February 21, 2007

Bud Light "Rock, Paper, Scissors."

For our cross-cultural rhetoric project Anna and I analyzed a Bud Light advertisement on you tube. http://youtube.com/watch?v=hWEPdeNurfk. The commercial is titled “Rock, Paper, Scissors,” and it was shown during this years superbowl. The setting of the advertisement is at an outdoor party, and the focus is of two young men both reaching into a cooler for a Bud Light. However, there is only one beer left in the cooler so they decide to play rock, paper, scissors. The both take one step away from the cooler begin playing. They decide to show their decision on “three”, and on three the man on the right throws a rock at the other man which knocks him over. The man lying on the grass claims, “I threw paper” while the other man takes the beer and says, “I threw a rock.” The closing slogan of the advertiement is, “Bud Light, Always Worth it.”
When I (Jillian) first saw this commercial I wondered if the game rock, paper, scissors was solely an American game and therefore culturally specific. I was unsure if Anna would even understand the commercial. Without knowing what rock, paper, scissors is the commercial would seem really strange, especially with a rock eventually being thrown in one mans face. It turns out that the game is called Sten, sax, påse in Sweden and is played for the same reasons to settle disputes similar to doing a coin flip. Bud Light is trying to show that its beer is so great that it is worth fighting over. The rhetorical appeal of this advertisement is mainly pathos since it is a humorous appeal that plays to the emotions. A lot of American beer commercials use this appeal and this commercial is no different. When watching a beer advertisment you are almost anticipating a funny climax, but this one was really clever and unexpected when the man threw a rock on three instead of holding out a fist. While in this advertisement Bud Light doesn’t use ethos to show a famous face to sell its beer, we think the young cool looking guy is an just as much of an ethos rhetorical appeal. The setting is a laid back party with two men that really want a beer. We also don’t really thing the slogan makes much sense here, “Bud Light, Always Worth it” because the guy lying on the ground had no idea he was going to have a rock thrown at him for trying to get a beer. However, I guess they are claiming that in order to get a Bud Light anything goes.

February 20, 2007

Levina and Yao's Rhetorical Analysis

Background:
Levina and I chose to analyze a commercial for Dove’s “Self-Esteem Fund.” (http://youtube.com/watch?v=u86OH9mTG2Y&mode=related&search=) which supports education programs that promote confidence, self-worth, and health body image in young people. It is part of Dove’s “Campaign for Real Beauty,” in which the company aims to redefine female beauty in a society saturated by unrealistic images of youth and perfection.

For more details on the Self-Esteem Fund, visit http://campaignforrealbeauty.com/dsef/temp2.asp?id=4196

What is the main argument of this ad?

This ad argues that the Dove Self-Esteem Fund can help teach girls with insecurities to love and accept themselves.

Who is the intended audience for this ad?

This ad primarily targets a female audience, particularly younger girls and their mothers.

What are the Appeals of the Ad?

When looking at this commercial by Dove and their self-esteem fund, one can say it’s obvious how they are using todays doxa to reach out. Doxa is the beliefs, opinion, prejudice, etc. that exists within a society. A doxa also contains values. Some values are about beauty and by being beautiful also meaning to be accepted. Young girls of today don’t feel good about themselves because of the demands about outer apperance. Dove says in the commercial: “let’s change their minds”, “because every girl deserves to feel good about herself.” In a way, Dove is trying to change our doxa by asserting that being beautiful does not necessarily entail blonde hair with a size 2 waistline.

The commercial is also kairos because the issue of body image is a very prominent topic today. Dove is taking advantage of the public’s increasing awareness of how the standard of beauty in popular culture is a completely artificial construct. Today, we are very conscious of the dangers of low-self esteem, including depression and eating disorders. Also, this particular ad features girls of many different racial backgrounds, reflecting the current demand for political correctness.

To reach out with the message about the self-esteem fund Dove are using young girls with worries and disgust for their own apperance. This is called evidentia and can be explained as evidence. One can say that Dove is using these girls as evidence. So that we can see with our own eyes their worries and that Dove cares.

Showing us these girls and letting us know how they feel about themselves is a use of pathos. They want to make us feel for them, and even remind us of how we feel about ourselves. For young girls with the same lack of self-confidence, as the ones in the commercial, it’s a certain way to be reached. They can identify themselves with these girls. The aesthetics of the commercial further contribute to the commercial’s pathos appeal. First, the background music is sung by a choir of young girls; their angelic voices complement the images of cute, wide-eyed children. The juxtaposition of such lovable images with words like “hates her freckles” creates quite a heartbreaking scenario. Also, the girls are looking straight out of the screen, directly at the viewer. The camera also zooms in on most of their faces. This makes the person watching the commercial feel more of an emotional connection. In addition, Dove chose a white background for certain frames of the commercial, as well as a soft, warm light quality, reflecting hope for the future.

The commercial uses logos to put forth its main argument. It claims that if the self esteem fund reaches young girls with insecurities and self-esteem issues, then those girls will change their minds and learn to accept themselves. Dove thereby offers a solution to help girls “see how beautiful she really is.”

The commercial gives Dove a strong corporate ethos, because Dove is trying to portray itself as an ethical company that takes responsibility for the image it projects to impressionable young girls.

Is this ad culturally specific?

To fully appreciate the commercial, one would have to be aware of its cultural context. In other words, this ad strongly alludes to the perceptions of beauty in American popular culture: young, skinny, blonde, and perfect. But it is universal as well, because insecurity about body image is not a culturally confined phenomenon. The commercial also reflects a society that considers girls’ self-image and self-worth important.
Furthermore, the background music for the commercial is a choral rendition of “True Colors,” a song by the 1980’s American singer Cyndi Lauper.

Is Dove convincing?

Well, I (Levina) believe so. Once I was a little girl and hated my freckles. They made me feel different. If I had seen this commercial about the self-esteem fund back then, I am rather sure it would have affected me in a positive way. I think they have a good and strong ethos for their audience mostly because of their use of pathos. But I must also give Dove credit for using kairos in a cultural context with this campaign. Today, as an adult, I’m asking myself questions like: Well, I like the idea of the real-beauty campaign and making girls feel better about themselves, but do they really care or is this only a marketing strategy with a skilled use of rhetoric? I guess a little bit of both. But still, they have made a good effort to be convincing.

I (Yao) have a more sceptical opinion of the Dove ad. Dove has it right that young girls’ self esteem needs to be nurtured, but how exactly is a “Self-Esteem Fund” going to accomplish that? I agree with Levina that the commercial raises doubts about Dove’s motives. Dove might be taking advantage of the growing backlash against skinny models and surgically altered movie stars to boost its company, but they deserve credit for choosing such a timely campaign. In terms of pathos, I would say the commercial did well, but its logic is unclear. I believe that the ad was most successful in contributing to Dove’s corporate ethos.


February 19, 2007

Healthy Eating At McDonald's?

For our cross-cultural rhetoric project, we analyzed the McDonald’s website for Sweden (http://www.mcdonalds.se/) and for the United States (http://www.mcdonalds.com/usa.html). The Swedish site is targeted towards parents. It is important to point out that ads targeted towards children are prohibited in Sweden, and targeting the site towards parents could be a way to get around this law. While the restaurant itself appeals to children, the website tries to get parents to indulge their children by bringing them to McDonald’s. The central picture of the site is a Swedish mother, and most of the content has to do with nutrition -- an important concern for Swedish parents.

In contrast, the main audience for the U.S. site seems to be children and young adults. The most important picture (the one on the left, where Americans would look first) is a young woman laughing and talking on her cell phone. The emphasis is not on the food, but on the fun lifestyle that McDonald’s offers. Similarly, there is an entire portion of the site with games for children. The audience, and the message, is very different.

The different sites present two different images. The U.S. site sells a fun and carefree lifestyle. There is even a picture of a man jumping in the air, to show the free lifestyle enjoyed by eating McDonald's. It is a site that is comfortable with the company image. The Swedish site, on the other hand, seems to be battling an image problem. People know that McDonald's is unhealthy, and the site does its best to persuade the audience that its food is not so bad after all.

The Swedish site tries to actively change the audience’s perception about McDonald’s in a few ways. The site mainly makes a logos appeal; in the BalansGuiden section, the site presents a lot of figures and graphs about nutrition. This logos argument is coupled with pictures of people doing yoga and skateboarding – similar to the pictures found on the U.S. site. It is almost as if the website can only argue for the freedom of the McDonald’s lifestyle after it has dealt the health issue. A Swedish audience is not ready for the lifestyle argument until it has already digested the logos argument about nutrition. Additionally, the nutrition section seems deliberately confusing. It is difficult to navigate, because there are so many frames that require scrolling. McDonald’s may want people to accept the argument about nutrition without really reading too carefully. This suggests to us that the arguments about nutrition are not very strong, because the emphasis is on quantity rather than quality.

Vir civilis means “good citizen.” It refers to the idea that the most powerful arguments are made by people who honestly have everyone’s best interest in mind. The Swedish website is an example of using the power of persuasion without being a vir civilis. The goal is to persuade the audience to act in a way that may not be in their best interest. As such, this website illustrates how rhetoric can be manipulated and used selfishly. It is a tool that is used differently by different people. Finally, our analysis of the two websites raises the issue of the morality of rhetoric. Do rhetors have moral responsibility or not? Our view is that the more persuasive techniques a rhetor uses, the more responsible the rhetor is for her message. We hope to talk more about this important issue in class.

-- Andy Ramish and Charlotte Eriksson

February 04, 2007

Picture of the week

I'm glad that your group didn't have the tech difficulties it experienced on the 24th ... it seemed like you were having a lively discussion this week. I keep feeling your group is the elusive one of the bunch, though -- from the Stanford side, it seems like everytime I go to check in on you, the door is shut, and sometimes locked... however, it makes me feel better that you always look actively engaged with each other when I peek through the window -- and that Alyssa often seems to find her way into your room. Buth here is the photo that best represents my typical impression of you all -- next week I'll have to take one from the inside looking outward :)

fugle0131.jpg

January 31, 2007

Team Fuglesang pairs

Hi Team Fuglesang!

so here are the groups we arranged:

Daniel and Joakim
Jillian and Anna
Andy and Charlotte
Yao and Levina

I'm not sure if there will be a master list of contact information, but just in case, my email is yaoyang@stanford.edu
feel free to post your information on this thread:-)

January 29, 2007

Hey Guys

Sorry it took me soo long to post. I'm really having problems with the all the different websites of this course, and not having the right passwords for the right one.

So far technology problems has been a theme for our group so I'm sure you guys understand.

In terms of Wednesday's video conference, for what little time we had, it seemed as if people saw different pictures from gender lines. I personally was not swayed by the impotence picture, as much as the large tumor. Its been 4 days later and I'm still having nightmares about that.

Hopefully on our next video conference we can get all the technology working before hand, so we can spend the rest of the time actually dealing with the topics at hand.

January 26, 2007

Wed. class

So...the technology issues in class on Wednesday were incredibly frustrating, but once we got all of that sorted, I think we had a fantastic discussion. To continue our discussion, I think that the EU ads we looked at were probably mainly geared towards potential smokers. People who smoke already know the possible health consequences and are unlikely to be persuaded by a graphic picture. However, I think that the ads on the whole were too graphic to be effective. It was obviously an appeal to pathos rather than logros; the message was so extreme that I found myself rejecting it on face. For example, the picture of the man with a tumor in his throat seemed to say "This is what will happen to you if you buy these cigarettes." Yet everyone knows that it would most likely take years and years of smoking to get a tumor like that. This is what I hate about most anti-drug ads. The warnings are too exaggerated to be taken seriously, and they aren't really geared towards eliciting a certain behavior. "The truth" campaign takes a different approach. Rather than telling teens not to smoke because it is dangerous (which anyway is part of the appeal), most of the ads suggest that smokers are tools of The Man -- a much better approach. The ads on the website I brought to class, http://www.abovetheinfluence.com/the-ads/default.aspx, poke fun at the typical anti-drug ad (which always seems so stodgy and patronizing).