Write: Reading Response #5
(Note: This response focuses on material from Chapter 8. However, you will have an in-class assignment on Thursday that will ask you to apply your knowledge of the organizational patterns in chapter 7, so read that chapter carefully as well and bring your book to class.)
Use YouTube or another source to find a video ad for a product, service, or idea. Analyze the persuasiveness of the ad by answering all of the following questions. 250 word minimum.
- What constraints may have impacted the ad? (p. 174)
- What kinds of evidence are used in the ad? How effective is this evidence? (p. 176)
- How does the ad address opposing viewpoints or possible counterarguments? (p.177)
- How does the ad appeal to emotions? In your opinion, has it done so responsibly? (p. 179)
- How does the ad use graphics to persuade? How effective are those graphic elements? (p. 185)
- Identify and explain at least two logical fallacies in the ad. (p. 182-3)
Please include a link to your ad somewhere in your response.
The link may cause your post to be marked as spam, so if your post doesn't show up right away, don't panic. Save your response in another format (Google Docs, Word, your email, etc.) just in case, but I'll make your comment visible when I clear out the spam folder.
The link may cause your post to be marked as spam, so if your post doesn't show up right away, don't panic. Save your response in another format (Google Docs, Word, your email, etc.) just in case, but I'll make your comment visible when I clear out the spam folder.
"Drop the Balls" T mobile Super Bowl Ad
ReplyDeleteI chose to analyze the T Mobile Super Bowl commercial, “Drop the Balls” with actor Steve Harvey. Two constraints that may have impacted the ad are time and format constraints. This ad was made in response to an advertisement Verizon made attacking T Mobile. In order for T Mobile’s ad to be effective, it had to be produced in a short amount of time, while Verizon’s ad was still relevant. When airing a commercial during the Super Bowl, the ad must catch and retain the viewer’s attention. Because of this, T Mobile may have faced some format constraints by not getting to include all of the exact numbers and data relating to their LTE network they were advertising. Numerical data is the prominent form of evidence in this advertisement. Although exact numbers are not used, the ad states that T Mobile doubled its LTE coverage in the last year. This evidence is effective because it is disputing previous evidence Verizon published and is stating that it is false. The ad addresses Verizon’s opposing viewpoint and counts it as false, saying they used last year’s numbers and not current data. Therefore, they are accusing Verizon of using inaccurate or incomplete facts. The T Mobile ad uses humor to appeal to our emotions by using actor Steve Harvey in the commercial. Harvey recently announced the wrong winner of Miss Universe and had to correct himself and apologize in front of the world. Now, they are making light of that situation by having Harvey correct the T Mobile data and say the mistake was not his fault this time. I believe this was a responsible way to use emotions. Harvey’s Miss Universe mistake was talked and laughed about for weeks. It has not been too long since the incident occurred, so the audience will still find humor and relevance in the mistake. The ad uses graphics that mock Verizon’s graphics in their earlier advertisement. In Verizon’s ad, they used little balls to show the performance of competing networks. In the ad, T Mobile had zero balls. In T Mobile’s ad, they poured thousands of balls for their network. This graphic was effective in being a sarcastic, over exaggeration of display. One logical fallacy displayed is oversimplification. T Mobile chose to focus on one element of their network’s performance, LTE coverage. However, there could have been many other elements that T Mobile is doing poorly in. It also displays an ad hominem fallacy. Although, T Mobile did address Verizon’s attack, it focused more on returning the attack to Verizon’s company, itself, with Harvey saying "I'm not taking responsibility on this one, Verizon got it wrong.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2P5E7cFt9s
ReplyDelete1)One constraint that Nike could have faced with this commercial is a political constraint. With having so many athletes from a wide range of sports, there could be some disagreement on which athletes to use. Some audience members may not like some of the athletes like other audience members.
2)Evidence that is used in this commercial ad is expert testimony. Clearly all of the professional athletes in this commercial have had years of experience with different sporting goods retailers, so having a high number of professionals shows that experts approve their product. This approval of experts can persuade viewers to buy their products.
3)One way that the ad addresses opposing viewpoints is by simply making their product look more desirable by relating professional athletes to their viewers. Everyone looks forward to snow days, and because this is a marketing technique that other sporting goods haven’t used before it gives an opposing view of their products.
4)This ad appeals to emotion by relating to everyone’s inner child. Everyone remembers playing in the snow as a child, so pulling the emotional strings of an adult’s past makes their product more desirable to consumers.
5)The only graphic that is really used in this ad is the snow. There are feet of snow on the ground and its makes the viewer feel as if they are there living the snow day with the professional athletes.
6)Ad populum argument is one of the fallacies because Nike is trying to argue that their clothing products are good enough for a wide variety of professional athletes, so it must be good enough for the viewers. Oversimplifying is another fallacy that appears in this Nike ad. While there are a lot of athletes in the Nike clothing, the clothing itself if very thin and in reality those athletes would be freezing if this was a real snow day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oYlOBun8UI
ReplyDeleteI chose to analyze the recent Super Bowl ad by Coca Cola. The ad shows a big brother picking on his little brother but when some kids try to steal the little brother’s Coke, the big brother scares off the bullies and gives back the coke to his little brother. There were no reasonable constrains regarding the ad considering it did not cross any ethical boundaries and coke certainly has the resources to make just about any kind of ad they want. As for evidence, there is none. It is meant to be an emotional ad that will encourage you to drink coca cola. Therefore, there are no counterarguments unless you flat out just don’t like Coke. The ad appeals to emotions as many viewers of the Super Bowl likely have a younger sibling or can at least related from the way they have seen other siblings interact in their life. The older brother may enjoy being a brat to his brother but come time will not hesitate to stand up for his brother. However, the key point of the ad is that Coke is so good even the older brother chooses not to drink his brother’s coke but instead give it back to him with a smile. The ad does not use graphics necessarily, but it is a nice sunny day when the boy is drinking his coke outside, representing happiness received from drinking Coke. The first fallacy in the ad is the appeal to pity; in other words, the ad is basically saying drink coke to become happy. However, it leaves out any mention of health effects from drinking soda. The second fallacy is essentially the same as the first. The ad oversimplifies and makes you feel bad for the younger brother and then makes him seem happy once he gets his coke back, again implying drinking coke invokes happiness.
There are always constraints and evidence in communication. If nothing else, they're constrained by the length of commercials (they aren't going to make a 10 minute ad). Evidence in this ad could include the scenes that set up the relationship as antagonistic. There's evidence that the older brother is mean, in other words, but Coke and brotherly love conquer that mean impulse.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t6bLugtJkQ
ReplyDelete1.)A constraint that Chevrolet used that could have impacted the ad was a political constraint. There is so many different brands of vehicles, that some would agree that Chevrolet don’t make vehicles last a long time like the movie of the dog growing up and how the Chevrolet was always dependable, like her dog. Another political constraint the ad could have was people not liking the breed of dog they used which was a yellow lab.
2.)Evidence that was used in the commercial ad was examples. They have two stories going on in one ad. They took the dog in the story and made an example out of him. Where ever your dog goes not matter how long the ride Chevrolet will always be there from the beginning to the end.
3.)A way the ad addresses opposing viewpoints is by making their product more desirable to the people that want a dependable vehicle that will last long and to dog lovers.
4.)This ad appeals to emotion by all the dog lovers out there. The main idea with this ad is getting to grow up with your dog with a dependable vehicle to take you places. Mostly everyone grew up with a pet watching it grow up. The ad says a Chevrolet is dependable just like your dog, going through life with you.
5.)The ad uses graphics by displaying important events that happen in a child’s life all the way up to adulthood. Such as the first day she got a puppy, graduation, a break up, college, moving and lastly having her own house with the dog. All important milestones in a life.
6.)One of the logical fallacies is to appeal to pity. They show this by using the dog as an emotion and not by reasoning for the appeal to Chevy. The other fallacy is Oversimplifying. This wasn’t necessarily used in this ad but is used in Chevrolet commercials when they improve their models of vehicles every so many years.
Well, that's a tear-jerker! Ads are almost by necessity oversimplified because of the constraints of the genre/format. This one doesn't explicitly address opposition, but you're right that it does imply difference from other products.
DeleteI looked at Dove's Choose Beauty ad. It is a bit different than other ads because they aren’t actively selling their product, they are promoting their product by promoting these ideas. Some of the constraints that limited this commercial include a political constraint and format constraint. It was a fairly large experiment, so they were limited to how much they could include in the video. Since they also did this as a global exercise they had to think about how many to include from different countries and also just how many people to show at all. The evidence that it uses is the testimony of the people that walked through the doors. The whole premise of the commercial is to challenge society’s beauty standards. So it addresses opposing ideas by an outright challenge and by making it about individuals. And while they don’t directly call out the opposing ideas, the general feeling of the ad is a challenge and some of the people in the ad call out and question beauty standards. I think that the ad uses emotional appeals responsibly. It appeals to emotions by the statements the woman say about how it made them feel and by prompting you to choose which side you would walk through. The graphics are all women walking through one of the doors or hesitating in front of them. I think that they are effective because they show the effect of the choice between beauty and average on the people. One logical fallacy that the ad uses is “appeal to pity” because the ad really only relies on emotional response. Dove also uses the “either or” fallacy but they use it to make a point with the average versus beautiful choice.
ReplyDeleteWhat constraints may have impacted the ad?
ReplyDeleteOne constraint that impacts the ad is informational constraint. Pepsi is not a healthy drink, but the Jacksons make it look as if it is, like it provides energy for them to dance and sing. The commercial brings to my attention that if the kids in the commercial drink Pepsi that they will be like the Jacksons. It is somewhat like they are handing the Pepsi to the new generation, but I wonder if they even like Pepsi because Michael Jackson never drinks any. Another constraint could tie into this is ethics. We will never know if Michael Jackson really drinks Pepsi, so he could possibly be lying to the audience. Also like I previously stated Pepsi is not healthy so it will not give you energy to dance and sing like the Jacksons.
What kinds of evidence are used in the ad? How effective is this evidence?
Evidence used in the ad is common sense evidence. I believe this because people will think that if Michael Jackson drinks Pepsi and he is cool and popular that it will make them that way. I believe this is effective because he is a huge figure and people look up to him, so whatever he does people will follow.
How does the ad address opposing viewpoints or possible counterarguments?
The only argument I can really think of is that Pepsi is the best drink.
How does the ad appeal to emotions? In your opinion, has it done so responsibly?
This ad plays on emotion. The kids are amazed when they see Michael Jackson and his brothers, but more so Alfonso Ribero (the kid dressed as MJ) he was idolizing him and bumped into him. This plays on emotion because at that time, Michael Jackson was #1 and people would pass out seeing him in concert, so the fact that the child could relate to him, dance and sing with him while sharing something in common (Pepsi) makes children feel like they can meet their idols one day.
How does the ad use graphics to persuade? How effective are those graphic elements?
The commercial uses graphics to persuade because it uses noticeable images such as the Pepsi cups, Pepsi cans, and the infamous glittery glove. All of these things persuade the audience that Pepsi is good and the logo is used often that the audience remembers Pepsi. I think the graphics are effective because people will notice them and pay attention to the commercial. Also because the commercial was popular, and they used famous people consistently people remembered the brand and wanted to have it. Identify and explain at least two logical fallacies in the ad.
One logical fallacy in the commercial is an argument from ignorance. Nowhere in the commercial does Michael Jackson drink Pepsi, so we don't know if he actually drinks Pepsi in real life. Pepsi is not the reason for his dancing or singing ability. I highly doubt anyone has ever looked up if Michael Jackson drinks Pepsi regularly. Another fallacy I found is the bandwagon fallacy. I believe people started drinking Pepsi and became more aware of Pepsi because Michael Jackson was the spokesperson for it, not because it was good or it has any healthy impacts. It can also appeal to pity. The kids were dancing in the street like Michael Jackson and obviously wanted to be like him. Because he drinks Pepsi they can be like him. This is a fallacy because Pepsi will not make the children like them, but because they are children you feel for them.
http://youtu.be/po0jY4WvCIc
ReplyDeleteI chose to do the Budweiser ad from this year's Super Bowl. I picked this video ad because of how out of the norm it was. Political constraints could have impacted this ad. Alcohol advertisements are to promote the drinking of alcohol with a small message at the bottom of a screen to drink responsibly. This faced some format constraints as well. Super Bowl ads are designed to be funny and captivating, not serious. Budweiser had to find a way to capture the viewer's attention without cute puppies or cool clydesdales. This is the first time I can ever remember an advertisement being so blunt about drunk driving.The language the british lady uses to describe a person who drives drunk such as “coward” and “if you were to donate your brain to science, science would return it,” is extremely degrading and dehumanizing. I feel like in order to be more effective, Budweiser could have used statistics. But in order to be effective, it had to use strong language like this to get the point across. I feel like any sane person would not have an opposing viewpoint. Most people realize that this is a message that needs to be put out there and using a big company to do so it what it takes. The hashtag to accompany this ad was “#giveadamn”. This is quite a powerful hashtag to accompany an ad. This hashtag alone provokes a lot of emotion about a very serious topic. It’s a subtle, yet powerful, call to action to start giving a damn about drunk driving. However, I do believe that one opposing viewpoint could be that alcohol should not be being promoted at all. But, this could show any opposing viewpoints about this ad that Budweiser is trying to help create a safer environment for everybody. Also, Budweiser donated one dollar to safe driving programs every time the hashtag was used. Drunk driving has been a serious issue that has yet to be resolved. I believe this ad responsibility appealed to emotions. It is obvious that Budweiser picked the graphics for this advertisement carefully. I believe they skillfully chose a British woman to do the speaking because it’s something different that catches our attention in the first place. Also, her sitting at the table by herself displays a powerful change from most comical advertisements played during the Super Bowl. The dark room added to the seriousness of it. The graphics overall were extremely helpful to getting the message across. Oversimplifying could be a logical fallacy used. There are so many things that could impact why people drunk drive, including addiction or alcohol dependency. Simplifying saying don’t do this terrible thing, isn’t enough for some people to stop doing it. One of the logical fallacies is to appeal to pity. It brings across the message that we should feel sorry for such a lowlife person making such a terrible decision, which leads back to the oversimplifying, that some people struggle from addiction and need professional help instead of being talked to like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb2VXVmUga4
DeleteI decided to do my advertisement on Doritos, the commercial can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP1jMc4C1_s . I originally saw the commercial on Facebook and couldn’t stop laughing so I went on You Tube and found it and laughed maybe even harder this time I saw it. The writers of this commercial really pushed the limit so any constraints they had were being on national television and all the laws that are out there and that are strictly enforced. The evidence of the Doritos brand used in the commercial is the guy eating a bag of them and you hear the crunch of the chips as the guys eats them. They used a huge Doritos bag that everyone knows and loves. And when they showed that it was empty, everyone watching it felt the pain. Then the second time they did the same exact thing with the huge bag. After that, the branding switched to a huge Doritos logo across the whole screen, if by this time you didn’t know it was a Doritos commercial then you’re just not even paying attention to it because they branded it over the top. They persuaded viewers of the commercial by using a fit woman that a lot of men would probably find attractive. This ad most importantly uses humor to get people to like it, this ad is hilarious to many people especially with plot change at the very end of the commercial. After you think it is over because the Doritos emblem shows up, it then goes back to show the guy push the lady out of the way which is very funny.
ReplyDeleteAndy Kurilla
I think this is an "unofficial" Doritos ad from the Crash the SuperBowl contest, which is how they're getting away with the super sexual imagery (and why it wasn't broadcast on TV...).
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB8tgVqmKzw
ReplyDeleteI chose an ad that Audi had for the Super Bowl 50 called “Commander”.
This ad faced legal constraints, as it seemed to depict this older man driving the Audi very fast, when it was actually a professional driver on a closed course. With the requirement of a stunt driver, the ad also had personnel constraints and therefore financial constraints as it would be required to compensate the driver. With the ad intended to be shown during Super Bowl 50, it naturally had a time restraint as well.
This ad did not have much evidence in its attempt to get customers. The only evidence that it did have was the claim that the R8 can reach 205 mph, which the video states is “top track speed” and that the “claim applied to Audi R8 v10 plus,” meaning that the base model would not be able to reach this speed and this upgraded model can and only should reach this speed with a professional driver on a track. The legal constraints mostly stem from these facts.
The ad doesn’t attempt to oppose other viewpoints, and only focuses on the story that it wants to tell.
The ad appeals to emotions by depicting the man that was very depressed. As soon as he got in the car however, he instantly remembered the best moments of his life and joy appeared on his face. This transition is touching, albeit in not the most responsible way. Sure, he enjoys the car but it relates driving their car to a rocket lifting off. The ad provides the facts that this was only done by a professional driver on a closed course. Besides this, the ad also has David Bowie’s “Starman” in the background, as a nod to the late musician.
The ad refrains from graphics and simply uses the story to persuade Audi’s potential customers.
The only logical fallacy that I can see in the ad is an appeal to pity fallacy, being that the ad isn’t providing facts like safety ratings, miles per gallon ratings, or other important facts, but rather appealing to the emotion that a viewer would have after watching this ad.
It's also oversimplifiying (as all ads do) due to the time and format constraints of the ad genre. I really liked this ad when I saw it during the game, though.
DeleteI chose a commercial about a vacuum cleaner called the dirt devil vacuum, it’s quite creepy at the beginning but then there is a funny twist to the story. One of the constraints of the commercial is that some people will get creeped out at the beginning thinking it is a horror movie with an Exorcist going to cast a possessed woman. The evidence the ad used is that their vacuum is so strong that it can suck through walls, and it clearly shows proof when the vacuum picked up a girl from her bed like a magnet attracting a metal. This method of theirs was effective since it shows that the vacuum could suck up dirt from distances apart. The appeals to emotions in a funny way that will actually want to make people buy the product. The graphics was spot on from a horror movie scene to an old woman cleaning her lighted up room. When it was discovered that it was the vacuum that was controlling the girl, this for me is a fallacy because it is impossible for a vacuum to act as a magnet. The other was appeal to pity showing the mother in a confused state and the father of the daughter praying for his child that have been inflicted by a demon. The commercial addresses opposing viewpoint showing that this girl was not necessarily possessed but just being controlled by some powerful vacuum used by an old woman above her room and the old woman was actually having fun and listening to music not knowing the situation she caused in the house below her.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVLSzzB43m4
I don't like scary things, but I watched this anyway! There's definitely an appeal for people who have seen the Exorcist film, but use of references to that film also provided some legal constraints.
Delete1) One constraint that impacted the ad would be political constraints. The reason being because there are a number of different brands of vehicles that a person may choose over a Subaru.
ReplyDelete2) Example evidence is used in the ad. The example being used is the dog, and Subaru is saying that they have a smooth riding vehicle capable enough of putting a dog to sleep.
3) One way the ad used opposing viewpoints is by using dogs in the ad. A lot of people are animal lovers and can relate their dog as a baby in which Subaru did. Subaru related dog owners and parents of a child by selling the point of the smoothest and quiet vehicle.
4) The only emotions I can see in this ad would be caring and heartwarming. The reason for caring would be the parent caring for their child by trying to get them to sleep. The heartwarming part would be the adult dog caring for her puppy. Other than that I see emotions coming from a parent of a child or a parent of a dog. Either way they try to relate to both parties in this commercial to sell to a wider range of consumers.
5) The commercial didn’t really have graphics besides placing the two dogs in the commercial. Just to widen the variety of customers.
6) One of the fallacies is to appeal to pity. They used the dogs for the emotion of their commercial. The second would be oversimplifying. The reason is because they have improved there models to a smoother, quieter ride to show customers it is able to put a puppy to sleep.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkl7jvb_kug
Different brands don't equat to political constraints. Maybe think more about current political concerns with MPG / Environmental impacts of driving so identify political constraints. I think you're right that they're trying to hit parents and dog lovers both. Graphically, one key element is that it's night time since that emphasizes the emotion of trying to get the kid/puppy to sleep.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2c2mPpvcpw (the third add in to the video)
ReplyDeleteThe ad I chose to go with was the Coca Cola ad from the 2016 Superbowl Bowl that featured two brothers sparring as brothers tend to do. Some of the scenes later on in the ad depended on certain weather conditions so time constraints may have affected the ad as to what days they could shoot on. Another constraint of sorts could be the fact that the ad has no dialogue to actually promote the product. As such they had to focus on using the Coca Cola red and white colors to promote the product in addition to some product placement. An example of the “commonsense” argument would be the older brother standing up for the little brother. Most people would agree that is a good thing to do and sends a positive message.
As far as opposing viewpoints, I don’t know how in depth the thought process would go for an ad like this but the bullies that the brother chases away are dressed in grays and blues which kind of look like Pepsi’s colors. I don’t know if that was a jab on purpose but that in addition to seemingly promote family values with Coke products seems to make this air tight. I think this ad appeals strongly to emotion as previously mentioned. It is about family and brothers standing together even when they tease each other. I think it sends a good message for a 30 second ad.
The ad uses product placement with the name Coca Cola on the family’s dinner cups while they family is eating dinner together. It seems to promote the idea of Coca Cola being a drink for families that do things together. As for logical fallacies, that is a bit hard to do without having dialogue in the ad but one that jumps to mind from reading the chapter would be the either-or argument in that it’s a Coke vs Pepsi world with no other alternatives out there. I think that the ad is effective because it relies on emotion but it could also be seen as an appeal to pity perhaps in that all the ad does is try to convince you that Coke is a family product from this contrived scenario when there is no data shown to support this claim.
Good call on the Pepsi colors. I didn't notice that at first, but there's no way that's an accident.
DeleteI chose to look at the Derek Jeter celebrated by tip-of-the-hat Nike ad.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO6TpbqTTxI
• The main constraints that I saw with this ad, where the fact that it only looked at one sport, baseball, and that they only looked at one player, Derek Jeter. Other than that, they tried to get every race, every team in the MLB, and just everyone involved. Also they shouldn’t of really ran into any legal or informational constraints, because they weren’t trying to sell a product they were trying to sell an idea that they are respectful to all athletes in the sense that they want to broaden their target market to all.
• The main argument that this ad used was the common sense argument. They used common sense by showing a little gesture of tipping a hat. This gesture means a lot to most people. It means that you are thankful, that you are showing respect, and so much more. In the end they tell you that they are focusing on respect; so that you know where they were going the whole time, but at the same time they gave you time to interpret it all on your own. The evidence was very effective to me. It showed me that they were trying to reach out and wanted to touch everyone in some way. This ad really spoke to me, especially how they weren’t just trying to sell a product. They were trying to sell more to me.
• They tried to address all cultures and teams in this ad. They were trying to appeal to everyone. To me that means that they were trying not only to reach out to everyone, but to show that they wanted to get all racial groups, MLB teams, and everyone in the ad to help make it more meaningful.
• Derek Jeter is one of the most famous MLB players and he was getting ready to retire. So this video pulled on everyone’s emotions, because they loved him as a player. Also this video showed the respect people had for him and they tried to make it, so that he will always be respected. For me it showed me that there is respect in the world, even if it isn’t spoken it can be seen through these little gestures. These gestures can mean so much to people.
• It showed Derek Jeter walking up to the plate for the last time and all the fans that were showing how much they will miss him. Not only did it show respect to him, but they also made it to where he showed respect back to all of his fans. Those graphic elements are what made this ad so special and good. It helped to show that respect goes two ways and that people do give respect in both ways. He was a respected player, but he showed that he needed his fans to be who he was.
• The first logical fallacy was the appeal to pity. This is because this ad appeals to your emotions and not your reason. The second logical fallacy was the bandwagon argument. Some/most people only liked him because of the name he made for himself; not actually because of how he played or acted outside of the game.
I chose the Marilyn Monroe Snickers bar commercial for my analysis. The ad appeared on my Facebook timeline. There did not seem to be many apparent constraints. The writers did not violate ethical, legal, or political constraints. Mars is a large company that owns Snickers bars. I assume Mars did not face financial constraints because of their great success. One constraint they may have faced is timing. The commercial is only 30 seconds long. I think they were successful in getting the point across quickly. The short ad is pleasing to the audience. Also, they save money airing the ad because it is shorter.
ReplyDeleteSnickers did not use a lot of evidence in the ad. The audience is already familiar with the candy bar, so evidence was not crucial. When analyzing the book I would agree the writers combined the commonsense and example arguments. The commonsense comes in to play with “hanger”. The audience is aware of the dangers of being angry and hungry. Therefore, it is commonsense to eat a snack to cure hanger. The example they used is a famous Marilyn Monroe scene.
The advertisement did not address opposing viewpoints or possible counterarguments. The two main characters briefly argued about eating a Snickers when hungry, because personality is affected.
The writers played with the humor emotion. They put a spin on a classic and timeless tale. The emotional appeal was done responsibly. I do not thing members of the audience will be offended. The language and actions were clean.
One way graphics played a role is sex appeal. The image of Marilyn Monroe standing above the subway grating has been popular for ages. This timeless photo is attractive to both men and women.
Two logical fallacies in the commercial is an over exaggeration in personality changes and the ability to cure the issue by eating a snack. You do not physically turn into a different person when you are “hangry” and the ultimate cure is not a candy bar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UyVgaFE8-s
MarilynMonroeSnickers
Delete
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the most interesting and persuasive ad from this year’s Super Bowl, was the Mountain Dew Kickstart’s Puppymonkeybaby advertisement.
I believe Mountain Dew faced a format constraint. It costs loads of money for an ad spot during the Super Bowl and they had to decide how long it would take them to get their point across. They must have felt that thirty seconds was efficient with the contents of the ad.
As for evidence, Mountain Dew used an example. The slogan for Kickstart is “Three awesome things combined.” They used the example of three awesome things – puppies, monkeys, and babies – other than the actual drink’s combined ingredients of Mountain Dew, juice, and caffeine. The example for me was more awkward than proving I should drink the Kickstart, however is made me intrigued on why they would feel this weird spokesperson was best to represent their drink.
The ad addresses opposing viewpoint by saying that you shouldn’t want to stay at home and chill, but rather buy a Mountain Dew Kickstart and have an interesting night.
Puppymonkeybaby was trying to appeal to the emotions that everyone adores all three aspects individually, therefore, they will be emotionally excited and awed by Puppymonkeybaby. Also, in the beginning of the ad, one guy says he is going to stay in and chill all night. That is when Puppymonkeybaby bursts in and emotionally appeals to them by intriguing them and giving them this product with caffeine in it in order to have a fun and exciting night, rather than a chill, dull night. As much as this commercial makes me awkward in a sense, I do feel they were responsible with their trying to appeal to the emotions of excitement and energy. It doesn’t seem unethical to use this made-up spokesperson.
The use of graphics in this advertisement were amazing. They really combined three awesome things into one and it strangely looks like it could be “believable.” It wasn’t a cartoon Puppymonkeybaby, but it looked like the creature was in the room with them. This made it more effective, in my eyes, because I couldn’t tear my eyes away.
Appeal to pity is one of the fallacies present. It says that there are three things combined and you are awesome to drink them, but pay no attention to the fact that soda and caffeine are not the best for you to be drinking. And a second fallacy is oversimplifying. The ad says that because Puppymonkeybaby is three awesome things combined that it can only be awesome to drink Kickstart, but there is no thinking of the fact that Puppymonkeybaby is (obviously) not an actual thing and once again that the drink isn’t the healthiest thing you can pick up.
The hyperlink didn't copy correctly. Here is a link to the ad:
Deletehttps://goo.gl/3a77Vf
I choose to do the World of Red Bull Commercial from 2015:
ReplyDeleteOne of the constraints that I found was the informational constraint. I felt like they could of gave more info about the drink than just a variety of people drinking the drink while doing active activities.
I seen two types of evidence in the product ad. One was the “commonsense” argument since the ad represents that it is common sense that red bull gives energy without words when using examples which is the next type of argument. The second evidence is used effectively with examples such as biking, racing, skateboarding, water skiing and dancing.
An opposing viewpoint that I seen in the video was that you could do anything with red bull and that it creates fun. It also promotes positive attitude giving you a good feel about it. One thing that can be argued though is that the video didn’t talk about any nutrition or health information.
The ad definitely appeals to emotion. It expands on emotion that makes you happiness, determination, and enjoyment. Also, it doesn’t overstate or overdramatize the emotions it promotes.
The video was very graphical. It provided different settings around the world along with different people. I found it quite persuading and I think it would help attract audiences as well rather being dull. Exciting ads usually sell their products easier than boring ads that someone will skip.
Two fallacies for this ad include the bandwagon argument and the post hoc reasoning argument. For the bandwagon argument, the video shows that since everyone in video is having fun and living life, you should too by buying red bull. Then for the post hoc reasoning argument the video suggest that the energy that the people are having is caused from red bull.
link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKPtLTg31Mg
Porsche advertisement
ReplyDeleteWhat constraints may have impacted the ad? - With such a large company behind it, it seems unlikely that financial or time constraints would be a major factor, however a television ad has strict constraints built into the format: TV ads are short, typically 60 seconds or less, so there is a tight time constraint on the length of the ad itself. TV ads also have to worry about legal constraints regarding false advertising, leading many of them to rely on emotional appeals and imagery instead of factual claims, which this ad does.
What kinds of evidence are used in the ad? How effective is this evidence? - The ad uses very little actual evidence, instead relying on imagery and the implied common sense argument that for a luxury car like Porsche, faster is better.
How does the ad address opposing viewpoints or possible counterarguments? - It claims that “only a (Porsche) 911 can beat a (Porsche) 911” but exactly what this is meant to mean is never elaborated upon to avoid making any legally-challengeable claims. It largely avoids the issue of opposing viewpoints entirely.
How does the ad appeal to emotions? In your opinion, has it done so responsibly? - The ad tries to appeal to a sense of pride and accomplishment by showing professional athletes and a chess master, but doesn’t use any factual evidence to support any claims. It is irresponsible to rely too heavily on emotional arguments without using other types of arguments, which this ad is guilty of.
How does the ad use graphics to persuade? How effective are those graphic elements? - This ad shows clips of athletes in demanding, difficult sports, and a chess master all playing against a clone of themselves. This is meant to illustrate that “greatness comes from pitting yourself against yourself” and implying that Porsche has outdone itself with this new car. However, the link between the clips and the car is tenuous at best, making them less effective.
Identify and explain at least two logical fallacies in the ad. - The ad attempts to equate pushing the physical and mental limits of human ability to designing a new car, but doesn’t provide any real connection besides using the imagery. It seems designed more to suggest that by driving this car, you can be great like a professional athlete or chess master, which is a claim not supported at all by evidence. The ad also strongly implies that this Porsche car is the best and fastest of its kind, but does not provide any evidence for this, either.
I chose to do the Force Volkswagen commercial, and I found out that the constraints would be legal constraints. I believe this because they are using The Force and dark Vador from star wars, and without their permission it could be against the law. For the evidence I believe that they used examples, and they did this by having someone play as dark vador trying to use the Force. He would try to pull sandwiches closer to him, lifting the dog, moving baby dolls, and then he finally he makes his dads Force Volkswagen start. Some people may just say none of this is relevant to this commercial, and I would say that this is false, because they used a icon from star wars which is a big thing for a lot of people, and then they promoted the Force with the Force from star wars. I think that they did pretty well appealing to their audiences emotions because they could have messed up the commercial by using the force, but they took the time and effort to make it how people would take it in. In this commercial they started off with dark vador in a dark hallway walking to the light, they have the soundtrack playing from star wars. Then when the father gets home at the end of the commercial they used brighter graphics for the car entering the driveway. I would say that this ad has circular argument, it seems to repeat itself, and say show the evidence without showing some of the evidence. The second would be post hoc, because they want you to believe that the Force is what created the car, after many failures they finally created the perfect car in their mind.
ReplyDeleteI could not get the video to play on my computer or even come up… So I had to look it up on my phone so here is the video name on YouTube. “The Force: Volkswagen commercial” it is the first video; it is 1:02 long. Has the picture of the car on it.
(FYI, it's Darth Vader, not dark vador)
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDIeNrcGxvQ&feature=youtu.be
ReplyDelete1. T-Mobile aired two commercials for the Super Bowl 2016 and the first one stars Drake and his new hit song Hotline Bling, some constraints would be that anyone who does not listen to Drake or enjoy rap music, like myself, does not know the reference and could think that T-Mobile is only trying to target the younger audience that listens the Drake’s music which would not be smart for the company because younger people are more likely to still be under their families plans and cannot afford to switch over to T-Mobile
2. The evidence is that the people in business suits are supposed to represent lawyers and while they could actually be lawyers the likelihood for them being actors is far greater, however, if the company want to target younger buyers they have a good objective because younger buyers are less likely to look at the fake lawyer and see the “if Drake is supporting it I'll buy it”
3. The ad addresses opposing viewpoints is with Drake being the center of the ad. He is generally portrayed as a positive person and his acting in the video portrays that
4. This appeals to anyone’s budget conscious side because they add that people will have to pay more after a certain amount of time or that music streaming costs up to $70 more
5. The graphics that they use in the video are the same graphics used in Drake’s Hotline Bling music video offering a parallel to viewers of both
6. Argument from ignorance is one logical fallacy because Drake never specifically says that T-Mobile wouldn’t hike up prices like the other competitors he simply agrees with the “lawyers” and says the script, the second logical fallacy is oversimplifying because if there was more time allotted perhaps Drake could have said that changing the script wasn’t a good idea