Whenever this commercial comes onto my television, my family can't help but laugh at it, because who doesn't love babies with adult voices? Come on, it's funny! But when I started to repeatedly ask myself what the commercial was actually for, (and of course, rhetorically analyze it), the question of whether or not the commercial was effective came to mind as well. First, the speaker is obviously ETrade, but in the commercial, it's either one or two babies talking on phones in their low voices that make the commercial humorous. The commercial definitely uses a sense of sarcasm and humor to maybe get the audience's attention. This is a good thing. The audience is either businesspeople or people looking to trade stocks, but in my opinion, who would have known that from the commercial? I believe that this commercial is extremely ineffective. I agree that the babies are definitely a humorous factor, but at the same time, throughout the commercial, the audience is mainly paying their attention to the babies, and the fact that they're being technologically transformed into grown men making business deals over the phone. No one really pays much attention, well I didn't, as to what the commercial is actually telling the audience. Unfortunately, as funny as the ad may be, the fact that it is ineffective leaves the audience with the picture of the talking babies in their heads, asking, "what was that commercial for?". I noticed that this is the case with many commercials for the Super Bowl, but some were actually effective. Many of the beer and Doritos commercials make it obvious as to what they are advertising, but ETrade did not really have that effect. The flash of the ETrade name and slogan at the end of the commercial obviously allows for some recollection of what the commercial was advertising, but, in my opinion, not enough. In all honesty, this is one of my favorite commercials. Whether or not it does its job correctly or not, that is in the hands of the creators and advertising agency, but it definitely succeeds in getting a laugh out of me and my family.
Sunday, November 17, 2013
Tow #9: ETrade Commercial
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbnWbdR9wSY
Whenever this commercial comes onto my television, my family can't help but laugh at it, because who doesn't love babies with adult voices? Come on, it's funny! But when I started to repeatedly ask myself what the commercial was actually for, (and of course, rhetorically analyze it), the question of whether or not the commercial was effective came to mind as well. First, the speaker is obviously ETrade, but in the commercial, it's either one or two babies talking on phones in their low voices that make the commercial humorous. The commercial definitely uses a sense of sarcasm and humor to maybe get the audience's attention. This is a good thing. The audience is either businesspeople or people looking to trade stocks, but in my opinion, who would have known that from the commercial? I believe that this commercial is extremely ineffective. I agree that the babies are definitely a humorous factor, but at the same time, throughout the commercial, the audience is mainly paying their attention to the babies, and the fact that they're being technologically transformed into grown men making business deals over the phone. No one really pays much attention, well I didn't, as to what the commercial is actually telling the audience. Unfortunately, as funny as the ad may be, the fact that it is ineffective leaves the audience with the picture of the talking babies in their heads, asking, "what was that commercial for?". I noticed that this is the case with many commercials for the Super Bowl, but some were actually effective. Many of the beer and Doritos commercials make it obvious as to what they are advertising, but ETrade did not really have that effect. The flash of the ETrade name and slogan at the end of the commercial obviously allows for some recollection of what the commercial was advertising, but, in my opinion, not enough. In all honesty, this is one of my favorite commercials. Whether or not it does its job correctly or not, that is in the hands of the creators and advertising agency, but it definitely succeeds in getting a laugh out of me and my family.
Whenever this commercial comes onto my television, my family can't help but laugh at it, because who doesn't love babies with adult voices? Come on, it's funny! But when I started to repeatedly ask myself what the commercial was actually for, (and of course, rhetorically analyze it), the question of whether or not the commercial was effective came to mind as well. First, the speaker is obviously ETrade, but in the commercial, it's either one or two babies talking on phones in their low voices that make the commercial humorous. The commercial definitely uses a sense of sarcasm and humor to maybe get the audience's attention. This is a good thing. The audience is either businesspeople or people looking to trade stocks, but in my opinion, who would have known that from the commercial? I believe that this commercial is extremely ineffective. I agree that the babies are definitely a humorous factor, but at the same time, throughout the commercial, the audience is mainly paying their attention to the babies, and the fact that they're being technologically transformed into grown men making business deals over the phone. No one really pays much attention, well I didn't, as to what the commercial is actually telling the audience. Unfortunately, as funny as the ad may be, the fact that it is ineffective leaves the audience with the picture of the talking babies in their heads, asking, "what was that commercial for?". I noticed that this is the case with many commercials for the Super Bowl, but some were actually effective. Many of the beer and Doritos commercials make it obvious as to what they are advertising, but ETrade did not really have that effect. The flash of the ETrade name and slogan at the end of the commercial obviously allows for some recollection of what the commercial was advertising, but, in my opinion, not enough. In all honesty, this is one of my favorite commercials. Whether or not it does its job correctly or not, that is in the hands of the creators and advertising agency, but it definitely succeeds in getting a laugh out of me and my family.
IRB Preview
The non-fiction book I have decided to read is called, Three Little Words, written by Ashley Rhodes-Courter. I found the synopsis to be interesting, as it is about a girl who has been in foster care for most of her life. Ashley Rhodes, the author, was in foster care for nine years of her life, and switched schools over fourteen times. I think the main reason I would like reading about that kind of life is the fact that my life is so much different. I think it's amazing how different peoples' lives are compared to mine, and I find some very interesting, but, in this case, very sad. At the ned of the story, without giving too much away, the synopsis says that Rhodes ends up finding a voice for herself. In that sense, I'm really excited to read the book because I want to know how she ends up creating a persona for herself. She was abused in foster care, as well asswitched identities multiple times, so I find it interesting that she has the ability to make someone out of herself. This book is a bit similar to the last IRB that I read, in the sense that it is about a person overcoming adversity. Just as Daniel Tammet had to overcome autism to get where he is today, Ashley Rhodes-Courter has to overcome being a foster child, and essentially, being left out and abandoned. I have a feeling that the tone of this book isn't going to be very bright, but it will be very dark at some times, and very dramatic and sad as well. The author is obviously credible, as she has gone through the experiences and is able to write about them. The author happens to be a well known public speaker, and her book has won over 5 awards. I think her audience is everyone and anyone who wants to hear a good story about the strength of a girl in a hardship. She was a girl who was dealt a bad hand of cards, and she had to figure out a way to play the cards right, and she did. I think by the end of this book, I'm going to really respect the author, more than I already do. Her story seems inspiring, and I'm extremely excited to read about it.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Tow #8: IRB Final Review
 |
| Daniel Tammet |
Sunday, October 27, 2013
TOW #7: Barack Obama Speech- Against Going to War With Iraq
http://www.famous-speeches-and-speech-topics.info/famous-speeches/barack-obama-speech-against-going-to-war-with-iraq.htm
After analyzing JFK's inaugural address, I decided to analyze one of Barack Obama's many speeches, mainly because I know Obama was inspired by JFK in terms of his delivery. This particular speech is called "Against Going to War With Iraq". Barack Obama had some pretty big decisions to make at this time. In his speech, he starts off by telling his audience that he is not a person who opposes all wars, and then uses the example of the Civil War, which drove out slavery. He repeats the sentence, "I don't oppose all wars" three more times. Right off the bat, he establishes a persona. He makes a huge deal out of saying that he is NOT against war. He then goes on to declare which kinds of war he is opposed to. He says he is opposed to dumb wars. I think that within the first half of his speech, he is basically explaining his take on war itself, and then the people that are involved in the current situation with Iraq (Sadam Hussein and others). In this speech, I found the most interesting part was when Obama directly addresses the previous president, George W Bush. Bush wanted this war to happen. Obama uses anaphora when he asks, "You want a war, President Bush?" as the first line in 4 paragraphs. He then goes on to say what America should really be fighting for. He says that we should fight for the freedom of people in other countries who don't have it. This definitely appealed to pathos in the sense that it allowed the American people to want to reach out to the other countries that don't have the freedom that we do in this country. Overall, I think the speech is effective. He basically compares the idea of going to war with Iraq to the ideas of using the United States' Army to fight for more important causes. In that way, he also uses juxtaposition. All of these rhetorical devices combine to get across the message that going into Iraq and fighting this war is not only stupid, but worthless as well. When examining his delivery, he does use similar tactics, He makes lines their own paragraphs, and separates ideas with commas and new paragraphs. In this way, his syntax and diction were very similar to JFK's. This speech was successful because he does get straight to the point, and because the speech is short and sweet, it leaves the audience (the US, George Bush, other countries) with something to think about.
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Tow #6: ASPCA Advertisement
Every single time one of these commercials comes on to my television, I can't help but to tear up a little bit. I decided to analyze it to see how the ASPCA actually attracts people. Obviously, most of the ads, if not all, appeal to pathos. The image of the puppy, kitten, or another desperate animal is the forefront of the advertisement, pulling the viewer in to only get a closer look at how sad or hopeless the animal must be. While some of it may be a hyperbole- it works. Something else I noticed was the strong diction. For example, in this ad, it uses "barbaric cruelty" when describing dog fighting. I think that definitely supports the ad in the sense that people would want to save the puppy from whatever "cruelty" it's encountering. These ads definitely place a more emotional connection and even a more human connection to the animals. Many would start to feel bad for a dog in a picture. Something that also caught my eye was "as little as 60 cents" in reference to the donation that can be made to the organization. I think when using the words "as little as", it makes it seem like much less of a donation. Also, perhaps, people may feel obligated to donate MORE than that initial 60 cents, bringing in more money for the ASPCA. On the bottom of the ad, it states, "make a monthly gift". The word "gift" is definitely used cleverly here, because it's more of a donation, but they're trying to make the point that the donation is a "gift" to the animals. Overall, I think this advertisement is extremely effective. The mere color scheme adds to the sad, hopeless theme that the ad tries to convey. I think audience is definitely a factor here as well. People with dogs, in my opinion, would be more likely to have feelings toward the animal on the ad, while people without any relation to pets wouldn't have as much of an emotional connection. While rhetorically analyzing, it is easy to observe that the ASPCA ads do an extremely great job of connecting to their audience, while also attempting to get people to donate to a cause that benefits the life of animals. So, while tears may be rolling down my face as the sad music starts playing along with this commercial, I will be thinking, "Great rhetoric work, ASPCA. Well done." Sunday, October 13, 2013
TOW #5: How To Waste Your Life ~Jason Sanford
http://www.jasonsanford.com/jason/2009/11/how-to-waste-your-life.html
This is just an essay that I found entertaining. It's barely really an essay, but it's more like a list. I liked the title, so I went with it. When I first saw the title, "How to Waste Your Life", I thought of the obvious. I thought, well okay, you can waste your life by basically sitting around and being a boring person. You can watch TV too much and find a job that you hate and never find love ever. Those were the first ideas that came to my mind. While I was thinking these things and reading, but Sanford surprised me, and brought new ideas to the table. The one that really stuck in my mind was, "Obsess on anything" (Sanford 1). I just found it amusing because it reminded me of all of the things that I, personally, obsess over; such as artists of music, food, Starbucks, television shows, even people. He claims that there is a difference between dedication to a certain thing or hobby and an obsession. This really reminded me of what Mr. Yost said to our class at the beginning of the year: It's only school. It kind of makes me think that I shouldn't obsess too much over homework and school, but just let it be. I think Sanford uses hyperbole a little bit in his list/essay. He says ,"spends all day on Twitter", and "screaming about politics" (Sanford). I love how he uses hyperbole, because it really stressed his point. I think the purpose of this little essay is just what the title says, telling people how not to waste their lives. He basically provides something that would be considered something that would waste your life, and then explains the opposite of it, and why we shouldn't do it. He tells us to find something we love to do, and strive to do it more often, maybe for even an occupation. He tells us to spend time with family, and forget about modern day applications. He tells us to sleep more, and be happier. I liked this essay because it gave me an idea about how to be happy. Sanford does a terrific job of setting up his audience with an extremely relatable topic, and giving his opinion on what he thinks a satisfying life really is.
This is just an essay that I found entertaining. It's barely really an essay, but it's more like a list. I liked the title, so I went with it. When I first saw the title, "How to Waste Your Life", I thought of the obvious. I thought, well okay, you can waste your life by basically sitting around and being a boring person. You can watch TV too much and find a job that you hate and never find love ever. Those were the first ideas that came to my mind. While I was thinking these things and reading, but Sanford surprised me, and brought new ideas to the table. The one that really stuck in my mind was, "Obsess on anything" (Sanford 1). I just found it amusing because it reminded me of all of the things that I, personally, obsess over; such as artists of music, food, Starbucks, television shows, even people. He claims that there is a difference between dedication to a certain thing or hobby and an obsession. This really reminded me of what Mr. Yost said to our class at the beginning of the year: It's only school. It kind of makes me think that I shouldn't obsess too much over homework and school, but just let it be. I think Sanford uses hyperbole a little bit in his list/essay. He says ,"spends all day on Twitter", and "screaming about politics" (Sanford). I love how he uses hyperbole, because it really stressed his point. I think the purpose of this little essay is just what the title says, telling people how not to waste their lives. He basically provides something that would be considered something that would waste your life, and then explains the opposite of it, and why we shouldn't do it. He tells us to find something we love to do, and strive to do it more often, maybe for even an occupation. He tells us to spend time with family, and forget about modern day applications. He tells us to sleep more, and be happier. I liked this essay because it gave me an idea about how to be happy. Sanford does a terrific job of setting up his audience with an extremely relatable topic, and giving his opinion on what he thinks a satisfying life really is.
Sunday, October 6, 2013
Tow #4: IRB Review
 |
| Daniel Tammet |
Daniel Tammet is officially one of my new authors. Not only is he a new favorite author, but he's a new favorite person. Born on a Blue Day is basically about this guy, Daniel Tammet, who has autism, but it's a different and special kind of autism. He sees numbers as shapes and colors and textures. He can do insane mathematical problems in his head. He stressed these ideas while also stressing an even bigger idea: autistic people aren't much different from those who are not autistic. One of my favorite quotes from the book was, "You don't have to be disabled to be different, because everyone's different." (201). I loved this quote. At this point in the story, Tammet is talking about a man named Kim Peek, who goes on speaking tours and reads books to people in orphanages and colleges and hospitals. Peek was an inspiration for Tammet. The quote does give me a little reminder that everyone is different. A disability is just like have a unique characteristic or a unique personality trait. I think that's one of the main purposes of the book. Tammet wants to inform the reader that it's okay to think of the disabled as different, but never put a negative connotation on the word; everyone is different, and different is okay. Another idea that I love throughout the book is that he goes through many personal experiences that even I go through. One of them being relationships. He says, "No relationship is without its difficulties and this is certainly true when one or both of the persons involved has an autistic spectrum disorder. Even so, I believe what is truly essential to the success of any relationship is not so much compatibility, but love. When you love someone, virtually anything is possible.” (155). I liked this quote just based on the fact that he knows why something like a relationship would be more difficult for him. Not only is he autistic, but he is also openly gay. This really opened my eyes and allowed me to see how much Tammet really must go through every single day of his life just to be happy. I think it's absolutely incredible the way he lives. He's so proud of himself and he's so humble and modest. He appeals to pathos throughout the book as he describes the tough times that he's encountered due to his disability or homosexuality. This is one of my favorite books that I have ever read, and I am so glad I was introduced to it in my non-fiction course. It really makes me come to realize how lucky I am, but it also allows me to see autistic people differently; not with a disability, but almost with a certain gift, just like Daniel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)