OK, I’m not going to lie to you. When I first saw this ad, I “aww”ed. I can’t believe how quickly I was lead to believe that the fine people at Lego really want to encourage the creativity in young children. Maybe it’s because I was a Lego kid myself back in the day, but to be honest, I can recall only trying to copy the pretty/impossible designs on the boxes rather than creating my own designs. But I digress...
It’s interesting that an ad for a toy which should be marketed directly towards kids seems to aimed towards with a more developed sense of subtlety. I’m not sure just how many kids would pick up on the fact that the piece of Lego is supposed to represent the dinosaur which is supposed to represent their budding little minds. It does, however, remind of something in Scott McCloud’s “Understanding Comics”. In the text, McCloud talks about how cartoon people’s faces are often made to look simpler and less like the true human form in order to reach more people; to make it more relatable. I can’t help but wonder whether or not the Lego team took this into consideration when choosing to assemble the four yellow blocks in such an ambiguous way.
I also find the simplicity of the ad interesting. Usually an ad aimed at children would have more colours, more creativity in order to capture the wandering eye of the small child. It’s obvious the ad is aimed towards the purchasing power in the household – the parent.
Another element to take note of is the minimal inclusion of the company’s logo in the bottom right corner. Frankly, had they not put it there, I wonder if any less than 99% of the people viewing the ad would think anything OTHER than Lego. Yet another sign of how consuming the media around us is – there are some symbols that are so synonymous with certain things, even if you get the dollar store version of Lego, or practically any imitation toy blocks, show it to all little kid and you’ll hear “Lego!”.
I feel a little bad now. Even though I know the ad is made in order to promote the product, get people to buy it, increase profits, etc, I still feel like Lego is a lesser evil than some of the other toys out there for kids to play with. Mattel ought to be happy I didn’t stumble upon a Barbie ad first.
McCloud, Scott. Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art. 1st. New York, USA: HarperPerennial, 1994
It’s interesting that an ad for a toy which should be marketed directly towards kids seems to aimed towards with a more developed sense of subtlety. I’m not sure just how many kids would pick up on the fact that the piece of Lego is supposed to represent the dinosaur which is supposed to represent their budding little minds. It does, however, remind of something in Scott McCloud’s “Understanding Comics”. In the text, McCloud talks about how cartoon people’s faces are often made to look simpler and less like the true human form in order to reach more people; to make it more relatable. I can’t help but wonder whether or not the Lego team took this into consideration when choosing to assemble the four yellow blocks in such an ambiguous way.
I also find the simplicity of the ad interesting. Usually an ad aimed at children would have more colours, more creativity in order to capture the wandering eye of the small child. It’s obvious the ad is aimed towards the purchasing power in the household – the parent.
Another element to take note of is the minimal inclusion of the company’s logo in the bottom right corner. Frankly, had they not put it there, I wonder if any less than 99% of the people viewing the ad would think anything OTHER than Lego. Yet another sign of how consuming the media around us is – there are some symbols that are so synonymous with certain things, even if you get the dollar store version of Lego, or practically any imitation toy blocks, show it to all little kid and you’ll hear “Lego!”.
I feel a little bad now. Even though I know the ad is made in order to promote the product, get people to buy it, increase profits, etc, I still feel like Lego is a lesser evil than some of the other toys out there for kids to play with. Mattel ought to be happy I didn’t stumble upon a Barbie ad first.
McCloud, Scott. Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art. 1st. New York, USA: HarperPerennial, 1994
2 comments:
And you said this wasn't good! First of all, I love this ad (and I awwed too! And this was a perfect link with understanding comics. I also love the fact that you said it's directed towards the parent, that's so true!
You're a writer too! I'm gonna put you on my blog list, I like your style.
this is an interesting post, but seeing as you're pointing to an ad that is advertising "toys," i'm wondering how you might incorporate barthes into your broader discussion of children and creativity. do ads/toys like these limit or stimulate creative play, or does the design place unnecessary constraints on a child's imaginative faculties?
keep writing,
i.
Post a Comment