The presentations in the seminar were pretty interesting and many applied to my everyday life; yet, the one that stood out was “The Truth about Logos and Advertisement Ad’s” by Miguel. I could’ve chosen Tiffany’s conspiracy theory or even Derek’s self promotion because we do need to know the basis of our democracy and how to promote ourselves successfully to maintain in life but those are America’s mainstream concerns.
In this life that we live full of conspiracy’s and success from promoting ourselves correctly, we wear clothes. We have to think about how we are spending our money and cost saving mechanisms as little as wearing your jeans twice before spending money on laundry or buying pants of a slighter brand that has the same quality which saves your pockets in this economic recession.
I love clothes and believe in the quality of a shirt in lieu of the quantity of shirts I can buy for the same price as the one shirt. However, all decisions aren’t based on quality, it’s primarily the brand. Miguel’s star moment was when he compared the Columbia jacket to the North Face jacket and it was that moment that I had an epiphany. This might sound corny but I’m an unconscious shopper and although I’m conscious about the money that I’m spending outside of the mall, it escapes me during the time that I get rid of most my money. We are only paying for the labels that are on these products.
An idea that Miguel gave me was self loyalty in a fashion sense of course. If we wanted, we could buy that Columbia that is of equal quality and greater cost and have a seamstress sew on the North Face logo. This would be cost saving, you’ll be just as fashionable if you’re mental, and most of all no one has to know but you because you are loyal to yourself—unless you tell!
Miguel used himself to tell the story of what’s affordable and the brands that are just as good a quality as higher names. I actually consider him fashionable and to learn that he doesn’t pay what I assumed for his gear corroborates my idea of being loyal to one’s self—if he didn’t have to do this presentation then we wouldn’t have known; I would’ve still thought that he owned Prada shoes.
There were many discussions during the presentation but one that I would like to acknowledge was the option of purchasing a pair of Addidas or Pumas. Johnisha brought up a good point about gender shopping—Pumas are more of a feminine shoe and I see Addidas as unisex. Miguel was more inclined to purchase the Addidas because they are more appealing than Pumas. These two brands share the same style so one is more appealing than the other. The notions about the gender of the shoes and how they physically are appealing had nothing to do with logos or trickery from advertisers; thus, it doesn’t always take a trick from advertisers or the influence of a logo to make the right or wrong choices in purchasing a product.
Miguel’s presentation was short and straight to the point but understandable. Since we can all stand to be improved, I would have brought in a couple of products just to have the class determine which brand is real, or which of the same brand cost more or less etc. I also would’ve had a blind folded taste test for Cokes, Pepsi, Sierra Mist, and Sprite to see if consumers even know their product as they want to appear too. Maybe someone would’ve mistaken a cheap Sierra Mist for a rather expensive Sprite and not known the difference enough to keep wasting money on the more expensive drink!
No comments:
Post a Comment