How to Understand Car Insurance

If you're reading this blog with the intention of understanding car insurance once finished, you are going to be sadly disappointed. Misled by the title? Yeah, that’s how I feel when I watch any Geico advertisement. Here’s an advertisement of a variety I see more and more these days:

Remember watching this commercial and saying “You know, that commercial really sold Geico car insurance; I now understand why most people would find this product more useful than its competitors”? Yeah, I don’t remember saying it either. This commercial is a good example of what many commercials these days seem to do. It really plays up pathos and ethos, but it is quite scant indeed in the logos department. The pathos is obvious; while it may not be comedic gold, we all know some person that would find this commercial hilarious, and getting your funny bone tickled is pathos apealling to the emotion of happiness and to humor. The ethos is pretty blunt as well; that hairy cross-dressed individual makes it abundantly clear that he is speaking with an all-pro linebacker, Brian Orakpo, a star in what I assume is football. By including a character in the commercial that an average Joe may be familiar with or that he can admire, the product sells better. So where’s the logos? Sure, they mention that you COULD save 15% or more by switching to Geico, but how can you know if you qualify for such savings? Do they give you a statistic? Do you hear about their benefits? No. Geico commercials are notorious for cramming numerous characters, in-jokes, and nonsense into their various ad campaigns, but they are frequently lacking when it comes to facts. So this leads to my question: If Geico constantly airs advertisements like this one, why are they the third biggest car insurance company in the country? Don’t people want more facts about their insurance before signing up?

Are You Kidding Me?

            Perusing my Facebook newsfeed recently, I saw this video posted by some bleeding-heart page that I must have Liked at some time or the other. It features one of my favorite politicians, Dennis Kucinich, sharing his insights on the possibility of a war with Iran. The video is loaded with a number of rhetorical devices, and some of his statements work on more than one level, which is to be analyzed… Right now.

            Early in the video, at about 0:30, he poses a question to his audience, “How would we feel if an Iranian aircraft, manned or not, was intercepted near the American Coast?” Though he goes on to answer the question with what he thinks would happen, the format of the question itself is one with which many of us are familiar, the classic “How would YOU feel if…” question. While it is a typical strategy of, say, a kindergarten teacher reprimanding the class bully, the question is still a good use of Pathos, since one has to ask himself how he would feel about reciprocity of his actions. The answer he gives is justified through Logos, as he states that any nation has the same rights to sovereignty that the US does, a conclusion he reaches through a logical deduction. He goes on to pose a rhetorical question, “Did we run out of wars to escalate?” Now I know this is plainly sarcastic, but it is still a good use of a rhetorical question because it gets his audience thinking about why we would need to start another war without even mentioning Iran. He finishes off with a Logos bid supplemented with some Pathos, stating some statistics about the millions of uninsured and unemployed residing in the US. The raw statistics are Logos, as they are just plain facts, but choosing unemployment and insurance coverage can play to an audience’s sympathy with the less fortunate of the nation.

            In my opinion, disregarding whether I agree with him or not, Dennis Kucinich is a good guy. He stands up for his beliefs, even if they are unpopular, and he seems to have a great deal of conviction and integrity. Also, he has a pretty hot wife. My view of his good ethics go to show me that just because someone is skilled in the art of rhetoric, even if he is a politician, doesn’t mean that he is an underhanded or bad person.

You feelin' lucky?

Of course I had to pick this video for the RCL Blog. It's a brilliant video for a number of reasons, and its full of rhetorical strategies, particularly ethos. The one and only Clint Eastwood is the narrator, likely since his image is a well-known one, and to have someone as popular as him as a spokesperson will make people pay attention to the advertisement.

The first example of ethos-based dialogue contributing to the message is at about 0:40, when Eastwood says “I’ve seen a lot of tough eras in my life, a lot of downturns…” This contributes to Eastwood’s credibility in his age; being so old, he can reassure the audience that this downturn will not be the end of America. It is one slice of the entire first half of the commercial that is spent laying out the problems that America has now, and the problems that we have faced in the past. By putting these problems on the line now, it makes the feeling of hope all the more powerful when, in the second half, Eastwood gives a moving monologue about the solutions and our willpower.

In the second half of the video, Eastwood starts saying things along these lines, “But after those trials, we rallied around what was right, and acted as one… Because that’s what we do.” This is a complete turnaround from the beginning of the video, and it really amplifies the audience’s feeling of hope when the mood changes so quickly. Furthermore, the use of images like firemen, families, and a father dropping his child off at school evoke feelings of traditional down-hominess in the American audience.

So while this is a great example of rhetoric, all of this is a little underhanded. Sure, it makes the audience feel proud to be Americans and all that jazz… But you know what? It’s all to sell Chrysler vehicles. Tell me you don’t feel duped after that. “We’re America, we can recover from this, and we’re a strong and proud people that won’t stay down! Now buy a Chrysler.”

Whoops

I forgot to put this video with the blog below it, but this is Mitt Romney's speech after the Florida Primary.

Holy Mitt

Here we have Mitt Romney’s victory speech from Tuesday night, after winning the Florida primary with a 15% margin. It is a perfect example of a deliberative speech, and understandably so due to the clear political nature of it. While there is overwhelming evidence that it is deliberative, there are some questions I would like to relay off the audience before coming to conclusions.

 Romney starts listing his qualifications at about 3:48. While this is an understandable and obvious use of Ethos, he kind of goes overboard eventually. At 4:07, he makes a statement simply dripping with Ethos, concerning how he purportedly “saved the Olympics from scandal.” Despite the validity of such a statement, of COURSE he goes on to mention how “proud” the US Athletes made us. As much as I want a president that is good at complimenting American Athletes (since they don’t get enough praise as it is), it was politically irrelevant. Nonetheless, it credits his character well with his American audience. Furthermore, he discredits Obama all over the place. While it isn’t directly a boost to his character, it does degrade the credibility of his opponent, which makes him look better in comparison. Such plays to Ethos are typical of deliberative speeches, as we typically think of people we want changing the future of our country as people with credibility and character.

However, I do want to know… Could this speech be considered forensic in any way? Or even epideictic? He does reference the past quite a bit as far as his accomplishments are concerned, which seems forensic to me. Also, the whole reason for the speech seems Epideictic, as it is a ceremonial speech a politician gives to their supporters after a state votes in the primary. Is it possible for a speech to have elements of more than one type of speech, or am I just not grasping the concept correctly?

This I Believe...