Skip to main content

Moms Demand Action (Gun Sense Campaign) (Post 4)




As a teenager, I am inclined to scoff at anything labeled as "Moms," but the gun sense campaign designed by Moms Demand Action is vivid and effective. They demand an emotional response and approach the issue of gun violence by appealing to common sense.

The use of a darker, cooler tone in the lighting of each image sets the stage for a somber and serious discussion. The expressions on each of the models is dead and aloof - as if they are staring blankly into the distance where there is no future for their generation. In each image, the model on the left holds the thing that's been banned and the model on the right holds the assault rifle. While this creates a feeling of division on the imagery, it also serves as political commentary. By placing the assault rifle on the right, they are associating it with the political right (conservative - more likely to oppose gun control). By placing the items that have been banned on the left, they are associating policing of toys and protection of children with the political left (liberal - more likely to support gun control). While this makes a statement, I think it's inherently polarizing. It creates a distinct us-and-them dynamic, which is ineffective because the people they have to convince are those on the right. By choosing smaller children as models, and by choosing the biggest guns available, they have created a juztiopositoin in size that highlights the dark hilarity of the situation. The size difference is almost comical, and it highlights the very root of the issue. I also thought it was interesting that it's always a white model who holds the rifle. While white males are statistically the most likely to commit a school shooting, it's difficult to slap that label onto a small child. There are various reasons why they have chosen to do this, as race and racial stereotypes are a fine line to walk in advertising, but the imagery is still striking.

The text they have chosen is also interesting. The font is type-writer-esque, which suggests a newspaper or an antique feel. This highlights the severity of the issue and how long we have been fighting to change it. By making the viewer choose which of the two things depicted has been banned and asking us to guess, they are mocking the situation. "Look at this," they say, "Isn't the right answer obvious?"

This ad campaign is fascinating, and I think it's the most effective one that I've seen in a long time. However, I still think it has its flaws. In an age like the one we're currently living in, the call to action needs to be made clearer. This ad simply asks us to acknowledge that there is a problem, but it doesn't scream for an immediate, impulsive reaction. We're constantly bombarded with media, so we need to be told what to do immediately. Otherwise, we'll forget what we saw, and it won't be as effective the second time around.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Si Perfume - Giorgio Armani (Post 2)

Perfume campaigns are notoriously vague, and they often portray sexualized famous people trying to convince the commoners (us) that we will be beautiful once we smell good. This campaign, "Si by Giorgio Armani," takes a different approach. Its main message is that women should take control of their lives and just say, "SÌ." By using their perfume as a symbol of power rather than sex, they are riding the wave of feminism in popular culture and telling their viewers that women will finally have the autonomy and control we deserve the moment we walk through a cloud of their smell-fluid. Shockingly, I think this is absolute bullshit. First, the character in the commercial is very far removed from reality. The idea of freedom she embodies involves sky-diving, wearing couture in a shopping market, and stealing a man's jacket. Few sane people who would buy this perfume, i.e. their target demographic, have the money to go sky-diving, sport couture simply because the
2 comments
Read more

The Internet: The Factual Candy Store (Post 6)

The standard of truth held dear by news media organizations and American culture has been diminished and often disregarded because of the rise of the internet. That is not to say that we were ever entirely truthful. While our version of democracy has always required a certain degree of transparency and communication, we have never shied away from propaganda and smear campaigns and rose-colored depictions of our own society (except when it was inconvenient). However, the internet has given way to a whole new form of communication and unprecedented access to information. People are free to choose whose writing they read and whose version of truth they listen to because there is an overwhelming variety of options and no time to listen to all of them. And this is bad. It opens new markets. Because we want to hear what we already believe, we seem to have reached the consensus that there is no longer a need for local papers and truthful news,
1 comment
Read more

"Loyalty beyond reason is where the profits lie." (Post 3)

Many of the ideas presented in  The Persuaders , a documentary on the advertising industry by Frontline PBS, both shocked me and rang alarmingly true. The line that struck me most was, "Loyalty beyond reason is where the profits lie." As sickening as this concept is, I think we can all accept that there's truth to it. Humans feel the need to be accepted, and when they're not receiving the validation they want from the people around them, they turn to something with which they can affiliate. This is where advertising is successful. Cults require social sacrifice and the worship of an immediately visible leader. Brands are simply more convenient. They require monetary sacrifice of a certain, specified amount, and you don't ever have to see the faces of the people whose pockets you're lining. And all the while, your affiliation with that brand gets you the social acceptance you have always longed for. When an individual becomes affiliated with a brand to t
1 comment
Read more