Need VS Want

Does advertising create needs or wants? Most of the time people don’t feel it but I personally think that advertising creates unnecessary wants in our lives. If advertisers and companies did not market goods so intensely, I believe that people wouldn’t demand and consume so much useless products.  I don’t think advertising creates needs, I think it takes our current needs, slightly alters them into different variations, and packages them in order to create multiple wants. I honestly believe that advertising only builds and develops on what is already present in the market because advertisers and companies see that there is a profit to be made.

Although I think the finger can be pointed to advertisers for creating a consumer society and unnecessary wants, I think consumers also play an equal role in creating these wants. Advertisers would not be eager to sell if people were not interested in buying. The game of advertising is definitely a two sided coin. There would be no need to produce if there was no demand, but then there would be no demand if nothing was ever produced. Clearly, both the responsibility and blame cannot be pointed out to just either the advertiser and the consumer. I believe that in this scenario both have to own up to their faults and work hand in hand at building a relationship that allows both groups to work harmounously.

What Was, What Is, and What Could Be

I have to admit; I hardly watch indie films let alone Filipino films. I never picked up the interest most Filipino’s have in watching cheesy tele novelas and tear jerking tagalog movies. My experience with indie films though is much more forgiving. At college I had a film class that centered on teaching my classmates and I how to interpret the language of film. I was exposed to different classical and local films; during the report I recognized names such as Lav Diaz and Kidlat Tahimik. They are some of the few Filipino directors whose films I was able to see clips of.

Although my understanding of the film subject is very general, I strongly believe that it is an art form in itself. I think it is a very powerful media medium that has a very indirect way of influencing viewers. Like what was said by the guest speaker during our last class discussion, the ability to direct a film is talent that should not be taken fore granted. I appreciated the monologue of Director Buendia because I could clearly see that he uses his craft for the betterment of society and the country. I hope that other directors and film practitioners could follow his footsteps. Perhaps if Filipino film would make more sense and would have more depth, then its viewership would increase. Its all about striking a balance between what we have now and what else we could add to make the Filipino film industry much more interesting but at the same time comedic and emotional as it is now.

As I see it, the Filipino film industry is still at its infancy stage. Although it has declined from how it use to perform in the past, I think it has yet to live up to its true potential. I believe it will take time, but nonetheless it is possible.

The Radio: A Speaking Box

I was never really fond of listening to the radio. Out of all the media mediums available out there, the radio was something that just never really caught my attention. The only time I would ever get to actually listen to the radio was if it was playing in some random place or in car ride with someone to break the awkward silence. Other than that, the radio was never really something I frequently liked listening to.

As time passed, my dislike of the radio only seemed to heighten as its platform evolved to a different format; more talking and less music playing. Now a day when I drive to work, I’d rather listen to nothing than turn on my radio. The bombardment of ads and the excessive talking of radio DJ’s has only made me despise the medium all the more. The only reason I enjoy radio is for the music, to discover new songs and to have a break from my iPod. But now that there is less music and more talk, I most of the time veer away from it.

I cannot blame the radio industry for shifting to a more talk oriented format. After all, if all radio stations played music, the only differentiating factor would be the genres of their playlists. For the sake of profit and a competitive advantage, most radio stations (as what the speakers said) are shifting to a more talk oriented format. In fact, it was mentioned by one of the speakers that some radio stations are shifting their target audience as well. From the upper A & B class, radio stations are now aiming to entice the “masa” since they are a huge percentage of the total population and also because they are still frequent listeners of the radio.

As for me, I’m glad that the iPod exists. I can listen to any song, any time I want. Good thing there are some radio stations that still stick to playing more music rather than have their radio DJ’s talk. Those are the radio stations that save me when I’m in a boring car ride and my iPod decides to die on me>

Nostalgic

As I sat in class last Tuesday and listened to my classmates report about print media, one of their questions really got me thinking: is print media still relevant these days given the advancements in digitization?

Every day new technologies are being developed and enhanced. The speed of technology development results to the fast turnover of gadgets. If a few months ago the iPhone 4 was the hottest gadget, now there is great buzz that there will already be an iPhone 5 in the upcoming months.  After one thing is released, a new and better thing is most likely to replace it. What once use to be an analogue world of simple manual labour has now evolved into the fulfilment of our technological dreams of complex convenience.

Personally, I think print media is still very relevant these days. It’s a good alternative to the complex way of reading digitized news, articles, etc. Although I do highly support print media because of the very nostalgic feel its gives to reading, I think that is it very much threatened by the advancements in digitization which have been brought about by developments in technology. I believe that the allure of gadgets is what brought most people to switch to reading electronic news, e-magazines, and e-books. Asides from it being “cool”, reading digitized news and books is definitely more convenient. Instead of lugging around 3-4 books plus a pocket dictionary, one can have a sleek iPad that can contain so much more.

Despite all the appeal and convenience that digital writings have to offer, I still find old school print media tops.  Nothing beats the comfort, routine, and experience that a book, newspaper, or magazine offers. Asides from the familiarity of print media, I think that it is still very relevant here in the Philippines because the print media industry and society are not as advanced as compared to other countries. The reality of the Philippines is that most people cannot afford to buy such gadgets so therefore the traditional modes of print media are the ones that fit society the most. Although there are significant moves towards creating and developing digitized print media here in the Philippines, I think traditional print media will still be strong and present within society due to the fact that it is more affordable.

 

What you see is not what you get

How many times have you seen or heard something in media (TV, radio, newspaper) that was glamorized, edited, or fixed that it made the real thing look like crap? I know I have, and not just once.  I think the trend of deception is very rampant in both the media industry and the advertising industry; both go hand in hand. Advertisers make their products look good in order to entice audiences to buy while media practitioners on the other hand care about the aesthetics of their programs. After all, who would buy an ugly product or tune in to a television channel that had bothering advertisements and shows? Indeed, first impressions are very important.

Although I’m quite sure that deception happens in all forms of media, I think the most deceiving form of media would be those that are visual. Countless times I’ve seen food commercials and print ads that look mouth wateringly delicious but the moment you purchase it your heart drops because you spent your money on something that did not do the ad any justice. How many times have you bought a product hoping it could bring the change and effects you were promised? And who here has seen a celebrity and said to themselves, “Wow. She looks different. She’s not that thin in real life.”?

Is it okay for media and advertisers to deceive their audience and target market? After all, when people see print ads and TV commercials part of them expects to see the same thing when they purchase these objects, avail of these services, or see certain people. But then again, people aren’t turned on by an ugly site. I suppose deception is acceptable to a certain extent. I think its okay to make products and people more presenting so that they don’t look sore on the eyes. But I think it is completely wrong to present to the audience something or someone that they are not. Because of deception from advertisers and the media, people tend to buy things they don’t need and idolize the wrong people. I think advertisers and media practitioners have to set a fine line between what is acceptable to change or tweek and what is not. In the short run it may benefit their business, but in the long run it may hurt society by leading to believe in things that are nonexistent.