some old tweets with this hashtag. A couple I didn’t like at all, so am not including here. I didn’t delete them, so you can go look for the damn things and marvel at the badness.

I was actually surprised by some of the tiny poems. I didn’t remember them. I loved the hard drive full of pig pics. I don’t know that I can ever top that one.

A caramel hammer
A peppermint crow
A scooped-out orange filled with dirty snow

Avoiding every little accusatory look
Erasing eyes from the faces in my history book

A misplaced cup and saucer falls
While humor drips down the coffeehouse walls

Draped in velour
Walking on shag
Wiping your mouth with a dirty rag

Say man, hey, what the hell is it to ya
Making light of all my deeply personal minutiae

I love language
There, I said it
No need to ask this question on Reddit

Some people fight and some have spats
Some argue on the Internet with their cats

Where you were is where you are
Using lighting and makeup to conceal your scar

Every interaction a possible infection
A denial of the chance of human connection

Your old friend’s hard drive’s full of pigs
Gigs and gigs of pics of pigs

Coasting through life, refusing blame
Driving like an asshole in a video game

She only wore shoes with chunky soles
And prized her set of ceremonial bowls

I want my heart to be Sabbath and Led Zeppelin
But it’s always closer to Belle & Sebastian

All the sycophants were on hand
Pretending not to understand

Phenolphthalein, patricide
Unimpeachably country-fried

Sobbing, smiling, running, laughing
Everyone is waiting for exciting things to happen

I don’t believe in the royal we
An’ I always spell gravy with a capital G

Doing the things we most despise
Tweeting little honeypots for bad replies

 

Adsussing

I don’t think as much as I would like, but one thing that gets me to thinking is repetition.  If I see something on a regular basis, I might start thinking about it.

I passed by a large bus stop ad on my way to work over the course of a couple months.  The ad started to bother me.  And I started thinking about it.
I thought it would be interesting to dissect this ad (and potentially other ads) in a completely unscientific, haphazard way, and I enlisted Carla for her help and opinion.  We want to suss some ads, folks.
Here’s the ad.
Michael:
What the hell is it saying?

The focus of the ad is definitely the woman.  She’s looking at you/me/the viewer with a “come hither” look.  She’s holding a Christmas ornament that looks kind of like an apple.  It’s forbidden fruit!  It’s kind of naughty!  It’s sexy!  She’s showing some of her leg, and her face is tilted in a submissively erotic pose.  Sex sells!  She’s wearing a ring on her index finger. What does that indicate?  That she *isn’t* married?  That she’s available?  I’m not sure.

Oh, I almost forgot, there’s a guy behind her.  Who cares about this guy?!  I don’t! He’s not important at all.  It’s you/me/the viewer that is important!  We are what counts!  Look at his stupid, impotent belt!  Maybe it’s because I’m a dude, but I see nothing seductive about the man’s pose or expression.  His maroon sweater blends in the background, while the woman’s shirt pops with a brighter red in the foreground.

So what am I supposed to do, ad?  Am I supposed to buy Banana Republic clothes?  Why? So I can be like the guy behind the woman that she is blatantly ignoring?  Why would I want to do that?

The man is submissive and not pertinent to the ad. I am guessing that generally submissive men aren’t seen as meant to be identified with by the average red-blooded male ad-viewer.  So what’s he there for?  Is this an ad geared towards women?  Thoughts?

Carla:
The first thing I though when I saw this was, ‘Ha ha! That man told his girlfriend she would be able to hear Santa if she held a Christmas ornament up to her ear, and she believed him. He thinks it’s funny, and he doesn’t care if she’s painfully stupid, because she is blonde and thin and probably tall, and that’s all he wants in a girlfriend, because STATUS!’ That’s what I thought.

Silliness aside, I still think the ad is about status. A hot (by conventional American standards), blonde, thin woman, and a hot (again, by conventional American standards), fit man strewn across a pile of presents–like presents themselves–screams status to me. It is drenched in opulence. He has money–enough money to buy a pile of presents big enough for two model-thin, but very tall people to lay on; enough money to shop at Banana Republic; and enough money to attract a tall, hot, blonde woman who listens to Christmas ornaments. Everybody gets a status symbol! The presents are the couple’s status symbol; the woman is the man’s status symbol; and the $800 Banana Republic skirt is the woman’s status symbol.

Basically this ad says, ‘you shop at Banana Republic because you can afford lots of really nice stuff, and if you don’t shop at Banana Republic, you wish you did.’

Michael:
That IS funny about the woman.  She does have a dull expression on her face!

Do you think the ad as a signifier of status would repel or attract more people?  What about the people who can afford to get a shirt or a pair of pants from BR, but not an entire wardrobe?  Does the status suggested by the ad prompt them to buy the product in order to get some of the status to rub off on them?

I find this display of status kind of repulsive, but each person has their own reaction. The whole premise of buy-our-product-and-get-status ads is repulsive to me in general, so I have plenty of negative bias that affects my judgment.

Carla:
I find status display ridiculous and empty myself. I think in Banana Republic’s case, they do not want someone who can afford only one shirt, but not a whole wardrobe, to shop there. They want only wealthy people to shop there. After all, if a scrub like me was seen in a Banana Republic blouse and *shriek* a pair of Old Navy jeans, that would tarnish their brand and the image they are trying to sell.
I don’t think the ad is about convincing people to spend more on their clothes; I think it’s about convincing people who have more to spend on their clothes to spend it at Banana Republic, and not Ralph Lauren or Donna Karan. They use traditionally attractive people to delude the wealthy into thinking their clothes will make a big ol’ honkin’ schnoz (assuming they haven’t had it fixed, savages) look like a perfect Barbie button nose.

They also want to plant seeds in the minds of those who will one day become rich (maybe by marriage–or even the old fashioned way, by working hard) that Banana Republic is where you want to shop when you get you some money. But don’t come around until you have some money, okay?

*************

What do you guys think?

jung vf fcybgpul?