Drano!

This advertisment is horrible! I know it's the 1930's and women were in the house but it makes me remember this boy I lived with who kept sticking celery sticks down the drain and it would get stuck and not work. Sometimes it's not ALL the woman's fault. Anyway, it's just re-enforcing womens roles in the household and how men expected them to have the house beautiful, under control and clean when they get back from work (he is leaving for work... he's fixing his tie!)

Pushing my buttons

Okay some things that really push my buttons that are brought to us via the media are the new text messages I get on my phone for advertisements. I have NO idea how they get there, why they are there, or how to get rid of them. I think they're from my phone company, but who really knows. I get them every month or so. The other thing that kind of bothers me are when the broadcasters on channels like CNN and even the local news will sit there and talk about what's being chatted up in the Blogs. I know public opinion (okay and that IS this course) is important and they love to get feedback on certain issues, and I don't mind them talking about it for a few minutes, but sometimes they will spend 10 minutes discussing what everyone is saying on the blogs... so what's the point of even going online to chat in the blogs and find out what everyone thinks when it's going to be on tv? The internet and blogging is something that just allows us to communicate with one another and lets the public complain, recommend or just share feelings. I know anchors are looking for stuff to talk about so people will watch their show, but those times when they talk about the blogs for LONG periods of time it ruins the concept of blogging.

Good Advertising?

I think the most important thing to remember is that this is an advertisement for Draino. Just like all advertisements, the designer has to determine the target audience and what appeals to them. For women in the 1930's, their responsibility was to their home and their husband. Draino wouldn't come up with an ad directed at men because they neither shopped nor cleaned. Women of that time period had shared norms, one being their dependence on their husband and therefore their desire to keep him happy. "A clean home is a happy home."
Draino is appealing to fear of dissaproval. The woman looks clearly worried, and the man looks threatening. I think looking at it now, when it is more common to see women work and men clean, the ad looks sinister and outrageous. However, looking at it from the perspective of men and women in the 1930's, 40's and maybe even 50's it would be more effective and less disturbing. Women would want to go out and by Draino to make sure their husbands were satisfied. I doubt that they were up in arms over this ad like we can be now.

Drano ad and... the sniffles?

My gut reaction to this add was to be offended while part of me (a very small part) tried to understand the rationale of the '30s behind this add. Like others have commented, yes the ideal of the time was for a woman to stay at home and make the house run smoothly. In fact, it reminds me of a "helpful" newspaper article fromthe '50s which stated that it's a woman's job to make sure the man does not have _anything_ to worry about once he comes home because he works so darn hard (as if keeping a house isn't hard work, too).

I got to thinking about the claims of others, though, that this is an outrageous ad and we wouldn't see the like today. While I do see the shadow of domestic abuse that others pointed out, in a broader sense, this ad strikes me as targeting a woman's guilt at not living up to expectations. I would also argue that in that sense, it's not much different than the Clorox commercials of today that have women running after their kids and wiping everything down with a Clorox handywipe... as if their child getting the sniffles is the end of the world, and what a horrible mother they would be if this happened (as if kids won't go outside and eat dirt or bugs or rocks, etc.). In both cases, a woman's role is to anticipate the annoyance/discomfort of others and do something about it so they never have to deal with it (no matter how trivial the annoyance). In that case, it's just an earlier verse of the same song being sung today.

harping on one issue

I very much so agree with Barry. And maybe the reason this bothers me so much is because it hit very close to home for me. I'm sure we all remember in April when the shootings happened at VT. I can agree that it deserved a lot of media attention, but for me, as a local of this area, the media just harped on this issue. I just can't help but wonder, at what point are they no longer reporting for the sake of informing the public, but for the sake of "good TV?" Is there a line that has been crossed, and if so, at which point do we reach that line? Even now, months after the tradegy, ESPN's Gameday will be in Blacksburg on Saturday. For those of you who don't know, this is a right ususally reserved for the biggest of the big games in college football. Virginia Tech is playing Eastern Carolina, which will not exactly be a nail-biter. Are they going for college football, or are they going to see if they can catch a tear streaming from someone's eye? I guess we'll see.

I feel that this advertisement shows how men portrayed women in the 1930s. It shows that its the man's job to work and bring in the money while the wife cooks and cleans. If something wasn't clean, it was automatically the wife's fault. I believe that women in the 1930s were viewed as passive, quiet, and gentle. They never stood up for what they believed or did anything against the norm. The man is portrayed as being demanding and it's his way or there will be consequences. I personally do not like this ad and feel that it does not get the message across of what Drano is actually used for.

I think the most shocking aspect of this advertisement is the blatant threatening tone toward the female, in terms of both the woman pictured and the women seeing the ad. Having studied advertisements from the WWII and post-war eras, I find this example from the 1930s to be particularly jarring, as the tone is considerably more menacing than anything I have previously seen. From a 21st century standpoint, this advertisement seems to convey an acceptance of spousal abuse toward women, in which wives are expected to fear the wrath of their husbands. Of course, at the time, however, those seeing the ad would likely view it as simply an illustration of a man's rightful dominance over his submissive wife. Regardless, we can clearly see that the ad uses the method of focusing on a woman's fear of her husband to sell the product, i.e. if she buys Drano, she will avoid her fear of being the object of her husband's anger.

I definitely agree with all of the previous statements that were made regarding this 1930's advertisement. Women were considered "homemakers" during that time period and men had a certain expectation of their wives to fill the needs of the home; one being cleaning and opening drains apparently. I agree this ad would never work in today's society. I just so happen to be slightly offended by it. But what 21st century woman wouldn't be?

I find the ad even more interesting just because of the amount of text and dialoge that goes along with it. The ad includes a type of conversation noting this is the way women of that time often felt about their spouse. I just find it very interesting how things have changed over the past 80 years in the way we advertise and how men and women view each other in relationships.

I think this advertisement conveys multiple messages. First, I think this message is very stereotypical of how society viewed men and women in the 1930's. Women were the homemakers. They cooked, cleaned and maintained the household. So, I think the man is giving a look to the women saying "It's your fault" and "What can you do to solve this problem?" Because of this, in agreement with the previous blog, I feel the woman feels obligated to find a quick fix to keep the man happy and to maintain the upkeep of the house. Therefore, she goes for Draino. It will work quickly and make him happy. Second, going along with the first point, I think this message sends out a view on role play. The man looks as though he doesn't have time to deal with the situation because he is off to work to provide for the family. The woman, on the other hand, has the time to go pick up Draino and have the situation resolved before he comes home.

I agree with the post below, this advertisement is completely stereotypical. However, I do believe it could mean different things to different people. For some, the ad could be viewed as comical, or poking fun at the situation. For others, it can be seen as a preventative measure for keeping your house clean and your husband happy. The only way an add like this would work today would be if it were used in the comical sense. Otherwise it would just be seen as offensive and seriously outdated.

30's Ads

Wow! Nothing says 30's stereotypes like a good avertisement. As an advertising major, my jaw hit the floor looking at this. There is no way this would happen in this day and age (not without a large riot/protest). It just shows you how the world worked back then, telling a woman that she is to take care of her home, and that she better have that sink fixed and dinner on the table before her husband comes home. I mean, he works all day, couldn't she atleast keep the house in the same condition (or better) that he left it as? I hope everyone got the sarcasm of that, and I'm glad things have changed.

-Trent Hogue

The Drano ad is amazing, and by "amazing" I mean terrible. I see multiple messages in this image. None of which are good or for the betterment of society. The first message is of the subservient wife. What a terrible way to advertise something. "you better clean the drains before the king comes home or else he will pop you in the face with the hand he always wears his high school ring on". Yes, I am aware that it was part of that time period to be the housewife, but looking back on it today it is horrific. The second message is the husband playing the role of financial provider and the wife doing the cooking and cleaning. The lines of this stereotype have indeed blurred over the years, but there are still distinct roles that men and women play to this day. I cannot believe this ad actually was created. I'm sure the Drano company of today is real proud of there forefathers ad choice.

md

Spam

Technology is an amazing thing. An email can be sent in the blink of an eye. We can write and read blogs on any topic, and respond positively or negatively to these blogs. We can use social sites like Facebook and MySpace to find old friends, make new ones, or keep in touch with present friends. Yet with these positives come a handful of negatives.
My annoyance comes in the form of spam. Not that meat substance in can, but the unsolicited advertisements in the form of emails and links. It's almost scary to think how I have changed email addresses twice due to the massive amounts of spam I got sick of deleting. As for the links, when I'm interested in reading other people's thoughts on a topic, I am not interested in "click here for more info" and being redirected to an unrelated site. If you want to be my friend on MySpace, don't send me a link of "check out my hot pics here!"
Spam should only be in a can, not in my email, MySpace, or Facebook.

Texting

Recently advertisers have thought it is a great idea to send consumers advertisements through text messages. I find this to be a very annoying form of communication. There is so much stimuli in our markets that advertisers feel they have to go to extremes to get their message across. How far is too far, and when are advertisers invading my personal space? Nobody likes spam, pop-ups, or telemarketing, so why would someone think that sending a mass text message would be any different? Statistics and research have proven that these methods are inefficient because it "annoys" consumers so they tune the message out. I do not have an answer to the best way of communicating a message, but I do know that forcing messages on consumers is not the answer.

Pushing Buttons

Sensationalism.

I'm not even sure if that's a word but it sounds good to me. The fact that I can randomly switch on a television, head to any news channel, and see the same horror/freak show replayed over and over again is a testament to the simple fact that, no matter how moral and just we think we are, we are still all addicted to watching the "Train Wreck". I recently had the misfortune of catching an episode of Nancy Grace where they replayed a video of a home care-giver smacking an elderly patient across the face. Why? Probably because the guy was having a bad day at home, or maybe he had a screw loose. Whatever the case is, many viewers probably kept watching the video over and over again...horrified yet mesmerized by the violence. What did I do? I changed the channel to an old episode of Scrubs. Sigh.

Matthew Dowdey

Pushing Buttons

Much of this course will be about "pushing buttons" through media messages ~ the processes, the assumptions, the pros and cons of it. I'll refer, on occasion, to "hot button issues" and language that gets our attention, cuts through the chatter or sets us off.

What kind of media communication sets you off or pushes your buttons?

Professor Wiggins

The Money Button

It's not so much a "hot" button, as much as it is a "bother" button for me (a red flag, perhaps?)... that (in the United States, at least) most of the messages we receive through the media are "brought to us by" an entity that has paid to have that message communicated. It's the nature of the beast, of course... we've all gotta get paid, right? However, the irritating part of it is that so many people neglect to digest a grain of salt with the messages they receive, forgetting that somebody on the other side of the medium is concerned primarily with the bottom line... and not the well-being of the consumer.

Oh, and if I never hear the name Anna Nicole Smith again, I will be just fine. Human interest... ugh.

Pushing buttons - the "conflict" frame

Let me start off by saying I know I'm getting sucked in to thinking of "the media" as news only when it can cover a whole host of other types of communications (i.e. entertainment programming, internet, games, music, etc.).

One of the least productive ways of framing a situation as far as how society can deal with it is through overuse of the conflict frame where one "side" is pitted against another "side" (as if there are only two "sides" to any given disagreement). I think a lot of useful insights are missed when we only think of solving a conflict by someone winning rather than the compromises that generally have to happen for long-term improvements and when we only see how disagreeing factions argue rather than how they actually reach those compromises.

Victoria Kramer

The World of Spin

Students in Journalism 542, Public Opinion and Propaganda, will be using this space to explore the world of persuasive communication.