How Do You Interpret This Print Advertisement?

(source: http://www.popcrunch.com/oral-sex-innuendo-featured-in-controversial-new-burger-king-ad/)

What do you think of this advertisement? Do you see it as normal or do you find it offensive? It actually depends. This advertisement has been in the hot pan quite recently ever since it has become ubiquitous in Singapore. In fact, this advertisement has been removed due to complaints by people that it is promotes sexual innuendo.

Firstly, how people would view this advertisement depends on their perception. Perception is the process by which we make sense of the world around us. How people perceive the advertisement above depends on their physiological and cognitive nature and is also influenced by psychological and social factors. As such, different people would perceive the advertisement differently. As for me, I do feel that the advertisement is quite offensive probably because of the image of the lady opening her mouth wide open trying to stuff the long burger down her throat which is not so polite. The image might also remind us of its sexual motives. The print advertisement would be perceived differently by different people as it is receiver-oriented and subjective. Secondly, how the advertisement is being viewed depends on people’s interpretation meaning how we attach meaning to what we select (how we attend to information in the environment for processing) and organize (the way information is ordered, arranged and differentiated).

But do you feel that it is necessary for people to go to such extremes to remove the advertisement? The advertisement should have been reviewed by the board of censors before even being put up. Why bother putting up the advertisement and then only to remove them? Maybe it is a human mistake. Maybe it is to protect the young ones like children.

The advertisement may look pretty offensive but not everyone could see it as being directly offensive. There are even more directly sexually offensive advertisements in public areas which should have been removed. So why only the controversy in the Burger King advertisement? Well for one thing, it could be due to exaggeration by humans. After all, humans are complex individuals.

My Friend, Singlish.

"The Education Ministry will set up an English Language Task Force to study ways of improving the standard of English in schools." This is an excerpt from http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1005491/1/.html. What first came to your mind when you read this statement? Well, for me, the first thing that I could think of is Singlish. For non-Singaporeans out there, Singlish is basically the local informal context of the English language which is made up of the different languages locally such as the Chinese dialects like Hokkien and the Malay and Tamil languages. Why did I associate the statement with Singlish? Personally, I think that somehow, the underlying reason for the current standard of English amongst the younger generation is due to the influence of Singlish but I am not implying that Singlish is all bad.

Although most Singaporeans are synonymous with Singlish, I believe that there are those who are actually proficient in English but are sometimes more comfortable speaking in Singlish because it has become a custom here in Singapore. As for myself, sometimes it is easier and more straightforward to speak in a bit of Singlish. For instance, the typical "Where got?" in place of "Where is it?" depending on the context.

Singaporeans should be proud of their own unique brand of English. The existence of Singlish shows that Singaporeans have their own identity, that it reflects its users and the history behind Singlish. Singlish is learned through socialisation and experience. Based on my personal experience, I actually learned Singlish through interaction with the different ethnic groups of people mainly in school. How not to? I mean, every now and then, my friends would mention their "lah", "mah" and "lor". As a student myself, I believe other students would be familiar with the term "pon" too which is derived from the Malay word "ponteng" which means to absent oneself.

Singlish is not just a language, it is indeed also a culture that will and should continue to exist but used sparingly. We cannot totally stop people from speaking in Singlish. Instead, we should learn to appreciate the existence of Singlish and yet continue to upgrade ourselves with good standard English. Use (or appreciate) Singlish to identify amongst ourselves as Singaporeans but use English to communicate with others especially at the international level.

Charging Twitter Users?

I believe that many of you know what Twitter is. It is similar to blogging except that there is a limit to the length of the messages being posted up online. Twitter is such a convenient form of communicating with online users be it for the purpose of leisure or even for business. Anyone can twitter anywhere even on-the-go on their mobile devices. Twitter has indeed become a popular culture amongst people in the world.

Twitter is an example of the interactive model in communication in which senders and receivers on Twitter are active participants of the communication process. Currently, using Twitter even for the purpose of advertising, which makes use of Logos, Pathos or Ethos or a combination of them by persuasion, is free. However, the co-founder of Twitter, Biz Stone, has had a second thought about making advertising on Twitter chargeable especially for business companies that use Twitter as a platform to advertise their campaigns for instance. This issue has been recently raised online on http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/technologynews/view/1004539/1/.html.

Do you think it is advisable to charge fees for businesses that use Twitter for commercial purposes? Personally, I think that Twitter should not do so. It would seem rather unreasonable to make businesses pay for what they advertise on Twitter because who knows, there could even be individuals out there who use Twitter for advertisement. If Twitter were to start charging for advertising, then might as well charge Twitters for tweeting or blogs might as well charge blog shop owners for advertising their products. It would seem rather late for Twitter to start charging its users who advertise because if it really wanted to do so, it should have been stated in the first place under its Terms and Conditions.

Since Twitter started out as a free online platform for its users to post up messages, it should continue to do so. Even if businesses were willing to pay for what they advertise on Twitter, it would seem unfair because like I have mentioned, there could be individuals who advertise too. Besides, Twitter found out that even if they charge its users in general, it would not be able to generate revenue.

Thus, if Twitter were to make money out of its services, it would defeat its original purpose of providing a free means of allowing its users to spread messages on Twitter.