Be Bold

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX5YsU8sir4

                While searching Youtube for a commercial to scrutinize and pass off as a blog, I found this commercial for the new Blackberry phone. The commercial alone is somewhat worthy of analysis I suppose, but that wasn’t what made the commercial rhetorically interesting for me. So first, the basics.

The commercial has an ethical appeal through the hip young people doing something offbeat and “rebellious,” like riding a glowing bicycle at night in the city. This could appeal to a younger audience by possibly associating with them, or it could even appeal to an older crowd that wants to feel younger, so they’ll buy that phone. The pathos of the commercial is a little primitive if you think about it; a bunch of pretty lights and colors that catch the eye and excite the viewer in a base manner. The logos comes in where the product is actually shown performing one of its functions: texting. It’s not a very ambitious attempt on the part of the commercial, but let’s face it: how are you going to have a Glowing Night-Bike Fleet In The City Party without this Blackberry? Also included under the logos-umbrella was the use of the Blackberry logo in the end, with a pleasing baritone voice introducing the product by name. Seems like a pretty standard commercial, no?

Truth be told, what really caught my eye was the comments section of the video. Out of the ten most recent comments, nine were about the bikes and not about the phone. The two top-rated comments were as well about the bikes, with one of them even saying “all I want now is a glowing bike… not some phone from a failing company.” Ouch. So to put this in perspective, this commercial, albeit cool, really did not seem to reach this audience. So what was the problem? Were the glowing bikes too distracting? Are Blackberrys just not popular enough? Was it just a shitty advertisement? Is it just Youtube? What do YOU think, Reader???

That's How I Beat Shaq

                I first saw the above commercial while watching a college basketball game on television. This is yet another commercial for a product that has virtually zero information about the product, but includes ethos and pathos bids that somehow get the product sold. I’ll discuss the rhetorical points about the commercial, and though I would like to avoid a diatribe, I want to point out this commercial as a trend in advertising.

                Shaquille O’Neal was a famous basketball player that retired recently, who had a decorated record in the NBA. This gives the advertisement a good angle for ethos, since he is so well known as a basketball player and celebrity. Not only is this important as far as the credibility of the advertisement, but the kairos calls for a basketball player, since the commercial was aired during a basketball game. Aside from ethos, the pathos of the advertisement is satisfied by O’Neal’s the heartwarming recollection of coaching children, and the humor involved in the “defensive strategy” he talks about. So that’s ethos and pathos… But what about logos?

                The unfortunate truth is that there is little logos in the advertisement. Yes, there is some brand recognition by showing the Dove trademark, but otherwise, what does this advertisement say about the product it is pushing on its audience? Like the Geico commercial from a previous post, this commercial has just about no useful information about its product. So as a way to make this blog more interesting than a few words on a screen, let’s open discussion: Is the lack of logos in advertising these days a problem, and if so, does the root of the problem lie with those producing the advertisements, or those consuming the advertisements?