Analysis of the Advertisement 

I chose this advertisement because it hits close to home. Not only have I struggled with acne all my life, even until now, but I’ve also been a former Proactiv consumer. This advertisement is capitalizing on the insecurities of people in a very disturbing and inappropriate way – especially teenagers and young adults who are learning to be confident and developing their self-esteem. Why should a common skin condition be problematized negatively? Acne is the most common skin concern in North America, let alone the entire world. Not only does it affect over 50 million North Americans but 95 per cent of all people will experience acne at some point in their lives. As someone with first-hand experience, it is safe to say that the stigma around acne and those who struggle with it takes a huge toll on one’s mental health. In recent years, there’s been a lot of positivity and movements around people’s body image – a push to change cultural perceptions of beauty and health. This advertisement specifically targets people’s vulnerability. Proactiv is leveraging consumers’ emotions and how personable the ad is. Skincare companies aren’t only profiting from people’s insecurities, but it is evident that they are also the ones creating the insecurity. Proactiv is a company that was first introduced in the mid-90s. The main target markets are teenagers and young adults through regular TV commercials and ad placements in magazines. Ads like this are implying the idea that the sole reason for being single is due to acne, especially when it is evident to be targeting heterosexual young women with the use of pink text. It is magnifying the idea and emotions a girl or guy may already be experiencing due to acne. I can admit that this is exactly how I felt as a teenager.

Explanation of my Jammming Recreation 

I recreated the Proactiv advertisement by blending the ads, i.e. making one applicable to everyone as the original ad comes off heteronormative. I changed the original slogan completely and rewrote it in the most direct way. “Got Acne” is replaced by “Self-esteem” because the goal that is being achieved by these skincare companies is to make the consumer relate to the emotions that already exist. In this case, our physical appearance is tied to the outcome of relationships in our lives, no matter your sexual orientation. On a deeper level, it is how our image reflects our unconfidence. As people, we judge ourselves more than others do and this is exactly what this ad is taking advantage of. The issue I’m trying to magnify is that regardless of whether you’re male or female, everyone has insecurities about their appearance, thus it should not be generalized. Historically speaking, women have played a bigger role in being “perfectionist” and upholding images to fulfill the expectations of others. I believe it goes both ways as men grow a bigger ego and find validation through being validated by people who find them attractive. The role both genders play in each other’s lives is evident in how they find approval for themselves. I believe the collective culture we are working towards is one where these concerns could be promoted in an uplifting way instead of problematized and looked down on. This makes it seem that those with this trait are seen as the lowest of the food chain. Instead of feeding on the profits made through bullying, companies like Proactiv would be succeeding if they chose to impact positively. I would have recreated this ad to say: “You study hard, you work hard and you train hard. Now take control of your skin – Progressively”. We don’t achieve success overnight and realistically speaking these products won’t clear us up overnight either. Things always taster sweeter when we work for it. Consumers will also invest more if they can sense the light at the end of the tunnel. This is the power of marketing.

References

Ann, Lee, et al. “Acne By the Numbers: 9 Surprising Acne Statistics.” Acne By The Numbers: 9 Surprising Acne Statistics and Treatment Ideas [INFOGRAPHIC], https://blog.mariobadescu.com/acne-by-the-numbers-9-statistics-about-acne-infographic/.

Diply. “We Can’t Understand How These 28 Sexist Ads Were Ever Approved.” Diply, Diply, 28 July 2017, https://diply.com/11906/we-cant-understand-how-these-28-sexist-ads-were-ever-approved.

Relaxnews. “The Social Stigma Surrounding Acne Could Be Ruining the Well-Being for Sufferers.” CTVNews, CTV News, 1 Oct. 2018, https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/the-social-stigma-surrounding-acne-could-be-ruining-the-well-being-for-sufferers-1.4116676.

I was super interested in today’s class because not only did we talk about different motivational approaches, instead it reminded me of my work experiences. During the summer I took on two totally different jobs; they weren’t just different in the aspect of the work environment but more so the interaction between coworkers and employers. I worked at Hollister Co. as a Brand Representative and also a UPS Store.

At times I felt unworthy and not valued at Hollister. I wouldn’t exactly blame this on my manager, but she was the main source to my unhappiness. I felt targeted in that environment because while I’d been receiving positive feedback from other managers and even customers, she gave me an impression that I was never good enough. I felt a force of pressure as if she thought I didn’t know what to do/ how to do things/ didn’t like my job. There were times where I was even blamed for not knowing regulations that were never relayed to me.

After reading on Chapter 4, I felt that I understood how employers take different approaches. There is a section that talked about Theory X, which is a theory of human motivation and management. It defines it as “The assumption that employees dislike work, will attempt to avoid it, and must be coerced, controlled, or threatened with punishments to achieve goals.” I think this section did not mention the correct use of these motivational theories, and exactly who to use it on.

I don’t know if this is how my manager approached everyone -through the use of Theory X, but what I understand from reading the textbook and our in-class discussions is that these ways of motivation should only be used due to a certain reason, especially after a long period of observation. I am an intrinsic motivator, and I consider my accomplishments as a reward within itself.

Thinking about it now, the job itself wasn’t bad because I had the opportunity to expand my network and also interact with customers to enhance my communication skills. It was the way I was treated which made me reconsider why I’d still gone to work.

1. Langton, Robbins, Judge, Organizational Behaviour, 7th edition, p. 128.

I think everyone can agree that once you’ve worked retail once in your life, that’s going to end up being at the bottom list of your favourable jobs. I worked at the Hollister Co. in Pacific Centre for four months during the Summer. Although it was a short experience, I got a lot out of that job. The main reasons why I’d consider it my worst job experience is because:

1. Lack of unanimity between the managers. For the most part all the managers were fair, nice/down to earth people, but I have to say one of the managers I had worked with gave me the hardest time. I was always super happy and cheerful when I go to work but whenever our shifts bumped, I’d going home feeling really bad about myself (for no apparent reason)
2. The range of available tasks  and the management of duties. I noticed that the “seniors” always worked on cash, while there were a lot of people constantly folding clothes. If there was a better management of rotation everyone would feel energized and refreshed.
3. Poor Management and lack of communication. I started working right before the new supervisors were hired and began training. There was never an announcement that the three new supervisors took on the manager role and would be in charge. I only worked twice a week so going into work having absolutely no clear of the changes was very frustrating. I was constantly took to “go ask ___, I’m not in charge”. It was as if they expected us to know everything off the bat.

How Machiavellian Are You? 

average score: 25

my score: 20

low

Are You a High Self-Monitor?

high self-monitors: 53+

my score: 39

low

What’s Your EI at Work?

low EI: below 70

my score: 73

medium

Narcissism 

high narcissism: 17+

my score: 7 out of 40

low

Personality Traits’ Summary 

          Overall I think my personality test results came out to be relatively accurate compared to my expectation. I was a little surprised with the Self-Monitor result where I scored 39 compared to high self-monitors scoring above 53. I find myself as someone who is quite cautious about the present environment and I often adjust my appearance according to the situations I am in. For example, when I’m in an individual or group interview setting, I’m able to gather up the courage and put on a very confident face –I mean fake it til you make it right. Whereas, in a classroom environment I tend to keep quite (a bit shy, I might even say) even at times when I have thoughts to share. My EI and narcissism results came to be 73 and 7 respectively. There are some people who are able to identify the patterns and categorize people based on that, and upon knowing how certain people would react to things, they then know how to respond. I really envy people like that with such high EI and who are able to interact with people so easily, because often they’re very likeable as well. I personally think I’m very good at looking at things from other people’s perspective so in a group setting I’m able to understand why/where everyone’s opinions are coming from. I’m usually the “agenda” person who likes to stay on track and complete things ahead during group projects.