1. Consider McLuhan’s claim, “the medium is the message.” How does the medium impact the content and meaning of the advertisement’s message? For instance, do you think your response to the message varies from one medium to the other? If so, how and why? What implications do you think your responses have for producers of persuasive messages and for your own role as a receiver of a message?
Marshall McLuhan thought of the study of thought, media ecology. Media ecology refers to the study of media, technology, and communication and how each affects human environments (Griffin, p. 310). Within media ecology is McLuhan’s most famous quote: “The medium is the message.” This means that “media—regardless of content—reshape human experience and exert far more change in our world than the sum total of the messages they contain” (Griffin, p. 310). The medium, “a specific type of media; for example, a book, newspaper, radio, television, telephone, film, website, or email,” affects the message because it impacts how people may interpret the message (Griffin, p. 310). For example, when viewing a print advertisement, it is easy to overlook it and ignore it, especially if it is not especially eye-catching. However, with a video advertisement, I would be more likely to pay attention to it because there are more things happening to draw me in (i.e., music, talking, flashing lights/pictures, etc.). These implications may push producers of persuasive messages to use more video advertisements over print advertisements, especially if other people also pay more attention to video advertisements over print ones. As for my own role as a receiver of messages, I may strive to pay more attention to print messages rather than simply ignore them, especially since a lot of important messages are sent via print mediums.
2. Identify a sign that you see in the advertisement. Then, explain the signifier and signified.
In the advertisement pictured above, it shows the McDonald’s logo and slogan, before showing the lifetime of a McDonald’s french fry. A sign that I see in the advertisement is the McDonald’s logo, the golden arch. It is immediately recognizable as being one of the more well-known logos of fast food restaurants. The signifier, or the “the physical form of the sign as we perceive it through our senses; an image,” is the golden arch – the logo of McDonalds (Griffin, p. 321). The signified, “the meaning we associate with the sign,” is McDonald’s itself, the fast food restaurant that provides Chicken McNuggets, Big Macs, etc.
3. Decode the print advertisement by explaining: 1) dominant code, 2) negotiable code, and 3) oppositional code.
Cultural studies refer to “a neo-Marxist critique that sets forth the position that mass media manufacture consent for dominant ideologies” (Griffin, p. 333). But as with most ideologies, people interpret them in their own individual way, typically so that it aligns with their own interests. There are three such ways to interpret, or decode, a message: the dominant code, the negotiable code, and the oppositional code.
The dominant code explains that “the media produce the message; the masses consume it. The audience reading coincides with the preferred reading” (Griffin, p. 339). Looking at the McDonald’s advertisement in the dominant code, I interpret it as McDonald’s wants me to see how french fries start out and how they end (from potato, to an empty french fry container). I would assume that they want me to eat the french fries, as they are showing me the fries consumed.
The negotiable code explains that “the audience assimilates the leading ideology in general but opposes its application in specific cases” (Griffin, p. 339). Looking at the advertisement in this light, I would maybe go along and want to eat french fries, but only if I really wanted them, or if I was hungry. If I wasn’t, I would ignore the advertisement altogether.
The oppositional code explains that “the audience sees through the establishment bias in the media presentation and mounts an organized effort to demythologize the news” (Griffin, p. 339). Looking at the advertisement with the oppositional code, I would completely disregard the advertisement. I would not want to consume McDonald’s french fries, and I might even go as far to bash the food itself and say how bad they are to eat — maybe even show proof of how bad they are.
Hi Sophie! I really enjoyed your post as your ideas are very clear and are very similar to mine. When answering your first question, you stated that you would be more likely to pay attention to a video advertisement compared to a print advertisement. This is something that I had also mentioned in my post as well. It is important for advertisers to understand that we are no longer in the print age which is defined as, "A visual era; mass-produced books usher in the industrial revolution and nationalism, yet individuals are isolated" (Griffin, 2019, pg. 314). Companies must change the way that they advertise by understanding that we are now in the digital age. I also agree with your answer to question two regarding semiotics. I may even argue that the words "before" "after" and "right after" may serve as the signifier as well. I feel as if I view this advertisement through the negotiable code. I enjoy Mcdonald's fries although I would rather not purchase them as I know they are very unhealthy. If it has been a long time since I have had them, I would probably view this advertisement through the dominant code as I would be likely to purchase the fries.
ReplyDelete