CenturyLink Deconstruction
AllTel Deconstruction
Do you agree with the deconstruction? Why? Why not? Be specific.
For the most part, I agree with both deconstructions, although I am unaware of whether the economic data provided is accurate. I agree that the CenturyLink ad was to help people feel good about a merger. The dark cloud is that less competition may provide reduced customer service, but the silver lining highlighted by the ad is that CenturyLink will connect more people. I had a slight disagreement with the Alltel deconstruction which I will explain below.
Do you agree with the claims made in the deconstructions? Is the Century Link ad really a cover for a company that is making profits over customer satisfaction? Does the Alltel ad really promote racism or stereotypes of immigrants? Why or Why not?
I was impressed with the amount of evidence the deconstruction author had uncovered on Century Link’s ability and intentions to provide customer service. As a West Virginian, I have learned that most claims that full wireless coverage exists in the entire service area are dubious. West Virginia was listed in the deconstruction among the states where the promised amount was estimated to be impossible (apparently communications technology is no match for the Appalachian mountains). I do believe that companies may merge to eliminate competition and get away with spending less on providing competitive service to customers. So the notion that this “feel good” ad is just a cover could be true.
No, the Alltel ad does not promote racism or stereotypes of immigrants, however it does capitalize on preexisting classist or xenophobic fears that may already exist in some viewers’ minds. The ad makers were careful not to use any readily identifiable racial or ethnic stereotype. I believe they created a fictitious nationality by combining several ridiculous elements. Of what origin are the men in the bedroom? We can’t tell. Are they European “gypsies”? Are they Middle-Eastern? Are they South American? They are none of these… However, if a viewer who believes that outsiders will “ruin the neighborhood” see the ad they are likely to read into the situation the identity of any group they may not like. The ad makers have created a situation that uses the audience’s possible prejudices to sell the ad… but the racism or the stereotypes themselves are in the viewer alone.
How do these deconstructions disrupt taken-for-granted realities?
Both deconstructions did well at showing that the ads were geared toward middle-class America. The clothes, the hair, the buildings in the backgrounds, and the neighborhood settings are all made to appeal to the socioeconomic class that is most likely to buy the product. The middle-class is numerous, and has the money to spend on things like wireless phone service. It is too risky to show economic diversity in the ad, because feature people who look too poor or too rich (by their clothes, cars, and homes) is too risky, as it may alienate the target audience.
What ideologies, cultures, economies, institutions or political systems are these deconstructions disrupting or interrogating?
To question whether institutions are using pre-existing prejudices and fears to help sell a product is to challenge the culture that divides people into classes by money. In America, class always means financial status, and although we rarely think about this, advertisers have to keep this aspect of their audience in mind.
How are these deconstructions examples of individuals investigating manifestations of power relations?
Both deconstructions examined the power of the institution to make the audience feel a certain way (in one case, happiness and in another case fear). Both examined the institutions ability and intentions to make good on claims made by the ad. Both examined how the ad uses the middle-class American perspective to win over the audience. In essence, both asked “Is this company being manipulative? How? Why?”
How might conducting these kinds of deconstruction empower students whom have been historically and continue to be disenfranchised by "traditional schooling”?
These types of deconstructions could help young members of the lower-class rise above media messages that make them feel as if they are inadequate because they do not have the money to buy to product or to live like the people in the ad. If they could understand that the ad is made by people who want to influence people with money to spend their money, they may feel less inclined to accept the taken for granted realities of consumer culture.
How might deconstructing these kinds of media messages help students recognize connections between their individual problems and experiences and the social contexts in which they are embedded?
I honestly don’t know. Perhaps they could understand no ad is made to make you feel as if you are okay the way you are. Most are made to help you feel that the way to happiness is participation in consumer culture.
How might conducting these kinds of deconstructions disrupt traditional banking systems of education?
Conducting deconstructions helps students achieve knowledge, form opinions, or reach conclusions that were not just handed to them by an instructor. They create a learning experience.
No comments:
Post a Comment