Freedman and Jurafsky placed importance on complex language, health, and authenticity and how it relates to higher/lower class audiences. While expensive potato chips often include more educated languages and more words in general, inexpensive potato chips tend to be more basic and straightforward.Another concept that interested me was the relationship of health to status. On every expensive potato chip bag in the article, each package included the word "natural", showing how health conscious upper class is, even with something as simple as a potato chip, something usually regarded as unhealthy.
However, the most shocking point from the article I noticed was how both expensive and inexpensive advertisers use authenticity to attract its buyers. Although, the main goal of advertisers is to use authenticity with different meaning in order to still further differentiate classes. Expensive advertisers relate authenticity with the uniqueness of the naturally of ingredients and the processing of these ingredients into a final product. Inexpensive advertisers instead relate authenticity with family, history, and tradition. The little subtleties in advertising and packaging provide so many meanings that can easily be overlooked when staring at a bag of chips at the grocery market. But now, thinking back on what chip I usually choose, I deem this evidence of selective advertising true.Another interesting thing to review using Freedman's and Jurafsky's would be how restaurants as a whole target certain people with particular socioeconomic status. All restaurants have certain pricing, atmospheres, and locations to target particular audiences. With further research, I think evidence of class targeting in restaurants would directly parallel the criteria used in potato chip advertising.
I liked the part about authenticity too, but I thought it was interesting how healthy slogans attract a higher socioeconomic class. If all chips have zero trans-fat why don't they all just say so?
ReplyDeletesnaps for Nicole
ReplyDelete