
Product Impact and the Effect on the Audience
Purpose
The purpose of this task is to discuss the positive effect such as, good role models, and negative effects such as, copycat violence, of product impact.
Meaning
The meaning of this task is to research the debates surrounding the fashion industry about controversy and the influence and impact on the public.
Vanity Fair may be categorised by some people and put into the gossip magazine segment. However, this is false as the magazine is "an iconic fashion magazine, that celebrates the latest fashion and beauty trends.
A.
The products that Vanity Fair produce, can influence a number of different categories of people.
Effect on individuals/mass audiences - Many individuals will be effected by Vanity Fair magazines, as these products have the power to change peoples perceptions on topics such as fashion choices (hair, clothing and make-up styles.) This can be a very powerful reaction as many customers will change their appearances, views on celebrities and social politics, depending on what Vanity Fair 'says.' This can lead to an effect on mass audiences of people as the magazine will be spread to thousands of customers who will all interpret what they read in different ways. This could be seen in positives and negatives.
- Positives: Vanity Fair are well known for exhibiting celebrities of high class in their magazines or of high popularity. This is a positive as most audience members will look up to these celebrities and admire them. Therefore, by extracting iconic people of good taste in their magazines, Vanity Fair are promoting good role models to the public, helping to achieve a healthier outlook on current affairs.
- Negatives: However, confrontational extracts have often been published in Vanity Fair magazines, that may have a negative effect of its audience members. The Copycat Theory could be put into practise here as many magazines are used to promote new film releases or celebrities that are well known for their violent behaviour. However, Vanity Fair's articles more include extracts that people have written, which could cause a conflict of interest. More promoting free expression rather than accepting violent behaviour. (The screenshots below, demonstrate the type of article that Vanity Fair publish, which could be seen as a conflict of interest).
This shows the introduction to the article that could have an effect on the public and could change their opinions on related affairs in positive or negative ways. This is why I have used it as an example for the type of confrontational extract that Vanity Fair publishes.
Negative messages that this article could've sent:
- Women are naive when it comes to men and their motives.
- Black men at this time were drug pushers.
- Women couldn't get anywhere in show business without the "help" of men.
Positive messages that this article could've sent:
- Warned people about the effects of drugs.
- Drugs can badly effect peoples metal/physical health.
- Be aware of what is going on around you.
- Not to be swayed by peers
Use and Gratification
What does the theory suggest?
Instead of research what the media do to the audience, this approach studies what the audience does with the media. This approach also takes account of people's personalities and personal needs.
Strengths of this approach?
The audience is seen as active, and reasonably intelligent. Life experience in general is regarded a as more influential that experience of media. The pleasures that the media offer audiences are not regarded as negative.
Weaknesses of this approach?
Too much optimism about the 'power' and 'choices' of an active audience can distract is from the power certain texts have, or the influence that media institutions and ownership may have on texts and understandings.
This method is the best fit for modern day audience media interaction. Vanity Fair has examples in this as their is interaction between audience members and media products have been demonstrated through press meeting and audience participation interviews with celebrities and work members.


No comments:
Post a Comment