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)
