Magazines: The Glossy Hub of Mediums

Magazines are a pivotal medium force in society. They depict one's personality, solidify gender differences, and present an educational pop culture reference for society.  They are an outlet for creativity and provide a present snapshot of culture for consumers.  

Magazines illuminate one's personality. If one is seen reading Vogue, we can infer they are sophisticated, older, and fashionable. If one reads Cosmopolitan, they are young, hip, and edgy. If one reads W, they are an avid fan of fashion and photography. If one reads US Weekly, they love being in-the-know and gossiping. In addition, if one reads Allure or Elle, they love commercialized fashion (more commercial than Vogue or W) and enjoy beauty tips and feminine essentials. 

Magazines provide an outlet for creativity and allow the reader to escape into an augmented reality. In actuality, magazines are extremely similar to the internet. When one reads them they are taken into another hemisphere, one filled with tips, fashion, beauty, and editorial columns. They are the bibles of pop culture, the house for advertisements, and the catalyst for celebrity and socialite news. The fashion spreads a reader in W or Vogue reads is an escape from reality. They are taken into a fictional world with unbelievable clothes and locations. Moving forward, the role of creative directors at magazines has become much more important recently. Traditionally, the Chief Editor has controlled the creative direction of the magazine. However, recently there has been two additions to the executive team: a creative director and fashion editor (for fashion driven magazines).  Together, these three form the core of the magazine brand. They create editorial columns, edit fashion shoots, and control the brand image of the magazine. 


Magazines are a significant medium of pop culture. These glossy pages provide a snapshot of the pop culture, fashion, or current issues that are being discussed in society. For example, Vogue has a political section, W has an economics section (surprisingly), and Vanity Fair has a current issues section. Although these publications are perceived as fashion magazines, in reality, they provide a snapshot of the political, social, and economical issues in society. Although they might not be the New York Times, they fuse together fluffy issues (fashion) and meaty issues (politics, economics, etc.). They are tangible snapshots, versus virtual references. They are books of culture, which can guide consumer preferences, brand awareness, or consumer perception of pop culture. For example, US Weekly keeps readers up to date on celebrity gossip (whether it's true or not). On October 13th, in class we discussed Murdock, McCron, & Puresehouse's piece called MediaViolence & Tabloids. In the piece, he discussed how tabloids appeal to the lower class. I throughly disagree with this stance--everyone reads tabloids, regardless of their economic background. In addition, they discuss the power of journalism, and the negative effects it has on the population. I would argue that journalism has many more ripples of positivity than negativity. 

Overall, magazines illuminate ones personality, provide an outlet for creativity, and are a significant medium of pop culture. This also connects to our reading on October 12th. Croteau and Hoyne present an "encoding-decoding model" in which the marketer encodes a message and the consumer reads the message through a medium. Magazines are the medium for a variety of messages including advertisements, fashion trends, celebrity news, and beauty essentials. Moreover, the roots of societal mediums was transformed by the printing press (similar impacts at the telegraph mentioned in class) and the ability for information to be distributed worldwide. Although rumors are swirling around the death of the magazine industry, the internet boom, and the lack of advertising dollars companies are allocating, hopefully the publication world will pull through and prevent the death of this pivotal medium in society.




Thoughts?


MM

A Woman's Handbag Speaks 1,000 Words

           Womens handbags are a significant medium in society. On a micro level, they display a woman's personality and level of affluence. On a macro level, they illuminate characteristics of a womans overall lifestyle. Ultimately, branding plays an impeccable role in making their consumer feel trendy, sophisticated, or affluent. 

Handbags can display a woman's personality. If one is carrying a trendy, non-affiliated brand named bag, they can be portrayed as strivers, or hipsters. However, if one carries a bag with a well known logo (LV, Prada, Dolce&Gabanna, Coach, etc.) they can be perceived as stodgy, solemn, or conservative. If the handbag has a rigid structure (briefcase, tote, business bag, etc.) one can assume the person is working in the corporate world or studying at a business school. Usually people in those environments have more structured handbags then women at liberal arts schools (carry laptops, heavy textbooks, etc). Handbags are liberal arts schools are hobos, satchels, or cross body bags. The shape in more moldable and less structured then a business school bag. Thus, women who carry rigid handbags can be perceived as intellectual, business minded individuals. In addition, women who carry loosely structured handbags can be perceived as care free, 

These bags can illuminate a woman's level of affluence. If a woman is carrying an authentic Louis Vuitton monogramed bag, a current season monogrammed Prada clutch, or monogrammed Dolce& Gabanna structured bag, this shows she is affluent. Usually, women who carry "logoed" bags are seen as flashy and gaudy. Hence, the birth of a nondenominational bag. These bags are plain, simple, and market themselves as having good quality leather and infrastructure. Many international women carry non-logoed bags to show sophistication or class and not give into the world of tacky logos. Thus, this leads to an issue of fake vs. real bags. If there is no logo on it, one could assume it's from a local thrift store or Forever 21. The rise of fake purses ensue, and the medium is tainted with the question "Is that a real               ?"  and causes handbags to be a question, rather than a statement of wealth. Thoughts?

Branding in pivotal in defining the lifestyle of a consumer who carries their handbag. Brands drive consumer preferences and are a very important factor in defining their consumers lifestyle. For example, Louis Vuitton defines their customers lifestyle as exotic, well-traveled, durable, serious and chic. However, Coach defines their lifestyle through innovation, trendiness, and amiable. However, the overall branding world is being affected by regulation. We see this demonstrated in the Croteau & Hoynes reading last Wednesday. Although they do not directly mention "brands" in the reading, they discuss de-regulation/regulation, and state "Regulation whom to benefit whom?". This regulation directly correlates with brands being advertised to the public and censor consumers from brand preference or brand awareness (since the censorship would also deal with the advertisement on the radio, TV, etc). 


I believe there can never be true regulation of the radio, TV or media. As demonstrated in these media blog postings, mediums are everywhere--which ultimately yields the formation of media. Thus, if the government tried to regulate any forms of media, they would have to regulate human life, interaction, and individual choice. Handbags are just a building block to this building, which will ultimately topple if the government keeps a philosophy of "Regulation whom to benefit whom" (pg. 82). 

Coach = Funky

Tory Burch = Business

Long Champ = Durability

Louis Vuitton = Well Traveled

Vera Bradley = Traditional 

Hand Made Bag = Eco Friendly Consumer 

Dolce & Gabanna Clutch = Wealth

Chanel = Sopistication

Nails: Medium

Nails are a significant medium in society. They display a person’s beliefs and illuminate their social status. In addition, they rigidly define gender differences.

Nails publicly display a persons belief or their personality. For example, during Lindsey Lohan's trial she was photographed with a message defined on her nail entitled, "Fuck U". This only furthered investigators accusations that she was not remorseful of her actions. Pictures of her nails swarmed website blogs, newspapers, and magazines, and caused much controversy.  This is a sole example of where nails communicate a persons beliefs. Katy Perry is often seen wearing nails that state PETA or support other animal rights organizations. Kim Kardashian painted "Reggie Bush" on her nails during his debut at the Super Bowl. These examples demonstrate individuals publicly displaying their personal beliefs, personality, or relationship through the painting on their nail polish. 

Nails define gender differences in society. If a female has dirty nails, she is categorized as being less feminine than a woman who does have clean nails. Men rarely get manicures because they are seen as "too feminine". However, how are these gender barriers erected through the upkeep of ten measly fingernails?  

Nails elucidate an individual’s social status. One can be perceived as wealthy if they have perfectly french-manicured nails. On the contrary, one could be defined as poor through dirty nails. They display the amount of wealth one has to allocate to personal grooming. If one is well groomed, one can afford manicures, which yields the individual to be wealthy. In Croteau & Hoynes, Stuart Hall speaks to the "encoding-decoding" model. Although he describes the model in terms of a marketer to consumer, I believe this model can be used through consumer to consumer. Individuals are encoding a message (nail polish) and the other consumer can decode that message (social status, gender, personal beliefs) as they choose. This model explains the thought process behind these mediums of
"fingernail communication".

Lindsey Lohan

Kim Kardashian

Katy Perry

Joe Biden

French Manicure

Detailed Manicure

Lady Gaga

Soda!

Dirty Nails

Sexy Nails

Sleek Nails

Drinking To Communicate

       Alcohol is defined as any organic compound in which a hydroxyl functional group is bound to a carbon atom, usually connected to other carbon or hydrogen atoms.  However, alcohol is much more than a complex fusion of compounds. Alcohol speaks realms about individuals in terms of economic status, gender differences and personality. In addition, recent technological advances have increased alcohols presence and power in society. 

       Alcohol can communicate a persons economic status. If one drinks Belvedere (a more expensive vodka), they can be categorized as being wealthy. On the contrary, if one consumes Rubinoff (a lower priced vodka), they can be portrayed as being cheap or having a lower economic status. Especially in clubs, if one is spending hundreds of dollars on alcohol, they are known for being wealthy versus an individual which doesn't spend a significant amount of money on a table. 


      Alcohol can illuminate gender differences. If a man is seen drinking scotch, versus a bubble gum martini, different gender assumptions are made: bubble gum martinis can be seen as a womans drink, versus a glass of scotch, which is categorized as a mans drink. These stigmas derive from marketing campaigns. Most advertisements for scotch or whiskey include a man drinking with his friends, or doing some type of masculine activity (poker, pool, etc).  Referencing Croteau and Hoynes, "They tell us that if we drink a particular beer, we will meet attractive women...(241)" Notice how they directly were alluding to men drinking a beer instead of a woman. Thus, it's interesting that ones gender can be defined through a simple liquid. 


      Alcohol defines an individuals personality. If one is spending myriad amounts on alcohol, they can be classified as a person who likes to go out and enjoy drinking. They can also be categorized as a cafe free, social individual who enjoys frolicking amongst their peers. However, if one consumes too much alcohol, they can be known for being a careless, unintelligent individual. If one does not drink, they can be seen as an uptight, stodgy person. Again, our large assumptions are made about the personality of individuals through alcohol.


      Technological advances have increased alcohols presence and power in society. In a recent article published by a blog, GuestofaGuest, they reported on a new brand alcohol which has ingrained tweets into the vodka bottle. I find it interesting they have meshed the two mediums togther: twitter and alcohol. It brings up the question: can we get too many messages through one medium? Referencing Tim O'Sullivan, "David Gauntless has argued that as a result, Media Studies now needs to be fundamentally overhauled, 're-wired' for the digital era of the web. (133)" With this "rewiring", companies have integrated simple products into tangible webs of media (inserting a twitter steam into the bottle). Thus, in the future, alcohol could potentially serve as a medium within a medium for social media. 


Overall, alcohol is not a complex organic compound. Rather, it is a medium which communicates much more than a persons taste. With the physical integration of social media and alcohol, who knows what will be next regarding other beverage partnerships with social media outlets. 

Cheers!
Michelle 


http://guestofaguest.com/technology/twitter-and-vodka-have-a-baby-name-it-medea/

Wealthy Vodka 

Feminine Margarita

Refined Person Vodka

Refined Person Vodka 

Wealthy Vodka 

Feminine 

Masculine 

Cars: Messages Interwoven Into Machinery

            Cars serve as a catalyzing medium force in defining us in society.  Their interior components and exterior features shape our perceptions of people. Overall, cars can be a driving force in our perceptions of people. They serve as a forceful medium through the interior and exterior. Bumper stickers convey personal beliefs, the type of car defines level of affluence, and the interior defines their lifestyle.  However, through the readings from O'Donnell & Lewis, we see these assertions can lead to false stereotypes and broad generalizations about individuals. 
           The type of car can communicate a persons level of affluence. The initial reaction is very different when one sees someone driving in a Ferrari versus a Kia: a Ferrari alludes to wealth, while a Kia alludes to a less affluent driver. It can also convey interests: if a person is driving a Prius, they are inherently environmentally conscious, verus a driver who is sporting a Hummer, who hypothetically, is not environmentally attune. In addition, is one is driving a vintage vehicle, they value car character over function.  On a micro level, at Babson College, many are defined by the car they drive. Conversations are flooded with "Did you see that Bentley in the parking lot?" or "Can you BELIEVE he drives an Escalade? I didn't know he was wealthy...".On a macro level, when we drive on the highway and see a BMW or Porsche, we automatically categorize the driver as wealthy.   
          Cars can define our lives. For example, when my car is neat, my life is organized. On the contrary, when my car is filled with papers, coffee cups, tanning lotion, and clothes, it shows my life is hectic. If one sees softball bats in the trunk, chances are the person is an athlete. One can learn realms about an individuals lives by looking through the drivers personal artifacts in a car. It also communicates our personal preferences: when one turns on the car, the radio automatically blasts music. If it's on a rap station, the person prefers rap music--as opposed to a CD with club music, which means the person likes house music. 
          Bumper stickers convey our personal beliefs. When driving, bumper stickers serve as a sub-medium to communicate their views pertaining to politics, academia, or general personality characteristics. If one has a bumper sticker stating, "I Love George Bush", we make the assumption they are a Republican. If we see a bumper sticker with stating "Proud Honor Student", we assume they are intelligent. If we see a sticker stating, "Texas A&M University", we assume they (or one of their family members) attend that university. Bumper stickers open the door to the general public and openly display minuscule pieces of your personal beliefs.
         However, there are obviously cases where these are false accusations. Following Croteau and Hoynes logic, this mechanical representation does not necessarily reflect the economic interests, personal beliefs, or level of affluence. This medium can yield stereotypes and can paint a broad misrepresentation of a persons greater lifestyle. In addition, I would argue these are negative mediums, and serve as an easy channel for categorizing individuals and compartmentalizing the masses into mechanical boxes. 

Vintage Car = Car Lover

Leather Interior: Affluence

BMW = Wealth 

Ferrari = Car Lover

Old Car = Less Affluent

Prius = Environmentally Conscious

Hummer = Not Environmentally Conscious

Honda = Functionality

Bumper Stickers = Personal Beliefs 

Interior of Car = Chaotic Life