Kyle Hamilton
Blog #3
Argument -
WATCO purchasing a Gold’s Gym membership with a contract for three years with a personal trainer on increasing your muscle mass and looking your best.
A->B
Joining Gold’s Gym with a personal trainer for three years is the only way you will increase your muscle mass and look good for the ladies.
A->C
Buying a membership to Gold’s Gym gives you access to the best equipment and trainers who are well trained to show you how to use the equipment
C->B
Whatever gives you the best equipment and trainers to show you how to use it will increase your muscle mass and make you good looking for the ladies.
Target Audience – Young men hoping to bulk up and become more athletic. College students who are obviously concerned about financial matters and impressing girls with their big muscles and gym passes on their keys.
Goal of the Piece – Convince us to buy a membership to Gold’s Gym for as long as possible and purchase as many extra programs as we could handle.
How argument is made – The meeting was started with a quick walking tour of the gym. Our guide pointed out many of the different kinds of machines and facilities we would have access to. He commented several times that they would help us look more impressive for the women. When we brought up concerns about money, he proposed package deals, offered gift packages, and continually put the price in terms that seemed less intimidating (rather than presenting the entire price, he broke it down yearly… monthly… etc.). His Ethos arguments were that “Gold’s Gym has the best facilities in Utah.” I suppose I have no reason to not believe him, but I really have never visited any other gyms, so I couldn’t tell you. The Pathos arguments were all about how we could look better for the ladies, something that most all college guys would like. The Logos arguments were all about the numerous locations (we could take advantage of Gold’s wherever we are), the value for such a small price, etc.
Effective – I went into the gym knowing I was not going to buy a pass, but I left thinking it could be a good idea! It wasn’t until later that I reminded myself that I would never have time to use the gym and that no matter how good the machines and trainers are, I would have to USE them before they would make me better looking. I think the arguments they used were effective and they recognized their audience well.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Blog #2 - TV commercial
Kyle Hamilton
Blog #2 – TV Commercial
1. Argument – Dr. Pepper is more valuable to a man than the woman he loves and for whom he would otherwise do anything.
2. Target Audience – Young, non-married men in the process of looking for a wife or possibly considering the possibility of marrying the woman they are currently dating. These men usually consider themselves devoted to the woman they love and specifically they feel they are in love.
3. Goal of the Piece – To make people drink Dr. Pepper, specifically by making people believe Dr. Pepper is more valuable than it really is.
4. How the Argument is Made – The largest portion of the argument is based on Pathos. By beginning in the grocery store showing a man purchasing something that would normally be very uncomfortable for a man to even look at, the viewer realizes right away that the man is making a sacrifice for a woman (and it is quickly assumed that this woman is his girlfriend). The commercial follows a man through a series of very feminine and potentially embarrassing activities (i.e. folding her underwear, doing yoga, holding her purse while she tries on clothing, etc.). The music in the background says through all of these activities, “I would do anything for love.” All the while he is carrying his Dr. Pepper which, as far as we can tell, is helping him to make it through all these awkward situations. When the woman tries to drink for his soda, the music changes to say, “But I won’t do that.” The man leaves the woman behind and dances down the street showing his “true love,” the drink. If he would do all the embarrassing activities but not share his drink, obviously he values the drink much more than the girl.
5. The commercial is effective because it catches your attention and causes you to remember the drink. When I see Dr. Pepper, I immediately think of the song by Meatloaf. In the terms of the argument, I don’t feel it is the strongest argument in the world because it is not actually reasonable that a man would leave his girlfriend for a soda or that he would value the drink more than love.
Link to ad... http://www.visit4info.com/advert/Dr-Pepper-Anything-For-Love-Dr-Pepper/23076
Blog #2 – TV Commercial
1. Argument – Dr. Pepper is more valuable to a man than the woman he loves and for whom he would otherwise do anything.
2. Target Audience – Young, non-married men in the process of looking for a wife or possibly considering the possibility of marrying the woman they are currently dating. These men usually consider themselves devoted to the woman they love and specifically they feel they are in love.
3. Goal of the Piece – To make people drink Dr. Pepper, specifically by making people believe Dr. Pepper is more valuable than it really is.
4. How the Argument is Made – The largest portion of the argument is based on Pathos. By beginning in the grocery store showing a man purchasing something that would normally be very uncomfortable for a man to even look at, the viewer realizes right away that the man is making a sacrifice for a woman (and it is quickly assumed that this woman is his girlfriend). The commercial follows a man through a series of very feminine and potentially embarrassing activities (i.e. folding her underwear, doing yoga, holding her purse while she tries on clothing, etc.). The music in the background says through all of these activities, “I would do anything for love.” All the while he is carrying his Dr. Pepper which, as far as we can tell, is helping him to make it through all these awkward situations. When the woman tries to drink for his soda, the music changes to say, “But I won’t do that.” The man leaves the woman behind and dances down the street showing his “true love,” the drink. If he would do all the embarrassing activities but not share his drink, obviously he values the drink much more than the girl.
5. The commercial is effective because it catches your attention and causes you to remember the drink. When I see Dr. Pepper, I immediately think of the song by Meatloaf. In the terms of the argument, I don’t feel it is the strongest argument in the world because it is not actually reasonable that a man would leave his girlfriend for a soda or that he would value the drink more than love.
Link to ad... http://www.visit4info.com/advert/Dr-Pepper-Anything-For-Love-Dr-Pepper/23076
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Blog Entry 1 - Advertisement Still
Blog Entry #1
Advertisement Still
Identify the Argument – Those that drive while under the influence of alcohol are the most likely to drive their cars into trees. They are the most likely to have accidents in general. Driving drunk will very likely cause damage to the car being driven and most likely the driver as well.
Identify target audience – This ad is intended for those who regularly drink alcohol. Most likely middle aged men who believe they are capable of controlling themselves even after drinking. Perhaps the intended target is also the drinking community with a good lifestyle and money, seeing as they won’t want to wreck their cars and may be used to having parking places reserved for them.
Goal of piece – The goal is to make people stop driving under the influence of alcohol.
How argument was made – One method used in this argument is Logos. If you drink, you can not drive as well and you are much more likely to wreck your car into a tree. Logically you do not want to drive your car into a tree, so the best conclusion is to not drive drunk. The appeal to credibility comes from the statement of the company underneath the “reserved for drunk drivers,” assuming the association that made this ad has conducted studies regarding drunk driving. The biggest method of argumentation in this article is pathos. Looking at the parking space around the tree, one may laugh and think, “Only someone stupid would drive his car into a tree.” Also, if someone has driven under the influence in the past, they may experience a fear of wrecking and/or getting seriously hurt in an accident and think to themselves, “That could have been me….”
How effective and why – In my opinion, the article is very successful. It causes the viewer to laugh a little bit, and is an image that will stick in their mind even when they are drunk. For those that have driven drunk in the past, the idea of “that could have been me” is strong enough that it could deter them from doing it again.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)