Project #2: Coors- Blick Albrecht-Reed, Gonzalez, Finken

Ever since it has become available, companies have used advertisements as a way to make customers buy their product instead of their competitors. A primary example of this is beer companies. They have adopted everything from memorable slogans to scantily clad women as the primary way to convince customers to buy their product. In between innings of baseball games, you are guaranteed to see an ad pop up on your TV telling you that this particular beer is colder, fresher, cleaner, lighter, manlier, tastier, or better than the next. It is interesting to see how these commercials are similar to those shown 20 years ago but they also show how certain things have become more socially acceptable. Being in Denver, CO, we chose to focus on two Coors ads from different time periods and analyze the similarities and differences as well as what the ads suggest about sustainability culture over the years.  

The 1987 Coors ad has no people and displays only a can of beer which is poured into a glass. The newer ad shows a party with a broad social scene. The majority of people there have a beer in hand, but they all have glass bottles instead of cans. People are walking around and socializing, making the beer seem quite portable. In terms of sustainability, cans vs. bottles is a meaningful and currently debated topic. It seems like cans would have the edge because of how easily aluminum is recycled. That does help its case, but it takes much less resources to retrieve glass from the environment than for aluminum in the first place. There does not seem to be any clear cut winner here-which is why beer companies continue to produce their product in both types of containers. Rathje sees the disposable mind set as the biggest problem in our society. “Rather than a problem specific to landfills or other sanitation strategies, he says, this is a flaw in how manufacturers create and consumers use disposable products” (Humes 161). If this is the real problem, then bottles seem to have the edge. Many people don’t recycle their drink containers and, especially when intoxicated, tend to litter. So if these two products are scarcely being reused, then it would make sense to use the one which can be manufactured with less negative environmental impact. From studying these two commercials, it might appear that Coors has leaned toward bottles, but the sleek bottle is more flashy and appealing to customers. The newer commercial is more worried about portraying their product as a personality enhancer than one which is going to save global warming. But if the world can recycle at a higher rate as Rathje would desire, cans just might take the edge in sustainability.

In the twenty years between the 1987 and 2007 commercials, Coors holds true to the same values of brewing light beer with crisp mountain-fresh taste. The commercials open in similar fashions setting the scene in the Rocky Mountains. The 1987 advertisement submerges the viewer in a relaxed mood followed by singing in unison and the image of a flowing Coors poured into an iced mug while the 2007 version opens with upbeat music and guys hanging out drinking bottled beer, also in mountain scenery.  In comparison of the two images Coors is emitting, the more modern promotes a party atmosphere where drinkers may be inclined to consume more while the 80’s commercial attaches an intimate feeling to the product. Honorably, it is apparent Coors operates on its original standards however the best things cannot always last forever, after indulging in the unique taste of Coors, the can or bottle is easily disposed and forgotten.  

The availability of advertisement space has increased the amounts of ads out there and has changed the way people present their companies over the years. A good example of this is the way that Coors has changed its approach in gaining customers. We compared two ads, one from 1987 and one from 2007. In 1987, Coors focuses more on nature and the relaxing feeling that beer creates. The 2007 ad focuses more on how fun alcohol can be and depicts a party setting with girls and music. This follows the way that alcohol has been viewed over the years and the way that its reputation has changed. Companies such as Coors become successful with this strategy in knowing what the consumer wants and what they are looking for in a product. 

Planned Obsolescence in Kleenex

Tissue Just Say “Kleenex”?

By: Kendra, Tess, Joe and Grant

          The Kleenex product revolutionized the way people perceive sanitation. Although there was not anything wrong with using a handkerchief, Kleenex exploited people’s fears and values in order to make their product seem like a necessity. Using similar scare tactics as Scott had used in the paper cup revolution, during the 1930s Kimberly-Clark warned in their advertisements that “Germ-filled handkerchiefs are a menace to society!” (Strasser, 180). Kleenex became the first popular paper tissue and was introduced in the 1920’s by Kimberly-Clark, the same company that had just developed Kotex. Kleenex was initially marketed as a disposable facial cleansing wipe for women to remove make up. However, in 1930, the idea was brought up that Kleenex tissues could replace the handkerchief for flu and cold symptoms. As evidenced by the old Kleenex ads, the main ideas being propagated are that of cleanliness and convenience. The purveying fear of germs and disease prompted the appeal of disposable wipes, ”Don’t put a cold in your pocket.” Further, the idea of convenience comes into play, “Meet the tissue that meets you halfway.” Through this mantra, the advertisement is promoting the ease and practicality of having this specific form of packaging. Convenience was another driving factor in the change from using handkerchiefs to facial tissues. Germ theory drove people to believe that washing a dirty handkerchief with other laundry could contaminate the whole batch, and in 1919 Good Housekeeping gave specific instructions for home laundering: “Soiled handkerchiefs should be separated from the rest of the wash load and dropped ‘carefully’ into the washtub, to which salt had been added” (Strasser, 179). This was just another chore to add to the list for women of the time. However, the image of the modern woman was to be as efficient and hygienic as possible, while eliminating their stereotypical duties. It was found to be both easier and more hygienic to be able to dispose of a soiled tissue directly after use, as this would cut the individual laundering of handkerchiefs from her schedule. The modern woman saw the tissue as freeing. Without an understanding of its environmental impacts, the tissue had very few downfalls and picked up popularity as time went on to the point where nowadays carrying a handkerchief is a rare occurrence.

          The modern advertisement conveys the same ideas of cleanliness and convenience but does so through pictures. This picture, screenshots taken from a video advertisement, targets parents as its audience. By showing a child using the Kleenex, women, and especially mothers, are drawn to the idea of cleanliness. Messy children can be mess-free by simply using a tissue that can be thrown away after a single use. In addition, children are innocent and naive. One does not equate such a tiny person with doing serious damage to the environment. Because of this, consumers hardly think of the destruction they are doing to the environment when they use this single-use product. Furthermore, the advertisement does not show packaging; it shows solely the product itself. Consumers, therefore, do not think twice about where the packaging goes after use. Nonetheless, the new and old advertisment have two similarities, which is that they both propagate convenience and cleanliness. In the modern ad, a consumer will think Kleenex is so easy that even a child can do it. As well, women, who usually do the cleaning, appreciate their time that is saved from additional cleaning. Thus, cleanliness and convenience are at the forefront of Kleenex’s marketing strategy. 

          Through the years of the evolution of this product, the common outlook on disposability has changed drastically. In the early twentieth century one might have used the same handkerchief for many years without finding need to replace it until it came undone and thus unusable. However, in the eyes of today’s common consumer, this might seem unusual and even unsanitary. Tissues, unlike handkerchiefs, are made thin and fragile and therefore can only be used one time. This material makes it necessary in most cases to use more than one tissue. This is a prime example of planned obsolescence, where the easiness of pulling tissue from the box as well as the fragility of the tissue itself encourages consumers to use more than one each time.This stems from today’s consumer’s desire for the ability to immediately dispose of their nose blowing material after its first and only use. Obviously it is easier to simply toss out one’s waste rather than clean it and reuse it, but this mindset of usage and disposal can be dangerous. It is simple and easy, however, it is simply wasteful and extremely hazardous to the environment.

Some more stuff: The evolution of toilet paper advertisements

Some more stuff: The evolution of toilet paper advertisements

Thomson Kirsch, Stone Guise, Max Zheng, Brandon Albrecht

Toilet paper: the ultimate disposable product. Justifiably, of course. Whoever wants to

recycle toilet paper? Once it is used, it is used, and reusing it would probably violate a good

number of health and sanitation recommendations. However, it was not always this way.

Immediately before someone (read: game-changer) came up with the idea of paper designed

solely for use where the sun does not shine, people used paper that they normally would have

thrown away, like old newspapers or advertisements. What they did before that isn’t worth

contemplating. Now, we live in a world with dozens, if not hundreds, of different types of toilet

paper, all with one quality that the creators would really like you to notice. Thus, advertising.

Advertising for toilet paper has probably changed as much as the actual product has, if not even

more. We present two different examples of this advertising to help illustrate this change. Above

left, we have Gayetty’s medicated paper, which was made in 1857 and was the first toilet paper

specifically advertised as such. On the right, we have a Charmin advertisement, exact date

unknown, but much more recent than the Gayetty’s ad. These advertisements are for the same

type of product, but the difference that a century and a half makes is remarkable.

First, how are the advertisements representing the product? Some of the only text in the

ad reveals how their product is “more durable than before, so it holds up better!” The Gayetty’s

ad, on the other hand, has no image. Instead, it relies purely on text to market itself. Even then,

the ad does not talk about the superiority of the Medicated Paper, instead focusing on how

terrible normal paper is for you. This ad also barely addresses the fact that the consumer would

be wiping their bum with the product.

The advertisements also try to develop a target audience with their use of advertising

ploys. For example, Gayetty’s focuses on the science behind their product, which gives the ad an

overall more educated feel. Charmin, on the other hand, makes no pretense about education or

class, instead just focusing on the humor in a bear trying to wipe its ass. Gayetty’s product is

therefore marketed to a higher-class, sophisticated clientele, and therefore it is also marketed to

anyone who wants to be high-class or sophisticated. Charmin relies almost entirely on their

brand name and the humor in the image to find their clientele, which gives them a broader, more

average target audience.

The advertisements also use radically different marketing strategies. Charmin puts a

strong focus on its name by placing their logo in the middle of the top of the ad. This makes

sense given the fact that Charmin is a very recognizable brand name. Instead of using text to get

their point across, the ad instead uses one large, central image that illustrates what the advertisers

believe is a significant problem amongst TP-users. This image anthropomorphizes bears, which

both provides humor and allows the advertisers to broach a subject that would normally be taboo

(imagine humans instead of bears in the image and it gets weird quickly). Charmin maintains

a very happy, joking atmosphere while marketing their product. Gayetty’s instead uses a more

aggressive approach by immediately warning the customer of all the terrible chemicals found

in normal printed paper. It goes on to describe the contents of an average sheet of printed paper

(which people used as TP at the time) as “death-dealing material”. Essentially, the advertisers

have no qualms about scaring people into buying their product. The ad goes on to say that it

is actually much less costly to pay for toilet paper instead of getting free paper, but having to

deal with the potential consequences. Gayetty’s also uses scientific phrases and chemical names

which, in the late 1800s, was the same as using magic to prove your point.

It is not hard at all to see the differences that time has wrought in these ads. When

looking at the Charmin advertisement, it’s quite clear that they don’t really care about the ideas

behind their product. Yes, it is for a rather unmentionable action, but they make it as light and

joking as possible, while still retaining some dignity. Gayetty’s is very prim and proper, and

barely mentions what their product is actually used for. Instead of actually talking about their

product, Gayetty’s focuses on how terrible the competition is for you, and the science behind

these claims. These ads definitely show how the standard for things you can display and talk

about has significantly lowered since 1857.

“The idea of the durable and reusable was displaced by aspirations of leisure and luxury,

ease and cleanliness” (Strasser 201) This quote from Susan Strassers’ book Waste and Want

neatly sums up what happened when Gayetty’s Medicated Paper was introduced. Why would

one use old, handled paper when fresh, soft, and easily disposable sheets were available? And so

began America’s love of mass consumption and trash production. Gayetty’s Medicated paper

was on the forefront of this revolution in disposability, bragging about how it was specifically

designed to be used once and thrown away. The Charmin advertisement does not draw any

attention to its disposability, but that seems to be because it is assumed that their product will

offer no problems when the times comes to get rid of it. This assumption was, in part, made by

Gayetty’s novel idea that we should have paper that exists only for you to clean yourself and

then be easily disposed of.

Strasser, Susan. "Having and Disposing in the New Consumer Culture." Waste and Want. 161-

201. Print.

Planned Obsolescence in Video Games

In 1983, the first Nintendo gaming system, the Nintendo NES, was released.  At the time, it was the most popular and successful video game console to be created, and holds the record for the longest lasting gaming system, spanning 20 years with over 60 million units sold.  This was quite an accomplishment because it was the first system of its kind and a solid consumer market had yet to be established.  The above ad pictures the Nintendo NES itself, claiming to be “the most challenging video game system ever developed,” as if to say that their video game system offered a mental challenge to consumers.  Additionally, Nintendo gives its own product the “Nintendo Seal of Quality” in order to create a hierarchy in the gaming world and give their customers the impression that they are buying the most advanced and qualified system available.  The console itself is pictured with just two controllers, which shows that this particular system was made for personal enjoyment rather than as a social activity.  The sleek-for-the-time, yet boxy design of the console shows how Nintendo was attempting to make their product look futuristic and show how they were creating cutting edge technology.  Strasser states, “The taste for novelty, the conviction that new things represented progress, and the belief that products were desirable because the represented modernity contributed to the celebration of the modern way.”  Nintendo knew that was what consumers were looking for and capitalized on that with the way they marketed their product as well as the design.

Over 25 years later, the Nintendo Wii was released and the same type of marketing has persisted.  The pictured ad targets what was most desirable in homes: social interaction and activity rather than sitting alone staring at a TV for hours on end.  The Wii itself is not even pictured in the ad, but shows a family playing happily, up and moving around all together.  Up until this point, gaming had been a fairly solitary activity and a phase of “anti-video games” had begun, solely because it was becoming clear how antisocial and detrimental to your health gaming was.  The ad itself, instead of picturing the gaming console, is looking from the perspective of it to show how interactive the Wii is. 

The technology industry is a leading example of both planned and perceived obsolescence.  As updated gaming systems are developed and new games are released, the games are created specifically for the newest model, and in order to play the latest game you must have the most recent system to go with it.  The older versions are often disposed of because the newest versions are the most valuable and most compatible with the most recent games.  This is an example of planned obsolescence.  In addition, just the fact that a newer product is released can be enough to drive consumers to buy the product.  Society perceives newer technology to automatically be better quality and more advanced than the older models.  This is an example of perceived obsolescence, and while this may not always be the case, it is the standard that the industry has set.

Reusing and Composting Diapers

Case Resor, Lee Pryor, Liza Ware, Nick Beall

Reusing and Composting

When you have a newborn come into your life, you realize that diapers are a necessity, but with all of the new inventions and ideas its hard to decide which product may be the best on the environment.  From the start, reusable diapers were the norm and now with people being more cognisant of the environment, consumers have the option of eco-friendly products that produce less waste.  Times have obviously changed from 70 years ago, however the Dri-Dide advertisement from the 1940s does not illustrate any of the packaging that comes with the product although the text informs the reader that they are easily washable which today would come off as unhygienic. The modern diapers represented in the second advertisement are not reusable but are a hundred percent compostable. Both of these diapers differ from the norm because neither are the traditional disposable diapers that are the most commonly used in today’s society.

These ads create an identity for the potential consumer by proving that they are environmentally conscious in their buying behaviors.  In the old fashion ad, it was more about the convenience and sanitation factor of diapers, whereas now it is about being eco-friendly and choosing the best product out of the plethora of what are available.  The original invention of diapers displayed the simplistic design and showed how convenient they were, with little waste produced.  Nowadays we know that no matter what we purchase we will also buy unnecessary packaging with it. “Packaging taught people the throwaway habit, and new ideals of cleanliness emphasized swift and complete disposal” (Strasser 200).  We are pressured to buy the packaging with the product, so it seems that the most eco- friendly product will be successful since people now know that they are doing their part in contributing to a healthier environment.

In the older ad, the strategy to convince the consumer is by having one baby with the diaper they are selling, and another with just a regular diaper. The baby with their product is super happy, while the baby with the other one is crying. This is a good way of persuasion because no parent wants to hear their baby cry all night because how bad the diaper feels. The second biggest strategy they use is by having a long paragraph on why the diaper is so special. The main message is that the diaper is soft, absorbent, easy to wash, and comfortable. It is a really strong point but the explanation was so long and in such small print that it wouldn't make a big effect on the buyer.  In the newer ad they mostly use short phrases to describe the product, which is a lot more efficient because buyers don't want to read a super lengthy description of what they are buying. It is simple and gives a clear message. “100% natural/compostable diapers.” In this ad they use a cartoon of a chicken with her babies to catch the viewers eye. It is is a good way of persuasion because it is related to the message of their product being eco-friendly.  

As you can see over the years the ads for similar products have changed immensely. In the past, the consumers seemed to want information on the product as to why they should buy it, but now the consumers want ‘straight to the point’ ads with more color and pictures and less words. A major difference between the advertising of these two products is how knowledgeable the consumer market is in their respective times. For instance, old ads had to describe the design, list the pricing and reiterate the comfortability, while today the consumer takes these things for granted. He or she instead must focus on other features that set the product apart from, say, Pampers (the largest diaper company in the world). This new ad accomplishes that very goal by stressing the disposability and eco-friendliness of the diaper.

Denver's Grand Masterpiece: DADS

Zachary Finken

September 11, 2013

Denver’s Grand Masterpiece: DADS

While some people wish to escape debts, the grind of eight to five desk-work or break free from prison, the one thing they will never escape is the downward spiral of having to figure out where to put all their trash. For most, the answer is collecting it inside the house then taking it outside the house where it will disappear before the end of the day thanks to local trash trucks we see in the photo above. Others like artist Chris Jordan create inspiring trash-based pieces and innovative people are now even creating homes out of trash. Little do the people of Arapahoe and Denver counties know, they are also creating their own art just outside of Aurora at DADS; a masterpiece that won’t be complete for approximately 129 years and that will require the help of each citizen and visitor.

With millions of people working everyday to complete the community’s masterpiece, it’s disappointing to see what the DADS landfill actually looks like. When I imagined the site before visiting, I pictured deep canyons full of trash on top of more foul trash that the landfill management, in this case Waste Management, would top off with dirt after the entire hole was full. However, my visit to the landfill greatly differed from my premonitions. What happens to the nose cringing trash smell between trash pick-up on the street and the ending dump-off at DADS is a mysterious phenomenon. To my surprise, the air smelt Colorado-fresh and my Grand Trash Canyon was nowhere to be found but my reaction to what I did find instead left me in awe. As I stood atop one of the trash mounds and realized that digging down would lead me to over a hundred feet of trash. What could be found in all that trash? Very likely something I threw away on a visit to Denver multiple years before or ramen noodles I threw away just this week. My participation in the accumulation of all this buried trash underneath my feet became apparent and real. The photo above shows not only my connection but everyone else in the community’s connection to the landfill as well. I give my trash directly to the trash pick-up and it is directly dumped in the landfill. Not only my own waste is deposited here but enough waste from enough people that it will take longer than my entire lifespan to fill up the site.

Intriguingly, the DADS landfill is more intricate than it appears with methane gas harnessing technology operated by Waste Management. It seems so simple; the trash is buried and the gas rises, is trapped and processed.  But in reality the trash from millions of people is only powering the homes of a meager 3,000. We cannot continue to bury our problems at DADS for 129 years with such a low yield of output. As Fritjof Capra suggest, “the more we study the major problems of our time the more we come to realize that they cannot be understood in isolation. They are… interconnected and interdependent.” The problem of trash grows faster than humans can work to contain it. The boomerang effects it produces in our daily lives make the journey to solving such an interconnected and interdependent situation an arduous and lengthy process. Having the opportunity to be involved in the process and walk on top of the DADS landfill was an eye-opening experience yet reassuring to now know where my trash will go after I dismiss it into trash can oblivion. 

Trash Transformation Trash is a topic that most people tend to ignore; it is dirty and foul. It is easy for people to simply throw away their trash and forget about it after they have left it sitting on the curb. However, all of this trash ends up somewhere, and that place is the landfill. It was interesting to see first-hand where my trash goes. Upon entering the DADS landfill, I couldn’t help but notice how desolate the area looked. There was wide open land for miles, and tall hills covered in dirt and dead grass. At first glance it wasn’t too bad to look at because all of the trash was covered up. Yet looking around at the open expanse of land while listening to the statistics of the landfill made the experience a lot more real. It was disheartening to think that 2,000 tons of trash is coming into DADS a day. I began to picture what all of the flat land would look like after only a few more years. It was astounding to visualize and made me upset. I wish there was some other way to get rid of our trash besides burying it. Continuing on the tour, we ascended one of the trash mounds that is currently being used. That is when I really began to feel sad because I saw all of the trash exposed. I looked at everyday items such as a sock, a ball and an old tire that were just sitting there with no use, left to rot away underground. My emotions of shock and despair felt as raw as the trash I saw laying at my feet. DADS will be filled in about 129 years, and although everyone that is alive now will be dead by then, this will be a problem for future generations. All of the trash is taking up a large amount of space, and the population is only increasing! It was nice to see occasional flowers growing around the site because it showed that there is hope and some beauty to be seen. I was also happy to learn about the gas pumps that pulled methane out of the trash in the ground that was turned into energy. One solution to the trash problem is awareness. Throwing away waste has almost become second nature to people, and as Capra phrased it, this problem is “largely a crisis of perception”. He writes that “most of us, and especially our large social institutions, subscribe to the concepts of an outdated worldview, a perception of reality inadequate for dealing with our overpopulated, globally interconnected world”. I once saw an old commercial from the 1950’s on TV that advertised paper plates and other paper products. The commercial gave off the image that using paper products is great because there is no mess, once you are finished, you simply throw it away! This is an outdated idea that society still lives by. For example, Kleenex now makes disposable hand towels – the commercial promises it is a “cleaner” way to dry your hands. In order to make a change with how much we throw away, we need to change our perception, which all begins with awareness. If people became aware of how much trash they threw away annually and how much trash they could have actually recycled, they could start wasting less. I hope that through awareness can come forth a trash transformation.

A Day in the Dumps

Shock, grief, and understanding were three dominating emotions that I felt upon visiting DADS. I have never really stopped to examine the amount of trash that I create everyday, and kept it out of my mind as I lugged trash bags out to the alley every week since childhood, not stopping to really think about where it went after being devoured by the giant mouth of the garbage truck. Seeing a whole society’s trash in one place concentrated the feelings that I experienced, and it was disconcerting to see mountains of trash piling up in every direction. The huge garbage trucks seemed small and unimportant in comparison to the mountains of packed trash which they stood upon. Flocks of birds perching on fences strewn with bits of trash took flight as our bus approached, and as I watched them fly away I noticed with dismay that the only thing for miles was dirt, trash, and the few species that called the dump home. What a poor life, I thought, as they squawked off in the distance, in search of some edible piece of trash that would fuel their little lives just enough to find the next bits of scrap food. Their small white feathers contributed to the mess of the dump, and they lay clinging to whatever they could hold onto. I came across a lone plant in the piles of dirt, seemingly mourning a friend who had succumbed to the hardships of the dump. Even a rugged plant like this can’t survive the unsheltered heat, low water, and lack of nutrients found in the dump. A plastic bag wedged itself into the branches of tree, fluttering in the wind with the feathers of past birds. A plastic Mucho Nacho bag lay in a state of limbo, destined to remain on this earth generations after I have left. The dump trucks can be seen in the distance, slowly yet continuously building up the heaps of trash that surrounded the area. This was the scene I captured with my image; one of life and death, new to used, and of unsustainable practice.    

            If trash output remains the same in Arapaho County, the dump is predicted to reach capacity in about 128 years. Although this seems like it is far out of the future, is it really? It is out of reach of any of our lifetimes, yes, but the problem of trash will be even more prevalent by the time our grandchildren come around. Does it really seem fair to pass them a problem they had no part in creating? Lester Brown of the World Watch Institute gives a compellingly simple and clear definition of sustainability: “A sustainable society is one that satisfies its needs without diminishing the prospects of future generations.” (Capra, 4)  The way we are living is clearly not sustainable, and the 7 pounds of trash generated each day by the average American makes me want to change my habits, and then others, if not for my own sake for the sake of generations of all beings to come. The birds and the plants who live there don’t deserve this, the ecosystem that was destroyed in order to construct mountains of trash didn’t deserve this, and the people to come in the future don’t deserve it either. Hopefully by the time my grandchildren are around DADS will be safe enough to be used as sledding hills and a new range of hills to explore, but until that day comes, I vow to myself to be more environmentally aware and strive to make choices that will positively effect the world instead of just my convenience.  As a start, I found myself sorting through my recycling today to make sure that everything in it was in the correct place, as I did not want to contaminate the rest of the recycling bin. I got my hands a little dirty, but felt good knowing that I am more aware of my actions now.