Reasoning for choosing this ad: I decided to choose this rhetoric because it has been “shared” by multiple friends on my Facebook feed over the past few months, which leads me to believe that it must be producing a significant impact on those people who either smoke or know someone that does smoke. Summary: After analyzing this ad, I uncovered that it is possible to persuade smokers to quit thru explaining the benefits of quitting, rather than list graphic/violent stats of what smoking can cause. I learned that showing a time table of benefits is just as successful as using scare tactics, which is much more popular among organizations such as "truth". This project matters because it helps organizations understand new ways to reach out to a wider range of audience members. My first claim is that the ad is reinforcing a more realistic body image for smokers in Australia thru the use of ethos. My second claim is that the ad is reinforcing the idea that those who are “middle-aged” are at a higher risk of dying due to their smoking habit, but that it is never too late to quit. Discussion Questions: 1. Do you think that using a positive ad is more likely to cease people from smoking or do you think that organizations like "truth" have the right idea when it comes to a appealing to fear? 2. Though the ad uses logos well, do you think there are better ways to go about using the time chart in order to persuade the intended audience? 3. How could genetic factors be included in this ad to help it become more persuasive?
Watch the video here
In 2004 the Ad Council launched their Adopt US Kids campaign. This campaign sought to raise awareness and adoptions of American teens in foster care. I argue that this campaign was rhetorically effective in two ways and a rhetorical failure in one. This campaign was effective in that it accurately depicts an imperfect family; it was also effective in that it showed that perfection is not required to be a perfect parent to a teenager in foster care. However, this advertisement failed in that it did not depict any families where the adopted child was a different race than the adoptive parents. This could act as a subversive deterrent for potential adoptive parents because it plays into the visual sameness of the perfect parents with their children.
This particular advertisement shows a mom and her children playing outdoors. In the true spirit of All-American activities, an ice cream truck drives past and the kids beg their mother for some ice cream. Of course it's almost dinner time so she says no that they might spoil their supper. Cue dad bursting out the door and chasing down the ice cream truck. The look the kids throw at their mother before following dad and the guarantee of ice cream shows that they know he isn't perfect and that he will totally be in the doghouse for this. Yet this is their family.
This scene serves two purposes. It shows that families are imperfect and it also shows that this is okay; these are still the kids' parents. The children even call the woman "mom" instead of "ma'am" or by her name.
While this campaign has surely raised awareness and alleviated fears of not being a good enough parent, the issue of the lack of racial diversity in the advertisements is a sticking point for me. Every family is unique, and no family is perfect, but being of the same race is not a qualification for being a good family or a good parent. This campaign fails to take this into consideration and its only multiracial family is in cartoon form. This says to me that multiracial adoptive families are so rare they couldn't even be bothered to find actors to portray that possibility.
As an adopted child this subject immediately piqued my interest. There are thousands of teenagers in foster care because past a certain age these children are regarded with a social stigma of being "broken" or "difficult." Yet there are no studies on how adoption advertisements have affected adoption rates. There are very few collections of adoption rates to begin with, yet this campaign claims to have placed 25,000 teens since the campaign launched (Campaign Website).
Discussion Questions
1) Why might it be important to depict multiracial families in the campaign's advertisements?
2) What does the use of same-race families say about the cultural expectations of families in American society?
For Children’s
Healthcare of Atlanta’s “Strong4Life” campaign
Today, more than one-third
of children and adolescents are overweight or obese. That’s significant, to say the least. I initially became interested in childhood
obesity prevention during a Spring Break trip to Miami. While attending a large Latin-American street
festival, Calle Ocho, the “kid zone” blew me away. All I saw were lines and lines of children
waiting for sample cups of Fanta and Oreos while a man on stage demonstrated
how to make some sort of soda and fruit punch concoction. So when I saw “Rewind the Future,” it left an
impression. Its message of tough love does holds some weight, but the video is jarring and
gritty and may not resonate with its target audience: parents of overweight children, or parents who are overweight themselves.
Summary
While this ad received mixed opinions regarding its
effectiveness, I argue that the use of fear appeals and intense visual
rhetoric unwittingly stigmatizes its intended audience and therefore lacks in
its effectiveness to spark a productive dialogue about the future of
childhood obesity.
Major Strategies and Why They’re Ineffective
·Fear Appeals:
While some might think that witnessing
the worst-case scenario for their child’s future would induce protective
behavior change, it does not seem to be the case. Research about fear appeal messaging found
that “fear arousal may result in defensive reactions such as risk denial,
biased information processing…thus rendering threatening health information an
ineffective behavior change method” (Ruiter, 2014). In addition to ignoring the message through
denial, this type of messaging stigmatizes and blames parents for allowing
their child to become overweight, rather than eliciting positive changes.
·Intense Audio-Visual Rhetoric:
This ad
also relies on its emotional audio-visual rhetoric to intensify its message. The first-person camera angle creates a sense
of identification with the character and the sounds of heavy breathing and
eating noises help to create a disgust response with the intention of causing
people to avoid the unwanted behavior. Seeing such large amounts of food consumed in such a labored manner almost gives you a stomachache just watching. While identification can be effective in
public health campaigns, the disgust appeal indirectly associates obese people themselves with these feelings of disgust, which can lead to increased persecution and stigma for these individuals.
Implications
As a whole, I believe this ad has serious
implications about how we understand and handle the growing issue of
obesity. Primarily, this message uses terministic screens to deflect and select
particular elements of the epidemic. For
example, the ad makes it clear that parents (and maybe videogames) are solely
responsible for their children’s eating habits and are to blame when their
weight gets out of control, but it never mentions the systematic flaws in
public policy that allows Chic-fil-A and Coca-Cola to infiltrate public
schools. Or the piles of complete misinformation regarding health and nutrition and marketing trickery that
parents must wade through in order to make the best decisions they know how,
etc.
Essentially, the rhetorical deployment of
fear appeals and visual rhetoric highlighting the shocking or disgusting
elements of obesity in Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta’s “Rewind the Future”
indirectly frightens, overwhelms and stigmatizes its intended audience, thus
leaving its message ineffective and potentially harmful to their cause.
Discussion Questions:
·First of
all, do you agree or disagree with my analysis? How did you feel about the ad?
Was it effective for you or not?
·What are
the consequences of situating obesity as a lifestyle choice rather than a
disease? How could genetics or environmental factors be incorporated to make
the message more effective?
·How could
the ad have increased its use of ethos, pathos, and logos?
In 2014, a highly controversial Viagra
advertisement was released featuring only a beautiful, blonde woman in a
tropical environment describing the importance of the drug. This advertisement
proved to be very disheartening as Viagra is an erectile dysfunction medicine
that is prescribed to men who need help maintaining themselves during sexual
encounters. Viagra is owned by Pfizer and has created a phenomenon in
masculinity ever since its debut.
Within
my paper, I found the medical advertisement to be ineffective due to four main
points:
1.This
Viagra Advertisement attempts to normalize erectile dysfunction discourse.
Before the commercial was released, other advertisements were extremely subtle
when describing the condition in order to not offend any viewers, even evading
the word ‘erection’. This ad directly uses such diction from a female
character, which was surprising for many since it was broadcasted on every
major television. The ad was aimed for the audience of men suffering from
erectile dysfunction; however, unintended viewers are exposed to it as well,
like children. Erectile dysfunction is no longer a private matter because such
media is culturally saturating it.
2 2. The Viagra advertisement accurately uses
Logos and Pathos in order to persuade the audience; however, it lacks a strong
use of Ethos. First, Logos is used to inform the audience of the side effects
and possible concerns. It also relates the facts and benefits about how men can
achieve and maintain erections. Second, Pathos is utilized when the woman
discloses an intimate situation that was hindered by erectile dysfunction, and
then she uses emotion to make the intended audience comfortable about their
condition. Also, by laying on a bed in a blue slip dress while speaking in a
low, seductive voice, the woman is relaying evident sexuality in order to
persuade. Third, the advertisement lacks Ethos. Although, Pfizer is a
creditable pharmaceutical company, the advertisement would have benefited from
a testimonial. The woman is obviously a paid actress and un-attainable to the
target audience.
3 3.Viagra uses women and sex in this
advertisement to sell their pharmaceutical drug. In the past, Viagra
commercials focused primarily on men performing ‘manly’ activities or subtle
cues about men trying to get sexual with their partner (Dries, K). This all
changed with the introduction of this advertisement starring this gorgeous,
thirty-something blonde woman who flirtatiously advertises Viagra for the
absent man in the video. By using this woman to sell a drug targeted towards
men, Pfizer is depicting women as objects for men’s consumption. This ad uses
women’s sexuality for pharmaceutical sales.
4 4. This advertisement is essentially
marketing a lifestyle from using Viagra rather than the benefits of caring for
erectile dysfunction. Viagra created a luxurious storyline to grab viewer’s
attention. This ad is selling a convenient lifestyle with Viagra because “you
only take it when you need it”. The popularity of Viagra has spread to the
point that it is believed every man can sexually prosper with a prescription (Tiefer, L). Men are incipient patients within the
Viagra Phenomenon.
This Viagra Advertisement
definitely shocked people and received much negative attention. Actor Ben Stiller created a commercial
spoof in 2016 for “Female Viagra” in which he poses in a football jersey on a
bed to promote the women’s cause (McDermott, M). This fake commercial was for the
purpose of humor but it was interesting how it called out the obvious flaws in
women being featuring in erectile dysfunction advertising.
Tiefer, L. (2007). Review of The viagra adventure: Macsculinity,
media, and the performance of sexual health. Culture, Health &
Sexuality, 9(5), 549-550. doi:10.1080/13691050701264584
