Media and Advertising — Global Issues Manipulating images of people in commercials It has long been known that advertisers will photoshop (slang for editing photos to touch up or airbrush out imperfections) photos to make the subject more attractive. But many have pointed out that this subtle manipulation often goes too far. Photoshop: The Perfect Lie , ThisIsRedVideo, November 27, 2008 For example, young people — girls in particular — are often bombarded with imagery of the perfect bodies. Younger minds are more malleable and impressionable, so even when it may be known that these images are manipulated, the constant message everywhere a young person turns says the same thing: this is how you should look and behave and something must be wrong if you are not achieving these (unrealistic) expectations of perfection. As such it can contribute to anxieties and stress when growing up and even last into adulthood. Side Note , Victoria Coren commented on a survey of how American black and white men and women saw themselves and observed that black women being under-represented in mainstream media probably helped them have higher self-esteem : The bigotry in fashion, cosmetics, advertising, TV and Hollywood hasn’t damaged black women, it’s saved them!

They’d be mad to keep campaigning for greater visibility in Vogue or light entertainment, now it’s clear that absence has made a lovely free space for them to form their own healthy self-image. She even adds that white women aren’t really represented appropriately in the mass media either because of the unrealistic imagery. The issue perhaps is appropriate as well as proportional representation. Globally, there is very little regulation about this kind of manipulation as there are many grey areas making it difficult to provide definitive guidelines. However, some very obvious cases are easier to target. For example, in 2009, France introduced advertising legislation that retouched images had to be explicitly identified. In the summer of 2011 in UK, two advertisers had their adverts banned for airbrushing an actress and a model excessively to the point it was too misleading. A campaigner against this kind of misleading and a Scottish member of parliament, Jo Swinson added that the concern here is half of young women between 16 and 21 say they would consider cosmetic surgery and we’ve seen eating disorders more than double in the last 15 years.

Side Note Although I no longer have the link, I recall around the end of the 1990s a discussion with a women’s rights activist lamenting how in India bulimia and anorexia (almost unheard of before) had sky-rocketed amongst young girls as similar practices in advertising in India started to increase. Megan Gibson, writing for Time , added that Swinson’s concern was that, The ads are purporting the effects of make-up, when in reality they’re showcasing the effects of Photoshop. PetaPixel reported the above UK ban too, also noting that it came about a month after the American Medical Association called upon ad agencies to stop the altering of photographs in a manner that could promote unrealistic expectations of appropriate body image . PetaPixel quotes an American Medical Association board member: The appearance of advertisements with extremely altered models can create unrealistic expectations of appropriate body image. In one image, a model’s waist was slimmed so severely, her head appeared to be wider than her waist. We must stop exposing impressionable children and teenagers to advertisements portraying models with body types only attainable with the help of photo editing software. Barbara L.

McAneny, Quoted by Michael Zang: American Medical Association Speaks Out Against Photoshopped Ad Photos , PetaPixel, June 24, 2011 In December 2011, Extreme Tech reported that the American advertising industry’s self-regulating watchdog, the National Advertising Division (NAD), has moved to ban the misleading use of photoshopping and enhanced post-production in cosmetics adverts . ( Extreme Tech also added that this brings it closer in line with regulations in the UK and European Union.) Swinson, the American Medical Association, the NAD, are all making the point that in these cases companies are showcasing the effects of image manipulation rather than the product itself. So this is exactly what filmmaker Jesse Rosten’s spoof ad does: This commercial isn’t real, neither are society’s standards of beauty , JesseRosten, January 9, 2012 To some people there shouldn’t be government intervention; parents should be able to teach their children how to see reality from advertising. Unfortunately, as also mentioned on this site’s section on children and consumption , children have not developed the cognitive ability to do this.

Furthermore, even when responsible parents are to work with their children in this way, how will two people fair against an army of psychologists, advertisers, marketers and lawyers trying to teach their children the opposite? Media Ethics — The ethics of retouching photographs , May 13, 2010 The expectation amongst young people that photos and adverts create by using images of real people is that what they see is therefore also real. It may take many years, perhaps much later into teenage or adulthood to realize and come across information that these images are manipulated, by which time most of the effects may have been internalized. To live in a society where you have to constantly be told everything you see may not be real is surely more damaging than to live in a society where most things are real but the hopefully few unreal things can be identified. That would hint to a truer form of freedom. Some other examples: Back to top Product Placement As Milvy has noted above, advertisements in television programming goes back to the beginnings of television. These days, whether you are watching a film from Bollywood (India’s film industry), or Hollywood, there will be some obvious advertisement, and some not-so-obvious ones. This is becoming more pervasive.

Also noting the old-age of product placement in films, the BBC also adds that it is now also extending to other forms of entertainment: Cinema-goers will be familiar with product placement in films: those countless examples where the camera lingers just a little too long over a logo before shifting back to the main action. Now, more than 50 years after Hollywood wised up to the fact that companies will pay to have their brands featured within the narrative of a movie, advertisers have begun to extend the principle to formats such as books, pop songs, videos and computer games. Jonathan Duffy, Well Placed , BBC News Magazine, BBC, March 30, 2005 This therefore begs the question (as Duffy also asks), Who is in charge — the producer or the product brand manager? Duffy also adds, research shows that in programmes recorded, two-thirds to 80% of ads are skipped. That is, people don’t want to watch advertising. Hence, the increased interest in placing brands in actual programming where it is sometimes less obvious. British television has long resisted explicit product placement in its television programs (a limited form is allowed to be realistic , where the company is not allowed to profit from it).

Now, as the same BBC article reports, it seems that the British regulator is considering allowing more product placement because the industry is losing money as people try to skip ads where possible. A question that the BBC article does not raise however, is why a regulator — supposedly there for the public interest — is helping save an industry. Market forces are supposed to govern if some industries and companies are viable or not. Markets are meant to adapt to changes in consumer behavior (though markets also try to create consumer behavior )…! Similar companies often complain when regulation restricts their freedom Back to top Military in Movies — Less Shock, More Awe Of course, as well as advertising and product placement within media products such as films comes the opportunity to advertise the military. Films such as Top Gun included heavy involvement of the Pentagon and others to provide an awe-inspiring film, showing the many amazing aspects of fighter pilots, high tech weapons and what it would supposedly be like to be part of the US Navy. What was not commonly known was the level of military involvement in the film. The Center for Defense Information, a military think tank in Washington D.C.

long ago produced a documentary about this, noting the mutual benefits such involvements entail: Philip Strub (Pentagon, in charge of reviewing the scripts and helping to determine which ones are going to get military cooperation) : When Hollywood comes to us with a request for production assistance, we have an opportunity, an important opportunity, I think, to tell the American public something about the US military and help recruiting and retention at the same time. Narrator : When a moviemaker wants to make a war movie, or even a film that just incidentally includes the military, the natural place to go for props is the Pentagon. Dr. Lawrence Suid (author of several books on the history of military cooperation with the movies) : Each side is using the other for its own ends. Filmmakers want to get cheap equipment or free equipment, free use of men. Narrator : It’s a relationship of mutual exploitation. Moviemakers save money — where else are you going to get an aircraft carrier, for example? — and get instant production values from the presence of authentic military hardware. In exchange, the Pentagon gets to influence how it is portrayed on the silver screen.

The Military in the Movies , America’s Defense Monitor, Center for Defense Information, January 27, 1997 And on the impact that films like Top Gun : Top Gun also in large measure, in my view, prepared the American people for the Gulf War. Before the completion of the rehabilitation, the American people had more or less decided the United States military couldn’t do what it said it could do. Top Gun showed that we could shoot down airplanes, that our aircraft carriers could go anyplace, and that our pilots were the best. And so, when the Gulf War comes along, there's no reason for any American civilian to believe that we can't beat Saddam Hussein. The Military in the Movies , America’s Defense Monitor, Center for Defense Information, January 27, 1997 As the documentary noted, some movies, even when they depicted the military in an overall positive light, would not get military support if they contained scenes or language that the military would prefer not be shown. In other cases, the documentary adds, the films that were popular created a high expectation of the military, so any subsequent scandals would therefore gain a lot of negative attention.

Skipping forward to 2007, the hit movie, Transformers , included a mix of product placement and military involvement. From clearly advertising certain laptop brands and memory cards as well as other products, to the awe inspiring military technology and resolve against the odds (as the US military was overcome by transforming robots!) in awesome settings (often an amazing sunset, often with scenes in slow motion for dramatic effect, etc), the film helped further enhance the image of the military. Certainly, the movie was thoroughly entertaining (I remember enjoying the cartoons and a transformer toy as a child). Most movie-watchers probably realize that such films also lead to cross-selling toys from Hasbro and others. Even fast food outlets typically sell toys while mentioning the film all as part of the overall promotion, benefiting both the movie producer and the food outlet. Yet, the film credits explicitly listed a product placement adviser as well as a military adviser, in addition to thanks to the Pentagon and others. Of course, most don’t read the credits (I only did so out of curiosity at what seemed obvious product placement and excessive military awesomeness shots), so many may not realize that a fascinating movie contains advertising of additional products and view points in addition to the toy sales.

(For sure, many may note the additional product placement and not feel there is anything wrong with that.) It may be too early to tell, at time of writing, but this could be important for the US establishment and military as public perception of war and military is at least a mixed bag in part because of the Iraq invasion and subsequent myriad of issues for the US and its military. Television (TV) and Children: Your Child: University of Michigan Health System University of Michigan Health System Television and Children What do I need to know about children and TV? Television (TV) has its good side. It can be entertaining and educational, and can open up new worlds for kids, giving them a chance to travel the globe, learn about different cultures, and gain exposure to ideas they may never encounter in their own community. Shows with a prosocial message can have a positive effect on kids' behavior; programs with positive role models can influence viewers to make positive lifestyle changes . However, the reverse can also be true: Kids are likely to learn things from TV that parents don't want them to learn. TV can affect kids' health, behavior and family life in negative ways. It's worthwhile for parents to think about what role they want TV to play in their family.

Consider: A great deal is known about children and television, because there have been thousands of studies on the subject. Researchers have studied how TV affects kids' sleep, weight, grades, behavior, and more. It’s worth looking at what the research says when deciding how to manage television in your family. Spending time watching TV can take time away from healthy activities like active play outside with friends, eating dinner together as a family, or reading . TV time also takes away from participating in sports , music, art or other activities that require practice to become skillful. TV viewing starts earlier than other forms of media —often beginning before age two . In recent years, TV, video and DVD programs geared to babies and toddlers have come on the market—and now even a cable channel for babies. We don't know yet what effect TV-viewing by babies may have on their development. We do know that time spent watching TV replaces time spent interacting with caregivers and other children. Social interaction is critical to a baby's healthy development. How big a presence is TV in kids' lives? TV viewing among kids is at an eight-year high.

On average, children ages 2-5 spend 32 hours a week in front of a TV—watching television, DVDs, DVR and videos, and using a game console. Kids ages 6-11 spend about 28 hours a week in front of the TV. The vast majority of this viewing (97%) is of live TV [1] . 71% of 8- to 18-year-olds have a TV in their bedroom [1a] ; 54% have a DVD/VCR player, 37% have cable/satellite TV, and 20% have premium channels [2] . Media technology now offers more ways to access TV content, such as on the Internet, cell phones and iPods. This has led to an increase in time spent viewing TV, even as TV-set viewing has declined. 41% of TV-viewing is now online, time-shifted, DVD or mobile [2a] . In about two-thirds of households, the TV is "usually" on during meals [3] . In 53% of households of 7th- to 12th-graders, there are no rules about TV watching [4] .

In 51% of households, the TV is on "most" of the time [5] . Kids with a TV in their bedroom spend an average of almost 1.5 hours more per day watching TV than kids without a TV in the bedroom. Many parents encourage their toddlers to watch television. Find out more about media in the lives of 8- to 18-year olds . As you can see, if your child is typical, TV is playing a very big role in their life. Here are some key research findings to keep in mind as you decide what kind of role you want TV to play in your family: TV viewing is probably replacing activities in your child' s life that you would rather have them do (things like playing with friends [6] , being physically active, getting fresh air, reading , playing imaginatively, doing homework [7] , doing chores). Kids who spend more time watching TV (both with and without parents and siblings present) spend less time interacting with family members. [8] For more detailed information on these and other issues, read on. Does TV affect children's brain development?

With television programs—and even a cable channel—designed and marketed specifically for babies, whether kids under two years of age should be watching becomes an important question. While we are learning more all the time about early brain development , we do not yet have a clear idea how television may affect it. Some studies link early TV viewing with later attention problems, such as ADHD . However, other experts disagree with these results. One study found that TV viewing before age three slightly hurt several measures of later cognitive development, but that between ages three and five it slightly helped reading scores [11] . The American Academy of Pediatrics takes a "better-safe-than-sorry" stance on TV for young children [12] . "It may be tempting to put your infant or toddler in front of the television, especially to watch shows created just for children under age two. But the American Academy of Pediatrics says: Don't do it! These early years are crucial in a child's development. The Academy is concerned about the impact of television programming intended for children younger than age two and how it could affect your child's development. Pediatricians strongly oppose targeted programming, especially when it's used to market toys, games, dolls, unhealthy food and other products to toddlers.

Any positive effect of television on infants and toddlers is still open to question, but the benefits of parent-child interactions are proven. Under age two, talking, singing, reading, listening to music or playing are far more important to a child's development than any TV show." In addition, TV can discourage and replace reading . Reading requires much more thinking than television, and we know that reading fosters young people's healthy brain development. Kids from families that have the TV on a lot spend less time reading and being read to, and are less likely to be able to read [13] . What about TV and aggressive or violent behavior? Literally thousands of studies since the 1950s have asked whether there is a link between exposure to media violence and violent behavior. All but 18 have answered, "Yes." The evidence from the research is overwhelming. According to the AAP, "Extensive research evidence indicates that media violence can contribute to aggressive behavior, desensitization to violence, nightmares, and fear of being harmed." [14 ] Watching violent shows is also linked with having less empathy toward others [14a] .

An average American child will see 200,000 violent acts and 16,000 murders on TV by age 18 [15] . Two-thirds of all programming contains violence [16] . Programs designed for children more often contain violence than adult TV [17] . Most violent acts go unpunished on TV and are often accompanied by humor. The consequences of human suffering and loss are rarely depicted. Many shows glamorize violence. TV often promotes violent acts as a fun and effective way to get what you want, without consequences [18] . Even in G-rated, animated movies and DVDs, violence is common—often as a way for the good characters to solve their problems. Every single U.S. animated feature film produced between 1937 and 1999 contained violence, and the amount of violence with intent to injure has increased over the years [19] . Even "good guys" beating up "bad guys" gives a message that violence is normal and okay. Many children will try to be like their "good guy" heroes in their play . Children imitate the violence they see on TV.

Children under age eight cannot tell the difference between reality and fantasy, making them more vulnerable to learning from and adopting as reality the violence they see on TV [20] . Repeated exposure to TV violence makes children less sensitive toward its effects on victims and the human suffering it causes. A University of Michigan researcher demonstrated that watching violent media can affect willingness to help others in need [20a] . Read about the study here: Comfortably Numb: Desensitizing Effects of Violent Media on Helping Others . Viewing TV violence reduces inhibitions and leads to more aggressive behavior. Watching television violence can have long-term effects: A 15-year-long study by University of Michigan researchers found that the link between childhood TV-violence viewing and aggressive and violent behavior persists into adulthood [21] . A 17-year-long study found that teenaged boys who grew up watching more TV each day are more likely to commit acts of violence than those who watched less [22] . Even having the TV on in the home is linked to more aggressive behavior in 3-year-olds. This was regardless of the type of programming and regardless of whether the child was actually watching the TV [23] .

What parents can do: According to the American Academy of Pediatrics , media education can help kids become less susceptible to the bad effects of watching violent TV. Some studies have shown that kids who received media education had less violent behavior after watching violent programs. Teach your kids to be media savvy. Find out more about media literacy . Watch with your kids, so if the programming turns violent, you can discuss what happened to put it in a context you want your kids to learn. Know what your kids are watching. Decide what programs are appropriate for their age and personality, and stick to your rules. To minimize peer pressure to watch violent shows, you may want to talk to the parents of your child's friends and agree to similar rules. Visit YourChild: Managing Television: Tips for Your Family for more ideas. For more on TV violence and kids: Violence in the Media--Psychologists Help Protect Children from Harmful Effects : Decades of psychological research confirms that media violence can increase aggression. Comfortably Numb: Desensitizing Effects of Violent Media on Helping Others —This study by a University of Michigan researcher demonstrates that watching violent media can affect willingness to help others in need.

Joint Statement on the Impact of Entertainment Violence on Children : Congressional Public Health Summit—a statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, American. Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychological Association, American Medical Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Psychiatric Association. Can TV scare or traumatize kids? Children can come to view the world as a mean and scary place when they take violence and other disturbing themes on TV to be accurate in real life. Symptoms of being frightened or upset by TV stories can include bad dreams, anxious feelings, being afraid of being alone, withdrawing from friends, and missing school. Fears caused by TV can cause sleep problems in children [24] . Scary-looking things like grotesque monsters especially frighten children aged two to seven. Telling them that the images aren't real does not help because kids under age eight can't always tell the difference between fantasy and reality. Many children exposed to scary movies regret that they watched because of the intensity of their fright reactions. Children ages 8-12 years who view violence are often frightened that they may be a victim of violence or a natural disaster. Violent threats shown on TV can cause school-aged kids (8-12) to feel fright and worry.

When the threat is shown as news it creates stronger fears than when it is shown as fictional [25] . How does watching television affect performance in school? TV viewing may replace activities that we know help with school performance, such as reading , doing homework, pursuing hobbies, and getting enough sleep . One research study found that TV's effects on education were long term. The study found that watching TV as a child affected educational achievement at age 26. Watching more TV in childhood increased chances of dropping out of school and decreased chances of getting a college degree, even after controlling for confounding factors [26] . Watching TV at age four was one factor found to be associated with bullying in grade school [27] . Can TV influence children's attitudes toward themselves and others? Let's take a look at what kids see on TV, and how it can affect their beliefs about race and gender: Children learn to accept the stereotypes represented on television. After all, they see them over and over. When non-whites are shown on TV, they tend to be stereotyped .

A review of the research on gender bias shows that the gender-biased and gender-stereotyped behaviors and attitudes that kids see on television do affect how they see male and female roles in our society. Television and movies do not often show Asians or Asian Americans, and when they do, they fail to show the diversity in Asian American culture [28] . Thin women are disproportionately represented on TV. The heavier a female character, the more negative comments were made about her [29] . In 1990's commercials, white men more often were depicted as strong, while white women were shown as sex objects. African American men more often were portrayed as aggressive and African American women, as inconsequential [30] . Ads for household items, like cleaning products, usually feature women [31] . G-rated movies are commonly viewed by younger children—often over and over on DVD, and perceived by parents as safe for little kids. However, in these movies, whether live action or animated, males are shown more than females, by three to one, they are not often shown in relationships, and do not solve problems peacefully [32] .

In G-movies, characters of color are under-represented, and are usually shown as sidekicks, comic relief, or bad guys. Male characters of color are more aggressive and isolated [33] . Music videos over-represent black males as aggressors, and white females as victims, compared to actual demographic data [34] . To learn more, visit the Center for Media Literacy's page on Stereotyping and Representation How are children portrayed on TV? A study by a group called Children NOW of how children are shown on local TV news, found that [35] : Almost half of all stories about children focus on crime (45%). Children account for over a quarter of the U.S. population but only 10% of all local news stories. African American children account for more than half of all stories (61%) involving children of color, followed by Latino children (32%). Asian Pacific American and Native American children are virtually invisible on local news. African American boys are more likely than any other group to be portrayed as perpetrators of crime and violence whereas Caucasian girls are most likely to be shown as victims. Can TV affect my child's health? Yes, TV is a public health issue in several different ways.

First of all, kids get lots of information about health from TV, much of it from ads. Ads do not generally give true or balanced information about healthy lifestyles and food choices. The majority of children who watch health-related commercials believe what the ads say . Second, watching lots of television can lead to childhood obesity and overweight. Finally, TV can promote risky behavior, such as trying dangerous stunts, substance use and abuse, and irresponsible sexual behavior. Children who watch more TV are more likely to be overweight University of Michigan researchers found that just being awake and in the room with the TV on more than two hours a day was a risk factor for being overweight at ages three and four-and-a-half. [34] The effects can carry on into adult weight problems. Weekend TV viewing in early childhood affects body mass index (BMI), or overweight in adulthood. [35] University of Michigan researchers and their colleagues who investigated whether diet, physical activity, sedentary behavior or television viewing predicted body mass index (BMI) among 3- to 7-year-old children, found that physical activity and TV viewing are most associated with overweight risk. TV was a bigger factor than diet. Inactivity and TV became stronger predictors as the children aged [36] .

Children who watch TV are more likely to be inactive and tend to snack while watching TV. Many TV ads encourage unhealthy eating habits. Two-thirds of the 20,000 TV ads an average child sees each year are for food and most are for high-sugar foods. After-school TV ads target children with ads for unhealthy foods and beverages, like fast food and sugary drinks [37, 38] . All television shows, even educational non-commercial shows, replace physical activity in your child's life. While watching TV, the metabolic rate seems to go even lower than during rest [39] . This means that a person would burn fewer calories while watching TV than when just sitting quietly, doing nothing. The food and beverage industry targets children with their television marketing, which may include commercials, product placement, and character licensing. Most of the products pushed on kids are high in total calories, sugars, salt, and fat, and low in nutrients [40] . Children watching Spanish-language TV after school and in the evening see lots of ads for food and drink. Much of it targets kids and most of the ads are for unhealthy foods like sugared drinks and fast food.

This advertising may play a role in the high risk of overweight in Latino kids [40a] . Results from recent studies have reported success in reducing excess weight gain in preadolescents by restricting TV viewing [41] . Childhood TV habits are a risk factor for many adult health problems One study looked at adults at age 26, and how much TV they had watched as children. Researchers found that "17% of overweight, 15% of raised serum cholesterol, 17% of smoking, and 15% of poor fitness can be attributed to watching television for more than 2 hours a day during childhood and adolescence." This was after controlling for confounding variables [42] . Children may attempt to mimic stunts seen on TV Injuries are the leading cause of death in children, and watching unsafe behavior on TV may increase children's risk-taking behavior. Kids have been injured trying to repeat dangerous stunts they have seen on television shows. Many kids watch TV sporting events. Researchers surveyed TV sports event ads to assess what kids might be seeing. Almost half of all commercial breaks during sporting events contained at least one ad that showed unsafe behavior or violence [43] .

Watching TV can cause sleep problems Television viewing is associated with altered sleep patterns and sleep disorders among children and adolescents. Regular sleep schedules are an important part of healthy sleep. A recent study found that infants and toddlers who watch TV have more irregular sleep schedules. More research is needed to find out whether the TV viewing is the cause [44] . Those sleep disturbances may persist. Teens who watched three or more hours of TV per day had higher risk of sleep problems by early adulthood [45] . Find out more in this research brief from the Kaiser Family Foundation: Children’s Media Use and Sleep Problems: Issues and Unanswered Questions . TV viewing may promote alcohol use The presence of alcohol on TV runs the gamut from drinking or talking about drinking on prime-time shows, to beer ads, to logos displayed at sporting events. Many studies have shown that alcoholic drinks are the most common beverage portrayed on TV, and that they are almost never shown in a negative light. Recent studies have shown that exposure to drinking in movies increases the likelihood that viewers themselves will have positive thoughts about drinking [45a] . Alcohol has damaging effects on young people’s developing brains—and the damage can be permanent.

TV ads are a major factor in normalizing alcohol use in the minds of children, adolescents and college students [46] . Ads for alcohol portray people as being happier, sexier, and more successful when they drink. Alcohol advertising, including TV ads, contributes to an increase in drinking among youth [47] . Television ads for alcohol, such as "alcopop," which combine the sweet taste of soda pop in a liquor-branded malt beverage, may target youth, especially girls and Hispanic and African American kids [47a] . The Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth (CAMY) at Georgetown University found that in 2003, the top 15 prime time programs most popular with teens all had alcohol ads [48] . Alcohol is increasingly advertised during programs that young people are more likely to watch than people of legal drinking age [49] . Kids who watch TV are more likely to smoke Even though tobacco ads are banned on TV, young people still see people smoking on programs and movies shown on television. The tobacco industry uses product placement in films. Smoking in movies increased throughout the 1990s [50] .

Internal tobacco industry documents show that the tobacco industry purposefully markets their product to youth. The industry uses subtle strategies like logos at sporting events, product placement, and celebrities smoking to get around the ban on TV advertising for their products [51] . Kids who watch more TV start smoking at an earlier age. The relationship between television viewing and age of starting smoking was stronger than that of peer smoking, parental smoking, and gender [52] . Recent research has shown that exposure to smoking in movie characters increases the likelihood that viewers will associate themselves with smoking [52a] . Find out more about kids and tobacco . Kids get lots of information about sexuality from television Most parents don't talk to their kids about sex and relationships, birth control and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Most schools do not offer complete sex education programs. So kids get much of their information about sex from TV. Kids are probably not learning what their parents would like them to learn about sex from TV. Sexual content is a real presence on TV. Soap operas, music videos, prime time shows and advertisements all contain lots of sexual content, but usually nothing about contraception or safer sex.

The number of sex scenes on TV has nearly doubled since 1998, with 70% of the top 20 most-watched shows by teens including sexual content [53] . Fifteen percent of scenes with sexual intercourse depict characters that have just met having sex. Of the shows with sexual content, an average of five scenes per hour involves sex. Watching sex on TV increases the chances a teen will have sex, and may cause teens to start having sex at younger ages. Even viewing shows with characters talking about sex increases the likelihood of sexual initiation [54] . (Read more about this study .) Watching sexual content on TV is linked to becoming pregnant or being responsible for a pregnancy. Researchers found that even after controlling for other risk factors, the chance of teen pregnancy went up with more exposure to sex on television [55] . On the flip side, TV has the potential to both educate teens, and foster discussion with parents. Watch with your kids, and use the sexual content on TV as a jumping-off point to talk with your teen about sex, responsible behavior and safety.

To find out more, read: The AAP' s policy statement on Sexuality, Contraception and the Media How can I find out more about kids and TV? Here are some websites with helpful information: Reading What are some organizations that work on issues around kids and TV? The Center for Media Literacy believes in empowerment through education—that kids need to learn how to think critically about TV and other media. Media Awareness Network is a Canadian group with a wealth of information for parents. The Center for Screentime Awareness sponsors National TV Turn-Off Week each year. Future TV Turn-Off Weeks are in Spring and Fall: April 19-25, 2010 & September 19-25, 2010. TV-Turnoff Week is supported by over 70 national organizations including the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, National Education Association, and President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports. Written and compiled by Kyla Boyse, RN. Reviewed by Brad Bushman, PhD. Updated August 2010 Project Title - Covert Advertising | Film PROJECT TITLE - COVERT ADVERTISING UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: SUBMITTED BY:Ms.

DEEPALI CHOPRA (LECTURER) HIMANSHU RAJPUTAMITY SCHOOL OF BUSINESS BBA (M&S)AMITY UNIVERSITYROLL NO. :- A-16NOIDA ENROLLMENT NO:A3914708051 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT A Project cannot be said to be work of an individual. A research is acombination of views and ideas, suggestions and contributions of many people.I take this opportunity to thank all the people whose cooperation andencouragement made the completion of this research project a possibility.First of all I wish my sincere gratitude and for all the supportthroughout the project study to my faculty guide Ms. Deepali Chopra under whose guidance the project was undertaken. Without her supervision at eachstage of research, the task would not have been accomplished.Last but not the least I thank to all my friends who offered usefuladvice and many valuable improvement and for there much needed care andcooperation. Dhoom, Baghban, Phir Hera Pheri, 007 and Matrix are some excellentexamples of movies with covert advertising.

Brands such as Coca Cola, ICICI Bank, Domino’s, Nokia, Aston Martin and Suzuki have placedthemselves in these movies. Nowadays, these tactics are common in most of the films. Some very wellmanaged product placements appear to be quiet natural, if not logical. Butsome seem to be badly inspired by a commercial spin-off, with all thenegative consequences it may generate on the audience.Take for instance, the Hollywood flick, ‘What Women Wants’ . This MelGibson starrer has a Nike commercial as a part of the script. It gets with thescript so well that you don’t realize you’re watching a commercialcamouflaged in the screenplay. Now the Bollywood flick, the girls beating the boys fighting sequence in‘ Chak De ’ has been referred to as the McDonald ’s fight scene merely because it takes place in one of the outlets. Again there is no mention of McDonald’s in the entire film as it has been seamlessly embedded. 3 Media and Advertising — Printer friendly version — Global Issues Manipulating images of people in commercials It has long been known that advertisers will photoshop (slang for editing photos to touch up or airbrush out imperfections) photos to make the subject more attractive.

But many have pointed out that this subtle manipulation often goes too far. Photoshop: The Perfect Lie 4 , ThisIsRedVideo, November 27, 2008 For example, young people — girls in particular — are often bombarded with imagery of the perfect bodies. Younger minds are more malleable and impressionable, so even when it may be known that these images are manipulated, the constant message everywhere a young person turns says the same thing: this is how you should look and behave and something must be wrong if you are not achieving these (unrealistic) expectations of perfection. As such it can contribute to anxieties and stress when growing up and even last into adulthood. Side Note Writing in the Observer , Victoria Coren commented on a survey of how American black and white men and women saw themselves and observed that black women being under-represented in mainstream media probably helped them have higher self-esteem 5 : The bigotry in fashion, cosmetics, advertising, TV and Hollywood hasn’t damaged black women, it’s saved them! They’d be mad to keep campaigning for greater visibility in Vogue or light entertainment, now it’s clear that absence has made a lovely free space for them to form their own healthy self-image.

She even adds that white women aren’t really represented appropriately in the mass media either because of the unrealistic imagery. The issue perhaps is appropriate as well as proportional representation. Globally, there is very little regulation about this kind of manipulation as there are many grey areas making it difficult to provide definitive guidelines. However, some very obvious cases are easier to target. For example, in 2009, France introduced advertising legislation that retouched images had to be explicitly identified. In the summer of 2011 in UK, two advertisers had their adverts banned for airbrushing an actress and a model excessively to the point it was too misleading. A campaigner against this kind of misleading and a Scottish member of parliament, Jo Swinson added 6 that the concern here is half of young women between 16 and 21 say they would consider cosmetic surgery and we’ve seen eating disorders more than double in the last 15 years.

Side Note Although I no longer have the link, I recall around the end of the 1990s a discussion with a women’s rights activist lamenting how in India bulimia and anorexia (almost unheard of before) had sky-rocketed amongst young girls as similar practices in advertising in India started to increase. Megan Gibson, writing for Time , added 7 that Swinson’s concern was that, The ads are purporting the effects of make-up, when in reality they’re showcasing the effects of Photoshop. PetaPixel reported the above UK ban too, also noting that it came about a month after the American Medical Association called upon ad agencies 8 to stop the altering of photographs in a manner that could promote unrealistic expectations of appropriate body image . PetaPixel quotes an American Medical Association board member: The appearance of advertisements with extremely altered models can create unrealistic expectations of appropriate body image. In one image, a model’s waist was slimmed so severely, her head appeared to be wider than her waist. We must stop exposing impressionable children and teenagers to advertisements portraying models with body types only attainable with the help of photo editing software. Barbara L.

McAneny, Quoted by Michael Zang: American Medical Association Speaks Out Against Photoshopped Ad Photos 9 , PetaPixel, June 24, 2011 In December 2011, Extreme Tech reported that the American advertising industry’s self-regulating watchdog, the National Advertising Division (NAD), has moved to ban the misleading use of photoshopping and enhanced post-production in cosmetics adverts 10 . ( Extreme Tech also added that this brings it closer in line with regulations in the UK and European Union.) Swinson, the American Medical Association, the NAD, are all making the point that in these cases companies are showcasing the effects of image manipulation rather than the product itself. So this is exactly what filmmaker Jesse Rosten’s spoof ad does: This commercial isn’t real, neither are society’s standards of beauty 11 , JesseRosten, January 9, 2012 To some people there shouldn’t be government intervention; parents should be able to teach their children how to see reality from advertising. Unfortunately, as also mentioned on this site’s section on children and consumption 12 , children have not developed the cognitive ability to do this.

Furthermore, even when responsible parents are to work with their children in this way, how will two people fair against an army of psychologists, advertisers, marketers and lawyers trying to teach their children the opposite? Media Ethics — The ethics of retouching photographs 13 , May 13, 2010 The expectation amongst young people that photos and adverts create by using images of real people is that what they see is therefore also real. It may take many years, perhaps much later into teenage or adulthood to realize and come across information that these images are manipulated, by which time most of the effects may have been internalized. To live in a society where you have to constantly be told everything you see may not be real is surely more damaging than to live in a society where most things are real but the hopefully few unreal things can be identified. That would hint to a truer form of freedom. Some other examples: Back to top Product Placement As Milvy has noted above, advertisements in television programming goes back to the beginnings of television. These days, whether you are watching a film from Bollywood (India’s film industry), or Hollywood, there will be some obvious advertisement, and some not-so-obvious ones. This is becoming more pervasive.

Also noting the old-age of product placement in films, the BBC also adds that it is now also extending to other forms of entertainment: Cinema-goers will be familiar with product placement in films: those countless examples where the camera lingers just a little too long over a logo before shifting back to the main action. Now, more than 50 years after Hollywood wised up to the fact that companies will pay to have their brands featured within the narrative of a movie, advertisers have begun to extend the principle to formats such as books, pop songs, videos and computer games. Jonathan Duffy, Well Placed 23 , BBC News Magazine, BBC, March 30, 2005 This therefore begs the question (as Duffy also asks), Who is in charge — the producer or the product brand manager? Duffy also adds, research shows that in programmes recorded, two-thirds to 80% of ads are skipped. That is, people don’t want to watch advertising. Hence, the increased interest in placing brands in actual programming where it is sometimes less obvious. British television has long resisted explicit product placement in its television programs (a limited form is allowed to be realistic , where the company is not allowed to profit from it).

Now, as the same BBC article reports, it seems that the British regulator is considering allowing more product placement because the industry is losing money as people try to skip ads where possible. A question that the BBC article does not raise however, is why a regulator — supposedly there for the public interest — is helping save an industry. Market forces are supposed to govern if some industries and companies are viable or not. Markets are meant to adapt to changes in consumer behavior (though markets also try to create consumer behavior 24 )…! Similar companies often complain when regulation restricts their freedom Back to top Military in Movies — Less Shock, More Awe Of course, as well as advertising and product placement within media products such as films comes the opportunity to advertise the military. Films such as Top Gun included heavy involvement of the Pentagon and others to provide an awe-inspiring film, showing the many amazing aspects of fighter pilots, high tech weapons and what it would supposedly be like to be part of the US Navy. What was not commonly known was the level of military involvement in the film. The Center for Defense Information, a military think tank in Washington D.C.

long ago produced a documentary about this, noting the mutual benefits such involvements entail: Philip Strub (Pentagon, in charge of reviewing the scripts and helping to determine which ones are going to get military cooperation) : When Hollywood comes to us with a request for production assistance, we have an opportunity, an important opportunity, I think, to tell the American public something about the US military and help recruiting and retention at the same time. Narrator : When a moviemaker wants to make a war movie, or even a film that just incidentally includes the military, the natural place to go for props is the Pentagon. Dr. Lawrence Suid (author of several books on the history of military cooperation with the movies) : Each side is using the other for its own ends. Filmmakers want to get cheap equipment or free equipment, free use of men. Narrator : It’s a relationship of mutual exploitation. Moviemakers save money — where else are you going to get an aircraft carrier, for example? — and get instant production values from the presence of authentic military hardware. In exchange, the Pentagon gets to influence how it is portrayed on the silver screen.

The Military in the Movies 26 , America’s Defense Monitor, Center for Defense Information, January 27, 1997 And on the impact that films like Top Gun : Top Gun also in large measure, in my view, prepared the American people for the Gulf War. Before the completion of the rehabilitation, the American people had more or less decided the United States military couldn’t do what it said it could do. Top Gun showed that we could shoot down airplanes, that our aircraft carriers could go anyplace, and that our pilots were the best. And so, when the Gulf War comes along, there's no reason for any American civilian to believe that we can't beat Saddam Hussein. The Military in the Movies 27 , America’s Defense Monitor, Center for Defense Information, January 27, 1997 As the documentary noted, some movies, even when they depicted the military in an overall positive light, would not get military support if they contained scenes or language that the military would prefer not be shown. In other cases, the documentary adds, the films that were popular created a high expectation of the military, so any subsequent scandals would therefore gain a lot of negative attention.

Skipping forward to 2007, the hit movie, Transformers , included a mix of product placement and military involvement. From clearly advertising certain laptop brands and memory cards as well as other products, to the awe inspiring military technology and resolve against the odds (as the US military was overcome by transforming robots!) in awesome settings (often an amazing sunset, often with scenes in slow motion for dramatic effect, etc), the film helped further enhance the image of the military. Certainly, the movie was thoroughly entertaining (I remember enjoying the cartoons and a transformer toy as a child). Most movie-watchers probably realize that such films also lead to cross-selling toys from Hasbro and others. Even fast food outlets typically sell toys while mentioning the film all as part of the overall promotion, benefiting both the movie producer and the food outlet. Yet, the film credits explicitly listed a product placement adviser as well as a military adviser, in addition to thanks to the Pentagon and others. Of course, most don’t read the credits (I only did so out of curiosity at what seemed obvious product placement and excessive military awesomeness shots), so many may not realize that a fascinating movie contains advertising of additional products and view points in addition to the toy sales.

(For sure, many may note the additional product placement and not feel there is anything wrong with that.) It may be too early to tell, at time of writing, but this could be important for the US establishment and military as public perception of war and military is at least a mixed bag in part because of the Iraq invasion 28 and subsequent myriad of issues for the US and its military.

Question: What is the commonly used term for the subtle form of advertising by which brands are featured in films and TV programmes?
Answer: Product placement