Advertising Causes Obesity?

Obesity is on the rise.

According to the Worldometers website, there are 1 billion people in the world who are overweight. At least 300 million of them are considered clinically obese. That's 30%. When you say it as a percentage, it's not too bad, but 300 million people is a lot of people.

I believe advertising has played a factor in the rise of obesity, but I do not think it should be to blame. Advertising is simply that, advertising. Whether consumers believe it, buy into it, are affected by it, merely indicates that the advertisement accomplished its goal.

The job of an advertisement is to sell, to engage, to tell a story, to capture an audience. They make food look delicious, they make you crave these foods. If the foods being advertised are unhealthy, it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter if that burger is unhealthy for you, advertisements are made to convince you to buy it and eat it anyway.

Advertisements do their job. Why can't people do their jobs? If you want to be healthy, why don't you eat healthy foods? Why do you give in to these temptations? Instead of blaming advertisements, the only people to blame are those who are feeding themselves (and their children, or whoever else they feed) these enticing, mouth-watering unhealthy foods.

It all looks good, doesn't it? I think they look delicious! But everyone knows MacDonald's has a bad reputation for unhealthy food. Everyone knows fast food restaurants aren't the healthiest of options. However, these businesses are still flourishing. Everyone knows fast food isn't good for you, but they're still buying it.

If people are still buying fast food and are still eating unhealthy foods, even with the knowledge of fast food restaurants and of certain unhealthy foods, advertising is irrelevant of these food choices. If advertising is irrelevant, advertising shouldn't be the blame for obesity levels rising.

Further, advertisements can't be to blame for childhood obesity either. Children's eating habits are influenced, if not controlled, by their parents and caregivers. If anyone is to be blamed for childhood obesity, it is those in charge of their food intake, which is most likely their parents.

Advertising gets a lot of criticism. It's really unfortunate because there are some really great and clever advertisements out in the world. A lot goes in to a well designed advertisement, but it isn't appreciated.

Instead of criticizing the works of others, everyone should look to themselves first before blaming others. The final decision comes down to the individual. They make the final decision, they execute the final action, they're in charge of their own lives.

Photoshopping Ads: Should or Shouldn't?

We live in a time where it is most likely safe to assume that the image you are looking at, has undergone some sort of alteration. It may have been a tiny alteration to fix lighting, or something a bit more drastic, such as altering the background colour.

It's widely known that photos and images are altered in Photoshop. It has given Photoshop and image retouching a bad name. Some say it's unnatural to change an image. For example, changing a woman's waist in a photo to appear slimmer than it is in real life. To change the way the clothing wraps around a person's body. To elongate the legs of a model. To contour the face. The list goes on and on.

Some of the changes made are unnatural, but in the eyes of the image retoucher, the advertisement company, and the brand, they're just doing their jobs. Their job is to sell. Their goal is promote a benefit, and to promote it in the most appealing way possible.

I agree that some image retouching is a little extreme and unnecessary. Most models are thin enough as it is—and audiences know this—so why is it necessary to cinch her waist in further? Why create an unrealistic advertisement that could potentially drive away consumers?

Sometimes retouching is necessary. Lighting for a photo-shoot can be tricky to set perfectly. If the lighting wasn't perfected in the photo-shoot stage, some enhancing might be necessary in the editing stage. Maybe the eyes need a little bit of help to make them pop. Brightening the eyes instead of letting them blend in with the rest of the face and image, could make the difference between capturing and holding the attention of the audience, and being just another advertisement they filter out.

What if the image's lighting was way off? Maybe the resulting image is more unnatural than what is seen in real life. In which case, the image would need retouching to make it look more real and natural.

What if it distorted the colours? An advertisement needs to be able to portray the exact colours of their products and brands. If the hand bag being advertised looks green in the image, but in fact, is actually more blue than green, it can be confusing for the audience and consumers. They'd be going into the store trying to find a green hand bag. They might not find the bag, and if they do find the 'blue' handbag, they might feel deceived and lied to. They might think the company as unreliable.

I believe retouching an image can be necessary, but I believe there is and should be a limit.

Banvertising: Offensive or Clever?

ban·ver·tis·ing

/ˈbanvərˌtīziNG/
noun

1. the combination of the words ban and advertising.
2. banned or banned-worthy advertising.

I believe banvertising can be both offensive and clever. Some may be more offensive than clever, some may be the opposite.

If the advertisement grabs the attention of the viewer and keeps that attention, they've done a good job. However, if the advertisement grabs the attention of the viewer, retains their attention, and makes them feel a positive emotion or inspires them to do/buy something, then they've done an amazing job.

I believe that ads deemed as offensive should not be banned. However, if the ad is considered offensive by a large majority of viewers, perhaps it isn't doing its job effectively.

Who deems ads as offensive or appropriate should vary on the medium of the advertisement. Depending on where or how the ads are being displayed, different parties should be in charge of considering if the ad is offensive. For example, if it's a commercial advertisement, its offensive factor could be determined by the government, the station, or even the show being played might need a say in the matter. A radio station should consider the appropriateness of advertisements based on their target audience.

Because of the overwhelming amount of advertisements the average person witnesses throughout the day, I feel it is important to shock the viewers into getting their attention. This shock doesn't necessarily need to be negative; a positive shock can be just as attention-grabbing, if not more.

I think agencies/brands should be aware of the ever-growing diverse public, but I do not think it is necessary to be more sensitive. If the message is not targeted towards those who are offended, I don't think it matters. Their target audience is what matters.

Agencies and brands must be deliberately strategizing to shock with their advertisements, however they probably didn't think their messages would get banned, nor would they want them to get banned. If their messages are still doing their jobs even after being banned, I feel that they have succeeded.

Just because an advertisement gets banned, doesn't completely mean everyone deems it offensive. If they're still effective and are getting the job done, it shouldn't hinder the agency's or brand's reputation or story. If it conveys the message and is successful, it should boost the brand's reputation.

Advertisements shouldn't be banned. Creativity shouldn't be banned.