History Conclusion

In my research I have been a analysing advert to give me a understanding of the codes and convention used to allow the director to reach out to his audience. But I did not only want to see how the adverts where like today, but to see if they have changed over time. Therefore I decided to analyse a advert from the 60’s and one from 2010, I then made sure that they where selling the same type of brand and preferable product so it was a fair analysis and example.

After analysing the adverts I felt it would more worthwhile to actually pick out some differences in the adverts and discuss why these things are different and if the time gap could be the cause for the changes. I found that one of the main differences, which I was able to pick on straight away, was the use of diegetic and non – diegetic sounds.  As in the 60’s a lot of dialogue was used to promote and demonstrate the products ability to clean dishes and keep hands soft, this did make the advert seem as if it was dragging on and could potentially lose the audiences attention, but more importantly I felt the dialogue caused for the advert to be around a minute this for me was too long and meant that they where unable to make the product stand out against the competing products. This was not the not a problem in the 2010’s advert as I found that it had a lot more non – diegetic sounds in the form of a voice over, additionally there was very little dietigetic dialogue. I found the up to date advert was easier to watch and allowed me to know a bit more about the product but also have a demonstration of some sort. Overall I found that the voice over worked was a lot clearer and concise than the dialgoue due to it being more to the point, furthermore this meant that the advert was only 30 seconds and not 1 minute.

I found that the transitions were used differently in the two adverts with the earlier advert having longer shots this could be down to the dialogue, however the more up to date advert uses a much quicker editing style this keeps the audiences attention but also allows for some close ups to be used this makes the advert seem more intense as the product is constantly in the audiences face. Where as the 60’s advert uses a slower pace of editing in its advert, this meant that the audiences where not able to see many close ups of the product but just a variety of two shots medium shots and mid shots made up the majority of the advert, but instead of using a close up and a quicker paced editing they have opted to use a zoom instead of a cut to the product. This must have been done for a reason as it allows for the audience to gradually see the product, it takes the product from being in the back ground to the foreground and in the audience face, it can create a sense of importance for the audience.  In the 1960’s advert we find that the product is being sold a lot more directly to audience where dialogue is being used to so that the audience is able to see how good the product is while they are talking about the affects of it.

Overall the adverts use some different methods over the time to sell and advertise the same product. I feel that the modern advert is more grabbing and gives the audience a better understanding of the product and its capabilities with the use of close ups and a quicker pace of editing creates more importance rather than using a zoom or having dialogue.