Right. With all the discussion regarding the ads and how these ads appeal to the emotions of the viewers, and how certain ads just, well, simply have taken on a new age outlook towards advertising, entertaining the viewers rather than actually advertising anything. Gone were the days when adverts simply spewed out information a la the merlion, the "Blah blah miracle product, buy because it's so good! bye!"-type advertisements. Today I'll touch on the neglected "famous face" advertisements.
As we remember those days of old where we used to sit home, sick from school (or in some instances, work) and turn on the television to watch the ONLY show that always seems to be on, SOMEHOW, SOMEWAY. This show has medicinal value and it wants to heal you. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, that show is none other than "The Price is Right". (I'm deviating) But there's also one other program that also pops into the head - the classic informercials.
Informercials used to be a proving ground for once-famous celebrities to use their faces and sell products that they "endorse". The classic example of how ethos plays a part in advertising.
For the old days where George Foreman used to come out and endorse a portable healthy griller, to the new day's examples (discussed later) of new, entertaining and yet classic ethos-esque styles of these advertisements. Getting viewers to think: "Wow. Just because so-and-so (insert name of mildly famous celeb here) says it's good, it must be."
Here's a Nike viral advert for your consideration:
Kobe "jumps" the Aston Martin. Impressive? Fake? You decide. Just to clear the air a little, this video was rather obviously a Nike advertisement for their new hyperdunks. Rather than have Kobe come out in some cool fashion and encouraging us to buy hyperdunks, Nike has come out with this viral advertisement.
Wikipedia (our best friend) defines "Viral Advertisement" as (quote): "Viral marketing and viral advertising refer to marketing techniques that use pre-existing social networks to produce increases in brand awareness or to achieve other marketing objectives (such as product sales) through self-replicating viral processes, analogous to the spread of pathological and computer viruses."
By generating enough "wow" factor, people would generally talk and spread the message about this guy who jumped over a car with Nike basketball shoes. If it were some regular guy, probably no one would care if he lived or died trying. But just because this was KOBE BRYANT jumping over a flashy sports car, everyone's raving about it. Also, do note that in the first 10 seconds of that video, I was totally NOT interested. It was dead boring! But just because it was Kobe Bryant, you continued watching, right? Ethos, right there.
Here's another follow up video, this time with more celebrities, the Jackass guys, to pump up the hype over these "Hyperdunk" shoes. I can't confirm if it's another viral advert by Nike, but it's good to note that Kobe's wearing Nike aparrel, carrying a Nike ball and the wee-man helium snorting "Hyperdunks" pose at the end.
More? Yeah. This video was added in December 2006. I remember watching this one quite some time ago. Do we care what happened to this guy? Not really, I didn't. I thought it was just some cheap computer graphics edit at the end. If Kobe was the one in the video, would we want to find out whether he was okay or not? For me, definitely!
Well, the above examples just show Ethos at work, whether we realise it or not. We think that we're just seeing celebrities show their faces "just for the sake of it" and for the ,ka-ching, money. But in reality, it does something to us, where just as the poor Brit who was flattened by the car, we just didn't care as much. As compared to Kobe goofing off, jumping over an inflatable pool filled with snakes.
If only I could play drums like this.. I would totally busk on Orchard Road for all the $1 coins that they can throw on to my old uncle's handkerchief.
The question that was weighed in on everyone’s mind is, “why?”. There were no reasons, there were no explanations. Yet with all the debating, the arguing and the reasoning going on, thousands of people are suffering because of the pride, one would say, of the Myanmar Government.
When Cyclone Nargis hit Myanmar, the southern Irrawaddy Delta region was devastated. Not only people and their homes were destroyed, but looking at the bigger picture as well, precious, vast areas of rice farmlands were destroyed as well. With the lack of food, water and supplies, the world has poured aid and sent experts to help in the relief efforts. But the Myanmar Government has refused to accept any help from foreign expert teams, from the U.N. or even from her own Asean neighbours. Now that I’ve painted a little picture for you, let’s move on.
Side note: If you still haven’t clicked and read the report yet, I strongly suggest you do. HERE
Evaluating the news report put forth by Channel Newsasia – Nothing special, it’s a comprehensive news report. The writer’s whole interest is about the matter being discussed, not the actual style of reporting of the report itself. I would say that the information provided is pretty comprehensive and the extra links were great. But the controversial thing is about the Myanmar Government’s decision to refuse any expert aid from other countries, along with her Asean neighbours. The Als finds himself with a problem trying to evaluate or critique this report. Rather, I feel that the issue is worth the time to sit down and discuss.
I’m not choosing to shun the Myanmar tragedy or remain pathetically ignorant about the issue at hand. These people have been hit with a disaster and it is only natural that we would want to help as much as we all can. From countries giving money and material aid, to the common man donating what small amounts of money to do their little part to aid the relief effort. Commendable, of course. And just for the record, this writer and many others send our condolences and our prayers to be with the victims of this horrible tragedy. The burning question is still why the Myanmar Government has chosen to turn a cold shoulder to the “foreign experts” being sent to the country to provide expert knowledge and expert skills. As a result, many people are suffering. As mentioned earlier, the country’s rice growing economy has taken quite a big hit. Translated into a bigger picture, rice growth will remain low for quite some time until the next season. With food already wiped out because of the cyclone and future food supplies already depleted, shouldn’t the country desperately need expert advice on how to cope with the current and future situation? Because of this, “pride” or rather, unwillingness to open up to “foreigners”, the people are suffering. As quoted in the news report, “estimated 2.5 million people in need of immediate food, water, shelter or medical care”. Do those numbers mean anything for the urgency and magnitude of the situation?
The suspicions or rather, lack of proper reports and information pertaining to the worst hit regions complicate matters further. So far, as the report has stated, Louis Michel, the EU's humanitarian aid commissioner, had been taken only to a well running refugee camp far away from the devastated delta region. If I may say, would that be considered, what we loosely use in Singapore, the term “Wayang”?
Let us also consider that some regions, the worst hit have actually become submerged underwater. The article did cite an example, an interview with a man named Ohn Kyi. The only complaint from this writer is that the reporter was not named, giving the impression that this report could have been fabricated. However, considering the closed nature of the country pertaining to the disaster, we could understand why certain details were missing. According to Ohn Kyi, he says or claims, that his wife died after two days of being stuck in the cold. This example would probably underscore the desperate need of logistics that these victims need.
Quoting the report, “Despite the humanitarian emergency, the government announced victory in a national referendum on a new constitution, held last Saturday”. Which brings along the question, could the refusal to allow international experts to oversee the search and rescue mission, a government ploy to tighten their hold on the country, with their refusal to open up to foreigners. The Myanmar Government claims that they are taking steps toward democracy, but with this decision not to allow international experts and closing their doors, could this be a case of “not walking the talk?” This writer certainly thinks so.
