I certainly agree with the writer about the fact that there is a useful connection between advertising and information. When we need information about something, noticing an advertisement might give us critical information, or it might spur us to carry out more research on our own. It is natural that an advertisement strives to give as much information as possible crammed in a short period of time. Along with this information, people know more about their products, their products can therefore sell.
However, while advertisements do provide immense amounts of information, one must be careful when it comes to what type of information they are providing to the public. As we all know, advertising something means to promote this product while denouncing all others. Therefore, we can conclude that the information that a particular commercial gives will only be those that support the uses of the product. For example, from an advertisement encouraging safe sex, the information provided would be that HIV and AIDS is a major cause of deaths around the world, that everyone should protect themselves. However, it fails to give the actual statistics which show cardiovascular diseases to be much more a potent killer than AIDS. Therefore, the viewers might be misguided by the advertisements due to the fact that the information given to them is selective.
The passage also says that through advertisements, we can get extra information at no charge. I agree on this statement, because while their main purpose is to promote something, advertisements often do so by giving information that causes the viewers to understand something and understand that their product has that something, or solves that something. For example, being a teenager, I have never really been interested in milk powder commercials, but having seen them so many times between my favourite shows, I would have remembered that the advertisements keep saying that DHA is good for babies, or that some product contained ImmunoFortis. While people like me see this as extra knowledge, these are actually the selling points of the product. The information giveaway propels the public to get the product, and in this way, the company makes money, which translates into money for making the commercial, which somewhat translates into paying for this information. However, this is merely based on case-by-case interest of the people who are attracted, and for the major public, it is just free information.
Advertisements do also elicit information from other sources. Through advertising, it is true that the society can become a better place under the influence of advertisements. Being affected by commercials, the public have a better awareness in that area, for example healthcare or self-protection.
Perhaps the most obvious way of advertisements benefitting us is the reduction of prices. When two or more advertisements of the same kind clash, this forms a sense of competitive advertising. Since competition brings out the best in us, same goes for the products and companies. While they look to out-advertise each other, they will inevitably and invariably adjust the price of their product so as to be more popular in demand than their rivals. The price reduction caused by this competition is perhaps the best thing that has ever happened to consumers since inflation rose by quite a bit.
Moving on to the honesty and integrity that companies that advertise their products should have. If you take a look at all the major companies, like the recent example of AIG, their values all include integrity. Yet, for an advertisement to be effective, it is almost impossible for it to be entirely true and unbiased. Therefore, it is a very fine line between positive influence and lying. Companies do need to have the trust of their consumers, and the integrity and transparency between them is a very important relationship. This is particularly important for healthcare commercials, since a single sentence unsaid might lead to deaths.
As a designer for a tobacco commercial, like in any advertisement, I would only state the benefits and pros of the product while entirely leaving out the cons. I feel that health warnings must still be made to warn the public, the rest is entirely up to the publics' discernment.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
Science - A Menace to Civilisation?
Is Science actually a menace to civilisation? While I applaude the author of Text A of trying his best to convince us that the answer is yes, in my mind, there is just no way that science can be considered more a menace to civilisation than as a huge benefit to society and humanity as a whole. It is without doubt that science is in fact responsible for the atomic bomb being invented, but to think of it carefully, if the bomb was not dropped, more people would have died. While science is in fact responsible for the development of weapons of heavy destruction, without the advances in science, especially in the health sector, how many more would have died?
As with the author of Text B, my viewpoint is that science is definitely not a menace to civilisation, in fact, science nowadays is the essence of our lives. look around us, and we will discover that science is all around us. Why our computers are able to work, why coffee is black, why we are alive even after having a fever, these are just the tip of the iceberg when is comes to examples of science being in the world around us. Without science, the world is as dull as a world without colour. Let us take a look at the definition of science. Science is the human effort to discovermore about how our physical world works. In Latin, Scientia means "knowledge". Therefore, if the gaining of knowledge of our world, or the understanding of how things work, is not a benefit to society and humanity, then what is?
The development of science, as said before, is widely known to have played a major role in the natural evolution of Earth. By saying this, I am saying that science is the key to what is keeping us alive. Not only that, but science keeps us alive, and it lets us understand what keeps us alive, and how we are still alive. If development in Science had stalled early on, perhaps the president of some African country would have been struck with disease, perhaps the world would have erupted in an uncontrollable epidermic. A few decades ago, no one on Earth had a cure for cancer. What did we do? Scientists studied and researched and finally found that cancer was after all curable. So how exactly did they do that? We developed the cure not because we were lucky, not because we sat there an waited for nature to take its course, but because we, with the help of science, dived deep into the systems of our body, where we saw the real cause of the problem.
Many may say that the developement of science has caused many problems. But the truth is, while science has in fact caused these problems, by developing science further, we are able to solve these problems. An example would be global warming, where we agree that science is the major cause behind all the industrialisation and all the pollution of the environment. But here comes the marvel of science, and why it is useful to civilisation. In the near future, I am confident that scientists, through the development of science, will invent something that undoes all its past damage dealt to the society.
I would like to bring up another point about what Text A has said. Going back to the example on global warming, I like to break it up into three steps of action. First, the development of science which inspires industrialisation; next, the mass setting up of factories; third, the release of pollution into the air as the factories produce their products. While the development of science is responsible for the first step, it is entirely up to mankind whether science becomes constructive or destructive to society.
Therefore, concluding what I have said, the development of science is ultimately beneficial to society and civilisation, but that depends on whether mankind uses science properly, for it can save lives, but it can also kill.
As with the author of Text B, my viewpoint is that science is definitely not a menace to civilisation, in fact, science nowadays is the essence of our lives. look around us, and we will discover that science is all around us. Why our computers are able to work, why coffee is black, why we are alive even after having a fever, these are just the tip of the iceberg when is comes to examples of science being in the world around us. Without science, the world is as dull as a world without colour. Let us take a look at the definition of science. Science is the human effort to discovermore about how our physical world works. In Latin, Scientia means "knowledge". Therefore, if the gaining of knowledge of our world, or the understanding of how things work, is not a benefit to society and humanity, then what is?
The development of science, as said before, is widely known to have played a major role in the natural evolution of Earth. By saying this, I am saying that science is the key to what is keeping us alive. Not only that, but science keeps us alive, and it lets us understand what keeps us alive, and how we are still alive. If development in Science had stalled early on, perhaps the president of some African country would have been struck with disease, perhaps the world would have erupted in an uncontrollable epidermic. A few decades ago, no one on Earth had a cure for cancer. What did we do? Scientists studied and researched and finally found that cancer was after all curable. So how exactly did they do that? We developed the cure not because we were lucky, not because we sat there an waited for nature to take its course, but because we, with the help of science, dived deep into the systems of our body, where we saw the real cause of the problem.
Many may say that the developement of science has caused many problems. But the truth is, while science has in fact caused these problems, by developing science further, we are able to solve these problems. An example would be global warming, where we agree that science is the major cause behind all the industrialisation and all the pollution of the environment. But here comes the marvel of science, and why it is useful to civilisation. In the near future, I am confident that scientists, through the development of science, will invent something that undoes all its past damage dealt to the society.
I would like to bring up another point about what Text A has said. Going back to the example on global warming, I like to break it up into three steps of action. First, the development of science which inspires industrialisation; next, the mass setting up of factories; third, the release of pollution into the air as the factories produce their products. While the development of science is responsible for the first step, it is entirely up to mankind whether science becomes constructive or destructive to society.
Therefore, concluding what I have said, the development of science is ultimately beneficial to society and civilisation, but that depends on whether mankind uses science properly, for it can save lives, but it can also kill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)