Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Rhetorical Analysis
Sorry..
Alright I know nearly everyone has had to have seen this video at least once. You’re chillin’ on the couch, watching a little comedy central, laughing with some friends…then they show this. Buzz kill! Everyone frantically searches for the remote to change the channel as one of the saddest songs in the world plays to battered puppies.
This video features Sarah McLachlan, singer, song writer, and SPCA supporter. The video begins with a sad dog followed by a stat, ‘every hour an animal is abused’. This obviously, along with the rest of the commercial, displays pathos. This commercials main goal is to play on the audience’s emotion by making them feel guilty. As they show you clip’s of neglected dogs and cats, it makes you feel responsible for not providing for those animals. This is followed by another stat that there are a lot of animals in captivity and they still need money to provide for them. Next they show the absolute saddest part in the commercial, a dog that can’t walk hobbles across the floor and falls down whimpering. It makes me hate the video instantly. No one wants to see that. Seriousness aside for a sec, the cats in this video really don’t get me choked up like the dogs do, I hate cats.
Sarah McLachlan makes the pitch when she is introduced petting a beautiful dog. “Will you be an angel?... for just $18 a month, just 60 cents a day..” Using logos here, the ad basically says “wow you can’t give up the change you get from your lunch money to help an abused puppy… that’s messed up.” Then they let you know what you provide: food, shelter, medical care, and love. Love, of course, your money will buy them love. Also you get a welcome kit for joining and a picture of an animal you helped save!
This commercials ultimate goal is to get money for all the rescued animals at different shelters. I think most people sitting at home with animals do feel guilty and make the call to donate. So, to me, this ad accomplishes what it intended to do. And on an ending note- keep the remote close when watching tv, in case this commercial pops up. Unless you enjoy buzz kills of course.
And in case your still bummed about watching the video, here’s a video of dogs getting us back…
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think if you have the stomach to watch the whole thing, it is effective, but it takes a couple of beaten animals to finally get to the main point of the commercial. I, for one, change the channel because it is too much for me, so it really doesn't get the message across for me. It is very effective, but it has to get to the point quicker.
ReplyDeleteI really do not like seeing this commercial at all. I agree with the cause, in that they are trying to raise money for animals, but they way they try and do it is just annoying. they make the viewer feel like its his fault if these animals do not get cared for. I can see it being effective but then again, in my case it is not effective.
ReplyDeleteI agree i hate cats to. However this commercial does prove its point but i just wish it could do that without showing all those abused animals. I only watched the video once and that was to much for me. So it is a true buzz killer.
ReplyDeleteI sort of think this commercial, though full of rhetorical techniques, as you pointed out, might be a rhetorical failure. Like Tony and Mike note, it's just hard to watch. I really can't get through it, which means I am less likely to even know the name of the organization or how to donate. I get what their trying to do, but I wonder if toning it down a little might make more effective (and perhaps more ethical and less manipulative...) rhetoric. Great analysis, though! :)
ReplyDelete