I am directed to write 2-3 pages (no work cited page) for ENG101 on these two photos. It doesn't really matter which photos, I guess, because the point is to persuade you that one is better...I think...Can you please look at it and at least point out the typos> I am sooo tired. it's due as a rough today, but it is due as a final draft next Monday. thanks.
When I was a boy, my mother was obsessed with buying certain laundry soap; advertisers asked her if she wanted her family's clothes to look dingy. She thought that only one type of detergent would make her a good mother. The world is smaller now, and the GAP advertisement (406) understands the need to target a broader audience, whereas the PETA advertisement (478) seem to only be targeted to animal lovers and vegetarians; a tiny piece of the world pie.
The GAP advertisement has a dingy, brown, depressing, background color, and a beautiful, black woman with a sad, pained, expression on her face; almost no words are needed to make the reader want to know why she looks so heart-broken. This is the first appeal to pathos. The woman is wearing a red tank and hat, cool to the younger crowd. She has a striking peace symbol among many chains that hang around her neck; this visual makes one think about suffrage or slavery, and makes the reader believe GAP wishes to end it through peaceful means. The words "EMPOWE(RED)" are written in huge, bold, white, type across the center of the page, and, in smaller type, the brand "(GAP) red" is written ("red" is even written like an exponent to appeal to the geeks among us). The font gets smaller when it asks the question, "Can an individual change the world?" It answers its own question with a simple but powerful statement, "yes you can." Finally, the type gets even smaller when declaring the motto, "Do the RED Thing." No pressure, no anger, just logic, emotion, and ethics; logos, pathos, and ethos.
The PETA advertisement, on the other hand, is a flaming red background with an angry, protective-looking, and very pale, model dressed in red, with red velvet gloves, and holding a white bunny close to her chest. This just screams at you to be very careful before you even read a word. When you read the words, they are mainly in large, skinny type saying, "Try Telling HIM it's just a bit of fur trim." "HIM" is in bold. One would be dead not to feel guilty, but guilt alone is not the way to win a global audience. It gets worse when, in the tiniest font possible, it assures you that, "Rabbits and other animals are often beaten and skinned alive for their fur." This lacks all credibility because the claim is inflammatory and has no sources to corroborate the statement. In brief, the ad does not appeal to pathos - it scares one away - it does not appeal to logos because neither the angry model nor the bold and frightening claims of butchered bunnies has any proven basis in fact or credible sources, and it even lack ethos because of the aforementioned shortcomings. They failed to research their target audience - the people of the world and their worthy cause will suffer because of it.
Marketing a product, whether it is a detergent or a politician, has not changed in hundreds of years; however, the way we target an audience and the way we deliver the message has changed. Global communication and technology has made targeting a market much easier in some ways and more difficult in other ways. Rhetoric and argument is not just a skill; appealing to logic (logos), emotion (pathos), and integrity (ethos), must be a combined consideration in order to win the minds of so many. Appealing to one segment of world society is not enough, and appealing to one segment's tiny off-shoot is foolhardy and frankly insulting. Globalized media has to appeal to all people, and the GAP ad achieved that with five stars.
Rhetorical Analysis of Two Photographs
When I was a boy, my mother was obsessed with buying certain laundry soap; advertisers asked her if she wanted her family's clothes to look dingy. She thought that only one type of detergent would make her a good mother. The world is smaller now, and the GAP advertisement (406) understands the need to target a broader audience, whereas the PETA advertisement (478) seem to only be targeted to animal lovers and vegetarians; a tiny piece of the world pie.
The GAP advertisement has a dingy, brown, depressing, background color, and a beautiful, black woman with a sad, pained, expression on her face; almost no words are needed to make the reader want to know why she looks so heart-broken. This is the first appeal to pathos. The woman is wearing a red tank and hat, cool to the younger crowd. She has a striking peace symbol among many chains that hang around her neck; this visual makes one think about suffrage or slavery, and makes the reader believe GAP wishes to end it through peaceful means. The words "EMPOWE(RED)" are written in huge, bold, white, type across the center of the page, and, in smaller type, the brand "(GAP) red" is written ("red" is even written like an exponent to appeal to the geeks among us). The font gets smaller when it asks the question, "Can an individual change the world?" It answers its own question with a simple but powerful statement, "yes you can." Finally, the type gets even smaller when declaring the motto, "Do the RED Thing." No pressure, no anger, just logic, emotion, and ethics; logos, pathos, and ethos.
The PETA advertisement, on the other hand, is a flaming red background with an angry, protective-looking, and very pale, model dressed in red, with red velvet gloves, and holding a white bunny close to her chest. This just screams at you to be very careful before you even read a word. When you read the words, they are mainly in large, skinny type saying, "Try Telling HIM it's just a bit of fur trim." "HIM" is in bold. One would be dead not to feel guilty, but guilt alone is not the way to win a global audience. It gets worse when, in the tiniest font possible, it assures you that, "Rabbits and other animals are often beaten and skinned alive for their fur." This lacks all credibility because the claim is inflammatory and has no sources to corroborate the statement. In brief, the ad does not appeal to pathos - it scares one away - it does not appeal to logos because neither the angry model nor the bold and frightening claims of butchered bunnies has any proven basis in fact or credible sources, and it even lack ethos because of the aforementioned shortcomings. They failed to research their target audience - the people of the world and their worthy cause will suffer because of it.
Marketing a product, whether it is a detergent or a politician, has not changed in hundreds of years; however, the way we target an audience and the way we deliver the message has changed. Global communication and technology has made targeting a market much easier in some ways and more difficult in other ways. Rhetoric and argument is not just a skill; appealing to logic (logos), emotion (pathos), and integrity (ethos), must be a combined consideration in order to win the minds of so many. Appealing to one segment of world society is not enough, and appealing to one segment's tiny off-shoot is foolhardy and frankly insulting. Globalized media has to appeal to all people, and the GAP ad achieved that with five stars.