Skip to main content

Anti-Smoking

When I am on the internet, I usually ignore the ads on the side of the web site. However recently I have begun to pay more attention to them.  I found two images advertising for the same things in the same way. They were saying that cigarettes led to death. Both had a simple layout, with as little words as possible. The first photo had a picture of a bullet and under it said ‘Quick’ then a picture of a cigarette and below that ‘Slow.’ The second photo is what looks like a car after an accident. The car was crunched and smoking. However if you look closer the car has taken the place of a cigarette after it has been put out.   To the side of the car it says “Do you know how much you really spend on cigarettes?” This ad takes a lot more thought to figure what it is actually saying.  I was curious, was this ad saying that a cigarette can hurt you more than a car accident? Or that smoking in some way can cause an accident? So I googled the website at the bottom of the photo. The actual website did not appear, but I did find the photo on the website adsoftheworld.com, and it had some more information about it. Apparently was made by an advertising company in Brazil, the company, Tabaconomia, from what I gathered calculated the amount of money spent on Tabacco and I guess it amounted to the cost of a car. This was very interesting to me, one advertisement was bringing an awareness to the costly side effects the other was just showing you the cost in money.

Both of these advertisements use different kinds of rhetoric. The first image comparing a bullet to a cigarette was using the logical fallacy appeal to fear, implying that smoking would kill you, but unlike a bullet, it will be a slow death. The second image, the one of the car, was more of a logical approach. Showing you how much money you waste on cigarettes, enough money to buy a car! That is a lot of money!

If I had to choose which advertisement I found more effective I would say the first. This is because, even though they use logical fallacies, there is some truth in it. Smoking can lead to death, and it has plenty of other medical side effects. The other advertisement is a little too confusing, I didn’t understand what it meant until I looked it up! However both do a good job at raising awareness for different problems with smoking. 
Labels:

Comments

  1. UnknownMay 21, 2015 at 4:38 PM

    I've seen a lot of people quit smoking after seeing these kinds of advertisements. I find both ads effective and I hope more smokers to realize how dangerous smoking can be.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Abigail OverbeyMay 27, 2015 at 4:58 AM

    I have noticed that there have been a lot of really effective, creative smoking ads lately. Have you seen the ones on MTV of the people in convenience store pulling out their teeth? Smoking is gross but these make me not want to do it even more. I agree with you about how the first is more effective than the second, but I think both are effective in putting things in perspective and showing how terrible smoking is in event aspect.

    Liz

    ReplyDelete
  3. UnknownMay 28, 2015 at 12:27 PM

    I like this advertisement because I think reminding smokers of the amount of money they waste on cigarettes will help them realize that they may not only struggle with their health in the future, but also their finances.

    ReplyDelete
  4. UnknownMay 28, 2015 at 12:27 PM

    I like this advertisement because I think reminding smokers of the amount of money they waste on cigarettes will help them realize that they may not only struggle with their health in the future, but also their finances.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Abigail OverbeyJune 1, 2015 at 9:01 AM

    I agree, the first ad is definitely more effective. I think the first gets people thinking more about their actions more than the second one. The first gets right to the point and I think it uses an appeal to fear to try to scare you into not smoke.

    Kaitlyn

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Weight of Glory

In Mr. Cline's class a few weeks ago. We took the day off in a way from our normal classes. Instead of continuing to read the books we were assigned and discussing them, he read us the sermon by C.S Lewis "The Weight of Glory." Its a long sermon, but one worth reading. It is about the confusion many people have on the topic of what we desire the most. He explains after much background information, that we all desire true happiness. And through that happiness, we long for heaven, our true home that we were designed for. He explains that glory is not what many people think of as being "famous" in heaven. But more that we are honored by our Lord and Father. For it to be like the scripture passage "Well done, good and faithful servant." C.S Lewis does a fantastic job at being persuasive here, and if read by the right person aloud, can have an excellent effect. He clears up lots of points that people bring up that are not true. Such as the point of glory...
9 comments
Read more

Stephen Curry (Brita)

I saw this commercial for Brita water on YouTube and on T.V.  Stephen Curry, a professional basketball player that plays for the Golden State Warriors, endorses and promotes the product by saying "not all water is the same."  In this advertisement he makes Brita water seem better than the other leading brands of water by saying "You are what you drink."  He also says "some water can dribble, drain threes, or even drain a buzzer beater."  With these claims, he is implying that drinking the Brita water it could make you better at basketball and help you become better and as good as him. Brita uses a celebrity to sell it by implying that it could improve your basketball performance.  This advertisement is false because water is not going to change your skills and abilities.  It tries to persuade you to buy it because a professional basketball player drinks it.  I feel as though it may persuade some people to buy it because of Stephen Curry endorsing it....
8 comments
Read more

Marilyn Monroe's Shampoo

While browsing on Google I found an old advertisement.  The ad was for Lustre-Crème Shampoo. It featured Marilyn Monroe, known for her beauteous looks and her parts in different movies. One of her movies was Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. Lustre-Crème was attempting to sell their shampoo through the use of fallacies. By saying that Marilyn Monroe that tells you nothing about the actual product: it simply attracts you to the pretty face in the picture. Using this as an argument of why someone should buy your product is quite illogical. Just because Marilyn Monroe uses it doesn’t provide assurance of its abilities. They attempt using snob appeal by trying to make the audience believe that they could be like Marilyn Monroe if they use the same product as her. They use appeal to illegitimate authority by using Marilyn Monroe to promote their product. Although she herself is a customer, this is still rather irrelevant. She herself has no type of expertise in hair products and knows nothing t...
3 comments
Read more