Essay is on this:
Select 2 magazine advertisements for similar products or services. In 500-750 words, analyze the ads' use of ethos, pathos, and logos. Based on your analyses, evaluate the quality of the argument or rhetoric and support a claim that one ad is superior [in particular ways] to the other. Attach copies of the ads to your essay...
For many decades consumers have been intentionally and secretly advertised in all stages of there life. Advertisements can be a powerful influence on how consumers purchase products and services. These products and services can be advertised in many different ways. The most common ways of advertising is through TV, Radio, Magazines and Poster Boards. I will present two similar advertisements in magazines and illustrate how the use of logos, ethos and pathos are presented in both articles.
The first advertisement I reviewed came from: Southern Living by Southern Living, Inc., Advertisement Oct 2007: 55. The setting for this particular advertisement is taken at evening during Halloween night and the M&M candy guys are trick or treating in a neighborhood. The main focus point is on the two M&M candy guys with there yellow and red costumes reversed with a million dollar check in one of the M&M guy's hand. The statement that is quoted on this ad is: "Give out M&M'S this Halloween and Red and Yellow could show up at your home with $1,000,000." Logos is represented in this advertisement based on the association that Halloween is a candy festival and the ad is about candy. My second advertisement comes from: (Still working on second Ad).
The creditability (ethos) that is supported by the first ad is when you buy M&M's your not only purchasing a good quality of candy but your helping to provide support in the Susan G. Komen Foundation for Breast Cancer which is sponsored by the Mars Inc., (Forrest Mars & Bruce Murray inventors) which are the owners of M&M.
The motivation (pathos) that the first ad presents is a remainder to don't forget to go get M&M candy for the upcoming Halloween festival.
Well, it's a little difficult to say, since you haven't written about the second ad yet. However, just in general, doing a compare and contrast might work. But keeping them separate might also work. I think it would be best if you went ahead and finished your rough draft and let me take a look at it tomorrow; it'll be easier for me to know how to help you, once I've seen your approach.
I'd be happy to check your grammar, grammar, grammar! (and spelling :-))
In today's marketing strategies, advertisements can be a major contributor to the way a business markets its product to the public.
I will give some history of two organizations in the computer industry and evaluate how their computer ads influence consumers today.
The first company that will be considered is IBM, which is a world leader in innovative computer technology and was founded in the years of 1888 - 1924, through mergers of computing tabulating recording. - Technically, the company can only be "founded" once; therefore, it was founded in 1888 and developed into the giant it is today.
The second company that will be considered is Bomgar. This company was founded in 2003 and specializes in appliances for remote support for PCs.
The only other suggestion I might make is that you give a little more detail about the Bomgar ad. I felt I didn't really know why you didn't like it.
I had more I just ddn't paste it all...It's a little long. But here's the rest. Thanks for proof reading this for me. My professor is very serious about grammer mistakes...even verb conjunctions...
My first comparison will be on the logic between both ads. The IBM article appears to be using logic because it illustrates how corporations need to look into ways of reducing energy cost associated with computer data centers. It's perceived that IBM has investigated this problem with corporate data centers throughout the world and has developed a solution to reduce the impact that data centers have on the environment. In my opinion of the Bomgar ad, it lacks substance of logic for the product they're trying to sale. The ad is seen as non-communicative to any consumer outside of the information technology (IT) field. The consumer will have many questions when reviewing this ad. Some question that maybe asked; who is Bomgar? Is it a fly by night organization? How experienced are they in this field? A consumer may second guess not only the creditability of the product, but that of the organization as well. IBM answers both questions for the consumer in regards to the creditability. If a person knew nothing about a computer they could rely on the brand name that IBM represents and that is an organization that is creditable for each product that it manufactures.
According to The American Heritage dictionary creditability can be interpreted as, "bringing or deserving credit, honor, reputation, or esteem". IBM is a company that is considered creditable. It has a history and experience of excellence within itself. It is an organization that has withstood the test of time amongst its competitors. IBM is an industry leader when it comes to innovative technology, and is a company that stands behind the brand in the name IBM. Bomgar has little to no history in its field of support services. This in itself does not eliminate the products creditability. What it does, is force the consumer to put forth the extra effort in obtaining the facts about the company. The difference, a consumer may be less likely to question IBM. However; Bomgar due to the lack of the history (creditability) may be less likely to be obtained by the consumer.
The third comparison I will present will be the pathos between the ads. I believe IBM dominated in this area because they left the consumer an impression that information technology professionals can help in the reduction of energy usage by switching out non-energy efficient appliances with energy efficient appliances. This in conclusion would have a direct effect on a company's IT budget bottom line. The ad also illustrated that IBM is taking a corporate responsibility in stating that we are more than a leading technology company; we are going forward in leading manufacturing product that will be eco-friendly. It takes plenty of social responsibility to make a claim as this, but as I stated earlier IBM is the leader over its competitors and they are seen as a company willing to make change. The Bomgar advertisement ad was ingenuous and non-informative. When you evaluate the ad it is dependant upon a consumer to go to another resource to determine if the product is creditable. When I think of the old adage that you have 30 seconds to capture an audience attention I realize that Bomgar has failed to capture the attention needed to make its claim that it is offering a useful product.
In conclusion, I am convinced that IBM has the better advertisement; the consumer does not have to wonder what IBM is trying to accomplish. Within 30 seconds of reviewing the article a consumer will assume that there is a need to manufacture more energy efficient products. The color green itself makes a person feel as though they are calm and sensible. Sensibility is what the consumer is looking for when they purchase products. Most consumer's want a quality product that is reliable and cost effective. Cost effectiveness is seen in the IBM ad as being energy efficient. Anything that is energy efficient will save consumers money; and as seen in the IBM ad it will save the IT department from pending the bulk of the budget on cooling expenses. The Bomgar ad makes assumptions with their advertisements perhaps they should work on marketing brand.
You've been working hard! Here are some editing suggestions for you:
The IBM article appears to be using logic because it illustrates how corporations need to look into ways of reducing energy costs associated with computer data centers.
In my opinion, [delete of] the Bomgar ad [delete it] lacks substance of logic for the product they're trying to sell.
Some questions that may be asked: who is Bomgar? Is it a fly-by-night organization?
A consumer may second guess not only the credibility of the product, but that of the organization as well. -Are you sure you mean "creditable" instead of "credible" and
"creditability" instead of "credibility"? Normally, one speaks of the credibility of a company, i.e., their believability and trustworthiness. That makes more sense than "honoring" IBM.
we are going forward in [delete leading] manufacturing a product that will be eco-friendly. - "leading" does not really make grammatical sense in this sentence.
It takes plenty of social responsibility to make a claim like this,
you have 30 seconds to capture an audience's attention
Most consumers want a quality product
The Bomgar ad makes assumptions with their advertisements; perhaps they should work on marketing brand. - "marketing brand" does not make sense; perhaps you mean "marketing their brand."