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

Why? (Post 5)

Social media baffles me. I, being the grandmotherly woman that I am, have tried to steer as far away from it as possible. However, it seems like a majority of the youth population has willingly embraced it as part of their lives. I do not understand why. Some of my friends, particularly those from ostracized groups, tend to use it as a way to connect with their communities. My queer friends who feel isolated at school use it to connect with others who share the same experiences in the hopes of feeling less alone. My Jewish friends use it to keep tabs on the people we've met at summer camp. Others use it as a convenient communication platform in the cases where iMessage doesn't suffice. But when I talk to most of the people my age about why they use social media, they say that they aren't totally sure. I've been told that it's just a part of culture. But I don't seem to grasp why is has to continue to be a part of the way we interact. What about the correl...
1 comment
Read more

An Ode to Barbara (Post 8)

One of the people interviewed in the PBS Frontline episode "Merchants of Cool" was 13-year-old Barbara, who epitomized the impact of media on youths and youth culture. Barbara, who had grown up watching Brittany Spears and the other over-sexualized Midriffs of the world, was intent on becoming a model and looking like the women she had seen on TV. And it broke my heart. It was horrifying that a child, a 13-year-old girl, was so moved by the image of femininity forced on her by advertising that she flew to the International Model and Talent Association's annual convention and walked on a stage to be judged by adults who wanted to use her in advertising campaigns that would further perpetuate the stereotypes she fell prey to and line their pockets with money. She beamed when she was told that she could pass for a 16 or 17-year-old, and she was told that she was a "good girl," when she said that her main goal was "success." She wore skimpy, sexualiz...
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