Unethical Advertising

#1)

I saw one on the drive back to Utah after Christmas break. I remember it because I was rather disgusted by it. It was just a picture of 3 round fruits that increased in size. I remember that the largest one was a watermelon. So, it would have gone something like: apple, cantaloupe, watermelon. And then it just listed the name of a place to get plastic surgery. It took a couple of seconds for the meaning to dawn on me, but when it did, I just felt kind of disgusted at the fact that this company was comparing the size of fruit to breast implants. Here I was, thinking that this sign had something to do with fruit when it was really telling women that they need to get some implants or be a sad little apple forever. And then I thought, a watermelon? Really? Now that’s getting a little ridiculous. Anyway, that ad left me feeling angry at people for objectifying women and angry that I was unable to do anything about it at the moment. Even thinking about it now makes me want to

#2)

My roommates were all sitting in the living room, so instead of bothering them with the tv, I just went into my room and started watching commercials on youtube. I watched one that was funny, but kind of offensive at the same time. It starts out with a young boy who joins what looks like a Buddhist or Tibetan colony. He trains with them until he can do all kinds of fancy tricks, but he’s not initiated into the clan until he smashes his head on a pepsi can, thus imprinting his forehead with their symbol—an open pepsi can.

Here’s the link: pepsi commerical

I found it kind of funny, but at the same time I think it could be offensive, especially to someone of that culture. Everything was fine until the very end when the guy smashes his head on the pepsi can. That’s where I thought it went too far.

#3)

There's something else that I wanted to show on here. It wasn’t an ad, but it was kind of the results of a study by USA Today. Since the term “unethical” can include the incorrect, I thought this video worked. This video is all about how much money Americans feel that they have to make to be comfortable. What it fails to do is to qualify for differences in situation. For instance, they said that the majority of Americans thought that a salary of $50,000 or more would let them live comfortably. However, I realized at the end of the video that it said nothing about the size of the families being supported by these incomes or the places where they would be living. In some states, it’s easier to live on less. In other states, especially in the East, the cost of living is just going to be higher. Also, a family of eight is much more expensive than a family of four or two. So, I feel like their statement is skewed, and it makes me skeptical of any other information that they put up on their website.

USA Today