On Thursday evening, I attended the Opening Night of the St Kilda Film Festival. I had never experienced this festival before and was eager to see what all the hype was about, especially since it is the focus of our latest project brief. I have to say however, I do not think I was completely satisfied. After making our way in, and the showing finally beginning, I feel as though the audience spent more time listening to speeches made than enjoying the glorious art that is short film. Understandably, as it was opening night there needed to be many individuals and bodies acknowledged and yes I was interested to hear about the funding from the government, but the only speech I was somewhat interested in was Festival Director of over 15 years Paul Harris. Perhaps this was because I just wanted to hear about film and cinema, and who better to listen to that the individual who choses what the audience sees throughout the duration of the festival.

Once the speeches were finally over, the shorts were screened. I was impressed by what was chosen, they were a great quality of film and commented on a range of things through the forms of documentary, drama, and a beautiful animation that I believe really stood out from the rest. Although it was brilliant to see this Australian talent and skill, I wasn’t completely satisfied. I don’t believe that I saw enough. I know that is an active choice that was made to entice audiences into returning to see more, but as the nights aim was to give insight into the entire festival, I feel like I wasn’t given a big enough taste. Maybe my taste has been broadened from being exposed to a larger range of cinema since starting my degree, and that’s why I wanted to see more, due to my vast interest in foreign cinema, however this festival obviously isn’t about that but the embracing of Australian talent – which it achieved successfully. Overall it was a lovely night, it just ended too quickly. It will help immensely in the formation of our project brief 4 artefact as I can now give more of an insight into how programming is used to entice audiences.

Celebrity endorsements are a popular way for brands to achieve meaning, however, the success of any endorsement may be dependant on the correlation between celebrity and brand, which is known as the “matchup” effect, coined by McCracken in 1989. This has seen individuals such as McCracken, Amos, Holmes, Strutton, Kahle and Homer approaching their research in a similar manner, their school of thought outlining that the effectiveness of an endorsement is tied to how well the image and / or personality of the celebrity fits the product and the selling idea. The consumer – seen as the “fan” in a certain aspect needs to see the correlation between celebrity and the product.

Kahle, Homer and Kamins believe that in most cases, it is the attractiveness of the celebrity that strengthens the intentions of the consumer to purchase the advertised product. However, Zwilling and Fruchter believe that there are many contradictions and findings that can strain the task of creating a match between celebrity and product. For example, Shimp’s research outlines that “trustworthiness and attractiveness are emphasied over a celebrity’s popularity”, however his past studies have found that repeatedly pairing pleasant images with brands can result in favourable brand attitudes by viewers of those advertisements. Kahle, Homer and Kamins each agree that effective endorsements are not necessarily based on the “attractiveness” of a celebrity, although it assists in curving the attitudes of consumers. Kamins implies that celebrity endorsement influences consumers positively, with this influence somewhat partially due to the desire of a consumer to identify with the endorser.

Advertising, as an institution, is used on many occasions to sell the product they wish to. Young consumers may somewhat “borrow” from a celebrity they admire in the construction of their identity, by purchasing and using the product endorsed, constructing a self satisfying self-concept. Advertisers target their audiences perfectly, and use celebrities to do exactly so. Such a sweet deal for usually, a large price.

Recently I’ve been thinking about how much artists cater to their audiences. As the audience is everything, everyone really plays on that idea, uses it to their advantage, use it to make money – it’s all business. TV uses their audiences, obviously. My sister and my mum are watching TV as I write this and the former, in a thirteen year old fashion is squealing about how she has waited three seasons for these two characters to get together. She then proceeded by watching their much awaited steamy get together, and when I asked her if it was up to her expectations she looked at me, grinned, then looked back at the screen grimacing every so often. She has literally grown into an eighteen year old in front of my eyes. Coming back to my main point, it goes to show how active audiences are these days while watching TV shows. These producers, directors, everyone involved know what they’re doing. They deliberately don’t let two characters get together so this happens to viewers across the country. Yes, the audience controls ratings, but the producers control the audience’s emotions and that is television. This is what I love about it, being able to produce something that thrusts such a plethora of emotions onto a vulnerable and antagonised mind. This is television. This is media.