Chicken. Jamie Style.: A Semiological Analysis of an Advertisement - Essay Example

?‘Chicken. Jamie Style A Semiological Analysis of an Advertisement             The advertisement I have chosen for semiological analysis is of renowned chef Jamie Oliver advertising one of his signature dishes (Figure 1). The rising popularity of cooking shows on television like the Masterchef series and films like Julie and Julia (2009) reveal how gourmet cooking has entered everyday kitchens and chefs like Oliver have become household names. In this context, ads like this one are representative of a large chunk of population the world over that is now waking up to the possibilities of gourmet cooking at home. It is thus interesting to note how advertisers are tapping into this new global trend.             Advertisements like this one often rely on meaning being ‘constructed socially’. They aim to connote and denote specific positive traits to sell their products and they do this by evoking certain common memories and experiences that the target audience is likely to share. This vocabulary or ‘lexicon’ of common experiences is termed as a person’s ‘idiolect’ by Roland Barthes in his essay ‘Rhetoric of the Image’ (1977:47). Barthes, in his essay, also speaks of how images, specifically advertising images, carry within them different layers of meaning. He identifies three such layers: the textual meaning, the connoted meaning and the denoted meaning.             By ‘textual meaning’, Barthes refers to the presence of any actual text in the advertisement, like a caption, or the name of the brand being advertised or any similar type of slogan or tag line. ‘Connoted’ meaning refers to the associations that images evoke. Different symbols may unconsciously bring up different connotations. In Barthes’s example, he speaks of how the red and green colour scheme of the Panzani advertisement evokes the colours of Italy’s national flag and thereby gives the advertisement a certain authentic ‘Italianicity’ (1977: 47). While ‘denoted’ meaning would mean the image in its ‘purest’ form, free of any connotations. Although Barthes claims that it is not possible for a drawn image to  reach this state of ‘naivete’, he states that photography is the only art that can achieve this level of pure denotation (McCabe 2009). We shall try and apply this approach to interpreting the subtext of the chosen ad.             In this advertisement of Jamie Oliver, we may apply a similar approach as Barthes does to extract different layers of connotative and denotative meaning and thereby determine how advertising has its own ‘language’ and whether or not this is effective in this case. At the textual level, the first thing that strikes the viewer are the words written in bold: ‘Chicken. Jamie Style.’ The first word ‘Chicken’ is supplemented with the image of a whole chicken marinated and sealed, ready for cooking. The literal message in this case, serves ‘anchorage’ function that Barthes speaks of in his essay (1977: 38).             The word ‘chicken’ has numerous socially constructed connotative meanings – as slang for ‘coward’; in relation to the popular ‘Why did the chicken cross the road?’ jokes; the popular Chicken Soup for the Soul series of inspirational, non-fiction books, and so on. ‘Chicken’, as food exclusively, is also connotative of a general, widely-accepted and homely sort of cuisine. The humorous phrase of ‘tastes like chicken!’ is evidence to this fact. In the advertisement then, the image and text serve to mutually reinforce this latter idea of chicken as a much-loved food and thereby appeal to the audience’s ‘idiolect’ (Barthes 1977, p. 47). The large text also specifies that this chicken is to be ‘Jamie Style.’ This evokes the brand value of a popular TV chef like Jamie Oliver and the word ‘style’ has a twofold function. It refers to the fact that this how Jamie Oliver himself cooks it: it is his ‘style’; and it is also used in the sense of ‘stylish’, which brings in the positive connotation of something being fashionable.             The other most visible piece of text appears at the top-right corner and declares that this is ‘Available now.’ This of course serves the literal message of conveying to the audience that they can order this product right away but it also brings in the positive association of something being at hand right now. This is meant to appeal to the target audience’s consumerist tendencies where the very availability of a choice in the present makes it that much more tempting for the audience to try right away.             The smaller text has further description of the product. An interesting phrase present here is: ‘high-welfare British chicken.’ ‘High-welfare’ birds are apparently ‘better treated’ and this is part of a larger effort by chefs like Oliver who have been campaigning for humane treatment of poultry (Gammell 2008). This pre-empts and allays any guilt of eating chicken that practices like veganism or organizations like PeTA may create in the target audience. It also reinforces Oliver’s star appeal. Oliver has made television shows on the issue of poultry care and poor poultry-rearing practices, like Jamie’s Fowl Dinners (Gammell 2008), and this term evokes this pre-existing fame of the chef. The inclusion of ‘British’ functions to bring up any latent patriotic sentiments in the audience and also reveals the target audience. In totality, the phrase conjures up an image of all-round, wholesome goodness and seeks to negate any possible remorse in the audience generated from the eating of chicken.             To turn to the photograph itself, the denoted message also reinforces this general feeling of well-being. One sees the chef himself centre stage – his wedding ring prominently visible – in casual yet neat attire. The background looks luxuriant with its overflowing herbs and potatoes in a basket, conveying an aura of repleteness. In the foreground, one can see what the final result of cooking this pre-marinated chicken should look like. Here too, the plates are full, the herb that Oliver uses as garnish, is used lavishly. The entire image is one of overflowing abundance, similar to the idea of ‘plenty’ evoked in Barthes’s Panzani ad (1977: 46). We see therefore, that even as a photograph, this is not a ‘pure’ denotation, free from any cultural associations. The wedding ring, the homely kitchen, the abundant vegetables and chicken all combine to project an aura of prosperity that reinforces the textual and connoted messages.             This advertisement uses certain culturally specific terms like ‘high-welfare’ and ‘tray-bake’ which reveal that the advertisers have a Western audience in mind. The evocation of ‘British’ serves both to endear it to British consumers and also to lend it an authenticity that is visually reinforced by Oliver’s red and blue attire (colours of the Union Jack). The product that it tries to sell is one that ordinary home-makers are likely to buy and hence, the entire ad is designed to give out an air of comfort, homeliness and prosperity. The text, the connoted and denoted image all work together to project this aura, accounting for any possible negative associations – like those of ‘chicken’ – through effective ‘anchoring’ and pre-empting. Figure 1 References: Barthes, R 1977, ‘Rhetoric of the Image’, Image Music Text, trans. Stephen Heath, Fontana Press, London. McCabe, H 2009, ‘The Rhetoric of the Image: Roland Barthes (1964)’, Traces of the Real. Available from: . [24 November 2012]. Sells, P and Gonzalez, S n.d, The Language of Advertising. Available from: . [24 November 2012]. Gammell, C 2008, ‘Jamie Oliver Campaigns for Chicken Welfare’, The Telegraph 12 April. Available from: . [24 November 2012]. Read More