I put my iPod on shuffle and I got to this particular song. Chic 'N' Stu by System Of A Down. The song is about how advertising sucks people in and causes people to want stuff they did not know they needed prior to watching the ad. The lyrics aren't very profound, but I think it gets the point across fairly well.
Basically, "advertising causes need, therapy".
They got the idea for this song while watching an LA Lakers game and seeing the advertisments on display there, including one for pizzas that got them really hungry. That's the hallmark of effective advertising; not merely letting people know what you're selling, but getting people to want what you're selling.
I was looking around YouTube for examples of effective advertising when I recalled that moment in Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle, when they get the munchies and see the White Castle ad on TV.
Perfect example of an ineffective and an effective advertisment. (I uploaded this to YouTube myself, so hopefully they don't take it down for copyright infringements or anything like that)
Before this, a little background info on Aristotle's three modes of persuasion:
Logos - appeal via logic and wording of the message
Ethos - appeal via the credibility of the persuader
Pathos - appeal via the arousal of emotions in the viewer
Before the White Castle ad, they watch a public service announcement warning people of the dangers of marijuana. The acting in that ad is quite bad, no impacting or jarring message is sent out, and the ad makes no attempt to reach out to the viewer or make an impression. In communications terms, logos, ethos and pathos aren't being utilized at all. Maybe a little of logos (telling people that marijuana may cause you to stick a loaded gun into your mouth), but it doesn't capitalize on that fact at least, and in the end it does not make a conclusive point. Simply stating at the end that "Marijuana Kills" isn't effective enough, especially when the viewer's attention has been lost by that time. Both Harold and Kumar are quite baked from smoking marijuana when they see that ad, and yet, even in their supposedly more paranoid state of marijuana-induced high, they still think the ad is laughable and they do not take it seriously.
Then comes the White Castle ad. They state their cheap prices factually (logos) and the rest of the ad, from the torrent of fries to the use of words like "tasty" and "delicious", to the use of a female voice (which is audibly more appealing than a male voice), are all meant to appeal to the viewer's emotions (pathos). The depiction of the burgers and fries in the ad proves to the viewer that White Castle does indeed make good food (ethos), thereby inclining the viewer towards buying their food. Although Harold and Kumar had the munchies by then, and were generally hungry, the ad overwrote all the other food options they had, and compelled them to embark on their journey to White Castle.
It seems at this point that an effective advertisment has to include all three modes of persuasion and employ all of them effectively in order to be an effective ad, but there are plenty of examples of ads that do not utilize all, or any, of the modes of persuasion, like the famous Cadbury Eyebrows ad.
So: does an ad really need to effectively incorporate all three modes of persuasion to be effective? Or does its effectiveness have nothing to do with the modes of persuasion at all, and in fact depend on something else entirely?
Basically, "advertising causes need, therapy".
They got the idea for this song while watching an LA Lakers game and seeing the advertisments on display there, including one for pizzas that got them really hungry. That's the hallmark of effective advertising; not merely letting people know what you're selling, but getting people to want what you're selling.
I was looking around YouTube for examples of effective advertising when I recalled that moment in Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle, when they get the munchies and see the White Castle ad on TV.
Perfect example of an ineffective and an effective advertisment. (I uploaded this to YouTube myself, so hopefully they don't take it down for copyright infringements or anything like that)
Before this, a little background info on Aristotle's three modes of persuasion:
Logos - appeal via logic and wording of the message
Ethos - appeal via the credibility of the persuader
Pathos - appeal via the arousal of emotions in the viewer
Before the White Castle ad, they watch a public service announcement warning people of the dangers of marijuana. The acting in that ad is quite bad, no impacting or jarring message is sent out, and the ad makes no attempt to reach out to the viewer or make an impression. In communications terms, logos, ethos and pathos aren't being utilized at all. Maybe a little of logos (telling people that marijuana may cause you to stick a loaded gun into your mouth), but it doesn't capitalize on that fact at least, and in the end it does not make a conclusive point. Simply stating at the end that "Marijuana Kills" isn't effective enough, especially when the viewer's attention has been lost by that time. Both Harold and Kumar are quite baked from smoking marijuana when they see that ad, and yet, even in their supposedly more paranoid state of marijuana-induced high, they still think the ad is laughable and they do not take it seriously.
Then comes the White Castle ad. They state their cheap prices factually (logos) and the rest of the ad, from the torrent of fries to the use of words like "tasty" and "delicious", to the use of a female voice (which is audibly more appealing than a male voice), are all meant to appeal to the viewer's emotions (pathos). The depiction of the burgers and fries in the ad proves to the viewer that White Castle does indeed make good food (ethos), thereby inclining the viewer towards buying their food. Although Harold and Kumar had the munchies by then, and were generally hungry, the ad overwrote all the other food options they had, and compelled them to embark on their journey to White Castle.
It seems at this point that an effective advertisment has to include all three modes of persuasion and employ all of them effectively in order to be an effective ad, but there are plenty of examples of ads that do not utilize all, or any, of the modes of persuasion, like the famous Cadbury Eyebrows ad.
So: does an ad really need to effectively incorporate all three modes of persuasion to be effective? Or does its effectiveness have nothing to do with the modes of persuasion at all, and in fact depend on something else entirely?
RSS Feed (xml)
I think that the Cadbury ad uses some aspect of Pathos to get their junk across.
ReplyDeleteIt's a very funky tune, and it gets you grooving (or cringing, if you're like that).
And while these emotions are still vivid and strong, you'll notice that the girl in the ad is dressed in the Cadbury company colors.
You might argue that this is going down the track of subliminals, and that subliminal advertising does not work. But there is no need for any such thing. It's so weird and far out that you REMEMBER that it's Cadbury, especially after their run of cannibalistic chocolate people.
Pathos, baby. However you dissect and analyse an ad, it's gonna have some Pathos smeared on it.
Hi Russell
ReplyDeleteI think that using all 3 modes may be most effective. The Cadbury totally did not make me want to eat cadbury. At all. Not one bit. I suppose the 3 modes exist because it really communicates messages to people. Not emploing any one of it may be, well, foolhardly.
with advertisements recently, i feel that though using the 3 modes may be effective, it is not needed either.
ReplyDeletei feel that with comedy and humour that comes with it, people will tend to be attracted to te advertisement, and may not be the product itself.
however, with the cadbury advertisement airing almost every show, whenever i see a cadbury chocolate, i will think of the advertisement and the song.
i don't know about cadbury, but as far as i'm concerned, an ad doesn't need anything but attract the audience regardless of publicising its product.
ReplyDeletecadbury didn't even feature ANYTHING (much) about chocolates, except maybe the small resemblance of eyebrows and chocolate.
isaac
http://pitstophere.wordpress.com
Depending on the ad, some only need certain appeals to fare well. Public service announcements don't really need to play the ethos card that many times, as if it's a PSA from the government it should be naturally credible. Most ads for items, like for insurance, don't need logos. Not TV ads, anyway. If a TV ad started to explain insurance plans, people would definitely lose interest. There has to be balance and appropriate info.
ReplyDeleteWhat I feel is that the main purpose of a TV ad is to be eye catching and impressionable. That way, even if the ad does not say much about the product, an awareness is created for the product in the viewer's mind. Continue to feed that awareness while maintaining a sense of mystery surrounding the item, and the awareness slowly turns into a genuine curiosity. Now not only does the viewer know about the product, he actually WANTS to find out more. That's better than just knowing that the product exists.
ReplyDeleteAm I the only one who finds the Cadbury ad highly irritating?
ReplyDeleteAnywho, nice Harold and Kumar reference, dude. Didn't think of it as a comparison between good and bad advertising until you mentioned it. Yeah the weed ad was bad, as are a lot of PSAs these days, although there are some good ones, like the anti-smoking one where the smokers on the balcony fall off when the balcony breaks off. Really attention grabbing. Makes me wanna quit smoking.
NOT.
I think that if the product is good and of any use, then it should b enable to sell itself. That being said, just stating the facts is good enough. That way, people won't be suckered into buying things they don't need just because of very convincing advertising.
ReplyDeletethat's just stupid nitroboy. if people didnt try their best to sell their merchandise then they lose money. people in this day and age should be able to handle and be used to convincing advertising and filter out any information they dont need or think might affect their judgement too much.
ReplyDeleteFor me, the best ads are the ones that catch your attention immediately and hold it. Unfortunately, it is usually the sexually suggestive ads that hold attention so well. Sex sells, and it's degrading the morals of our society. And all to sell a couple of things.
ReplyDeleteyou people are missing the initial point of this post, which is about how advertising causes need and therapy. sometimes its despicable how these ads go all out to sell people things they dont need, causing them to spend money they dont have. thats the power of the media, it can make you do just about anything.
ReplyDelete