~ Week 5 ~

TOPIC 1 : FIRST AMENDMENT, COPYRIGHT & FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

1. The Mouse Liberation Front. A terrorist group enlisting cartoonists to draw their own Mickey. The leader, O'Niel was taken to the Supreme Court. So interesting to me! So many people took the original Mickey Mouse and turned him into many other things, such as drug-dealing Mickey, which Disney quickly sued that company for. Other Mickey's included CIA Mickey and Steamboat Willy. Another shocking thing mentioned in the video was that Disney lashed out at a daycare in Florida for having images of Disney characters on their wall. This was after Walt had left and Disney became very protective over their stuff and made sure to find anyone who may have been using it. This shocks me how insane Disney became after Walt. He built the company for one reason and I feel like the next owners messed with that image by suing everyone they could. I think that the freedom of expression factor should cover using Disney characters for decoration, especially at a children's place. I think in my past Elementary school days, Disney characters were displayed everywhere and I never heard an issue with that. The children all know and love the characters, why is it so bad to display them without Disney's approval? Just for a sticker? Seems a bit out of control if you ask me!
2. I do not think I often come into a situation where I wonder if I am doing something illegal with copyright, but a few times I have had to think twice about it. In middle school, I made videos with my friends and put them on YouTube, all which included music. I notice that people often comment something along the lines of "I do not own this song" or "I mean no copyright", so I thought I'd comment something along those lines. Yet, my video was declined multiple times from being uploaded due to copyright issues. How would I properly post a video using someone else's music? Same idea with pictures being used in different projects and papers of mine. When I search a word into Google and click Images, am I doing anything illegal by using those pictures? If I add the link or citation from it underneath the photo, does that make it legal and right?
3. I often see musicians/artists and famous people in general go too far in exercising their freedom of speech. They do this by many different ways, but social media is an often place of arguments. I have seen many times where a musician tweets something that causes a huge backlash on themselves simply because they were sharing their opinion, just a bit too harshly. I think many people share their opinions strongly behind a screen just because they have the freedom to do so, although it may not be the best thing to state out loud, especially when you're famous and observed by millions of fans daily.
4. My opinion of these incidents is just anger that someone is that immature to take their freedom and use it in an inappropriate way. Everyone deserves to share their opinion, it should just be in a calm, orderly manner, not in a way that will start a fight. I think their should be more regulations on what people can post/say on social media. Although some things can be reported, too many posts are not taken down by the company which allows it to cause unnecessary controversy. 

TOPIC 2 : WIKILEAKS

1. WikiLeaks actions are good and bad depending on who you ask. I feel two different ways on this topic. I think that some people (including the ones being exposed - government/military), along with one side of me, thinks that it is an invasion of confidential documents that we should not be able to see. There are so many things that the government/military hide from us, but in some ways, it's for the best. If everyone knew what was really going on, there could be riots, panics, and many other awful reactions leading to way bigger issues. On the other hand, I think that it enlightens us on what's going on behind our backs everyday. Because the government/military is so secretive, it may scare some people because they want to know what's truly going on with America. 
2. I feel that way because I think it's important to allow the people of the States access to what's going on behind the scenes because it's our right as an American citizen to understand the secrets of our nation. I think that could also be very dangerous to give people access to the confidential stuff because they would panic knowing all of the things that's happening. Knowledge can be a good or a bad thing, but in this situation, if I had to choose one, I say that WikiLeaks is bad and I feel that way because it is opening American's eyes to things we should never have to see, especially younger children and teens who have access to the internet. If it's already happening, our knowledge of it would only cause uproar and panic amongst the nation. 
3. For example, my point of view could be supported by the event when WikiLeaks shared the video in Iraq of people being shot. Citizens seeing this video caused an uproar of the U.S. Military. The U.S. Military used a law within the Rules of Engagement to make it an acceptable action. The military got so much backlash from this video though, how is that helpful to us as citizens? Maybe they made a few bad actions, but we are a safe, free country because of our military. I personally feel that WikiLeaks is trying to ruin the image of the military which is sad because of all they have done risking their lives for our freedom.
4. The current state of free speech, access to information/internet or freedom of expression/creativity is overall at a stand still. I think that we have the internet, which gives us an access to more information we could ever read in a lifetime. Although it may be used for good and bad, at the end of the day, it is very useful and I think that's just fine. Freedom of expression is very important to me because I think everyone should have a chance to share their opinion. What makes me so frustrated is people skewing the definition of freedom of creativity or expression. Having the freedom to do almost anything could be good to share one's opinion and maybe influence others, but when someone uses their "freedom" to bully people and hate on a topic or subject and outwardly show it, that's when it could get dangerous. Overall, I think that everything we have access and freedom to is a good thing, some just decide to use it for negative uses. I think there maybe should be more laws or regulation against how much freedom we should get on the internet to control those who take advantage of their freedom.
5. For example, in my High School, social media was a huge thing. Of course it was, we were teenagers. The internet helped me through school with research and studying of all courses. Social media kept me up to date with my friends and connected with them. All good with those factors. Then, there was this "popular" group of kids, which really meant they were all rude, but seemed cool, so people worshipped them. Everyday they would tweet or post some new horrific thing talking badly and down on others. They were true bullies who took advantage of their freedom of expression and that's just sad.

~ Week 4 ~ Media Blog Project #1

Topic #1 Advertising/Public Relations

Selling Burgers? Or Sex?
         Carl's Jr. is famous for their commercials including delicious looking burgers being "eaten" by half naked women. Now, what does a model in a bikini have to do with burgers? Well that's the thing - absolutely nothing, but it sells. What exactly makes it sell? Men enjoying the women thinking if they order a burger, maybe some hot, blonde model will come eat one with them? Or women thinking "if I eat that burger, I'll look just like that". Either way, it's insane and demeaning to women (and to burgers). I'd like to say before you read this, these are my personal opinions, but also I mean no offense towards men being trapped into this as campaign, it's understandable.

DESCRIBE

• I am sure you have all seen a Carl's Jr. ad a time or two. Some seem more casual as if the half naked girl in a bikini is just casually walking down a street. Others include ridiculous, no casual scenarios with girls washing dirty trucks, three girls in a kitchen, one walking through a farm field dressed as a cowgirl. They all include some type of music and background as well. 
• In 2005, the first of the sexy ads ALMOST appeared on TV with Paris Hilton washing a car. It was banned before even airing on TV, but still "gained notoriety and YouTube infamy" (Davies). Most of the girls featured in the ads are already famous either a model, actress, or famous for other reasons. Some names one would know include Kate Upton, Kim Kardashian, Emily Ratajkowski, and Audrina Patridge. 
• The ads are all just around 1-3 minutes long and appear on TV quite often. They also have some billboards featuring images of these women eating the burgers. These ads became a series of different ones up until this year, when they decided to quit the "slutburger"'ad campaign.

ANALYZE

• The only persuasive technique I would say they use is famous person appeal. They use famous models and actresses because they are already so well known by most men and women. Most of them already naturally have a sex appeal, so it makes it easy for producers to just simply through in some water or a fan to blow their hair to make them look even better. Besides that, I don't think they use any type of technique than just persuading the minds of men with mostly naked, usually wet bodies of women. Which, can technically be called a technique, but I wouldn't say it's a good one from a women's perspective. 
• I would say it incorporates the association principle because they are trying to make the audience connect with what they are showing. For men, I'm sure they connect themselves to that women being shown amongst other things. For women, we connect to what they look like and wish we could have their bodies, while of course still enjoying big fat burgers just like them... right? 
• I think it depends on who you ask if the campaign is effectively using that platform. Overall, yes it did increase their sales, but it also made a lot of people upset, offended, and caused them to stop going there completely.

INTERPRET

• The ad is pretty unique in the way it's trying to sell burgers using women. Other companies such as Victoria's Secret use women in langerie, but for the purpose of selling langerie. So, Carl's Jr. ads may be new and different because of what the company is actually selling - food, nothing to do with women.
• The target audience would be men. Maybe mainly college-aged men, but I think all ages could be manipulated by these ads.
• The stereotype would be hot women being blonde, skinny, sexy, large-chested, and half naked. I think this is very offensive and demeaning towards women because the company has nothing to do with women. As stated above, half naked women may be appropriate for ads like langerie companies, still may give women an unrealistic dream, but at least it connects. Burgers and women do not connect whatsoever, which makes it unnecessary and offensive to women everywhere. I do not want to completely cut out men as they may be offended as well for different reasons, such as bothered that their young daughters have to watch these ads and be exposed to those sort of images.

EVALUATE 

• Strengths: Although I personally do not want to admit to any strengths of this ad campaign, there are a few. As rude and sexual they may be, they did increase sales an insane amount. The Super Bowl commercial including Charlotte McKinney "had 2.5 I billion earned media impressions before it even ran as a Super Bowl commercial. Now, it has more than 4 billion" (Taylor). The CEO of Carl's Jr. sees those numbers and blandly says that the numbers don't lie, it's popular. Another strength would be that they are smart for using already famous, well known as sexy, models and actresses to have a natural sex appeal already.
• Weaknesses: Bottom line, its offensive. A recent study showed that 52% of people who have seen these ads were offended by it (Taylor). Another one is that women are so bothered by it because the models portrayed have unrealistic bodies and that's what causes women to hate the ads even more. If you're going to make racy ads using women, at least use the realistic version of a women's figure (which we all know wouldn't happen, but we can wish, can't we?). The ads itself causes issues, but when confronted about them, the CEO has no sympathy, which makes him hated as well. He stated in a recent conversation with marketing companies that "If you don't complain, I go to the head of marketing and say, 'What's wrong with our ads?" (Taylor). He enjoys the backlash because it brings up sales.
• It's an overall memorable ad, but maybe not for the best reasons. The CEO of the company would of course love this, whether it's remembered for being offensive or sexy, at least it's distinctly remembered in someone's mind.
• It effectively connected to the target audience (younger adult men) because it attracts their hunger, amongst other things. 

ENGAGE

• Carl's Jr. uses social media such as Youtube, Instagram, and Twitter to post their videos, ads, and pictures of food and the women in the commercials. I think it works because although most people watch T.V. and are able to watch the ads there, some may use social media over television. For those people, social media is the perfect way to spread the ad campaign. As I read through Twitter comments on the ads, the majority were women complaining about how offensive and crude the commercials were. The other comments, made by men, that I will not mention, but are also quite demeaning towards women.
• Forbes wrote an article on the fact that Carl's Jr. ads were way more sexist than video games. The article is written by a blogger who typically writes on video games, so he is used to discussing how video games are sexist and the way they portray women in demeaning ways. He blandly says how inappropriate and unnecessary these ads are, but he does admit that "an ad like this will get enough people in a tizzy that it's guaranteed to be discussed widely and remembered " (Kain). Kain mentions how sex sells, so does controversy, which makes Carl's Jr. so talked about and remembered in the media because they sell both. The ads are an issue for him, but the sexism in the real world in workplaces concerns him way more in general. Although he calls the campaign stupid and tasteless, he thinks it is a personal opinion depending on one's taste. 
• I used to eat Carl's Jr. when I was younger with my family every once in a while. Although I was not old enough to understand these commercials, I know my parents did not want me to see them. It didn't necessarily stop us from eating there, but we only ever chose it because it was quick and convenient, not really because we craved it. Now that I am older, I would chose to not eat there based on their sexist ads.
• I would definitely warn against it and make sure people are aware of what they have been selling on their ad campaigns. It is up to people and their personal opinions, but I would not be afraid to share my thoughts with them on the company.

CONCLUSIONS

• I learned a lot from this project by looking deeper into the company and the ads. I was unaware that they started so long ago in 2005, I thought this ad campaign was only a few years old. I learned how many other models/actresses were featured in older campaigns. Overall, I was able to see many other people's opinion on the company which was interesting to see it from both sides of the argument.
• I was quite surprised at the article by Kate Taylor on the CEO having no care at all whether people were offended or not. I knew he must be something unique by being satisfied with what he was selling, but I never thought that he would enjoy the backlash given by so many women. I was also surprised to learn that they are quitting the "slut burger" campaign, which I am all for that one. They have decided to abandon and "say goodbye to dripping burgers and bountiful cleavage" (Filloon). The new campaign portrays the old Carl Hardee and his son, Carl Hardee Jr., as if the dad has been away and the son turned the company into a frat house. It will be quite interesting to see what happens with this new campaign, but let's hope it's much less offensive than the last.

Click Here to See Video Link to Popular Carl's Jr. ad including Kate Upton: 

Watch for yourself and create your own opinions on the campaign. 

Works Cited w/ Links

Filloon, Whitney. "Carl's Jr. Abandons Its 'Slutburger' Ads." Eater. March 29, 2017. Accessed 
           July 20, 2017. 
https://www.eater.com/2017/3/29/15105878/carls-jr-no-more-slutburger-ads.

Davies, Madeleine. "Put It in My Mouth: A History of Disgusting Carl's Jr. Ads." Jezebel. March            13, 2013. Accessed July 20, 2017. 
http://jezebel.com/5990397/put-it-in-my-mouth-a-history-of-disgusting-carls-jr-ads.

Kain, Erik. "Carl's Jr. Super Bowl Ad Is Way More Sexist Than Video Games." Forbes. January              30, 2015. Accessed July 20, 2017.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2015/01/30/carls-jr-super-bowl-ad-is-way-more-sexist-than-video-games/#69f2f73c6dfc.

Taylor, Kate. "The CEO of Carl's Jr. Doesn't Care If You're Offended by the Chain's Sexy Ads."               Entrepreneur. May 20, 2015. Accessed July 20, 2017. 
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/246487.

~ Week 3 ~

TOPIC 1 ~ Instagram Ads

1. Using Instagram, I looked deeper into a brand advertisement I see quite often. It is a clothing brand called "TenTree".  I first saw their company because it came up as an Ad on Instagram. It caught my eye because their clothing is all very outdoorsy and fun. When I clicked on the page and browsed through their other merchandise, which made me want to buy everything. After already loving their clothing, I noticed the catch. This catch is not an ordinary one in the way it has only positive outcomes. For every item purchased, this company will plant ten trees - hence their name Ten Tree. This made me love the company even more because they are benefitting the earth as well. 
2. It was a very smart idea for them to do this because I would have never found this company on my own, but since Instagram puts random ads without my choice, then I luckily found this. I would say their target audience is young adults because those are the majority who use social media daily. I would say their ads were definitely working because they trapped me into clicking their ad, clicking their website, signing up for their email list, and eventually buying too many items.
3. If I was the product manager, I would stay on the path they are already on - using social media. Although I am not positive if they already do this, but I would get our ads out to many other social media sites such as Snapchat, Twitter, Facebook, Pandora, etc. I have seen an ad once on Facebook, but I personally do not use it that often, so I never see this. I would then continue to get our name out there past social media circumstances, maybe even billboards and buildings to catch the eye of those who are not on social media. 

TOPIC 2 ~ Persuasive Techniques

Works

1. A TV Ad I see not that often, but is still my favorite is the Budweiser Ads. These ads are most popular with their annual new one that plays during the Super Bowl, but I randomly do see other ones or the same ones played throughout the year. All of the commercials involve horses and puppies. Of course, as an animal lover, the puppies and horses definitely grabbed my attention, but they also all have a sweet story. 
2. The target audience would be younger adults because they are the ones who love beer. Past the beer factor, I would say the target audience could be women because it involves puppies, which makes everyone fall in love with the ad.
3. I would say they use the persuasive technique of emotional branding because of the sweet stories involved in the commercial. For example, in the video below, the relationship between the puppy and the horse is so sweet and when they are taken from each other, it just makes you tear up, well at least I do! 
4. I think using that technique worked because as it got your emotional side going, it may make you want a beer. Or at least, in my case, I don't drink, but am still fond of Budweiser because of their cute commercials!
5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p_3lITiK_Q

Major Dud

1. The advertising commercial for the Law Offices of Jacob Emrani makes me laugh every single time. I have nothing against his law firm, I am sure they are great, but their commercials are so ridiculously filmed that I cannot help but giggle. Different commercials show "reenactments" from accidents that apparently has happened to these couples portrayed in the commercial. The people who are claimed to be "real life" people are so bad at acting and in the photoshopped videos of them being hurt are just over the top fake. 
2. I would say their target audience is simply anyone who has been hurt in an accident and needed legal assistance. I do not think they are leaning towards any one age group or certain people. 
3. The persuasive techniques used would be hidden-fear and plain-folks approach. The hidden fear approach is shown because the people sitting at home watching these fake accidents happen may become fearful that it would happen to them. It shows what those people went through and causes the audience to not want to go through the same thing. This causes them to want to take note of this law office in case anything would now happen to them. The plain-folks approach is shown through using regular people. It shows that these types of accidents can happen to anyone at any time. 
4. I would say that these persuasive techniques didn't necessarily fail, but I wouldn't say they really succeeded either. I think they are good techniques for this type of ad for a law firm, but because the commercial is so ridiculously and poorly filmed, I cannot take those techniques or the ad as a whole seriously. I think if they created a better commercial with higher quality video and effects, then those techniques would be perfect.
5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEE3rlXGBsU

~ Week 2 ~

Social Media

1. I followed three new accounts: @NPR, @realDonaldTrump, and @FoxNews. I followed NPR because it includes all topics - music, art, news. It gives a wide variety of the latest events and keeps me up to date on things I would not normally know. I followed Donald Trump because I always hear people talking about his tweets and how ridiculous they may be, I had to see them myself. Fox News is another to keep me up to date on the latest events. I sometimes watch them on TV too, so I figured I might as well follow them too!
2. The best tweet I saw while scrolling through my feed was - "North Korea has just launched another missile. Does this guy have anything better to do with his life? Hard to believe that South Korea....." by Donald Trump. Although I was not tempted to retweet or even like this post, it stood out to me. I think he tweets things without thinking too much about it, hope that doesn't get us in trouble with North Korea...
3. I feel social media has enhanced my ability to take action, but I wouldn't go as far to say it has encouraged me to participate in democracy. I think social media helps bring recent events and issues to my attention because I am more likely to spend time on social media than sitting and watching the News on T.V.. Social media gives more opportunity to take a stand against something you're passionate about. For example, my Instagram is always full of these companies that sell products such as clothing or jewelry with the intention of using that money earned to help save animals, stop animal cruelty, adoption, and many other things. Animals are my passion and that gives me an easy opportunity to help the cause. I do not think it enables me to participate in democracy though. Whenever I see things on social media invovling the government, they usually are not positive, which makes me more bothered than motivated to join something.

The Internet

1. I 100% agree with Sherry Turkle's talk. Her comment about networks taking us places we do not want to go stuck with me because I think technology is a persuasive tool that may not always be positive. She also mentions how technology is so psychologically powerful it changing who we are, which I have seen first hand with friends and them changing who they are to have a certain "image" on social media. I agree with her that all of this is setting us up for trouble which may lead to isolation rather than community. My family has not officially reclaimed any places in our house as home, work, play, or cellphone-free. We do, however, try to stay off of our phones while eating together or in the living room just hanging out. We all love family time, so it never seems to be an issue. If I ever feel that someone is not listening to me, I would normally confront them about it gently and kindly force them to listen to me!
2. I do not play many games on my phone at all. I use more social media in my free time, but back when I had an iPod, I had many games. My favorites were car racing games and word games. I like the car games just because they were fun and made me feel like I was a super good driver when I didn't even have a license yet. The word games were always interesting because they challenged my mind and allowed me to compete against and beat my friends!
3. I would say I spend about 7-10 hours a week on social media. I wouldn't necessarily say I am part of an online community because the social media I am always on has to do with friends that are part of my real life community. I do not like how much time I spend on my phone, I try to make it a goal to only go later in the afternoon and not right when I wake up. I have tried many times to quite social media, but it's just too hard! So, I just try to limit my time spent on it and spend more time face-to-face with people and more time spent in nature.