As Jonathan Bignell explains “The semiotic analysis of advertising assumes that the meanings of ads are designed to move out from the page or screen on which they are carried, to shape and lend significance to our experience of reality.” (Bignell 1997: 30) We are going to have a look at the representation of family in children’s advertisements and see just how far reality is shaped and significant. To help us understand what meanings are “moving out from the screen” we shall look at the problematic concept of representation in two advertisements, Sunny Delight and Don’t Wake Up Dad.
The definition of representation is complex and can be used in two ways. The first being, “To represent something is to describe or depict it, to call it up in the mind by description or portrayal or imagination. To place a likeness of it before us in our mind or in the senses.” (Oxford English Dictionary) The image of the mind here is significant, as will be shown later on. And the second, “To represent also means to symbolise, stand for, to be a specimen of, or to substitute for, as in the sentence; “In Christianity, the cross represents the suffering and crucifixion of Christ.” (Oxford English Dictionary) In semiotic terms “representation is the production of meaning through language.” (Hall 1997: 28). This is the angle we shall look at to define what representation means in a semiotic manner.
In representation we use signs that are organised into languages of different kinds, to communicate meaningfully to others. Both definitions correlate with the concept of signs. Signs carry meaning; therefore they have to be interpreted. These signs can be words, images or even sounds. They constantly surround us. Stuart Hall suggests that there are two systems of representation that we work with (Hall 1997: 29). Firstly he states that all objects, people and events in our minds are connected with a set of concepts. Without this system we would not understand much, as the meaning depends on the links we make between an image and its concept.
Ferdinand de Saussure, a Swiss languist, claimed that each sign has two parts: the signifier which is “the vehicle which expresses the sign” (Bignell 1997: 11) and the signified which is “the concept which the signifier calls forth when we perceive it” (Bignell 1997: 12). So the cross that symbolises the sufferance of Christ used in the definition, would be the signifier. These relations allow us to draw meaning from a sign.
The connections we make are not only with what surrounds us, but also with what is obscure and abstract; things that can not be felt by our six senses. In the advertisements we can not physically see the love between the parents and their children, only we know it is there through signs. The mother buying what her child wants in the Sunny Delight ad for example signifies it to us.
In our development of language we have established complex relations between all our concepts. Thanks to these relations we are capable of finding differences and similarities between them. It allows us to see that two things might have details in common, except that they also have differences. Therefore they are two different things. As an example, we can accept the links between the father asleep on the sofa and the toy dad in the board game.
Yet we can also say that they each come from different categories, one is a living being and the other is a man made representative. As Hall states “There are no individual concepts, but tight connections, organisation and classification of them.” (Hall 1997). So it is not just a random list of concepts floating in our minds, but more of a filing cabinet with each item organised and classified into a precise section.
However, not everyone has the same ‘cabinet’. We each create our own conceptual map in our heads. We think individually, but we are capable of communicating. To do this we must be able to interpret our world in a similar manner. These shared meanings constitute our culture. To share this conceptual map we need to communicate and we do this through language.
This language is the second system of representation Hall had suggested. The language must be common so that we can correlate our concepts and ideas with certain written words, spoken sounds or visual images. Words, sounds and images carry meanings. Therefore we see them as signs. Which indicates that signs are what make up the meaning systems of our culture. These signs are organised into languages and it is these that enable us to translate our thoughts into words, sounds or images. Then we use them to express meaning and to communicate thoughts to other people.
The two systems of representation work together to allow meaning in our cultures. The first allows us to make connections between ‘things’ and our system of concepts. The second links our conceptual map and a set of signs. Which are then organised into a language. The process linking concept, signs and things in the production of meaning is what we call “representation”.
However, there are problems with this term as a reliable concept. Some representations are more faithful than others are. To tell if what is shown is as good as reality we use cues within texts. These are called “modality makers”. They allow us to say if in the beliefs of our society the representation is truthful, by functioning as reliable guides to the truth or factuality of messages.
Some would argue that representation is merely a reproduction and therefore not the reality. Andre Bazin a French film theorist claims that the only kind of picture that really shows things as they are has to be one that would represent it in every respect exactly like it is. He called this the “reproductive fallacy” (Bazin 1974, 64). In that case descriptions could be false, as their wording might not give the perfect image to the mind. As for the ads, Andre might suggest that the father on the sofa is merely a representation and not a true dad. Not knowing the actor personally we could not debate this issue; however he constitutes the common image of a family man. (In his late thirties, comfortable…)
Furthermore, the professors Gunther Kress and Theo Van Leeuwen state that “A social semiotic theory of truth cannot claim to establish the absolute truth or untruth of representation. It can only show whether a give “proposition” is represented as true or not” (Kress & Leeuwen 1996, 159). In these cases, the actors seem to have been well represented as parents, but in reality their image has been generalised and idealised. Not all parents act in such ways could be the argument that Kress and Leeuwen would debate.
Using what we now know about representation we can look at how these advertisements use it. Gillian Swanson says that adverts work by getting our attention and to do so they “must show some aspect we recognise or want to adopt as part of ourselves and give us something we will find pleasurable.” (Swanson in Lusted 1991: 125) We like the images given of the mother and father because they fit in the common conventions we have of ‘good’ people. We can tell when it is ‘pleasurable’ through the common sense of humour. The ads give us signs of joy and pleasure by using codes signifying joy. Such as the children’s smiles (shot 16 and shot 23 ad: Don’t Wake up Dad) and the excitement in their voices (shot 4 ad: Sunny Delight). As consumers we identify ourselves with what we see and our everyday life. So we shall dissect the ads to see if their reality is really true and what they mean by it.
Television advertisements are composed of a syntagmatic sequence of images, sounds and words. In other words we can see and hear several components that make up the ad. When watching the ads in a semiotic manner we need to identify visual and linguistic signs. These signs are organised by paradigmatic and syntagmatic selection. Meaning that they are either parts that need each other or that they are compatible and can replace each other. In the Don’t wake up Dad ad we can see that the game, children and father are paradigmatic. It is their relation that conveys the message. However the choice of indoor and the decorative side could have been different. The message would have therefore been different. If the action was set out doors, the concept of conform and family home would have been missed out.
All advertisements play on social myths. In these examples we can see the woman as a housewife in the kitchen doing the shopping and the father asleep on the sofa at the weekend after a hard week of work when his children are playing. Each one plays on traditional ideas we have of parents. The mother does all the house chores and wants to please her daughter, as well as keeping her healthy, “no added sugar”. Whilst the father is always either too busy or too tried to play with the children.
When advertisements have different gender roles their technique can be very different. (Chandler & Griffiths) Even though these ads are for children the system of codes is complex, as children start to learn our social conventions from a very early stage. They can read the codes as well as we can. Both these ads are for both sexes and different ages, but they verge more to one side than the other through their way of style. Don’t wake up dad has a fast rhythm to it, due to the fast cutting. This can be seen as a male orientated code. Whereas the Sunny Delight ad is slow, but short leading more to the female sex viewers.
We shall look at the main characters in each advertisement in more detail as they represent the link of family. In Don’t wake up Dad we can see straight from the title who this game is all about. He portrayals the family man, “an average, middle-class guy whose masculinity is established through his role as head of household, husband, provider and father. His home and his loved ones are the centre of his universe.” (Luigi & Manca 1994: 115) We can analyse the ad and see that he is positioned in the higher part of the frame, indicating his dominance and that the children are in the centre of the room, this being his kingdom, places them in the centre of his world. His portrayal is plain and unglamorous, showing he has given up the excitement of a bachelor’s life and instead has happiness, fulfilment and above all comfort (as his sleeping suggests). He is not an only parent as the household interior design suggests a female presence.
This image of the father asleep on the sofa with the newspaper on his knees is not surprising to us, because we have seen the iconic image before and in reality it does happen. The toy man with the sleeping cap signifies the father on the sofa. The ad seems to be playing with the results of analysis studies that suggested that the more involved family man image has become very popular and is seen more often. However in reality men have not all changed over night. (Kaufman 1999). The ad could be playing on that factor to prove its plausibility. This is a traditional representation of family life on the weekend.
There is no doubt the advert is aimed at children. It was broadcasted on a Saturday morning in between cartoons and has an animated style linked with the younger viewers. The male voice over is energetic and with the music creates a crescendo of suspense. The words used are simple; such as the use of the word “Dad” which is child like. The colours of the room and of the board game are bright. Their similarity could suggest the relation between the game and the action of really waking up dad. Even that reality is signified by the game. The frame is canted making the viewer tilt their heads, like children do when they watch television. Most frames are a close up, helping the viewer become more involved in the action.
The action comes across like an adventure, with the tip toeing around and the catching of the game, and is a game in itself. It is simple and repetitive. We hear the same sentences being repeated and are shown the same images several times. The rhythm is also part of the way in which the ad tries to interact with the children watching. The way in which it all cuts together can make it seem as the viewer has had a go. Each step is shown.
The iconic “Z Z Z” used to suggest that the dad is sleeping is very child like, often used in cartoons. It is only when the final picture moves the game to the top right hand corner and surrounds it with the sales information, which it is for adults – those who will buy it.
The next advertisement is for older children so its style changes from conveying a fun image to a more fashionable one. The Sunny Delight ad is more for teenagers, as shown by the daughter’s age and her listening to her Walkman. However the representation of the parent is still within the traditional myths. The mother is placed in the kitchen with her shopping bags, suggesting that she has just done the shopping. Again we are not surprised to see her being place in the kitchen, as it is a common convention to see women as housewives. Writer Diana Saco would say this is due to the “re-presentation” of the women’s image (Saco 1992: 25). This creates the illusion of women and the definitions of femininity, which appear.
The kitchen itself is clean, tidy and modern, relating to the fashionable side of the ad. The children’s drawing on the cupboards suggests it is a family home with maybe a younger child as well. The product is placed in the centre of the frame making it noticeable at all times. She is portrayed as a caring mother who wants to please her daughter, proved by the girl’s delight (shot 5), and keep her healthy by getting her the “no added sugar” type. The way the girl reacts to the product signifies the signified, which is of course the name “Delight”. We could even say that the sun coming through the window also signifies the “Sunny” in the name. The advert is proclaiming that with Sunny delight in your house, your life is full of joy and light.
The advert picks up on the whole way parents deal with adolescent moods. Like most parents try not to disturb them very long, let them get on with their own activities, but keep an eye on them and try to make them happy. The ad uses these techniques, by being short, precise and caring. The fashionable element goes as far as to have the daughter call it “Sunny D” instead of the full name. This gives the product a familiar and cool image with the young. The product is cool and common enough to get a nickname.
The Sunny Delight and the Don’t wake Up Dad advertisements both picture happy nuclear white middle class families. Both use traditionally conventional representations of parents. Both are marketing for children. And both create a believable world. So what image are they giving to the younger generations? They have romanticised family life to a point where any child watching could wonder, ‘Why does mummy not buy me that?’ or ‘where is my daddy?’ The truth is that there are no two families the same. The ideal image projected does not exist in such a way. So these representations are not reproducing reality, but representing a global ideal image of family.
Having recorded eleven hours of television at children’s prime time in three days, I only came across a couple that actually showed the family in any way. Today most toy commercials show the child playing alone with the object. And these two ads have a significant space between the children and their parents. The daughter is behind the mother and in her own environment with her Walkman, blocking off her mother’s voice. The father is asleep and not interacting with his children. How does that represent our society?
‘Sunny delight with no added sugar’
Tape 3: time: 00.56
Shot by Shot:
Dialogue:
Mother: “I didn’t know that Sunny D now comes with no added sugar. Until a little bird told me.”
Daughter: “Yes. Sunny D”
Use of “Sunny D” not Sunny Delight.
‘Don’t Wake Up Dad’
Shot by shot:
Dialogue:
Girl: ”Shhh… don’t wake up Dad”
Male Voice over: “That’s right. Don’t wake up dad. The game where you have to tiptoe round the board without waking dad. Will you get to the fridge or will you wake dad up? Don’t wake up dad – It’s mad.”
November 2002