Pranking Rhetoric - Harold

This article introduced a lot of new ideas to me. The idea of undermining the rhetoric marketing companies introduce intrigues me, because I studied marketing last semester and I know how much effort goes into putting on a marketing campaign. Harold then talked about the ad campaigns put on by The Gap and Camel cigarettes and how they were parodied. I like the idea of taking these messages and challenging them rhetorically, especially Camel cigarettes, because I've never been an advocate of smoking. I do like how Harold classifies pranksters as being more playful and provocative than negative and harmful, because I do think that when people prank, they (usually) mean it in a good way or to advance some aspect of culture.

The difference that's given between parodists and comedians is also a lot of food for thought. I never really considered the difference between the two, but I knew they were different somehow. To say that parodists try to change things and comedians only try to bring situations to light is a good way of putting it, I think. Most comedians I've heard at least just seem to poke fun, without too much rhetoric. Parodists, on the other hand (especially political ones), are meant to inspire a change in point of view.

The Mattel prank was quite outstanding. I grew up with Barbies, but from what I remember, I was never pressured into thinking they were the norm, nor was I convinced I had to become a Barbie. (That was largely due to how athletic I was and positive reinforcement from my mother). I do think that some young girls don't have positive role models to look up to, and can rely on Barbie as their ideal woman figure, which isn't the best message to begin with. The idea that the talking Barbies said things like, "I love shopping", or "Will we ever have enough clothes" really irritates me. I'm sure the creators of Barbie or the people that run Barbie aren't as vapid and vain as they made Barbie out to be. I don't understand why they couldn't put more positive sentiments into their dolls.

I think by switching out the G.I. Joe voice chips with the Barbie ones is a good way to show just how inappropriate a message that is for young girls (or boys for that matter - believing they need to be tough and violent in order to be a "real man"). This is because when you see a thin doll with blonde hair and breasts, the phrases may not seem so strange, but when you take them out of their plastic limbs and put them into a G.I. Joe, they seem ridiculous, which they were to begin with. Enough about that rant though, and back to the article.

The idea of pieing the affluent business people is a bit strange. Yes, I think it would jar them and take away their credibility for a bit, but I don't think it's a particularly damaging thing to someone's reputation - especially if they handle it lightly and laugh it off in the face of cameras. I remember a high school fundraiser was to pie a teacher (or administrator) in the face, and they volunteered for it! I think the rhetorical message it can send can be a strong one, however.It just amazes me how creative some people are. The idea of the Truth campaign I also really like. I've never seen the allure to smoking other than it can seem "rebellious", as is mentioned in the article. The Truth campaign, I think, is rhetorically genius because it turns the situation around to the people who are smoking are following the norm, and those who chose not to smoke are breaking the mold and being rebellious. I think that's a good way to look at it, and I think that's why it's been a strategy that's gotten recognition.