My 100th post deserves something a little special.
Preview image from Black & Bold a spring beauty editorial. Look at the face, Brianna Peebles of Factor is drop dead gorgeous! She is stunning! Photography: Jon Cancelino Styling: Xza Louise Makeup: Enid Seymore and Rommy Hair: Rommy and Kerre Berry
I am asked all the time how to incorporate the latest trends into your existing wardrobe when you are A. on a budget and B. not built right for the trends.
Well this season it is all about bright coral tones and reliving the 70s. Bring on the wide leg trousers and colors some might say, but for a short curly haired girl like myself I can't do either.
While those wide leg pants can be slimming on some and give the illusion of fuller curves, on a girl like me(34-24.5-36) they are the worst thing imaginable. First of all, I am mid-height, 5'4.5 to be exact. I have an hourglass figure, hence my fondness of fifties dresses. they suck me, showcase my waist and make my hips seem less intrusive. The 70s are my anti-christ. I want to curl up and hide everytime I see this trend emerge, but there are ways to incorporate big bold looks into your spring wardrobe without looking like a cow. I promise!
Case in point. This model, albeit a size 2 has some serious curves. Not your average skinny mini that is for sure. Insstead of using a wide leg jean I used a skinny jean paired with a looser top. The look is sexy, chic and oh so affordable. You can find a top similar to this at stores like Forever 21 otherwise you can shell out $150 for this Theory top at Saks. Not too bad, right?
The jeans are Marc Jacobs and were only $295, but to do this look on the cheap you can go to your neighborhood Marshalls pick up a pair of blush or light grey skinny jeans for under $30 and a top similar to this for under $25. A chic look that is flattering on us girls with some curves.
Across the net, and on just about every television set we encounter we are sold items of luxury, glamour and necessity. Ads influence us through appealing images, tasty promises and samples of scents. When do these ads go too far though? Is it when they try to talk us into things we don’t need or is all advertising inherently evil?
I don’t necessarily feel that all advertising is evil, but there are certainly issues that should be addressed. One of my biggest pet peeves within the advertising industry has to be the use of the scarcity principle. It’s used as a scare tactic and I wonder how many innocent customers fall victim to this, at time, fraudulent practice.
The scarcity principle is the urge or need to obtain something, because it is presented to be in a limited amount. Advertisers certainly take advantage of this.
While planning my recent business trip I encountered this on a popular travel website.When each flight I looked like said there was only two tickets left at a certain price, it makes you almost panic in a frenzy to buy the last remaining tickets in fear of having to pay more. But here is the thing, do you really end up paying more if you don’t buy that last two tickets or do you pay less?
On QVC they frequently use the scarcity principle in addition to the liking principle. The count down of items left is used in addition to a timer. Starting at about minute 5:00 you can hear a woman call in. She is encouraged to buy the product and how great it is, by the end she is saying, “maybe I should buy two.” Her acknowledging her like for the product in addition to the ticker at the bottom of the screen the viewer is being influenced by both principles.
At minute 6:42 it can be heard that there are only two dozen items left! This use of the scarcity principle attracts your attention and if you haven’t already you might consider picking up that phone and dialing in for your very own photo storage unit.
Nowadays I DVR my favorite shows ad breeze pass the commercials, but once there was a time when I did watch live television. I actually take that statement back, to this day I always watch one program “live” at 6:30 and that is Wheel of Fortune. While I try my best to block out the commercials I always catch myself staring back at the television waiting for something amazing to happen. Or at least a commercial that is slightly more creative than the everyday car commercial. The only time I tend to really get sucked into commercials is when the ad involves humor, and guess what/? I am not alone in this matter, in fact, I found an entire scholarly article about the subject of Humor and Ad Liking.
Turns out the way ad creators keep their jobs is due to schmoes like us who buy into the feel good nature of ads. Many studies have been commissioned to see just how the human mind responds to ads and in the article I found, it is evident that this isn’t taken lightly.
The method Galloway and his team used was selecting ads from 1994 commercials from London. Forty two undergraduate students were required to rate the commercials in regards to funniness, arousal and liking. The ads ranged from a baby miming a song to a tire commercial. The ads were ranked as humorous and liking versus non-humorous ads and the sensation they garnered from the recipient. While the researchers believe that the retention rate of ads that use appropriate humor far exceeds ads that do not use humor, it is all dependent on the type of humor used, the setting in which the ad is played and the context by which the humor is delivered.
In actual reality I wonder if there is a real way to understand if humor always works or if it doesn’t. is there really a common joke that everyone finds funny? One has to wonder about this, as everyone interprets humor differently. Just as Brits have a different sense of humor than those in the US, they might not find out humor funny at all.
In direct relation to this study I found this video on youtube. I sent it to some of my friends and asked them if they thought it was funny, only 8-12 friends said it was, even though I thought it was hilarious. What do you think?
Galloway, G. (2009), Humor and ad liking: Evidence that sensation seeking moderates the effects of incongruity-resolution humor. Psychology and Marketing, 26: 779–792. doi: 10.1002/mar.20299