Hey guys, here's my presentation for this week. Its pretty short but I think we have a few presentations this week anyways.
Im doing my presentation on the Adbusters
Im doing my presentation on the Adbusters
On the website, they describe themselves as “a global network of culture jammers and creatives working to change the way information flows, the way corporations wield power, and the way meaning is produced in our society”. They are devoted to numerous political and social causes, many of which are anti-consumerist in nature. Culture jamming is the primary means through which Adbusters' advocates fight consumerism.
Adbusters has also launched numerous international social marketing campaigns, including Buy Nothing Day and TV Turnoff Week, and is known for their "subvertisements" (refers to the practice of making spoofs or parodies of corporate and political advertisements form of a new image or an alteration to an existing image, often in a satirical manner) that spoof popular advertisements.
QUESTIONS:
Do you think the website/magazine is effective in what it does?
Is culture jamming a form of civil disobedience or is it simply vandalism of well-known brands/corporations?
Is there a code of ethics when it comes to things like this, or are the creators of these things free to as they please? Do they have any sort of social responsibility?
I also added a few examples of subvertisements from the website as my cultural artefact for the week. There's a lot more stuff on the actual website so go on over and have a look!
i love how witty the subvertisements are haha.
ReplyDeletebut i don't think it makes them effective, because even though they're making fun of them, they still advertising for them.
they still include the brand names of absolute, calvin klein and nike so basically they are still advertising for those companies, even if it is in a satirical way...
I agree with hayley. This is, for me, the problem with the process of culture jamming. It simply re-appropriates and perpetuates the rhetoric of the mass media without actually changing anything. So while the ad may offer a critique of absolut, it is still a recognisable ad for that product. So in this way, while it may challenge, it provides free advertising. Advertising really only serves to get the brand name out there and into the public domain. By simply re-appropriating these ads in a subversive way, it just puts the same product back into society to be digested and consumed.
ReplyDeleteWhen I look at the subvertisment for MacDonald's I thought of the documentary "Super Size Me" directed by and starring Morgan Spurlock. I am sure everyone has heard of it - Spurlock documents his experiene of eating just MacDonald's for one month. This could just be another example of culture jamming that is promoting the 'product'. After the documentary MacDonald's now places the nutritional content on all products brought and now provide 'healthier alternatives'.
ReplyDeleteInstead of destroying the MacDonald image, Spurlock has just promoted the corporation that largely contributes to the obesity epidemic in America. He has contributed to giving MacDonalds a healthier image which makes it more attractive for consumers to buy their food - but the burgers and fries still have the same fat content.