ninariccijournal-blog

[ninariccijournal-blog]

Film/TV industries' diversity doesn't look like America's.

It would be foolish to state that the media in today's society has not made significant progress from where it had been in the past; however, as you may have imagined, it still has a long way to come. Diversity in the media, in my opinion, should depict all walks of life in a gradient of the "categories" they fit in. No one person is exactly like another; this has been drilled into our minds since the very moment we could develop our own opinions.

That being said, although different people identify with or fall within particular age ranges, body types, sexual orientations, genders, and races, the gradient I previously mentioned, although very prevalent, is not spoken of or at least depicted enough in the media today. For example, the homogenous accent that American radio personalities, television hosts, and actors and actresses have is masking the fact that although they all speak English, not everyone comes from the same place and speaks the same way. Another example would be the "spectrum" of sexuality that everyone falls into some way or another. Again, on television, it appears as though, when dealing with the topic of sexuality, a person is easy portrayed as strictly homosexual or strictly heterosexual. What about the in-betweeners? Why do you think that people tend to stick to rather black-and-white portrayals of different aspects of diversity, although it is clear that in society, things are rarely actually that way?

The media is very concerned with appealing to the most amount of people it can, so it generalizes and mainstreams various aspects of life that aren't that simple to categorize or depict. The media is very capital driven, so I can see why some things are more homogenous than diverse, but I think Americans are ready for more of a change.

[ninariccijournal-blog]

Censorship: Reflection

Censorship in the past, I believe, has been abused by the law-makers of society. Previously, as I've read, highly conservative people like Anthony Comstock had limited the information available to the "public sphere" solely because he did not think it was acceptable and just to discuss some things publicly. However, as time has progressed, we have adapted and modernized to the way people currently view the First Amendment and all their freedoms. As far as today goes, nothing necessarily is off-limits or taboo to discuss or publish.

However, there are still some censors on certain things like curse words and nudity because realistically, the producer of any "raunchy" material does not know whose hands or television the "obscenity" will end up in (for example, an innocent child). This does not necessarily forbid people from producing such things, but it forces them to be toned down in fear of offending someone. However, some premium channels like HBO and Showtime allow you to purchase access to view their explicit contents, but there are still warnings displayed before a program is to be shown to kind of let a person know what they're getting into. I believe that this is fair and a "public good" because if you don't want to be exposed to something, you don't have to, but if you do, then you certainly can. 

[ninariccijournal-blog]

     Monopolies, such Western Union and the Associated Press from back when media was first obtaining its grounding, typically give off a negative connotation; however, as you may have imagined, it is not completely black and white. There are a few ways that monopolies can be useful to consumers; for example, monopolies would not ever exist if the product was not being created or distributed in a way that is innovative, better, or necessary.However, as Beyoncé once advised: "if you got it, flaunt it."

Analyzing this statement from our perspective, this may imply that monopolies, because their products are such rarities, may take advantage of the fact that they are the best or the only. Think of how you feel when you are winning in the board game of Monopoly--fairly smug, correct? This may result in a raise in prices (and egos), causing consumers to scramble for those extra pennies in the couch cushion in order to purchase or use the product. Also, from a media standpoint, a monopoly may distribute information or censor specific things according to their beliefs and causes just because they can, or they "got it."

     On the other hand, to counteract this, the consumers may choose to not buy, listen to, or use the monopolies products, almost forcing them to change their ways or exit the market if enough people stand together. Think of the boycott of public transportation in the era of the civil rights movement. Have you ever heard of any monopoly media platform needing to change their ways or exit the market in order to please its consumers? If not, do you think that this method could actually work? It's definitely something to think about.

[ninariccijournal-blog]

This is my attempt at analyzing a campaign initiated by a company that many of you may not know much about. In fact, this company might even be described as just one big "secret"--Victoria's Secret, that is (hold your applause). Yes, the ever-popular Victoria's Secret--known mostly for their bombshell bras and bombshell models (or shall I call them "angels"?). Sometimes I even find it hard to resist their 5 for $25 deal. Girls, you probably know what I'm talking about. But what I find less appealing about this company is one of their latest campaigns--"Love Your Body." Take a look at the picture above, for example. Looks like a typical Victoria's Secret ad, right? That's because it essentially IS one, just with a self-appreciatory label attached to it. Victoria's Secret's mission statement, according to RetailIndustry.com, states that the company is "committed to offering captivating customer experiences that drive long-term loyalty and deliver sustained growth for our shareholders." Although Victoria's Secret's target market is teenage to adult girls, they still manage to keep a good portion of men interested in the company by the "in-your-face" displays of their fashion and runway models. That being said, I think that women, even men, of all ages can potentially be affected by this ad campaign in what I would consider a limited, even mild-molding way; therefore, I do not think the campaign is effective in the ways many people would expect and hope. I'm going to be evaluating this campaign on the expectations form society, what they actually have to offer, and its level of ambiguity. 1. Let's start with the expectations from society. The title of any campaign imposes expectations on itself, causing people to formulate pre-conceived notions without really knowing anything about it. According to Colin Wright, the author of the blog "Exile Lifestyle," "titles are, in many cases, the first reference point the people have in deciding who you are as a person, and they can greatly color the implied intentions of even your most innocent action." The same can be applied to the titles of a company or a campaign, as you might have imagined. Therefore, I think it's safe to say that the title of this campaign is a little misleading. "Love Your Body," as in "love you OWN body," right? Notice how all the models in this picture have the same figure, hairstyle, and even facial expression. Compared to other women in society, the Victoria's Secret models (although beautiful in their own way too) all look like clones and do not send a necessarily positive message to the community. 2. Which brings me to point two: what Victoria's Secret's actual motive behind this campaign. I'll give you some background information first. Victoria's Secret is the #1 lingerie brand in the world, and that's because of a few key factors: number one being its "sexy image," and also, according to Business Insider, its "expensive and impeccable marketing strategies." Combine the three criteria, and you've got exactly what would give Victoria's Secret another push to the top. After doing a little Internet browsing, I found that Victoria's Secret just wanted to promote its new line of lingerie--not a whole new image. According to In Style Magazine, these bras are built to "accentuate" curves. But how are we supposed to see just how well these bras accentuate a woman's curves if they're only being modeled on girls with the same body type? This is yet another flaw in their campaign--but it seems to sell. Clearly, with a major in Media and Professional Communications, I have no problem with a company promoting and marketing its products, even if it's not necessarily how I would go about it. If it sells; it sells, and that's the majority of what matters to a company. 3. My largest problem with this campaign is its ambiguity--my point number three. The title of this campaign mixed with what is actually being offered has caused a bunch of ruckus in the Internet community. A simple Google search of "Victoria's Secret's Love Your Body campaign" could tell you that. With an audience of now enraged, confused, or maybe even newly-insecure people, Victoria's Secret, once again, has proven its campaign to be more ineffective than not. I believe this could have been avoided, however, with a different title (assuming VS would like to maintain its bombshell image) or just a little more diversity. ----------- ----------- In conclusion, I do believe that Victoria's Secret's "Love Your Body" campaign was "successful" in promoting its new line of lingerie (and by promoting, I mean displaying at this point), but I do not think that the company used the potential the title gave this campaign in the most effective way. And I think it's done more harm than good.

[ninariccijournal-blog]

Relationship between Network and Cable TV: Reflection

Although many people disagree, I feel that the network/cable television dynamic is almost symbiotic, rather than a competition. Network TV appeals to a wider audience, but that is because of certain FCC regulations that sort of mold them into doing so. Because network TV does not require any subscriptions, it needs to appeal to the most amount of people to keep its ratings up and to give viewers something to work with. So, people don't want to/have the money to pay for cable television, they don't have to, and can, in turn, find what they want without it. Likewise, because cable TV requires a subscription or some type of payment, the restrictions set for its content are more lax. If you're paying for something to watch on TV, you pretty much can filter out/get whatever content is of interest to you in particular (I'm sure various examples might come to mind with that statement as well).

I do not think that either network or cable television are in a "power struggle" anymore--they merely seem to be doing what they can to achieve their similar goals for different audiences. And therefore, I do not think that Comcast buying NBC was really anything more than acquiring more power and/or capital.

My question to you is this: Do you believe that online streaming sites, however, may pose a threat to the network/cable TV dynamic? With shows now airing strictly on we bites such as Netflix (House of Cards, Orange is The New Black, etc.), do you think that society will eventually make that entire transition to online networks, or simply incorporate the new aspect of television into their operational mix?

[ninariccijournal-blog]

Magazines are becoming obsolete, right? Not necessarily.

Recently, I applied for and got accepted to start an internship at an up-and-coming magazine: MAJR Magazine. To be more specific, this is not just your ordinary 'zine that you would find in your doctor's waiting room--no.

This is a digital magazine that appeals to college-aged students and those affiliated with colleges and promotes the social good of the world. How's that for a pitch in one breath? 

I believe that MAJR has uncovered something unique to our time, and here's why:

The medium: As you've probably heard before, we are in an era called the Digital Age. Television and movies are being watched, music is being listened to, and news is being read, as always. But what's unique about our time is that all of these key components to awareness and entertainment can be found on the Internet, thus minimizing the drive to go out and purchase all these other products. 

The audience: Along with my first point, the audience plays a key role in why I envision MAJR Magazine an other magazines like it to be successful in their futures. This generation of college-aged students have grown up with the Internet have has been increasingly using it for more and more things such as homework, social interactivity, and gaming, among the other purposes for the media I had introduced earlier (TV, movies, radio, and news). We are used to this medium and use it for virtually everything, so it is more likely to become a hit with the target audience (and it's more eco-friendly, wasting less paper!)

The cause: This brings me to my third point, MAJR's mission to promote the social good of society. What this means is that we promote people getting active in the community and doing things to improve the quality of the world we live in. This topic is one that a wide mass of people these days are interested in because of the threat of global warming, and also because more and more people are either doing research or becoming aware of situations like that.

With these three key components, I believe 100% that MAJR is on its way to becoming something different and making its mark on the magazine industry for the future. Eventually, I can see an extreme growth of magazines basing themselves online, or at least providing a downloadable issue online (for a price still, of course).

They don't call MAJR Magazine "the magazine of a movement" for nothing, I'll tell you that much. Stay on the look out for more news of emerging digital magazines! Also, feel free to download a copy of our latest issue today at MAJRMagazine.com!

[ninariccijournal-blog]

Imagine walking down your front steps and being bombarded by a swarm of people trying to take the best (or worst) photo of you. Use this picture as your tool. Annoying, right? You would assume so.

It has been brought to my attention that, many times, celebrities will "call up" the paparazzi, persuading them to capture a moment in their lives. The pararazzi's incentive is a given: the receive money for the pictures they've taken that have been picked up and used in things such as tabloids, blogs, and gossip shows.

But what are the celebrities' incentive for doing so? It depends on the person. Some would like to show what their doing to promote a new campaign or movie they're working on (*cough, cough* James Franco), while others want to stir a little bit of controversy. The spectrum is wide, as you would imagine, but that is not the point.

The bottom line is that you have the potential to mold your image, or your personal "brand." Even celebrities with the public eye gawking at their every move at virtually every moment of their day have some leeway in how they essentially allow the public to view them. That being said, you must take care of the information you put out there for the world to see. We cannot simply hire people to take photos of us doing certain things--it just wouldn't be probable. So we must pick and choose carefully what we want the Internet and all its users to know about us.

Think about it.

[ninariccijournal-blog]

Radio Ownership Diversity: Reflection

In modern society, because the majority of stations (satellite included) are owned by only a select few companies, the diversity between stations has to adhere to a set of similar guidelines. That being said, I believe that this is the only restriction that the similar ownership sets on these contemporary radio stations. The stations themselves choose a genre or at least an edge (getting it approved first, of course), then are free to play or talk about whatever they want as long as it is cohesive with their image.

This does not restrict the variety of individual stations that are on the market. One can listen to today's hits, alternative, r&b, classical, sports shows, political debates, and even stations so specific as Pearl Jam radio (if you're listening to Satelite Radio). This does not retrict them to or prevent them from playing or speaking of specific things. I think that it's helpful that monopolies or oligopolies set a common standard so that each station is tailored to the needs of a specific niche. Some people do not want to be hearing about the upcoming Lady GaGa concert while listening to a report on the rankings of the teams in the NCAA. There is something for everyone, but every station does not try to encompass everything; so I don't think concentrated ownership is necessarily a bad thing.

[ninariccijournal-blog]

Life Without Television: Reflection

A life without TV (which, I'm assuming, includes Netflix and other streaming sites as well) would, I think, benefit society tremendously. Although I do find some television shows entertaining (such as Shark Tank, Orange Is The New Black, and Saturday Night Live), I do not think that I would be devastated if I never watched them or anything of that nature again. Sure, people (including myself) use the television to stay current on things happening around the world and even just in their neighborhoods, but there are other methods of communicating the word to the public such as through newspapers, magazines, and the radio. That being said, I don't think doing away with TV would necessarily throw people out of the loop.

I think getting rid of television would allow for people to divert their attention to other things that may prove to be more meaningful, such as school work, family time, music, being active, or even just reading a good book. Obviously, there are as many possibilities as there are hobbies. But I think this would benefit society because we would spend more time thinking and exploring our own minds rather than staring aimlessly at a flashing screen. It would increase everyone's rate of productivity, and potentially decrease the laziness that many of us experience when we get sucked into a good show. Overall, I think the world could frankly use a little less TV, although I do not think this will happen due to our society's heavy reliance on technology. However, maybe I will challenge myself to do away with TV on my own because becoming more productive and versatile does not sound like such a bad idea.

(Mind you, I am not taking into account the various people involved in this particular media platform, but just how it would affect people's personal lives.)

[ninariccijournal-blog]

What grabs your attention in your inbox, and what gets sent straight to the spam or trash folders?

Of course, I'm not referring to the emails your colleagues or family members send to you--you know them. I'm talking about those emails from stores you've purchased from once promoting their latest sale, encouragement to come to events from a ticket sales website, or anything else that merely gets sent to you because a party just has your email on file.

So what turns us off from some of those emails?

For one, we are all busy people (or we like to think we are). Sometimes we don't have time to look at these emails telling us about something we barely care about, which brings me to my next point.

Lack of interest in the sender or product. A simple lack of interest in purchasing anything else from a particular retailer or wholesaler (your ex-boyfriend's favorite store, perhaps?) can immediately result in people discarding the emails or reporting them for spam/abuse.

So how do marketers address this problem?

I think at this point in the Digital Era, we've all made one too many mistakes consisting of clicking on something that said "FREE! CLICK NOW!" or anything along those lines. C'mon. Viruses and spam mail seemed to have always gone hand in hand, at least "back in the day" (a.k.a. about a decade ago). 

We're very cautious to click on anything that we, ourselves, didn't subscribe to or don't recognize. There are always going to be people who discard or report your business's emails as spam, but I think a simple method of approach should be taken in order to maximize the amount of people who might just care. It involves the right kind of appeal, and it's like balancing on a tightrope.

Certain methods will work for different businesses. I can't generalize and tell every company to be witty or to spark some sort of emotion. That involves knowing your own particular audience. But I can provide one tip that seems to work across the board:

Minimize your use of phrases like "once in a lifetime opportunity" or "you could win..." along with the minimization or complete discard of the use of exclamation points and the Caps Lock button. We know you're excited about what you're "selling" to us, but imposing your enthusiasm on us doesn't make it automatically transfer over.

Just something to think about.

[ninariccijournal-blog]

Elderly People and the Internet: Thoughts from Gram

Me: Gram, can I ask you a few questions about your knowledge of the Internet?

Gram: Sure, Neen.

Me: Okay. What were your first impressions about the Internet?

Gram: I guess I thought it was exciting to be able to look up a lot of different information on whatever I wanted, but it was a confusing concept. I can't remember when I first heard about it--it seems like forever. I guess it was after I married Grandpop when I got my first computer.

Me: That's interesting. What was your first personal experience with it that you remember?

Gram: I bought a computer in the '90s, and I'm sure I was trying to look up newspaper articles or sending an email to somebody to see what I could do. Things like that.

Me: Did you ever think you'd be incorporating it into your daily life?

Gram: Yeah, I did. I knew it was going to provide me with a lot of good information, and I could already see that typing on the computer was a lot easier and more effective than the typewriter--haha. I knew it'd be good for my job as a secretary, so I knew I'd use it a lot.

Me: What's your most-visited website now, and why ?

Gram: Ooh, that's a hard one. Yahoo! for the emails, but Facebook for the games. I love my Candy Crush.

Me: Haha, okay. Thanks, Gram. Any last words about the Internet? Where do you see its future headed?

Gram: I think it's going to be around for a while. It's just so useful, and people of any demographic can get some use out of it if they'll just make the effort to learn.

[ninariccijournal-blog]

The Decline of Facebook

With the new emergence of social media sites like Twitter, Instagram, Vine, Tinder, and Snapchat, people m age ("20-somethings") are beginning to lose site in why exactly we still keep our Facebooks around. I've posed this question to my four roommates, and these are the responses I've received:

I don't want to lose all the pictures I've been tagged in.

I want to see how my friends from high school are doing.

It's how my family and I keep in contact.

I'm not really sure. It's probably why I still have my MySpace--nostalgia purposes.

Pretty basic reasons, right? That's because Facebook is branching out into what I believe is too many subfields, and people my age are still clinging onto the older purpose of Facebook than any of its newer features like inviting people to play games, seeing all updates from everything you've "liked," etc.

Originally, Facebook's intention was that of MySpace, to connect people, but it was for a more mature audience--those in the college scene and above. Circa 2009, when I first created my Facebook account, its only features were to become "friends" with someone, write on their walls, share pictures, and become a "fan" of something like a product, company, or statement. This is what we cling to. This was a solid purpose. To connect people, show interests, and just chat.

The reason we enjoy these newer social media platforms, I've deduced, is because they have a simple purpose. For example, Twitter's main purpose is to share concise updates and view others' (even celebrities or people you don't know). The main purpose for Instagram is to share pictures. Vine - short video clips. Tinder - form connections based on attraction. Snapchat - send media that cannot be saved (at least without a notification that it was captured).

We tend to lean towards more simplistic purposes and appreciate the differentiation of apps. Therefore, when Facebook tried to incorporate all the aspects of the up-and-coming apps and then some, we are immediately turned off by the bombardment.

My opinion may not necessarily be true for everyone (in fact, I know it isn't), but I believe that there is still value in it. Maybe if Facebook would just stop adding more gadgets in order to obtain more users, some people (like me) wouldn't see its attempt as ineffective and even annoying. Hopefully Facebook adopting the WhatsApp app means that it is aware of its almost inevitably declining position in the social media world. I'm sure acquiring this new app will generate some buzz and revenue--just not for the Facebook site in particular and its intended purposes.

[ninariccijournal-blog]

Six Words or Less is Ideal.

According to Advertising.About.com, tip number one for effective billboard advertising is to design it with the "six words or less" rule in mind. The author describes anything more as superfluous because those viewing these gargantuan signs and displays are more than likely riding in/driving a car and only have so much time to take in a message.

I agree with this statement. I personally know that if I see a billboard with what in my opinion is too much, I divert my attention back to the road to remain safe and also because I know that there is not enough time (or interest) to read it all. 

But what bothers me more than too many words is too many numbers! Words are easier to process. We are used to using context clues and making sense out of what we do see, but numbers have no real correlation to the context they're in--phone numbers especially.

You can't just guess what time this show will air on television if you only read the date it airs. Likewise, you can't read "1-800" and infer what the rest will say.

I strongly believe that having phone numbers on billboards is more ineffective than not, but at the same time, sometimes you can't not provide them. What if a company doesn't have a website? What if it's a hotline? Or the number to a radio show?

My suggestion, which many billboards already are equipped with, would be for companies who must provide a phone number, to create a message in the numbers. What I mean by that is simple: think of a number pad on your (traditional) phone that still displays the letters underneath the numbers. Use the letters to your advantage.

"1-800-My-Lemon," is one example. This is a number to call when you want to sell your beat-up car--or your "lemon."

Obviously my opinion/suggestion won't work for everyone, but it's a start. Having too many numbers on a billboard can be distracting and won't always be able to be taken all in. Use your other resources, marketers! Use visuals to your advantage!

[ninariccijournal-blog]

Food Courts

Whenever I go to the mall, no matter what time of day it is (for example: 5 a.m. on Black Friday), I always seem to get hungry. Whether or not I feel this way because of all the walking and bag-carrying--I'm not sure and don't think it really matters anyway. But what I do know is that I can always stop and get food at the food court.

Part of me thinks that the reason I get hungry while I'm at the mall is because I know there's going to be a variety of foods there that I like. Salads, lo mein, pizza, sandwiches, ice cream--you name it, they have it. These foods are readily accessible to all mall-goers, and there are numerous tables and chairs available in the middle of these areas for groups of friends, families, and partners to eat together with whatever food each individual decided to buy. This provides the shoppers with versatility while still promoting a positive shopping experience.

Actually, the true reason for providing these food courts, I believe, is to give shoppers less of a reason to leave the mall. The more variety the food court provides, the more opportunity it has to bring hungry shoppers in because their needs and preferences are more likely to be met.

Personally, I think it's a brilliant idea for mall developers to utilize, and I really don't mind that I'm being subliminally "tricked" into staying longer than I would have/spending more money there. If both of our needs are being met, then I'm content with this relationship.

Any relationship that is symbiotic in business (or anything really) involves a little give and take for mutual benefit, and this model does not seem so bad to me, even if we're not always fully aware that we're in this relationship.

[ninariccijournal-blog]

Bad Publicity: How to Use It to Your Advantage

There's a saying that many marketers like to throw around: all publicity is good publicity. While many people believe this is true, I personally disagree with this statement. Publicity can be good or bad--no one can necessarily control what someone says, and although you can try to direct their thoughts and words in a certain way, this doesn't always work out. Especially if you mess up. The trick is not believing that anything anyone says about you or your business is good, but it's turning this negative publicity into something positive through your own actions.

Now, some publicity can be ignored, and that, I believe, is the first step: knowing when to act and when to let something slide. For example, hypothetically speaking, if you, a manager of a restaurant, received a comment on GrubHub.com that stated that "anonymous" was displeased with the quality of food because their fries were too crispy--you can "ignore" this (at least online). I don't think that type of publicity is detrimental to your image unless it adds up.

However, if someone were to tweet at you or your business, post a comment on your website, address you in person, or publish something on a public forum that could hurt your reputation, it is your duty to respond! Leaving many negative messages (or just a few with high impact) out there can add up like dirty dishes in the sink--you don't feel like dealing with them now, but eventually you'll have to. 

So what do you do about it? That is your call. But I will recommend the following:

Contact whoever is giving you or your company negative publicity in a non-aggressive manner

Apologize for their displeasure and own up to your "actions" (even if you don't think they were wrong

State that you will work on the problem to prevent further discontentment

Offer something to the person (hopefully in exchange for a consideration of a change in opinion and/or to attract their association with you/your business again)

These may not be tips from an expert, but they have proven, in all my experience, to be expert tips. So at last, I'll leave you with this statement to think about: deal with your dirty dishes!

[ninariccijournal-blog]

Trading Time for Experience

Need some muscle added to your resume?

In college, you are encouraged to "go out and get some experience." We've all been there. So you apply to your first internship (or job relating to your intended field of study/work), and BAM:

We're sorry, kind sir or madam, but we are looking for someone with a little more experience. It's nothing personal--really. We encourage you to apply again once you have some more things under your belt. Best of luck.

Now, this is not necessarily the type of response that everyone has gotten or will get, but for those of you who have or will, the concept is sure to perplex you. We need experience to get these jobs or internships, but how are we supposed to obtain it if no one will hire us due to our lack of it? Simply, one would hope that his or her resume or personality would make up for the lack of bulk, but if you're interested in (or are actually in) the situation above, I have a tip for you: VOLUNTEER!

One of my overseers at my Marketing job on campus gave me this idea, and it seems to be crazy enough that it just might work! She has a full-time job working for Sodexo, but wanted a little more versatility on her resume for when she decides to move to New York and search for a new job. She said to me, "Who's going to turn down a little free help, you know?"

This stuck with me. Offering your services to a business or person, whether that be with their social media presence, event planning, accounting, even filing (the list goes on) creates more of an incentive to have a less-experienced or well-rounded person around to help. And, if they accept your offer, you, in turn, will receive that experience you need and could also come out of the situation with some useful tips and contact information for later use!

Overall, I think that this method is worth a try for those of you unsure of how to sort through this paradigm of needing experience to get experience. I think that if you show your willingness to learn, help out, and dedicate your time to something, you will be able to achieve exactly what you're looking for. Now all it takes is a little drive.

[ninariccijournal-blog]

To define is to limit.

Supermodel Cara Delevingne tweeted this today which is extremely prevalent in pop culture of today's society. I enjoy the fact that the ads businesses put out these days are really pushing the envelope and giving us consumers something to gossip, laugh, and think about. It also promotes the fact that we live in a society now that standards, although they exist, are often explored, pushed past, and constantly reinvented. Defining what a good, wholesome advertisement is would be limiting the potential of appealing to a wider audience who may have not otherwise felt connected to what would have been the run-of-the-mill, mundane standard. It's definitely working for businesses. Good job, marketers!