Hello and welcome back to Advertising and Society. Today, I continue a consideration of what's in an ad beyond that which meets the eye. Now, this takes us immediately to two major questions in the study of advertising and society. And these are the questions of meaning in advertisements and interpretation strategies so that we understand that meaning. Now, these are very complex matters and people differ with regard to how they understand them. But we'll look now at some of the theories and approaches and strategies that people use in understanding these things. We'll also focus to some degree on what people who think about producing ads have in mind versus those who interpret ads and what they take out of them. The issue with regard to television commercials is how meaning works in commercials. And today, we'll look at some examples of television commercials and talk about what they mean. The format and theory that we'll be using is to follow up on Judith Williamson. So therefore, you need to be sure that you've seen that lecture, the first in the series on what it's, what is it that's in an ad beyond that which meets the eye. So, before continuing th, with this, be sure that you've seen and understood that lecture. Having said that, I'd like to begin directly by showing you a television commercial. This one dates from the early 1980s and we'll just look at it together first without any commentary on it and then we'll ask ourselves the question of what does this ad actually mean. [MUSIC] >> Peter Pan tastes so peanutty because it's made from the best quality peanuts in the world. [MUSIC] >> We are Beatrice. >> So having seen this commercial, we might well ask, what does it mean? Well, it, of course, is promoting Peter Pan Peanut Butter and it's doing it through what is just an interesting situation, I suppose. But why this particular situation? Why, for example, as Williamson would ask, the colors that are chosen? And why all these odd characters there in the commercial? If we take stock of what we actually saw, we open on to a room that has black and white tiles. We see people dancing, playing music, having a good time at a party. Peanut butter sandwiches are being passed but there're characters who make a very unusual combination. There is Peter Pan and Captain Hook, there's Mona Lisa, Beethoven perhaps, and Michael Jackson, Benjamin Franklin maybe, a pair of French maids, and penguins. Now, why this particular unusual set of folks? Well, we might say that it's a costume party. That might be a good guess. But nonetheless, why this set of people and why these characters? Well, let's think a minute together about what actually may be going on here. Note that Peter Pan and Captain Hook are, are kind of opposites, a nemesis of one another. Peter is not best friends with Captain Hook, and Beethoven and Michael Jackson are in a similar situation where their music is about as different as it could possibly be. And the mixture of all these different sort of folks is, is what's odd about it. Now, starting with the color issue, which Williamson alerted us to from the very beginning in studying interpretation, we could ask what are the dominant colors. Well, they seem to be black and white and what's colored is the peanut butter. We see it as a different kind of color, but most everyone else appears in rather dark costumes, often specifically black and white. What is this about, we might ask. Well, if they think more thoroughly about the ideological issues that are contained in it, black and white is in some fundamental ways a metaphor for race in America and about cultural difference. And what we see here is that in this situation, all these diverse characters who are not normally together come together around the issue of peanut butter. They come to a party where peanut butter is central. It's like the glue that brings them all together and makes them into a whole. It's the unifying kind of factor. So what we see is, oddly enough, according to Williamson, she would say this is a very strange commercial because what it does is it tells us a story that is simply not true. It tells us that we can solve the problems of the world, of racial and cultural difference, and bring people together through the consumption of peanut butter. Well, a commodity isn't going to do that. It's a really kind of false idea and this would be what Williamson would mean about ideology in advertising and how we need to look more deeply at the possibilities of what's happening. Now, let me stand in defense of the company and the people who probably made this because I'm absolutely certain from my work in advertising is that they were not thinking at that level. But it doesn't mean that just because we might see this kind of message in it, that what they intended, which was to show an interesting fun party, a costume party where everybody like peanut butter and it's what being served and people are having a good time and everyone's there together. That when they do it at that level, which is probably how they think about it, although I haven't talked to the actual people who made it, it's still possible that like the interpreter of a poem who looks into the poem and sees things that perhaps the poet didn't understand were even there, that the same kind of thing can always be true about a, an ad or commercial. That there can be the possibilities of reader interpretations or viewer interpretations that are markedly different from what it is the people who put the thing together produced. So, in the end, we have to face the question of who's the author of the meaning of the advertisement. Is it the person or people who put it together, or the person or the people who do the interpreting? It's rather contemporary in literature and in many other fields to think about the interpreter as being the more important part of this equation because the meaning is really what you take out of it, what you think it means, and how you understand that meaning. And particularly how you understand that meaning delivered to you through semiotic processes like the ones we've talked about here. Now, I'd like to continue this by talking about a different commercial, one that I think is fascinating. This may be, according to many people, the very best television commercial of the 20th century. It's the very famous Macintosh personal computer ad, often called the 1984 Apple commercial. Now, what happened was that in the year 1984, Apple introduced the Macintosh personal computer. The commercial that you're going to see, the introductory one, ran only once in paid time and that was during the 1984 Superbowl. Now, even though the company only paid to run it once, the media event surrounding it and the hype associated with it was enormous. There were many news reports. There were published and television commentaries, and there were often free reruns during these discussions. And that resulted in hours of plu, publicity and repeated showings over and over. It brought this into the public eye and into the eye of the critics of advertising, who had to look at this and had to think about what it meant. Now, of course, the central theme in this is that Apple is challenging the domination of the computer market at that time by IBM. Now, IBM is not named directly, but they are the Big Brother reference. And, of course, what we're referring to here and what is the base of this is the George Orwell novel by the title 1984. And the commercial actually says, 1984 won't be like 1984. Meaning that when the commercial, when the, when the computer is introduced, the Apple computer, then we won't be living in the world that Orwell envisioned in his novel. Now, what the story is about is, of course, the story of Apple's struggle against IBM's near monopolistic domination. Let's have a look at the commercial itself. >> Today we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives. We have created for the first time in all history a garden of pure ideology where each worker may bloom secure from pests purveying contradictory thoughts. Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on Earth. We are one people with one will, one resolve, one cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death and we will bury them with their own confusion. >> Aah! >> We shall prevail. >> [NOISE] On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like 1984. >> Now, there are many things to say about this commercial, but let me say just a few. The commercial opens on a great hall where sallow-faced workers march in endless lockstep. The air is thick with smog and there's a haze covering everything, reminiscent of Ridley Scott's vision of the future of Los Angeles in Blade Runner. Ridley Scott, by the way, who, who did the film, also did this commercial and therefore the similarity is no coincidence. The talking head on the giant screen intones in an authoritative, electronic voice a litany about the value of controlled information. And this, of course, is a reference to Big Brother and the world of Big Brother in Orwell's novel. In this commercial, Apple warns of a future world dominated by a single computer company. Apple offers itself as the liberating force that pro, will provide an alternative to such mindless conformity. Now, among the other things to note about this is the corporate logo which is an apple with a bite missing. This evokes a Biblical story which signifies knowledge. And in that story, taking a bite of the apple signifies the challenge to divine authority and submission to it, to being governed by the forces of nature. And as with Eve's apple, Apple Computers offer humanity a means of taking control of their destiny. I suggest that you read the unit of ADText that I mentioned for its discussion about this commercial because there's much more information there, especially what some of the critics thought when they looked in at it and what they had to say about it, as well as some of the people associated with Apple and the production of the commercial. You'll get a lot more information about the thinking on both sides that went into this. Now, let's turn to an IBM commercial about the same point in time. This was the commercial that appeared a few months before the Apple commercial that you just saw. It's a message about the business benefits of using personal computers to run small companies. In this commercial, IBM is introducing a product and discussing its benefits to consumers. Now, most ads, most of the time, do not introduce new products. Rather, they serve to reinforce brand loyalty or to encourage consumers to switch among brands. This commercial is one of the exceptions where a new product is actually being introduced. >> In this rapidly changing world, even the brightest and best manager in the company may need more than a loyal staff. >> [MUSIC] To run a smooth operation. [MUSIC] Or when headquarters calls and pressure builds, it becomes harder to keep things rolling. [MUSIC] Without running into mix-ups. [MUSIC] Losing control of the operation and falling behind. For rapid improvement, a manager could use a tool for modern times, the IBM personal computer. For smoother scheduling, better planning and greater productivity. [MUSIC] It can help a manager excel and become a big wheel in the company. The IBM Personal Computer. See it at a store near you. >> IBM produced a series of print ads and TV commercials to introduce the personal computer and to educate the public about its use. The specific settings and messages varied across the ads, but the Little Tramp character made famous by Charlie Chaplain during the silent movie era appeared in them all. The Little champ, Tramp never spoke in any of these commercials, but he communicated in the way that Chaplin always did, through movements, gestures and antics. Other consistent elements in all these ads were that an IBM PC was always found on a literal desktop and there was always a single red rose along with it. Now, as the story unfolds, the chaos and confusion of the pre-computer factory is transformed into a precise choreography of movement and efficiency after the computer is introduced. A wheel motif appears in many scenes, the rollers on the skates manufactured by the company, the Little Tramp character who wants to be a big wheel in the company, the pie chart on the computer screen, circular inserts showing the boss and the logos of the workers' clothes. Now, this is the kind of symbiotic device that Williamson would, of course, be referring to, this repetition of the circle or the, or the wheel in this particular case. This motif that runs throughout the commercial unifies things that are op, are op, it's, normally that aren't usually together. Think about it for a moment. People versus machines. Management versus labor. And the computer brings about harmony and efficiency into this world. But it also makes the people who are there a part of this process so they become mecha, mechanized and become happy workers instead of discontented and disoriented ones. Now, sociologists and historians of labor report that actual work in factories is not at all like this, that it's really rather do, dehumanizing because it's so monotonous and, and so regulated. Now, this commercial presents, of course, a different picture of factory work. What we see here is that after the introduction of the computer, workers are ecstatically happy. There's smiles on their faces and line work seems to be a joy. The meaning of the rose may be a bit more mysterious. Some critics have surmised that IBM is trying to introduce romance, humaness, emotions and so on into an otherwise cold world of machines. The rose was always the single element of color in print ads and in television commercials that were otherwise overwhelmingly black, white and gray in tone. [SOUND] Now, this commercial, and just like the 1984 one, plays homage to things that have, have occurred in the past and specific the specific case of this one it refers to one of Chaplin's most famous films, Modern Times, from 1936. Now, Modern Times was a biting saf, satire criticizing the mechanization of human labor. It's set in a factory where the Little Tramp represented the little man in society, punches in and out on a time clock and subordinates himself to the man, to the demands of his boss. His monotonous work motions become so reflexive that they become body spasms during his lunch hour. In modern times, the time clock, the machinery, the line work stand in opposition to the Little Tramp's humanity. The film itself is anti-business, anti-industrial and anti-mechanization. Now, the question would become one, a really interesting one for critics of modern times and this particular film of how did such an oppositional film come to represent capitalist productivity. And the Little Tramp icon, the icon that first signified the little man, become instead the emblem of capitalism. David McGovern, the ad director at IBM, offered this explanation. He said, and this is a quote, chiefly, we want something that people would remember. Using the Chaplin character was one way in which to create ads with stopping power. And Time Magazine commented that the Tramp, with his ever present red rose, has given IBM a human face. Now again in the ADText unit, you can read about what some of the critics and scholars have had to say about this. And they've commented in general and particular on the ideological transformation that occurs between the original meaning of the film, Modern Times, and the way in which that has been transformed and really turned around in terms of its meaning in this particular commercial. Thus, both the Apple and the IBM commercial tells stories that are ideological in nature, this being one of the main points that Williamson brought to our attention in her book. One is the story about a small company challenging the dominance of the near-monopolistic competitor. And the other is a story about a means of increasing capitalist productivity. I hope you'll turn now to the unit in ADText. I keep mentioning this because it's so absolutely important here that you follow up on the things that have been said here, thinking back about what Williamson said in her book. That's, of course, covered in the previous lecture. And also paying great attention to all the details that are, they are surrounding what's in these ads, what we might see, and how we might, as consumers, interpret them. And that's in comparison the, the information that we have about the people who produce them and what they intended to put into it. I think you'll see that these two points of view, the critical outsider's point of view and the insider's point of view, about what was being intended are a little bit like two ships passing in the night. They don't really connect. They don't really meet. Now, it doesn't mean that because they're different that one is true and one is false. I think, in fact, what it means is they can both true. They're just talking about different things. And again, I refer you to the metaphor of the poet. A poem when it's read and, and studied and understood by a reader or interpreter of that poem can contain meaning that the poet really wasn't aware of when he or she put it together. And it doesn't mean, of course, that those meanings aren't there. Sometimes we are just vehicles for communicating things that contain lots of additional meaning to those who read and interpret the products of our creative effort. This course is a collaborative venture of Duke University and the Advertising Educational Foundation.
