Pottery Barn

Pottery barn, like most retail companies, researches constantly to find a way to make the most durable and classic product but for a reasonable price. Pottery barn even goes to the extreme of creating a contest that requires teenagers to send in pictures of their rooms with the intent of enabling the pottery barn designers to see thousands of teenager’s rooms. This business of tricking thousands of American teens into sending in pictures of their private rooms I find a little creepy. I understand that the teens consensually send in these pictures but I can’t help but feel a little unsettled at the fact that Pottery Barn easily tricked a portion of America into sending in pictures of their private spaces, quite simply too. If Pottery Barn is capable of a maneuver like that, what exactly are other companies capable as well?
I think there are numerous positive aspects to this article as well though. To start mostly women with a position of power are featured in this article. I think it is awesome Pottery Barn is doing so well especially with a driving force like senior vice-president Celia Tejada behind it. Tejada runs her business with care and enthusiasm. Telling her staff they must be living life before coming to work creates a positive work environment. She also sends them out to flea markets and encourages them to throw dinner parties in order to take notice of what the guests like or need. Her staff must really respect her as a boss and therefore work harder for her. But this paragraph really has nothing to do with the rhetorical devices Pottery Barn uses in order to boost sales.
Pottery Barn targets not only the adult (ones with da money) demographic but the teens and children as well. Parents will buy what their children want therefore Pottery Barn cleverly makes products intended to entice the child’s or teen’s eye. They also keep their prices affordable. Who doesn’t like that?

Can't Argue With Abercrombie and Fitch

Targeting young white teens, Abercrombie and Fitch continues to annually rake in established annual sales of $3,318,158,000. I walk into the store and am bombarded with pictures of sexy muscular men sensually pushing their pants down, beautiful women eyeing the camera, and (my personal favorite) half-naked men and women intertwined on top of couches, in fields, and on beaches. Why use these photographs, erotic photographs to appeal to white 18-25 year olds? Are teenagers not extremely hormonal? Are teenage girls not the most self and body obsessed people? Why not! But A&F doesn’t just stop at the attractive pictures covering every wall (including within the dressing room), but makes sure to only hire ‘attractive’ workers as well. The dress code at A&F has recently been covered by CBS news. In the article A&F must reimburse prior A&F employees for clothing purchased in California stores during that period of time that employees worked there. Evidently, the employees were ‘encouraged’ to wear only Abercrombie clothing while on the job. If A&F only hires attractive employees why would they force their workers to wear only the A&F clothing? Hmmmm
All of Abercrombie and Fitches clothing is splattered with the A&F insignia and company name. Anyone (and I am completely including myself in this statement) who wears A&F clothing is basically a walking billboard. This is a wonderful rhetorical device used on the American population because if an A&F item of clothing is being ogled at, the ogler will know where they can get an exact replica.
Now before you comment, know that everything I have just said totally applies to me and I am perfectly willing to admit it. I know A&F is (usually) overpriced and understaffed. I know I shouldn’t buy into the rhetorical argument A&F stores make. The point is, I like their clothing. I think it is attractive and I usually want it enough that I’ll buy it. I believe I buy the clothing simply because I like it but maybe there is some pathological manipulation I am unaware of here. To that, I give you another hmmmm…

Live Your Dreams!

I forced myself to sit through the lamest teen romance movie in order to fully understand the meaning of this phrase. I watched Save The Last dance airing on TBS from noon to 2pm. The movie was as cheesy and cliché as ever and the commercials were no better. I watched commercials about fast-food restaurants, osteoporosis and birth control pills, and make up. All had interesting implicit and explicit rhetoric within the commercial. The osteoporosis commercial featured Sally Hansen playing with children and sitting on her picnic table endorsing the pills to strengthen bones. The creators of this commercial used Sally Hansen because she appeals to the middle age female audience. Middle-aged America has grown up with Sally Hansen and it’s comforting to them that Sally’s bones are deteriorating just like theirs. This commercial ties directly in with all of the make up commercials I saw as well. Every single make up commercial that aired featured a celebrity endorsing the product. Jessica Alba for cover up, Sarah Jessica Parker for hair dye, and Vanessa Hudgens for facial cleanser. The creators of these commercials ingeniously use celebrities as an appeal to women because these celebrities are culturally considered pretty. The faces of Alba, Parker, and Hudgens are everywhere, mocking women as if to say, “This is Beautiful”. If companies put these “beautiful” women on TV literally saying, “ I use “X” to wash my face” America will want to too. People may argue this rhetorical tactic doesn’t work, that America is smarter than simply going out to the store to buy something because a celebrity endorsed it. If this were true then why do companies still use this rhetorical tactic?

Class Discussion on the Objectification of Women

The Wednesday class discussion on female objectification in the media went as expected. Nick thought the topic was a load of crap. Tony thought we would never be able to end it and even if we could where would the line be. When would we begin to censor too much? Alex defended the male end of the spectrum. The discussion was interesting and dull at the same time.
I love our English class’s in-class discussions. I think people say, for the most part, intelligent and well thought out comments. I enjoy arguing. I enjoy Lamags trying to hold back. I truly enjoy it all. But…I can’t help but get annoyed. I feel like we never really get anywhere with the discussions. I feel like no one truly listens to what the speaker has to say. I think checking out and calling the discussion crap wastes our time. I think giving up and saying ‘it makes money and it will never change so why are we arguing’ also wastes our time. I feel like some people hold so tightly to their opinions they refuse to listen to opposing ideas.
I think it’s important that we have discussions on topics as important as the objectification of women but I feel discouraged because I feel like we never get anywhere with them. I don’t need anyone to concede their opinion but I want participation. I felt almost felt disinterested during the conversation because I believe what I believe and no one said anything compelling to make me change my mind.

The Objectification of Women

Jean Kilbourne does her homework! The ads compiled in her article “Two Ways a Woman Can Get Hurts”; Advertising and Violence are in your face and undeniably offensive. The women labeled as bitches, the grabbing and groping by men, and worst yet, the children and pre-adolescent looking women. Kilbourne does not only compile all these ads together for shock value but for a connection to national statistics of rapes and the sexual harassment of women across the country. Kilbourne ties the statistics or personal narratives in different ways.
A Smirnoff Vodka ad pictures “a wolf hiding in a flock of sheep, a hideous grin on his face.” The first thought to mind is “beware a wolf in sheep’s clothing”. The ad blatantly is stating you can be a wolf in sheep’s clothing if you are drinking their product. But who would want to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing while drinking vodka? Kilbourne then hits the reader with statistics of sexual assault cases that involved alcohol by the perpetrator, victim, or both. It cannot be ignored what this ad was explicitly telling it’s consumers.
I don’t want to focus mainly on Kilbournes facts on the objectification of women, but I’d like to explore objectification of men too. In the article Kilbourne speaks of males commonly portrayed as bumbling idiots or as sexual objects as well. I think this point is valid but quite as concrete as her points for female objectification. True, men are objectified in the media as well, but what is the tie to male sexual assaults or harassment? I don’t mean minimize the problem, I just think the objectification of males is minimal compared to the objectification of women. There is indeed a difference.

I Want My Whopper!

I contemplated which show aired on public television would be best to watch for a racy controversial commercial. I decided on Family Guy. I figured the audience targeted audience is young and primarily male. (I realize this may be a gross generalization). I found the show somewhat interesting and the commercials even worse. It was hard to pay attention to the commercials and try and find a good one to blog on. I caught a stupendous one though. Burger King is constantly advertising the whopper. I do remember that from my wonderful cable-filled days. The one I saw featured (I’m assuming) actual Burger King customers trying to purchase a whopper. In some instances their whopper was prepared incorrectly or in others the Burger King employee simply gave them a hard time (what exactly happens isn’t all too clear). The commercials main air time is used for the customer’s reaction to the less-then-satisfactory service. Most of the customer reactions depict them getting angry and eventually asking for the manager. In one part of the commercial, a man even says, “I just want my whopper”, or something along those lines.
I am choosing to blog about this particular commercial because the creators of the commercial cleverly use the stigma of fast-food bad service as a point in their rhetorical argument. The people who haven’t gotten their correct order, i.e. the whopper, seem incredibly irate. Burger King’s advertisement is even though these people are angry they are receiving bad service, they just want their whopper. That is just how good the whopper is. Taking an opposing argument and spinning it to fit your argument I think is the hardest use of rhetoric. The creators of this advertisement cleverly did just that.

Maggie Dooley's Thoughts on

University High School’s Student Written and Directed Plays
“Playing the Pronoun Game”
I, Maggie Dooley, felt an extreme sense of pride as I watched Friday night’s first play. I did not know the nature of any of the four plays beforehand so let’s just say this one shocked me. First off, Tina rocked. I loved her as Maggie, a perfect part for her. Elise did well, however I think she rushed her lines a little. Ian and Daniel were stupendous. I was cracking up whenever the two were on stage. I want to commend all four of these students for their bravery. It takes guts to go onto a lighted stage and kiss a member of the opposite sex. I plan on speaking to Elise about this play and ask her where she got some of her ideas for the characters. I wish the play would have delved a little deeper into what it was like AFTER the kiss for Maggie and Kristen but I suppose Elise wanted to keep the play short and somewhat light. This play was a great start to my night.
“Being or not Being”
“Being or Not Being” was incredibly Henry-esque. I didn’t quite follow the plot line, I definitely missed some of the jokes, and it was incredibly short. I laughed at Elise’s line of “Female.” In regards to Ian’s question of what gender she was. Other than that the play left a bit to be desired. Jim Ray? Evidently I have to see Henry, Rory, and Jim’s YouTube video in order to get that joke. I think Henry is a terribly funny guy and I was really excited to see his written and directed play. “Being or Not Being” definitely fell short of my expectations. I don’t mean to rip on Henry; I just see more potential in his silly head.
“If Books Could Kill”
I have mixed feeling for this play. J.P. Mershon played a wonderful Joshua. Elise did well as Aurora or Rory for short. I will admit this play was difficult to follow however. I understand (from speaking with LaMags after) that Rory was a figment of Joshua’s imagination and Joshua was the killer but I would not have come to this conclusion on my own. After play 1 and 2, I wasn’t ready for something that required a lot of consideration. However, I liked the surprise ending and I liked the play within a play. Once again, nice job Elise.
“Heaven”
My most favorite play ever presented by University High School is the play “Heaven” written and directed by Elise Lockwood. Tony Minott was perfect as Issac Newton. Daniel Hellman cracked me up as Charles. I am pretty sure I caught most of the nuances the Elise cleverly slipped in but I’m sure some went amiss. The jokes about Jesus and the names God and Yahweh were witty and interesting. The whole idea behind the play is somewhat controversial but I believe those kinds of ideas need to be presented. The possibility of our ‘higher being’ as two bumbling fools is pretty unlikely but at least this play will get you to wonder what is going on ‘up there’. That sort of wonderment is important understanding life. What happens when we die is a vital question many don’t consider. I commend Elise for taking the risk of putting on this play but doing it with grace and wit.