The television is viewed as the most important media technology in the U.K., U.S. and Japan, offering entertainment, news, information etc. There are also more recent extended applications such as videos and cable satellites. Technological determinists believe that the television has altered the world, and it is an "evil thing that rots the minds of youth."
The television evolved from a combination of the radio and the cinema. Early television had the problem of synchronizing sounds and pictures, which was solved in 1927, leading to "talkies" and newsreels. Primarily, John Reith (Director General) was not enthusiastic about the television, as he believed it was not good for morally "improving" the masses. Experimental trials were carried out between 1936 and 1939 with two to three hour daily broadcasts. However the long term effects on society were difficult to predict in 1939.
Commercial interests were jealous of the BBC's success with the Coronation, and advertisers lobbied Parliament for a commercial television channel. The BBC raised objections,and Lord Reith told the House of Lords that bringing U.S. television to Britain is like "bringing in smallpox and the bubonic plague."
Once again, the BBC had a great deal of pressure placed on them from the government to present "factual" information. The television reports on the General Strike of 1926, were controlled by the government in the same way as the radio was controlled, by broadcasting the government's viewpoint only. During the Suez Crisis of 1956, the BBC refused the government's request to support its invasion policy. The BBC wanted to present a balance by presenting the viewers with the Egyptian view, as well as the government's. The broadcasting of the Falkland's War of 1982, and the Miner's Strike of 1984-1985 were also controlled. Therefore, once again, the information the viewers received was limited and biased. The viewing public is largely sceptical, and can identify government efforts at censorship, but many people developed prejudiced views and attitudes of certain situations. It is the attitudes that people bring to the television from other social environments and encounters, that mostly explain their subsequent behaviour.
From a psychological viewpoint, when television first appeared, it was predicted that it would lead children to lose interest in books and school, to become intellectually lazy, more isolated, passive or, alternatively, hyperactive; and families would talk less. But television also has the potential to educate and inform. In a survey of 7-12 year olds Cullingford (1984), found that 80% said they watched television the previous night and typically watched between three and six programmes. Many 9-year-olds and almost all older children, at sometime watched after midnight. It was found that middle-class children watch somewhat less television, young adolescents watch more than other children.
The affect of television violence has been studied thoroughly, which showed that 80% of television programmes are estimated to contain violence, increasing to 93% at weekends. A child watching four hours a day may see 13 000 murders by the age of 16. Studies have therefore been carried out to see if these findings make children more aggressive. For example, an 18-year-old student walked into a beautician's in Arizona and shot five people. He explained that the idea came from news stories about a man who shot eight nurses. Also, a 9-year-old was raped by three older girls who had watched a similar crime in a film. In the case of a 15-year-old who shot his neighbour in the course of a burglary, the defence presented at his trial was that his addiction to television distorted his understanding of reality.
Therefore, people do copy particular acts of violence, and television influences our norms and attitudes. As television characters are often seen as heroes who gain respect and other rewards through their actions, they are especially likely to be imitated. It may also act as a cue to aggressive behaviour, through desensitisation, disinhibition or arousal. Also, aggressive people may simply choose to watch violent programmes more. Friedrich and Stein found that aggressive-prone children are likely to become even more aggressive after watchimg violent television.
The USA Surgeon General's Report concluded that television violence is influential, as many as 25% of child viewers may be affected. On the other hand, Howitt and Cumberbatch (1974) concluded from their own study of over 2000 children and 300 other studies, that there was no direct effect of media violence, though there is considerable disagreement between different studies. Selfe (1987) concludes that violence can never be considered the sole cause of delinquent behaviour, it may reinforce or affect those already prone to such tendencies.
These case studies are extremes of the effects of television violence, but the media also acts as a source of social stereotypes. Media present a stereotyped picture of life, which may lead to undesirable prejudices (and, in turn, aggression). Children's programmes in particular tend to exaggerate stereotypes, presenting "goodies" and "baddies," and children often have their only contact with some minority groups through the television. For adults, the confirmation of their stereotypes may make them feel more comfortable, programmes which try to present life against common perceptions may be unpopular. It is still the case that women, ethnic groups, the disabled, certain professions, the old and the physically unattractive are presented according to accepted stereotypes. However, the question is whether such biases affect the viewer. Greenfield (1984) found that "Sesame Street's" use of ethnic and disabled minorities has had positive affects on children, particularly those from the minority groups who feel greater cultural pride and self confidence. Certain events are over-reported, such as violent or sex crimes, and this acts to alter public opinion. Cohen (1965) suggests that the media creates moral panics by widely reporting an initially minor event, which leads to further detailed reports, identification of causes or troublemakers. One example is the mods and rockers of the 1960's.
Studies have also been carried out to study the effects of television on political behaviour. Blumler (1970) showed that television had little discernible influence over the viewer. Later studies, while not controverting this, found some measurable influence on information about party policies and the persuasibilty of those with initially low party-political motivations or attachments. Of particular concern is the broadcasting and handling of the news and current affairs. Lewis and Rowe (1994) present two opposing arguments, as Lewis claims that the news is currently biased in a negative direction. Rowe counter-argues that any attempt to correct this would present a misleading picture.
In conclusion, there are two views on the influence of the media. The first of which is the technological determinist view, which states that the media has the power to determine how people must live their lives. On the other hand, the empiricists view is that social pressures overrule any independent effect.
Viewers of the television, and listeners to the radio are not a passive audience, and are able to switch the television or radio off. Therefore the television and radio are capable of influencing everyday life, but this depends strongly on the individual.
Television news, due primarily to its obsession with crime and violence, definitely has a negative impact upon our society. TV news is basically an oxymoron; giving us the skin of the truth stuffed with a lie. A news program should be focused on the facts, with perhaps some objective analysis. However, for business purposes, TV news broadcasts use dramatic, usually violent stories and images to capture and maintain an audience, under the pretense of keeping it informed. What we see and hear on the news affects us both consciously and subconsciously, and sends us about our lives unnecessarily fearing the remote dangers that we see excessively portrayed on the evening news. This fact is especially true for our children, who are defenseless against this onslaught of malevolence being brought into our very living rooms in the guise of informative reporting.
Why is it that bad news is the only news? Is that all the public finds interest in? Take the story of Jessica Dubroff. Jessica was to become the youngest person to fly across the continent. At the start of her voyage, there was only a smattering of news reports granting her a few seconds of recognition. However, after her plane crashed, and she, her father and trainer were killed, Jessica was front-page news. JonBenet Ramsey is another example; a beautiful little girl with so much going for her, yet not deemed worthy of any media attention until her tragic murder made her a household name. To see the latest horror / thriller, there's no need to go to your local theater; it's on television at 10 PM. Yet the news isn't completely at fault; the people (like myself) who complain that these stories are plethoric are the very people who tune in to watch them every evening, fueling the fire.
The long-standing news producer motto, "if it bleeds, it leads," is alive and well, and the network broadcasts are no better than the locals are. The world news shows are virtually indistinguishable from local news, both leading with blood and guts. Clearly, advertising revenue and the constant pressure to keep the viewers tuned to the station are the driving forces behind the "dumbing down" of TV news. News producers must figure that if they can scare the wits out of people, the people will be more inclined to watch the disproportionate prominence of gore and violence on daily TV news broadcasts. They are experts at creating a visual entertainment package that appeals to our instinctive enthrallment with the horrendous. It interests us, captivates us3/4 we're riveted. In a way, we experience vicariously the very things we dread. These stories are a highly charged, visceral experience for viewers, and when one of them breaks, there isn't a TV station that's not covering it or a person that isn't talking about it. Journalistically, violent crime pays; it's cheap to report and it grabs attention. Common sense dictates that stations whose newscasts stress crime-and-violence reporting can cut staff (fewer are needed because the visuals and story line are provided by the events) and improve ratings at the same time (the visuals are compelling for viewers).
In fact, crime coverage seems to dominate the available news time. Politics, education, the environment and business average just seconds of attention (excluding, of course, the few weeks prior to an election). This overabundance of crime and violence on TV news inflates the public's fears for personal safety. It is clear that images have immense power to influence behavior, for good or ill. People, for the most part, believe that TV news is an accurate reflection of reality. They become frightened of the cities they live in, and fear that criminals will harm them or their loved ones. This concern seems to be driven more by media coverage than by one's personal experiences. The more you watch TV, the more fearful you become. Also, and perhaps more importantly, I think it possible for one to witness so many news reports of senseless acts of violence, brutal murders, and demented killers that he or she becomes desensitized to the point of no longer feeling compassion for the victims or their families. For these reasons, it is imperative that viewers come to their screens with a mind of their own. Not necessarily with preconceived perceptions and prejudices, but rather with a critical awareness that will help determine how they see and interpret things.
Television news is dangerous to our children's emotional and psychological health. Besides the never-ending and far too detailed coverage of the dirty details in the Clinton / Lewinsky affair, TV news terrifies elementary school kids by its constant preoccupation with violence and crime. Graphic coverage of wars, bombings, murders and natural disasters can quite possibly lead to nightmares, depression and other lasting reactions. As adults, we can make concrete choices about what we watch and where we get our information. Our children can't; they are innocent and more impressionable. We have the ability to tell the difference between reality and deception; our children don't. The world presented to them on TV is usually a lot scarier than the world they actually live in. Crime statistics go down, yet coverage of crime on TV news increases.
Television news seems compelled to "inform" its viewers of all of the latest crimes, tragedies, and disasters, as though these are the only stories worth presenting. But is this really news, and is it a responsible thing for the networks to be doing, or is it a blatant abuse of power? The journalistic "powers that be" could make better use of their resources by at least reporting an imminent threat, to which perhaps the viewers could react (and possibly help deter), rather than to simply show us the devastation that has already occurred, solely for its "entertainment" value. It is a spiritual law that whatever is focused upon increases; we "sow what we reap." Hence, violence begets violence; fear begets fear; and the dismal world depicted on the evening news becomes a self-fulfilling one. Things are getting worse on TV and all of us, especially our children, are paying a hefty price. If only we could change the old cliché to, "no news is bad news," it might indeed come to be so.
In this essay I am going to show how social, cultural and historical events can effect adverts on TV. Lots of factors effect adverts such as the economy, teenage culture and oil shortages. All these things caused adverts to evolve over the years to what they are today.
Background of adverts
The first adverts on TV appeared in 1955 when the first commercial network – ITV was launched. In 1955 televisions were still a novelty as there was not much money around and rationing was still in force so only the middle classes could afford them. In this time life was more gentile and the adverts followed this, all the advert personalities were well-spoken middle class people who set an example. This is reflected in the first advert which was for Persil – it was aimed at middle class women as they could afford televisions and played on the mothers instinct to do the best for her children. Then in the middle 50’s a company called radio rentals started renting out televisions so more and more people could afford them.
1950’s
In the 1950’s commercials were very different than they are today – they were short and repetitive and very innocent not like today’s. They relied heavily on Jingles as they stuck in people’s minds and reminded them of the product while they were shopping. There importance is shown in this quote:
‘Jingles, jingles, jingles – part of the culture of the 1950’s’ - Dr Newson, Child research unit Nottingham University.
Children quickly picked up on these Jingles so much so that they began to replace nursery rhymes as entertainment for the children.
The innocence of the day is shown in adverts where puppets were used in any scenes that used hugging or kissing because adults doing it was considered too obscene for television.
All the children were properly dressed so that they all looked like mini adults and this reflects the culture of the time where all children were perfect, and men went out to work while the women stayed at home cooking and cleaning.
The use of children to sell to the mother
In the 1950’s it was still legal for adverts to tell mothers that unless they bought a certain product then they were bad mothers.
In this time there was no central heating and illness was more common and the advertisers picked up this.
The adverts sold health to the mothers by claiming things that weren’t true but sounded good such as the Bovril adverts.
This increased when the Flu eperdemic broke out and adverts such as lucozade and Vic vapour rub played on the mothers fears, and they bought the products so people didn’t think they were bad parents.
Children were also very useful because they could repeat things by asking questions and this allowed advertisers to hammer there points into mothers many times. If the information was just repeated it would be annoying and obvious but children asking questions is natural and innocent, and so was very effective.
Also because of the innocence of the age a lot of adverts were allowed on TV that wouldn’t be now. A cereal advert promised to give away a penknife in every box, which would be considered atrocious now. Also there was a blow up Noddy given away with the slogan ‘Ring my bell’. Today Noddy is considered a gay icon and was banned for a time and a blow up version with that slogan would have made it much worse.
1960’s
In the 1960’s pocket money started to take because the economy was stabilising of so children had there own money to spend. Advertisers soon picked up on this with adverts aimed specifically at children. Walls ice cream split children into three discrete groups – Adventurers, Hungry horreses and Little madams and produced an advert for each. The adventurers ice creams were shaped like rockets and things and the adverts involved adventure. Hungry horreses wanted as much ice cream they could get with their money so the adverts showed large ice creams. Little madams wanted to be awkward and the adverts displayed this with the child getting what they wanted at the end.
In the 1960’s legislation was passed which meant that advertisers could not tell mothers to buy things or they were bad parents. So the advertisers used words to try to get around this. It also said that kids weren’t allowed to pester mum for things. Rowntrees could no longer use there phrase ‘don’t forget the fruit gums mum’ so they changed mum to chum to get around the legislation. This kind of clever word use is still in use toady – Carlsberg probably the best lager in the world.
Advertisers also started to use cartoons in their adverts this was for a number of reasons. If children didn’t like the presenter of an advert they didn’t buy the product so cartoons were used instead of people. They could also get away with more in cartoons – violence, kissing etc.
Cartoons still had their limits though as was shown with Kellogg’s Tony the Tiger. He started out aggressive with sharp teeth but this didn’t work so he was turned into a loveable loser with filled down teeth.
‘Children under the age of 11 are very sex stereotypical’ – Felicity Randolph, Managing director of Young Directions.
This quote explains the style of adverts for young children that is still used today – boys have macho toys (action man) and girls have homely toys (dolls houses).
Most of the adverts for children were competitive between boys and girls and advertisers discovered something, which can be seen all through these adverts. Boys cannot accept a girl winning and will not buy the product as a result whereas girls can accept boys winning so it doesn’t change their view of the product.
Another change in adverts in the 60’s was that children in adverts were no longer perfect and more adverts used mischievous ones instead because of the changes in discipline especially in schools.
However only mischievous boys were used and not girls but all the children were no longer middle class. They also used gangs of these children that appealed to the children.
In 1965 there was a big leap in advertising when they started using pop songs in the adverts and they also had children imitate the bands, as it was popular. Also toddlers were used for the first time because mums found them cute so they sold products.
Another massive leap in 1965 was the introduction of colour television because it meant adverts could present their ideas in a whole new dimension.
In the 60’s many things were different than they are today which affected the adverts. Things include the use of Golly wogs and people washing behind screens whereas now adverts use full nudity with strategically placed limbs and bottles.
Selling to teenagers
In the 1960’s teenagers began to leave school and go to work so they earn’t money but stayed at home and so didn’t have to pay for accommodation etc. This meant they had a high disposable income. However the first adverts for teenagers didn’t work very well because all the teenagers in them were miniature adults with no individuality. Then came the rock and roll adverts that gave teenager’s there own personalities with there own music styles and interests.
In the mid 1960’s the youth culture is taking over everything and this is used as a platform to sell to all ages. Teenage values were the new social acceptable.
Adverts used this to sell products to children and adults by making them thing that buying teenage products made them cool.
This was shown in the Rice Krispie adverts, which used to be aimed at children but now had the rolling stones on the adverts to sell to teenagers.
Again advertisers played on the teenagers fears although these were different than the mothers. Teenagers were afraid of bad breath, spots and body odour and so adverts promised to rid them of all of this e.g. the Colgate ring of confidence.
Then in 1969 lots of teenagers got involved in demonstrations and were seen as rebels and yobs. The advertisers then immediately dropped teenagers from adverts in case they alienated all the other age groups and started using children again.
1970’s
In the 70’s there was a lot of youth unemployment, oil problems because OPEC (Organisation for petroleum exporting countries) charged more for oil which caused a lack of power and in some cases a 4-day week. It also caused many factories to close so there was little money. This caused a change in adverts from the 60’s.
Children in the 70’s
In the 70’s more lifelike children were used that were not well behaved and not perfect. It also didn’t matter if they got words or sentences wrong in the adverts because it was seen as cute by the public.
The 70’s were also the first time that regional accents were used instead of posh middle class ones (received pronunciation) and this appealed to the lower classes.
The kids also reminded parents of the ideal lifestyle that they used to have and so they paid attention.
‘School days are the happiest of your life, except they weren’t at the time’ – Barry Day, Vice chairman Lintas worldwide.
I have added this quote just to show how powerful images of youth can be for adults and can encourage them to buy products.
This type of nostalgia is still being used today with adverts like the Hovis advert, which is, still used toady for that purpose.
Adverts tried to tell mums that it was okay to stay at home to look after the kids (and buy the advertisers products!) instead of going to work.
In the 70’s adverts still portrayed the perfect family whereas in real life the divorce rate as the highest ever and there weren’t many ideal families.
Another important development was the contraceptive pill which meant that women could make there own choice about family’s and many women put their career first instead.
Women take control
By the late 70’s women were taking more control of there lives and started going to work leaving men at home to do the housework and look after the children. This changed adverts for household products because now they had to be aimed at men as well as women.
1980’s
In the Thatcher years there was lots of money around with yuppies spending money just to show how wealthy they were. Consumers were also more conspicuous. Inflation went up and this caused house prices to skyrocket.
The adverts of the 80’s still used children a lot but they were more adult and less nieve and they grew up quicker. Also children were allowed to roam around whereas now peadophiles and things stop this.
Advertisers also tried to combine children with comedy to sell to adults by using children with adult voices such as the Frank Bruno/Harry carpenter advert and the Hugh Lawrie/Stephen Fry one. This proved very popular.
The 1980’s also saw a return to pester power in adverts with children influencing what the family ate for the first time. Advertisers returned to targeting adverts at children so that they pestered to their parents for them. They also used they buy this or else approach again with the Weetabix slogan ‘Weetabix if you know what’s good for you’ which is a clever double entendre.
Adverts also started using streetwise kids with the ready break advert showing a kid pretending to be Michael Jackson. Still children were influencing everything and so were used more than ever. They used children because they pick up everything such as scientific bits, which they repeat, to adults. The adverts were also training young people to be consumers so that they would but the advertisers products in the future.
1980’s teenagers
In the 1980’s banks picked up on the fact that teenagers had a large disposable income. They used adverts promising credit cards and cash machines but did not mention things like APR or that they would have to pay the money back in the future.
In 1987 the first condom advert came on TV and it was aimed at teenagers which wouldn’t be allowed now. It also saw the first anti-advert, which tried to show that drugs could kill. However advertisers weren’t allowed to show sanitary towels or tampons these couldn’t be shown until the 90’s.
The 80’s advert also used nostalgia with 50’s sports cars and lifestyle used to appeal to adults who were children at the time.
The 1980’s also saw the first contrapuntal imagery (the Pepe raindance advert) – two separate images running at the same time and this proved to be extremely effective and has been used ever since.
1990’s
In the 90’s adverts are much less innocent than they were in the beginning with a lot of them having a comedy theme. A lot more subjects are socially acceptable in this time than in the 50’s and 60’s. However some adverts that used to be allowed have been banned now because of an increased concern in health. Cigarette adverts have been banned because we are now aware that they cause lung cancer.
There are a lot more anti adverts such as drugs and drink and there are also adverts that use very hard-core imagery of people suffering to get there message across (Oxfam, NSPCC etc.)
Conclusion
Since the beginning of television advertising in 1955, adverts have evolved with the times and are affected by lots of social, cultural and historical events. In fact so much so that adverts from one year can be quite unrecognisable from ones a few years later. So I think that social, cultural and historical events have played a major role in television advertising and will continue to do so for a long time to come.