The Heroism of Olympic Athletes in Olympic Advertising - Report Example

Analysis of Heroism of Olympic Athletes in Olympic Advertising from the Semiotic Perspective Media Psychology Proposal Yi Li Hidden text: identical to name in UT transcript. Abbreviate previous degrees earned. YL6825 Analysis of Heroism of Olympic Athletes in Olympic Advertising from the Semiotic Perspective Abstract Olympic Advertising has attracted abundant attentions from the public and has become the perfect sample on advertising research due to the great impact on the Olympic Games. In terms of semiotics, the report will randomly select some Olympic advertisements, focusing on Olympic athletes in the context of Chinese culture, to analyze their significance of signs and the encoding-decoding system. Moreover, it will endeavor to build the communication mode involving in Heroism culture in Olympic Advertising and provides some implications on semiotic communication of Heroism in Olympic Advertising. Introduction Olympism is a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind. Blending sport with culture and education, Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal ethical principle. ---The Olympic Charter (IOC,2004:9) The Olympic Games are an international sports festival that began in ancient Greece. Olympic Games, considering the fascination of viewers and spectators worldwide, are unmatched among cultural events (Alkemeyer &Richartz, 1993). Every four years, elite athletes from all over the world with coaches and officials, media representatives and hundreds of thousands of spectator have gathered for around two weeks for such a sporting event that can be spread via mass media including television, radio, print media, and the Internet by billions of people around the world. With the modernization of the Olympic Games, they are enriched as a cultural, political and economic phenomenon, no longer just a sporting event. Particular interests see them as a media event, a tourism attraction, a marketing opportunity, a catalyst for urban development and renewal, a city image creator and booster, a vehicle for ‘sport for all’ campaigns, an inspiration for youth and a force for peace and international understanding. The report will focus on the role that Olympic Games play in inspiring the audience in terms of mass communication, particularly in Olympic advertising. Dating back to ancient Greece, the term “hero” was defined as “a superior man”, embodiment of composite idea” (Fishwick, 1985). The gods imbued the hero with exceptional human characteristics such as strength, power, and courage (Fishwick, 1985). However, as a historically and culturally delineated construct, “heroism” has evolved across time and national boundaries. (Fishwick,1985). While the ancient hero was admired for his extraordinary physical strength and skills, the modern hero is also described in terms of social accomplishment: attractive, victorious, charismatic, individualistic, skillful, down-to-earth, a realistic role model, and a risk taker. (Fishwick, 1985). Whereas the ancient hero was generally a warrior, the modern hero is often a sports figure. As Ryan notes: “Every culture has its gods, and ours hit baseballs, make baskets, and score touchdowns” (Ryan, 1995). The Olympic games have a rich, storied reputation based on athletic competition at its highest level, not as a one-time event, but literally for thousands of years. Over the millennia, athletes have become heroes and icons, inspiring generations of fans and future athletes to work hard in pursuit of their dreams. The Olympic athletes are carrying on a tradition that has deep meaning across cultures, offering inspiration to millions of people around the world Every Olympics has had its heroes from whom many fans and observers draw inspiration. Olympic heroes succeed in capturing people’s imagination through their athletic prowess, determination, and personality. They often represent both individual and collective ideals, serving as heroes in sport and giving people a sense of what is possible. Advertisements, as a social and cultural phenomenon, are a rich source of ideas. It is interesting to look into the Olympic advertising to examine how it works to harmonize Olympic ideals with the commercial logics at the heart of globalization, from which Olympism both philosophically departs and yet nonetheless depends upon. The function and force of advertising is crucial to understanding how the Olympics negotiates this tension, in that the language of Olympic advertising and its style of visual presentation makes it possible to guarantee that the consumer’s changing needs and perceptions be built into the textually (form and content) of brand names, logos, package designs, ads and commercials, while working to purify the Olympic symbol, to free it in effect, from the globalization and commercialism it is serving in these advertisements. The result is a dynamic interplay between advertising and changing modalities of social lifestyle, whereby one influence the other through a constant synergy (Beasley, 2002). To communicate with global audiences across culturally in the context of sports event, endorsement advertisement as an effective tool has been utilized widely to attract the public’s eyeballs. Naturally, the sports heroes are meant to be the spokespeople. As Oriard (1980) noted, contests like the Olympics are particularly well suited to the manufacture of heroes because they are created in an “apolitical, asocial, amoral, even timeless, placeless quality of the athletic contest itself. ”This is to say, the core idea of Olympic communication is the dissemination of heroism of Olympic athletes. Literature Review Semiotics: Early Foundations Semiotics gets it start with the work of Ferdinand de Saussure. Although linguistics and philology had been around as disciplines for sometime before Saussures Course on General Linguistics, these fields had moved away from an emphasis on the sign-function of language. Saussure suggests a structuralist alternative: the we can understand language by way of the structure of that language, since “linguistic structure seems to be the one thing that is independently definable and provides something our minds can satisfactorily grasp” (Saussure 1986, p. 9). Saussure offers two basic propositions. First he contends that language functions to produce meaning diacritically, which is to say that it does so as part of a larger system of meaning, and that the difference between terms in that system are responsible for their substantive value, since it is the difference, rather than some essential quality of a word, that gives it its content. Second, Saussure defines the structure of language according to a logic of the sign, a sign composed of two basic components: the signifier (the form(s) constituting a sign) and the signified (the content). The relationship between the two was stable, according to Saussure, within the particular diacritical structure of a given language. Saussures approach, which he refers to in the French as semiologie differs from the theory put forward by C.S. Pierce, who uses the term semiotics to describe a very different take on the processes of signification, one that is more philosophical than linguistic in origin. For Pierce, the sign functioned as part of a tripartite structure (Peirce. First was the sign or representation itself, which had its meaning determined by an object or referent (the second element) that gives the sign its meaning. Finally, there is the interpretant, or the translation of the sign-object relationship, such that the signs meaning is clear. For example, the sign of smoke (typically) has as its object fire, and the billowing of the smoke, its color, its position relative to an observer and any attending sense of heat or sound, would help to translate the sign of smoke into a stronger correlation with its object, fire. Note here that Pierce is talking about sign in a far more general and ontic sense than is Saussure who is embedding the sign in a larger language structure. These two theories represent different sets of epistemological and ontological assumptions, but there is more that unites them that there is that divides them. Both stress the representational potential of a signifier, even if they use different terminologies and instances to demonstrate this. Both enforce, in wildly different ways, the idea that some larger set of relations is at work in determining the initial relation between signifier and signified or sign and object (Saussure calls it the diacritical function of language, Peirce calls it the interpretant). And both can be used to ground an interpretive practice that is both critical and expository. For the purposes of this proposal, understanding how semiotics can ground critical inquiry is essential, in that the final essay hopes to demonstrate how Olympic athletes are constituted as signifiers of heroism. As such, we must turn to the work of one of the most famous semiotic critics, Roland Barthes. From Semiotics to Mythology Investigating all aspects of the culture around him, from childrens toys to stripteases, Barthes claims that all texts, including images, have a semiotic function, which is to say that they never simply denote some real, observed event, people, or place. Rather they always already connote a meaning beyond mere representation, because texts are always interpreted by audiences who filter their interpretations through certain social codes that make sense of an artifact, theme or word, or that give a text or a metaphor its particular value. As such, Barthes argues in favor of a tripartite structure: the signifier (the phonemic arrangement that points to a concept), the signified (the concept itself), and the sign (which combines the previous two and offers a pretext for meaning). This first-order semiotics sets up a second-order of meaning he calls “mythology.” By mythology, Barthes means a set of discourses that are ideological in nature and that help to govern how it is that signs are interpreted. For example, the repetition of particular discourses about what it means to be a man or a woman, or what it means to be successful, or to be political, or whatever, tend to create perceptions that may or may not be the best way of defining these terms. Barthes is quick to note that correct definition is not really the issue: Myth hides nothing and flaunts nothing: it distorts; myth is neither a lie nor a confession: it is an inflexion” (Barthes 1972, p. 120). In other words, myths are neither the best way or the worst way; rather they are merely the determinate way, the source of whatever structure influences how one feels about a particular mode of being or the content of ones beliefs. In addition, it is important to note that myth does not require the intentional cultivation of its discourses, since at the end of the day, mythology structures reception more than it governs invention (though this is the case, it seems, because Barthes remains largely unconcerned with invention in and of itself). Whatever ones intent or motivation when uttering a speech or snapping a picture, ultimately those words or that image will be judged by others than the one taking it, As such, “Even the absence of motivation does not embarrass myth; for this absence will itself be sufficiently objectified to become legible... Motivation is unavoidable” (Barthes 1972, p. 126). Whether one intends a particular reading or not, the semiotic codes are such that readers tend follow the “socio-logical” codes first, and the discordant ones later. As a consequence, myth often goes unnoticed. The codes become second-nature, and the reaffirmation goes unnoticed, or appears under the auspices of “this is just the way things are.” This tendency is: ...the very principle of myth: it transforms history into nature... in the eyes of the myth-consumer, the intention, the abomination of the concept can remain manifest without however appearing to have an interest in the matter: what cause mythical speech to be uttered is perfectly explicit, but it is immediately frozen into something natural; it is not read as a motive, but as a reason (Barthes 1972, p. 129). The danger of mythology, and by extension ideology, is that it goes unnoticed and is thus transparent because the work of interpretation does not appear as work. Instead it appears natural, and so people do not question it. They may question aspects of it or disagree with the values they see, but the act of seeing—the act of interpretation itself—goes on with no appreciation for the process involved. This tendency may in some sense be amplified when it comes to images, in that one may find it more difficult to believe that one “crafts” an image in the same way that someone “crafts” a speech. A speech necessarily involves the use of manipulative words, carefully chosen, and so one may give it less credibility, and a more difficult pass. A photograph, by contrast, captures on film a real event, what Barthes refers to as the noeme, the “that has been” quality of an image (Barthes 1981, p. 115), and so viewers/readers may not realize how much effort goes into its composition: the framing of the shot, the lenses used, shutter speed, the setup and staging of what is being photographed, the chemical soups that create the range of color during development, and so on. As Barthes explains: “Connotation, the imposition of second meaning on the photographic message proper, is realized at the different levels of the production of the photograph (choice, technical treatment, framing, lay-out) and represents, finally, a coding of the photographic analogue” (Barthes 1977, p. 20). Easily as much work and manipulation goes into the composition of a photograph, but somehow, in an odd intuitive sense, our ocularcentrism gets in the way, and the assumption seems to be that the photograph is pure, denotative, and given. Barthes disagrees with and wants to challenge this perception of the pure or naturalized image, of course, and argues that images, just like any text, are ripe (and even overdetermined) by connotation. Indeed, even the belief in the pure, denotative thrust of an image is connotative, as it attached the myth of purity to an object that is anything but pure, and thus adds a layer of semiological meaning to the noemic quality of the picture. Thus Barthes argues that “the distinction between the literal message and the symbolic message is operational; we never encounter a literal image in a pure state” (Barthes 1977, p. 42). These symbolic messages can be understood by looking at the social codes that make possible the manifestation and production of meaning in a text. Barthes thus provides us with a way of assessing both the visual and the verbal as components in part of a larger semiotic system, and to understand how a series or concatenation of signs serves to produce a larger mythological structure. Both of these will be of fundamental importance for this project. In a study that will serve as something of a precedent to my own, Barthes notes how in the world of professional wrestling, every gesture, every body, every word serves to form a larger sign drama of “Suffering, Defeat, and Justice.” (Barthes, 1972, p. 19). As the Wrestlers move in and around the stage, the “different strata of meaning throw light on each other, and form the most intelligible of spectacles. Wrestling is like a diacritic writing: above the fundamental meaning of his body, the wrestler arranges comments which are episodic but always oppportune, and constantly help the reading of the fight...” (1972, p. 18). We will be able to look for a similar confluence of word and image when we explore Olympic advertising. Advertisements and the Hero Of course the hero exists in venues beyond the Olympics, and as such work on the semiotics of heroism can provide insight into how the hero is brought into being through the signs. Ibrahim Taha highlights a five stage model for attaching heroism: motivation, will, ability, execution, and outcome (Taha 2002, p. 107). Of these, the first three stages (motivation, will, and ability) “mainly deal with various personal conditions of the protagonist which are required in order to perform...” The fourth stage (execution) “deals with action itself,” while the final stage (outcome) “is the most decisive; it is the only one that shows the extent of success/failure of the portagonist...” (Taha 2002, p. 125). These stages help define the heros semiotic journey, and help to constitute the horizon of heroism that protagonists, or athletes come to embody in Olympic advertising. The linkage between athleticism and heroism has already been established in figures like Nolan Ryan, Michael Jordan, and (until recently) Tiger Woods, and in fictional characters like Rocky. These athletes are not heroes in some intrinsic or essential manner; rather they are semiotic heroes, in that they are positioned via the sign of the hero. As Strate notes, “members of a society are separated from their heroes by time, space, and social class and therefore know their heroes only through stories, images, and other forms of information. (Strate 1994, p. 16) As such, the only means we have of constituting the sense of heroism is through the written, verbal, and visual communication surrounding these individuals or individuals like them. We prioritize values, primarily their skills as athletes, and create correlations between outstanding athletic skills and other admirable qualities: “Modern sports heroes...are models of athletic competence and of social values who are admired for their outstanding and skillful athletic performance, their courage, expertise, perseverance, assertiveness, generosity, social ideals, dependablity, honesty, and character” (Vande Berg p. 138). Such qualities, it should be noted, often correspond to masculine hegemonic norms (Vande Berg, p. 139). Much of this happens by way of advertising. Nor surprisingly, given the above discussio of his import, it was Roland Barthes who inspired much of the early semiotic inquiry into advertising. Today, that inquiry has been fruitful and multiplied (take as representative examples: Eiter 1987; Umiker-Sebeok 1989; Alexander, Burt, and Collinson 1995; Harris 1995; Goldman and Papson 1996; Berger 1996; Warren 1997; Todenhagen 1999; Beasley, Danesi, and Perron 2000). What these investigations reveal is that advertising, even simple advertsing, often works by divvying up the meaning of the ad between a surface level that is readily available and obvious and an underlying level that taps into the more mythological structures that govern larger interpretive potential, and thus influence the semantic and rhetorical force of a given sign system (see also Sherry 1985 and Fox 1984). Olympic Symbolism The Olympic Movement uses symbols to represent the ideals embodied in the Olympic Charter. The Olympic symbols are icons, flags and symbols used by the International Olympic Committee to promote the Olympic Games (Olympic Symbols, 2011). Some—such as the flame, fanfare, and theme—are more common during Olympic competition, but others, such as the flag, can be seen throughout the year. What is traditionally called the Olympic symbol is constituted by five different coloured rings, blue, yellow, black, green and red. These intertwined rings were designed in 1913 by the founder of the Modern Olympics Baron Pierre de Coubertin (1929). The five colors combined with the white background was said by Coubertin to have symbolic meaning: " These five rings represent the five parts of the world now won over to the Olympism and ready to accept its fertile rivalries. With the understanding of semiotics, the Olympic symbols can be viewed as meaningful carriers to spread shared values in the context of global communication across culture to a great extent. Thus, generally speaking, the concept of Olympic symbols has been enriched with the association of semiotics. Olympic symbols, in the context of communication, can be extended to consist of all the unique Olympic elements, including traditional Olympic symbols such as Olympic rings, Olympic emblems, Olympic motto, Olympic flame, Olympic torch, and Olympic anthems, nontraditional symbols such as Olympic athletes and Olympic spirit. Transferring Meaning: A Model Not each of the advertisers that endeavors to market their products or service can become a TOP member, it is of great value to explore how to manipulate the nontraditional Olympic symbols to communicate with global audiences due to the limited use of traditional Olympic symbols. Still, for those that are given access to these Olympic signifiers, endorsement advertising remains an effective tool for spreading heroism in the sports marketing context. McCracken (1989) noted that the product’s meaning communicate in a visible, concrete form through the advertising message. In presenting this message, spokespeople need to endorse a product, their effectiveness being partly determined by the meaning that the selected “spokesperson” brings to the endorsement process (McCracken 1989). Stage one: endorsement gives the ad access to a special category of person from the culturally constituted world. Olympic athletes deliver meanings of hero himself, representing honor and their nationality. Stage two: ideally, the choice of celebrities would determine the symbolic properties sought for the product. One the Olympic athletes are chosen, an advertising campaign must then identify and deliver these meanings to the product. All celebrities will encompass in their range of cultural significance some meanings are not sought for the product. Care must be taken to see that these unwanted meanings are kept out of the evoked set. Stage three: the consumer must claim the meanings and then work with them, meaning consumers buy both products and the meaning associated with. Thus, heroism values the brand since its unique meaning is recognized and it has been becoming a fashion chased by the consumers. The meaning transfer model /(Source: McCracken 1989) Methods Semiotics and its subject matter includes “the exchange of any messages whatever and of the systems of signs which underlie them,” with the sign always the fundamental concept (Sebeok 1976). Given cultural differences to a great extent, this report will conduct qualitative content analysis and semiotic analysis, focusing on illustrating the concept of modern heroism in Olympic advertising, to examine how the exchange of messages of Olympic advertising works in the context of global communication. Data will be obtained from tapes of the 2008 NBC Summer Olympic telecasts. To obtain a theoretically-informed, comparative sample, the telecast will be divided into 8-13 August, 14-19 August, and 20-24 August. Coverage would be divided into these three periods because many sponsors made multiple commercials that aired at different period during the games; some sponsors ran ads starring a particular athlete only when the athlete’s sport was being telecast. Using a stratified random sampling method, three tapes will be chosen from each time period. References Altobelli T (1997). Cashing in on the Sydney Olympics. Law Society Journal, 35 (4), 44-46. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall. Barthes, R. (1968). Elements of semiology. New York: Noonday Press. Barthes, R. (1972). Mythologies. New York: Hill and Wang. Barthes, R. (1977). Image – Music – Text. New York: Hill and Wang. Barthes, R. (1981). Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography. New York: Hill and Wang. Brewer, W. F., Nakamura, G. V., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign., Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, inc., & National Institute of Education (U.S.). (1984). The nature and functions of schemas. Champaign, Ill: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Browne, R. B., & Fishwick, M. W. (1983). The hero in transition. Bowling Green, Ohio: Bowling Green University Popular Press Davis, J. (2008). The Olympic Games effect: How sports marketing builds strong brands. Singapore: John Wiley Delpy, Lisa. 2001. Motivation to Attend the 1996 Summer Olympic Games. Journal of Travel Research.. Vol. 39 no. 3 327-331 Denzin, N. K. (2010). Studies in symbolic interaction: Vol. 35. Bingley: Emerald Fishwick, M. W. (1985). Seven pillars of popular culture. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press. Fox, S. (1997). The mirror makers: A history of American advertising and its creators. Urbana, Ill: University of Illinois Press Gillam, C. (1996). Delivering the dream. Sales and Marketing Management, 148(6), 74–78. Graham S; Goldblat J & Delpy L (1995). The Ultimate Guide to Sport Event Management and Marketing, Chicago: Irwin. Harris, J. C. (1994). Athletes and the American hero dilemma. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Hawkes, T. (1977). Structuralism & semiotics. Berkeley: University of California Press Hendricks, Jon. (1992).Learning to act old: Heroes, villains or old fools. Journal of Aging Studies. 6(1), 1-11 Holbrook, M. B. (1978). Beyond Attitude Structure: Toward the Informational Determinants of Attitude.Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 15(4), 545-556. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Meenaghan T (1998). Ambush marketing: Corporate strategy and consumers’ reactions. Psychology and Marketing, 15 (4), 305-322. McCracken, G. D. (2005). Culture and consumption: 2. Bloomington Indiana Univ. Press Morris, C. W., & Neurath, O. (1964). Foundations of the theory of signs. Chicago, Ill: Chicago Univ. Press Nucifora, Alf. (1997 b, October). Embracing Change: Trends & Technology in Destination Management. Seminar presented at the annual meeting of Western Association of Convention and Visitors Bureaus, Oakland, CA Olympic symbols. (2011). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Olympic_symbols&oldid=426988641 Rauch, I. (1997). Semiotics around the world: Synthesis in diversity : proceedings of the fifth congress of the International Association for Semiotic Studies, Berkeley, 1994. Berlin [u.a.: Mouton de Gruyter Peirce, C. S., In Hartshorne, C., In Weiss, P., & In Burks, A. W. (1960). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Peirce, C.S. (1998). The essential Peirce. Vol 2. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Pierre de Coubertin, “Olympia: Rede in Paris (1929),” in Pierre de Cobertin: Der olympische Gedank, Redenk und Aufsiätze, Edited by the Carl-Diem Institute, Cologne, p. 125. See also, “Pierre de Coubertin: Die philosophischen Grundlagen des modernen Olympismus (1935),” in Pierre de Coubertin: Der olympische Gedanke, Reden und Aufsiätze, Edited by the Carl-Diem Institute, Cologne, p. 153. Sapir, E., & Mandelbaum, D. G. (1985). Selected writings of Edward Sapir in language, culture and personality. Berkeley: University of California Press. Saussure, F & Bally, C., Sechehaye, A., & Riedlinger, A. (1986). Course in general linguistics. LaSalle, Ill: Open Court. Sebeok, T. A. (1972). Perspectives in zoosemiotics. The Hague: Mouton. Sherry, John F (1983),Gift Giving in Anthropological Perspective, The Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 157-168. Short, T. L. (2007). C.S. Peirces theory of signs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Strate, L. (1994). Heroes: a communication perspective. In S.J. Drucker & R.S. Cathcart (Eds), American heroes in a media age, 15-23. Cresol: Hampton Press. Taha, I. (2002). Heroism in literature: a semiotic model. The American Journal of Semiotics, 18(1), 107-128. Thomas Alkemeyer &Alfred Richartz (1993). The Olympic Games: From Ceremony to Show. OLYMPIKA: The International Journal of Olympic Studies Volume II, 1993, pp. 79-89 Vande Berg, L. R. The sports hero meets mediated celebrityhood. In L. Wenner (Ed.), MediaSport (1998), New York: Routledge. Williamson, Judith (1978). Decoding Advertisement: Ideology and Meaning in Advertising Williamson, Decoding Advertisement; Sut Jhally, The Codes of Advertising: Fetishism and the Political Economy of Meaning in the Consumer Society. New York St. Martin’s Press Read More