Leave it to Roll-Oh is a silly, long-form advertisement from General Motors and its subsidiaries, but it posits particular relationships between people and technology. In this ad, how will robot technology change lives? Do all kinds of people co-exist with robots in the same way? In one or two well-formed paragraphs, make a specific point about how this ad imagines people (or one kind of person) interacting with “robots.”
7 thoughts on “Leave it to Roll-Oh (Group 2)”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The ad clearly shows that robots are capable of precision humans are not and can expedite everyday work, but at the same time shows almost a dominant and inferior relationship with humans. In the beginning of the ad when the wonders of the stove are being talked about the narrator suggests the stove does 95% of the work in making food and insinuates that any person could cook with that help. I feel that notion is unfair as there are many people who do choose or are forced to live without full kitchens and are ingenious enough to find other ways to cook. Robots can definitely help in everyday life, but the operative word is help because humans are still the most important aspect. That is even subtly proven as Roll-oh does not respond to audio commands, but instead the pushing of a button to accomplish a task. In the end the time and energy saved to push a button rather than complete a task did not appear to be very noteworthy at all. In addition there is no way to rush the robot to do something faster, like if you need your keys from the kitchen in a hurry because you forgot a meeting. There is non replacement for emotion and emotional response, so the robot can not even help in those situations. Overall, I think this ad really pushed for the need of every kitchen appliance, which is not necessarily true even though they are helpful, but dependance is the most dangerous thing.
I found this ad really interesting as it looks to emphasize how much technology has advanced to the point that it can assist us on almost any everyday task. It seems evident that the makers of the ad wanted to make sure that people knew how easy it was to operate these technologies that anyone without knowledge on how they work can use them. The first part of the ad features a woman learning to use her new roll-oh in which she has no idea what the man is explaining to her, but eventually is able to operate the roll-oh. In its entirety, the ad looks to make a comparison of an entire humanoid robot doing our tasks for us with the everyday gadgets that do so much for us, while most of us may not even know how they were made or how they work. The roll-oh may seem like a gadget that is unattainable or luxurious, but we are actually coexisting with many gadgets just as sophisticated as it in our everyday lives now.
In this ad, what I found the most fascinating is the juxtaposition between “Roll-Oh” the robot of the future and his role regarding society. The advertisement is clearly explaining that automation of daily accessories is happening and will continue to happen in order to ease the lives of people. However, the connotations in the advertisement offer a much darker aspect: those who manufacture and sell “robots” decide how they are used to suit their ideal, therefore impacting the notion of which kind of humans are worthy and which are obsolete. The humanoid robot acts as an uncompensated domestic (so like a slave) for white upper middle class or wealthy American families. It speaks and walks slowly, sluggishly, and is straight out labeled a butler. This ad shows us explicitly that Robots are meant to serve as well as replace a certain social working class. Robots are lauded as being more efficient than some types of humans while also being shown to be inferior to some humans defining the line between who they are meant to serve, and what type of humans become obsolete. In that sense, the robot which is an object of the future, becomes enmeshed with the present and is devoid of any imagination: there is no real sense in this ad about how robots will actually change society. While safety and efficiency are marketed as traits of robotization, the social hierarchy remains the same in the universe of general motors.
The Roll-Oh robot in this advertisement is made out to be a tool that greatly benefits the individuals lives. They show various tasks that the Roll-Oh completes which enable the individual more freedom during their daily life. What I do not like about it is that the Roll-Oh has to be commanded every time—the lady presses the button, and then the Roll-Oh proceeds to do the task. This means that the lady has to watch the Roll-Oh and understand the Roll-Oh’s schedule of chores in order to command it at maximum efficiency. But, that means that the lady is very much invested in the Roll-Oh and less invested in herself and her daily tasks. I believe that this would cause the lady to lose variety in her life, as she is constantly focused on the Roll-Oh. Thus, without the need for the lady to figure out ways she can speed up the process of doing these chores by herself, she will become less innovative.
I believe that all kinds of people can’t co-exist with Robots in the same way. Everyone person is different, which means they will have different preferences, habits, strengths/weaknesses; so making a technological tool that has to be used in the same way for everyone will not help society. That will make too many people too similar, as the tool is limiting what functions the person will do. Without the ability to customize it in a way that we can customize our iPhones (there are thousands of applications that people can use, various internet search engines that can be used), then society will lose the ability to innovate as frequently as we do. Everyone will be stuck in a daily cycle, and life will get boring without the variety that we currently experience everyday.
What struck me about the Roll-Oh ad was how the narrator mentions how robots will allow us to work and play more freely. Intuitively, one would think that with greater automation, it would allow people to work and play more, and ultimately live a more care-free life. This, however, has not come to fruition. People entering the workforce now are working more hours than their parents did, and as the share of wealth for younger people has shrunk over the last few decades, wages for younger people have remained stagnant compared to inflation. Obviously, our society enjoys unbelievable technological and automation advances since this General Motors advertisement, but has life really gotten easier? I guess it depends on how you look at it–we are more informed, efficient, mobile and capable, but we work harder and play less. Does this mean life is better or worse than back then? It’s a difficult question to answer.
Another aspect that struck out to me was how the advertisement reinforced that robots are not as fallible as human workers. They don’t “look out the window”, “wink”, or “take a vacation”. According to the narrator’s words, they are the ideal worker. This plays into the capitalist-industrial complex in which anything short of maximum efficiency is inadequate. Robots allegedly help solve this problem by being tireless and accurate, but at what cost? The use of robots calls into question the intrinsic value of work. Is it to provide helpful services and decrease scarcity? Is it to facilitate the mechanisms of a functioning economy? Or is it to provide people with something to do, a way to occupy people and keep them from breaking the prevailing social hierarchy? All of these are likely to be true in some capacity, but displacing a worker with a robot may not accomplish the utopian goals it sets out to, and may disrupt the economy it seeks to augment. After all, what happens to the worker who is replaced by a robot? This commercial appeals to the consumer, while neglecting to mention the harrowing future that faces manual workers whose jobs are replaced by machines.
What I found most interesting about this advertisement is how “robots” are being marketed. The beginning part of the film spends a long time really emphasizing how machines can solve mundane tasks for us. In this case clearly the advertisers want people to view robots as a way to better their lives. The ideal target audience seems to be portrayed by the woman in the beginning of the film. In addition, the beginning scene with the mechanic implies that one does not need to have any sort of knowledge in order to get new technologies. General Motors is seemingly just trying to show how technology has advanced enough to make humans lives easier. For example, when the automatic lights are shown the ad is providing a good examples of how robots can do small things to make life a little easier.
There is a larger implication as well through the film, which seems to imply that as technology advances robots will be able to do more than little mundane things for us. General Motors is envisioning a world where we do have Roll-Ohs that can do large tasks for us such as making dinner. After showing their vision for the future they then bring up the new inventions that are starting the track toward success. These examples start with simple things such as automatic water fountains and lights, but then evolve to more complicated inventions such as airplanes that give us the ability to fly. The message is that as our technology expands we will be able to create robots similar to Roll-Oh and improve the lives of Americans. General Motors wants people to be excited about new robots that can improve your life.
While I am having trouble commenting on the second half of the video, I find there to be some humorous parallels/predictions between the present day and the video. Take the opening scene for example; there is a repair man at a woman’s house whose job is to fix her Roll-Oh. The scene opens with him explaining a complex diagnosis of mechanical issues with the robot, to which the woman responds “Oh, so that’s a good thing?”. The mechanic responds to her saying that he just described something negative. Shortly after, he provides a similar mechanical diagnosis, to which the woman incorrectly responds “Oh, so that’s a bad thing”. Throughout the whole exchange, there is an air of slight indifference in the woman, it seems that so long as her robot is fixed, she is content. I found this scene to have eerie parallels with the technology, and robots that people today surround themselves with.
Take our phones, which allow us to browse the internet freely. When we download a new app, or visit a new website, we are often asked to agree to some sort of disclaimer of sorts. The disclaimer usually pertains to the usage of our data, and whether or not we are alright with the fact that this new website or app may be sharing that data with numerous other sources, via modes of technological communications many of us struggle to understand. Yet time and time again we willing and indifferently agree to do things of this sort, so long as our technology, or hand held “roll-oh” works.