COMM320

[redxblue-blog2]

Invitational Rhetoric - ASPCA Commercial

Invitational Rhetoric in ads or anything really can be described as, “something inviting you to see what the person conveying the message sees.”  You’re invited into their world, seeing the context through their view, their eyes.  You’re encouraged to be open minded, so much so that you must learn to understand where they’re coming from.  This is used to create an understanding between two people or masses, showing that there are many ways to look at one thing (Foss 2004).

While you invite people in to your way of thinking, changing their mind is not the main objective.  You’re only meant to inform them and invite them into your way of thinking.  You’re offering up you’re own opinions, which don’t and won’t go unnoticed by your audience.  You’re trying to persuade them into your way of thinking, but you won’t always succeed, which doesn’t matter.  So long as you get your message out there, you have accomplished invitational rhetoric.

For my example, I chose an ad that I will NOT watch because it gives me so many emotions.  Too many.  This is code for: I cry when I watch this ad.  This ad is trying to persuade you over to their side, seeing the need for animal cruelty to stop as one thing that you should also agree with.  They’re seeking support from you, the audience, to keep their organization running.  They want to ensure the safety of all animals.  This commercial uses emotions to bring you over to their side and support the end to animal cruelty, which isn’t hard to do when the commercial is full of sad puppies, kitties, and more.

References:

Foss, S. K. (2004). Rhetorical criticism: Exploration & practice. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

[redxblue-blog2]

ANIMAL RIGHTS - SOCIAL MOVEMENT THEORY

        The animal rights movement is something that has been around for a long, long time.  This movement exists to stand up for those who don’t have a voice: animals.  Every day there are thousands of animals abused, tested on, and pitted against each other in fights.  People have banded together to be their voices and speak up against animals cruelty, proposing that they have rights, similar to those a human has.  People are standing up against people claiming pets are property and that’s it, opposing the idea that they’re nothing and not alive.  They are.  They have thoughts and feelings just like us humans; they’re pure in this world of hate.  People are protecting them through organizations like Best Friends Animal Society, ASPCA, and many many more.

         The theory that I chose to apply to this movement is the value-added theory, which contains many specific conditions that must be present for it to make sense.  These conditions include: structural strain, which refers to problems in society that cause people to be angry and frustrated; generalized beliefs, which are people’s reasons for why conditions are so bad and their solutions to improve them; precipitating factors, or sudden events that ignite collective behavior; lack of social control.  When all these factors are present, this form of collective behavior ensues, creating a social movement, whether it’s positive or not (Barkan 2011).

         This movement includes structural strain because this had an issue that arose and frustrated people, causing them to spark a movement to end animal suffering.  Whenever someone who is an advocate of animal rights hears a story of an animal that has been hurt, they ache and their motivation to end this grows much stronger.

         Since animals rights is one of the biggest movements right now, you can definitely pinpoint some generalized beliefs within the group.  One of the main agreements among advocates is that something needs to change, and it needs to change fast.  If it doesn’t, millions of animals will die each year from abuse, testing, and mistreatment.  Most agree that animals should have the same rights as humans, which can be counted as another generalized belief that has been adopted among many members.  

         When Harambe was shot, the internet exploded with outraged activists.  This can be an example of precipitating factors because when it happened, there was a lot of backlash on the Zoo that did it and many people joined the cause.  This event ignited people’s activist side and many groups started to join in on the fight for justice for Harambe’s horrible treatment/death.

         This was the hardest to fit into this movement because no one truly wants to admit that there is lack of social control in their group, but like any other movement, there is.  People went a little crazy with some of the accusations at the Zoo, and this is obviously not right.  Sure, you can be angry at them, but anything related to death threats or anything of that magnitude is out of control.  If you start protests and they’re peaceful, that’s entirely fine, but if you start throwing blood on those wearing fur coats, it’s the movement that suffers.  You’re creating a horrible example and giving it a bad name, which discourages people from joining.  

References:

Barkan, S. E. (n.d.). Sociology: Comprehensive Edition (Vol. 1). Washington D.C.: Flat World Knowledge, L.L.C.

[redxblue-blog2]

Burke’s Pendtad - Analysis

Burke’s Pendtad focuses on five main things: scene, act, agent, agency, and purpose.  These things are not unlike who, what, when, why, and how in a sense, because they break down the ad or specific source even further.  When you consider all the factors in one scene, you get the entire message and this can be attributed to reading between the lines or using what is already present to think further and engage more into what is being presented (Foss 2004).  His pentad is used to analyze things further, and can be easily applied to anything, which is why I chose an ad to apply it to.  

In this ad, we can see that it has all the stages of the pentad, so I decided to analyze each one individually.  The scene level of the pentad relates to where they are and what’s happening within the space.  In this ad, we can see that there are two scenes playing out at once; one in the living room with the parents, and one with the addict, their son, outside of the house, begging and screaming to be let in.  They are two different parts of the ad when you watch each one individually, but they’re from two perspectives.  You have the desperate parents, crying and holding each other in the living room, neither one wanting to let their son in, but not wanting to keep him out, and then you have the son who is attempting to break down the door to get in because his parents have locked him out.  They both convey the same message, and are meant to shock you into reality.  

The act portion of the pentad is what the medium in whatever context you’re applying this to, does.  What do they do?  What is the specific action?  In this ad, the action is on both the boy and the parents.  The parents locked him out of the house, which led to his yelling.  Externally, this can refer to the increase in meth user related deaths in Montana, resulting in these shock ads.  They knew they had to do something about it, so they acted on making ads.

The agent is another pentad that refers to what led up to the act, which in this ad’s case is the boy doing meth.  The parents have locked him out of the house because of his meth use, making the pentad come full circle.  Externally, this can refer to the extreme use of meth in Montana, which is why this ad was released.  You can infer that the parents had tried to make him stop and threatened that if he didn’t, he’d get locked out, and since he didn’t stop, this was the end result.

The agency, another part of the pentad, is what tools were used in the action.  In this ad, you can look at the tools internally (within the ad) or externally (outside the ad).  Internally in the ad, the parents used separation against their kid, locking him out, and the boy used force and anger to try and get them to open the door.  Externally, the creator of the ad decided to use shock and pull at your heartstrings, showing that a broken family can be the result of meth use.

Lastly, the purpose of the ad is obvious internally and externally.  They use shock to make you think twice about doing meth because they show you the consequences, both by the family and of the user. 

References:

Foss, S. K. (2004). Rhetorical criticism: Exploration & practice. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

[redxblue-blog2]

Motivational Appeals - Tips From A Smoker (Hole in Throat)

     In this ad, they use the fear factor cranked to 11, showing the real life effects from a smoker.  It shows exactly what happens when you choose to smoke.  They show graphic images of the woman and the hole in her throat, striking fear into the audience made up of either smokers or non-smokers.  

     The creators of this commercial use fear control to scare you, but at the same time making sure the message gets across the the audience.  They want to ensure that you’re aware of the consequences if you smoke, and they use fear to do it.  The audience becomes panicked, especially those who are smokers, and the goal of the commercial is to make them question their use of cigarettes.  They don’t focus on danger control because that would allow the receiver of the message to refocus their attention to things that reduce the dangers of smoking.  

     By using fear control, they trigger maladaptive responses in the viewer, causing them to be anxious, more self-aware, almost becoming like a deer in the headlights.  When I watch the commercial, I’m petrified, even though I don’t smoke.  I feel like I need to avoid cigarettes altogether because if I don’t, I’ll end up just like the lady with the hole in her neck.  I can only imagine how smokers feel.  They probably start to second guess their addiction, and some may even try to quit, but soon the shock from the commercial wears off and they’re back at it.  That is one of the downfalls from this type of commercial.  It’s very effective at first, but soon the commercial is over and a new one takes its place, capturing your attention once more and replacing the memory of the cigarette commercial altogether.  

     They really use intensity in their ad to scare their audience into their way of thinking.  They show intense images, and this woman’s story, to help support their message that smoking can damage you if you continue it, and one day you may die from it.  Like Leontiev explains, the actions in the commercial speak to human behavior.  If you show someone something with graphic images and explain the implications of the behavior, they would be scared into shock and will possibly think twice before picking up another cigarette (Leontiev 2012).

References:

Leontiev, Dmitry A..  Psychology of Emotions, Motivations and Actions : Motivation, Consciousness, and Self-Regulation. (2012). Hauppauge, US: Nova. Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com.ac.ezproxy.switchinc.org

[redxblue-blog2]

Elaboration Likelihood Model - Star Wars in Volkswagen’s Commercial

       In this ad, a little kid is dressed as Darth Vader as he goes around his house trying to use the force on anything he can.  He’s unsuccessful and looks pretty down on himself until he tries the car as a last result.  Unbeknownst to him, his dad is in the kitchen and uses a remote start on his key fob, making it seem like the little kid just started the car using the force.  While this commercial is cute and really tugs at your heart strings, it doesn’t exactly sell the car to you.  This is a form of the Elaboration Likelihood Model because they use a familiar theme (Star Wars) to convey a story in a minute and thirty seconds.  You can relate to the commercial because kids and adults of all ages know Star Wars and know exactly what the kid is doing.  It takes a popular T.V. show/movie and relates it to a product, which helps in Volkswagen’s favor.  

       This commercial not only uses the central route, but also uses the peripheral, one, if not more.  It takes a familiar character and a kid, two things that are sure to be good “hooks” to bring people’s attention to the T.V.  This commercial aired during the Superbowl, which is, in my opinion, a time where the best commercials are aired.  Volkswagen really tailored to their audience, knowing that 90% of the people watching would know exactly what the kid was and what he was doing.  When the car starts, you see the wonder in the kid through his movements, and it makes us nostalgic to a time where being a kid was the best thing in the world because you had an imagination with no limits.  This commercial uses the central route by dropping the feature of remote start, while using the peripheral route of “The Force.”  

       In the ad, they drive home the idea that this specific car has the ability to spark a child’s imagination, completely diverting us from learning more about the car.  They don’t explain the gas milage or any specifics, only that it’s “coming soon.”  Lewis Donohew described it as a distraction, something thrown in our faces so that we’re more compelled to buy it due to what we saw instead of what we learned about it (Donohew, Sypher, & Higgins, 1988).  If they show us something familiar or something we can relate to, it’s easier to be distracted by that rather than actually listen.  We’re distracted by the little boy and go along with him on his adventure of trying to use the force.  Parents are able to associate themselves in the role of parents at the end who helped him “use the force” on the car, and young adults think that the commercial is cute or witty.  

      No matter which way you look at this ad though, you can definitely tell that Volkswagen is using a perfect example of the ELM Model.  They display many of the signs of the framework, like by using both central and peripheral routes and distracting you with Darth Vader, an familiar pop culture icon.  There are so many more ads that use this model, too, like shampoo commercials with celebrities or tugging-at-your-heart-strings puppy mill commercials.  

EDIT:

      This commercial only uses the peripherial route, by showing you a familiar icon and cute little story without showing the audience what the commercial is really about.  It’s about a car, but the car only has maybe 15 seconds of screen time out of the minute and a half ad.  Even when the car is on screen, we don’t really learn anything other than you can remote start it and that it’s a Volkswagen.  They mostly focus on diverting your attention to how cute the kid is and you’re on the journey with him as he uses the force. 

      Another way to think of this model is whether or not the commercial elaborates on what they’re selling.  If they do, they’re using the central route.  If they don’t, they’re using peripheral.  Forret also described the central route as a more thoughtful way of thinking abotu the commercial and perceiving it, while the peripherial one is more about distractions, glamor, and “sparkly” things.  They distract you and give you a different impression than what central route messages do (Forret 1996).

References:

Donohew, L., Sypher, E. H., Higgins, T. (1988). Communication, Social Cognition, and Affect. An Overview, 2-8.

Forret, M., & Turban, D. (1996). Implications of the Elaboration Likelihood Model for Interviewer Decision Processes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10(4), 415-428. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ac.ezproxy.switchinc.org/stable/25092520

[redxblue-blog2]

Ranks Model - Sprint vs. Verizon Commercial 

            In this ad, Paul, the main actor in the commercial, starts off with a jab at Verizon, using one of their many well-known slogans.  The one he uses was a household phrase, one that almost everyone knows and can connect to Verizon.  This ad was very effective because Paul was actually the start of Verizon’s “Can you hear me now?” slogan.  He’s the actual actor from the first test launch of the commercial.  This really capped off the entire ad, especially if you were someone who saw Verizon’s old ad of him popping in and out of random places asking, “Can you hear me now?  Good.” to emphasize how good their network really was.  Sprint really went all out on this ad by stealing away Verizon’s actor/slogan, and even topped off the whole thing by comparing nothing but rates, percentages, and pros over Verizon in the ad.  It was almost like a huge -for lack of a better visual- middle finger to Verizon.  They spent a lot of time bashing the other phone company, all while showing why they considered themselves superior.  At the end of all this, they ended on a question, which really brought the ad full circle using repetition.  When he asks, “Can you hear that?”  It’s like a challenge, as if Sprint wants Verizon to try and top them, which (if they get riled up easily like many competitors do) they will.  Or at least try to.  

            In this ad, Sprint really stresses the fact that their network is better by downplaying all of Verizon’s attributes, ones that they say they’re better at.  They address both companies, but stress one as better and downplay one as inferior to them.  For example, he repeats the fact that even though it’s a 1% difference between the two of them, Sprint is better because it’s more affordable and so many others are making the switch.  They use a form of facts that addresses both of them, while putting one of them (Verizon) down.  

            In Mike Turner’s blog post about this theory, he explains it more by breaking it into four smaller parts: protection (keep the good), acquisition (get the good), relief (get rid of the bad), and prevention (avoid the bad).  He explains that when companies use this theory in their advertisements, they intensify their good, while intensifying the competitor’s bad and even downplay their own bad, downplaying the other’s good (Turner 2015).  Sprint definitely uses this in their ad, making Verizon seem like a second best while they reign in first.  They definitely use Verizon’s name to their advantage, not completely bashing them into dead last, but using their popular name to hype up their own company.  They explain Verizon’s abilities, but then twist it to make their own stats seem more impressive.  They give both sides of the “plan” to the audience viewing the ad, but definitely become biased towards their own product.  

            Sprint is really going all out with this ad to try and break free of the feedback surrounding their service, which hasn’t been great.  They stole Verizon’s “Can you hear me now?” guy, use diversion by spouting facts and stats that go over our heads to make them seem impressive, and use the words “everyone is switching” to make it seem like you need to, too.  They’re using confusion, as well, telling us things that we either don’t know enough about and making it seem like it’s a good thing like “we’re only within 1% of Verizon now,” which raises questions like “within 1% of what?” or “why do I care?” (Turner 2015).  They’ve certainly biased this whole ad around themselves beating out Verizon at their own game, while completely ignoring all other popular phone carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile, US Cellular, etc.  They aimed this ad specifically at Verizon and that can either hurt them or help them.  This can hurt them because they’re confessing that Sprint thinks Verizon’s service is their biggest competition, aka the best in the business (if you’re willing to pay), which can drive their customers elsewhere if they’re not completely on top of everything they’re promising with their plan.  This could also help them, though, by showing that they can offer almost the same service as Verizon, but with a much smaller price tag.  

            No matter which way you look at this ad though, you can definitely tell that Sprint is using a perfect example of Rank’s Model.  They display many of the signs of the framework, from stressing/downplaying facts to diversion and confusion.  They’ve outdone themselves in my opinion, but if they really want to compete in the big leagues alongside Verizon, they’re going to have to keep all their promises.

EDIT:

Intensify:    

           In this ad, they use repetition by using the phrases “Can you hear me now?” and “Can you hear that?”  They also use association in the ad by showing your their logo, something you can pick out and know is from them.  The slogan is also a form of this because if I asked anyone who has ever watched T.V. if they “Can hear me now?” they’ll understand the reference.  The composition of the commercial has the guy holding a phone, which goes with a phone commercial.  He’s also walking fast, like he’s going somewhere, which everyone can relate to.   

Downplay:

            Also in this ad, they downplay using omission, or half truths.  They only target Verizon, no other phone company.  They also only focus on the positives, downplaying Verizon’s own features in the process.  The commercial also uses diversion, bringing up the “1%” but not what that exactly means.  Sure, they say “we’re within 1% of Verizon, but what exactly does that mean?  They also use it by having the guy from Verizon talk, which kind of throws you for a loop as the commercial begins, diverting your attention.   Lastly, the ad uses confusion to disorient the audience, so they don’t look too far into the ad.  They throw a bunch of numbers at you and say “1%” which sounds great and all, but if you really think about it, what does it mean?  They start to use words that the audience may not know, in order to make it seem like they’re better than the competition.  Glazer defines it as building a profile that conceals, but shows off, each balancing and depending on each other (Glazer 2012).

References:

Glazer, J., & Rubinstein, A. (2012). A Model of Persuasion with Boundedly Rational Agents.Journal of Political Economy, 120(6), 1057-1082. doi:1. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ac.ezproxy.switchinc.org/stable/10.1086/669160 doi:1

Turner, Mike. (November 17th, 2015). Hugh Rank’s Model of Persuasion Analysis. Get Results. Retrieved from http://getresults.org.uk/hugh-ranks-model-of-persuasion-analysis/