Introduction
There is no doubt that advertisements have meaning: this is the fundamental purpose of advertisements in today’s culture—to impart meaning on the viewer. However, through a thorough understanding of semiotics, it becomes clear that sometimes the meanings contained in advertisements are deeper and more complex than they seem at first glance. Everything that is produced in culture has a cultural meaning—some things, however, are much more culturally resonant than others (Chandler). Some thinkers have even suggested that all cultural realities and productions can be understood as a kind of cultural communication—and that this communication may be understood but not consciously integrated by a member of a particular culture (Eco).
The purpose of this discussion will be to examine the fundamentals of semiotic analysis by investigating the importance of the signifier/signified, denotation, connotation, and myth associated with the Charmin’ advertisement. These issues, then, will be discussed in a much wider context, including the current debates regarding gender, youth, race, and culture. Culture is not static, so it is important to understand this advertisement within the current American cultural paradigm.
Semiotics: A Brief Primer
Saussure suggested, in his landmark work on semiotic analysis, that there are two main features of a sign in culture: the first feature of a sign is the signifier, which refers to the image or form that is presented to the viewer (Barker). The second feature is the signified: the signified refers to the concept or idea that is indicated by the sign itself (Barker). In art and advertisement, these signified features are intentional, and thus, the signifiers are carefully chosen for their signified meanings (Soar; Hall). Saussure also indicates that the meanings for signs and signified meanings can be contested (Barker). Barthes, alternatively, expands the definition of signs to encompass the discussion of “myth” (Hall; Chandler). For Barthes, a collection of signs can be turned into signifiers for a larger cultural meaning; it is this cultural meaning that allows Barthes to conceptualize connotation and denotation on a larger cultural level (Hall; Chandler). An image like the “Charmin’ Clean” image, then—discussed in depth in the following section—can be understood as both a stand-alone image and as part of a larger hegemonic cultural paradigm.
“A Charmin’ Clean:” Discussion
The “Charmin’ Clean” image is designed as an advertisement for the Charmin’ brand toilet paper. The advertisement features a bear, a tree, and a roll of Charmin’ brand toilet paper; the advertisement itself appears to be drawn with colored pencils. The colors are light and the font is fun and carefree. All of these features are important when discussing an image like this one: an advertising team must spend a significant amount of money to create and run an advertisement for print like this one, so all the decisions that are made in the image are conscious decisions. Indeed, this image—or similar images—were probably given to test subjects to gauge their responsiveness to the imagery and the style of the advertisement (Soar; Bignell). Blue seems to be the dominant color that was chosen for the advertisement, and color can be incredibly important for understanding the semiotic meaning of an advertisement like this one; blue is, in general, a calming, clean color—a color associated with freshness and water (Bignell). Interestingly, the advertisers also seem to have avoided the use of any true browns in the advertisement—perhaps in an attempt to avoid the association with fecal matter and the use of toilet paper. Overall, the image is appealing and the animated bear is likely to appeal to children; Soar suggests that animation is often used in advertising as a way to attract the attention of a younger audience (Soar).
There are a few important pieces to this image. The first signifier is the bear; the bear is an interesting image because it is drawn in an animated, friendly style—it signifies the mama bear, taking care of her cubs, rather than the angry, powerful, aggressive bear. The bear has no visible claws, and it appears to be smiling; while there is no indication of whether the bear is a female or male bear, the style is such that the bear is non-threatening and playful rather than frightening. The significance of the bear is something that must be understood based on the perception of the image; merely describing the image as a bear does not appropriately convey the signifier in this case, and thus misinterprets the signified as well (Chandler). This is a good example of the way a culture can change the significance of a sign: the bear can be fierce, but in this case, the significance is less about ferocity and more about care and nature, which is further evidenced by the inclusion of the tree and the toilet paper on the tree.
The connotation and denotation of the bear are similarly interesting; denotation, of course, being the literal representation of the bear. However, contrary to what one would normally consider when the word “bear” is spoken, this bear is more along the lines of a teddy bear: it is not frightening but is instead cuddly and cute. This bear is not planning on eating the viewer. On the contrary, the bear connotes a connection to nature and family. Because toilet paper companies have a difficult job—they must sell a product whose use is a little disgusting—they must find a way to connote cleanliness, family, and nature to the consumer. Bignell notes that one recurring theme in today’s advertising world is the “all natural” theme—the inclusion of the bear and the tree connotes the idea that this toilet paper is all natural and safe.
The bear is literally an animal that lives in the woods and is carnivorous, fierce, and dirty—but the Charmin’ advertising staff uses other cultural signifiers to demonstrate the meaning that they have ascribed to the bear in this image. The color blue, as previously discussed, is a calming, clean color; the bear is drawn smiling, more like a teddy bear than a real bear in the woods. Everything in the image is clean and carefully designed to appeal to the potential customer. There is also a sense that the toilet paper will be soft, as the bear appears soft like a teddy bear.
The advertiser in American media has a new and different challenge today. Gone are the days of clearly-defined, traditional gender roles: while gender roles certainly still exist in advertising, there is much more leeway for people of all genders, races, and ages to follow their own paths (Chandler; Soar). The result is an increase in mixed-message advertising, as can be seen from this image. The words “paper work” are reminiscent of a corporate job; however, changing the toilet paper (or even purchasing the toilet paper) is a domestic task. This seems to indicate to the viewer that Charmin’ supports moms and dads who can be professionals as well as home-makers—this is a new cultural paradigm that encourages people to try to “have it all,” so to speak (Bignell).
It is this desire to “have it all” that has become one of the dominant cultural myths—the word myths being used, in this case, in the Barthesian sense. All of these advertisements combine to create a hegemonic cultural paradigm that suggests that the middle class should be able to balance everything: family, domestic tasks, and a successful career, ideally at a relatively young age (Bignell). While relatively harmless in the Charmin’ advertisement, this cultural paradigm can be oppressive for people who are struggling to balance their family lives with their careers (Beasley and Danesi). The middle class seems to suffer from this pervasive myth; while the single-income nuclear family is no longer the ideal that is portrayed by advertisers, this new reality is something that can be equally difficult. However, it remains one of the most pervasive cultural myths that are portrayed by advertising (Beasley and Danesi). Again, this is not a judgment on the cultural value placed on having both a career and a family; a myth’s existence does not necessarily make it a negative or unhealthy cultural norm. There are plenty of cultural memes that are both productive and positive.
This advertisement is very interesting in is attempt to balance gender roles with the sales pitch: rather than trying to sell directly to “mothers,” the advertising has become much more gender and age neutral. The advertisers are likely trying to capitalize on the reality that many fathers and single men have to purchase toilet paper as well; by being more all-encompassing with their advertising, it is likely that the company is able to reach more people and attract more customers.
Discussion and Conclusions
This advertisement presents a glimpse into the current dominant American cultural paradigm, but it does not, of course, paint the whole picture. Culture is both varied and ever-changing, and if nothing else, the meaning and structure of this advertisement reflects the variable structure of culture and cultural meaning. To remove this advertisement from the American marketplace and place it in another culture would potentially remove the power of the advertisement; part of the power of the advertisement comes from the word play used. Interestingly, this advertisement—despite not portraying a human subject—still plays directly into the dominant cultural values in the United States.
When “reading” this advertisement—reading for semiotic meaning, rather than reading the text of the advertisement—it becomes clear that the advertisers are selling more than just toilet paper. This is one of the interesting aspects of the advertising industry as a whole: it exists not only to sell products, but to sell ideas and values (Soar; Bignell). Without semiotic analysis, it becomes very difficult to differentiate between the product that is being sold and the message that is being sold to the customer.
Works Cited
Barker, Chris. Cultural studies: Theory and practice. Sage, 2003. Print.
Beasley, Ron, and Marcel Danesi. Persuasive signs: The semiotics of advertising. Vol. 4. Walter de Gruyter, 2002. Print.
Bignell, Jonathan. Media semiotics: An introduction. Manchester University Press, 2002.
Chandler, Daniel. Semiotics: the basics. Routledge, 2007. Print.
Eco, Umberto. The role of the reader: Explorations in the semiotics of texts. Vol. 318. Indiana University Press, 1984. Print.
Hall, Stuart, ed. Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. Vol. 2. Sage, 1997. Print.
Soar, Matthew. "Encoding advertisements: Ideology and meaning in advertising production." Mass Communication & Society 3.4 (2000): 415-437. Print.
Appendix A
