Questions from Woodward and Denton Chapter 10
1. On page 290 in Chapter 10, Woodward and Denton describe common appeals used in advertising and divided them up into three categories: emotional appeals, transformative appeals, and rational-functional appeals. Emotional appeals tend to the consumers emotions and seek to generate some sort of emotional attachment to a brand or product. They list the more powerful emotions, which were appeals to fear, humor, guilt, isolation, and sex. I think that appealing to emotions is a very powerful and effective strategy because everyone experiences them in one way or another. However, I do think that it must be done in a certain way in order to be successful. Our discussion in class about advertising the risks of cigarettes relates to this; since fear is among the top emotions ads use to appeal to an audience, shouldn’t fear of the risks of cigarettes make the consumers quit buying them? There are several reasons why people choose to continue to smoke, and the choice to buy or not buy a product is ultimately up to the individual. Do you think that there are different ways anti-cigarette ads could go about relaying their message that would be more effective? Or are there any positives/negatives you can point out in ads you’ve seen in the past?
2. I think Woodward and Denton do a good job of naming and describing the different appeals that are used in advertising: emotional appeals, which are used to spark some sort of emotion or emotional attachment in the consumer; transformative appeals, which evoke psychological associations that arise when the consumer uses the product (such as feeling prettier with a certain type of lipstick or healthier eating a certain brand of food); and finally, rational-functional appeals, which focus on the rational or logical need for a product or its service. I think that all of these appeals are definitely seen in advertising, but I also thought of Aristotle’s Ethos, Pathos, and Logos appeals-- Woodward and Denton’s relate to Aristotle’s in terms of emotion and logic, but do not acknowledge the credibility aspect. I think that the appeals are very complex, so the credibility may be intertwined within the three appeals. How important do you think stressing a product or brand’s credibility is in an ad? How often do you think it should be stressed and how effective do you think it is?
3. On page 307, Woodward and Denton describe private vs. public interests. They share Hyman and Tansey’s ideas of how advertisers should be more responsible to public interests, saying that they should assess both the medium and the market, clearly label news programs so that the viewer is aware of upcoming imagery, and avoid using shocking dramatizations. There are some ads, specifically drug and alcohol awareness ads that use this last tactic in order to make a statement. For example, the Montana Meth project uses shocking and disturbing images to evoke emotion in their audience and create awareness for the dangers of meth. First of all, do you think that there will ever be a way to stop advertisers from doing this, and if there were, how do you think it will effect the media’s ability to convey powerful messages?
Questions from Chapter 12
1. In Chapter 12 Woodward and Denton quote Conrad Fink’s definition of ethics as “a system of principles, a morality or code of conduct. It is the values and rules of life recognized by an individual, group, or culture seeking guidelines to human conduct and what is good or bad, right or wrong.” They describe two behavioral dimensions to ethics-- the ability to discern right from wrong, and to make the commitment to do what is right, good or appropriate. This idea of making a commitment to doing what is right or good is one that is constant in communication. There are fine lines that constitute ethical communication and I think that just saying the “right” thing can be unethical depending on how you say it. For instance, I was thinking back to Chuck Rowling’s visit when he was explaining the power of language and how easily it can manipulated people. He gave us different examples of this; “used car” vs. “previously owned vehicle”, “late term abortion” vs. “partial birth abortion” and “global warming” vs. “climate change.” We word things differently in order to get a certain reaction or standard for what we are talking about. My question is, do you think that this is ethical? Although you are stating the truth, is it ethical to word something in a way that makes it sound more appealing than it might be?
2. Chapter 12 suggests the different sources that our attitudes and values come from. Louis day argues that the four most influential sources are our family, peer groups, role models, and societal institutions. I agree with this idea; I think that no matter what a person thinks, we are always, even if its subconscious, being influenced or persuaded of something. The book went a lot into celebrities using their fame to promote charities or benefits. Celebrity faces can be used to promote just about anything-- food, clothing, drinks, etc.-- do you think it is ethical to use a person to sell a product even if that person doesn’t necessarily stand for that product? For example, I remember watching a Dave Chapelle skit where he was talking about doing a Pepsi commercial and a Coke commercial. He says he can’t tell the difference between the tastes, the one he likes better is the one that’s paying him at the time.
3. I liked that Woodward and Denton covered not only the considerations that communicators should follow, but also considerations for the receiver; they suggest to be open minded, to listen critically in order to make a proper interpretation, the be prepared to provide a response, and to not be defensive or ego-involved. I think that ethical listening is just as important as communicating the message. This idea reminded me of Kelsey and Rochelle’s PDF presentation about the news and the sort of things that it covers. How responsible do you think the audience is for what is being broadcasted? Do you think that there are any unethical decisions involved in what is put on the news in order to make a station more successful?
2. Chapter 12 suggests the different sources that our attitudes and values come from. Louis day argues that the four most influential sources are our family, peer groups, role models, and societal institutions. I agree with this idea; I think that no matter what a person thinks, we are always, even if its subconscious, being influenced or persuaded of something. The book went a lot into celebrities using their fame to promote charities or benefits. Celebrity faces can be used to promote just about anything-- food, clothing, drinks, etc.-- do you think it is ethical to use a person to sell a product even if that person doesn’t necessarily stand for that product? For example, I remember watching a Dave Chapelle skit where he was talking about doing a Pepsi commercial and a Coke commercial. He says he can’t tell the difference between the tastes, the one he likes better is the one that’s paying him at the time.
3. I liked that Woodward and Denton covered not only the considerations that communicators should follow, but also considerations for the receiver; they suggest to be open minded, to listen critically in order to make a proper interpretation, the be prepared to provide a response, and to not be defensive or ego-involved. I think that ethical listening is just as important as communicating the message. This idea reminded me of Kelsey and Rochelle’s PDF presentation about the news and the sort of things that it covers. How responsible do you think the audience is for what is being broadcasted? Do you think that there are any unethical decisions involved in what is put on the news in order to make a station more successful?
Response Ryan's Question #3
“Also in Chapter 6, Woodward and Denton explore the concept of beliefs. A belief is what we personally “know” to be true or false even if others disagree. There are many types of beliefs. Some are very crucial to our lives, while others provide connections to different objects. Do you believe that there are beliefs out there that could be concrete fact? Are there any beliefs that cannot be dismissed? An example of what I am talking about would be how everything in the study of science is still considered “theory”. I mean gravity, evolution, air and space, are all still theories, none of them has been said to be exact truth. So my question is, is everything a belief?”
Woodward and Denton describe the concept of belief as what we personally “know” to be true or false—our convictions, even if they are something others disagree with. They describe the different types of beliefs, some that may become core values, or ideals by which we lead our lives. Some are more secondary, such as what we believe is success, or how we define beauty. They continue on to say that beliefs are informal statements that link specific attributes to an object.
I like your example of air, evolution and gravity as things that we all know to be real yet are still called theories. It’s interesting to think of everything as a belief and that there are no actual facts. This idea brings me back to the beginning of the quarter where we discussed David Horsey’s question of why people ignore reality. There are some people who ignore aspects of poverty around the world or in their own country, simply because it’s easier to do so than to contribute, because they don’t believe that there is an actual issue, or because they believe that impoverished people, and this example can be used specifically with the US, are where they are because they put themselves there. There is no doubt that poverty exists, I would say that is a fact; I think the conflict arises in the idea of why it exists. And even to say that poverty exists could come into question when someone asks what poverty is. I think the descriptions will vary.
Woodward and Denton give examples of beliefs that contribute to someone’s attitude towards abortion. The first one on the list states that “The purpose of sexual intercourse is procreation.” Sexual intercourse does lead to procreation, and in many cases that is the purpose. But because there are other things that can be argued for the purpose of sex, such as love and happiness, this is a belief and not a fact. If you take out the word “purpose” and say, “sexual intercourse leads to procreation,” you might be making a true statement but even then it’s not a fact because sex doesn’t lead to procreation all the time.
We have learned in communication studies that language is abstract, therefore the word “cup” doesn’t make it is cup—it’s just a term that we have assigned to the object. Along with this, we have created numbers to show values. In this way, I guess someone could say that nothing we say has factual basis because it’s all created language. In relation to math and values however, there is no doubt that “2 + 2 = 4” right? I might be making this question way more philosophical than it needs to be.
Campbell argues that a lot of rhetoric is focused on getting people to move towards a particular kind of action. This goes hand in hand with the idea that we believe something about an object, and then develop an attitude towards it which influences our actions. The more we know about something the deeper and better we can form a belief. Ultimately, I think that there facts and not everything is a belief, because there are certain things that you can’t disagree upon, such as the value of 2 and 2 or primary colors. But I do think that more beliefs exist than fact, and perhaps we base many of our beliefs on these facts.
Woodward and Denton describe the concept of belief as what we personally “know” to be true or false—our convictions, even if they are something others disagree with. They describe the different types of beliefs, some that may become core values, or ideals by which we lead our lives. Some are more secondary, such as what we believe is success, or how we define beauty. They continue on to say that beliefs are informal statements that link specific attributes to an object.
I like your example of air, evolution and gravity as things that we all know to be real yet are still called theories. It’s interesting to think of everything as a belief and that there are no actual facts. This idea brings me back to the beginning of the quarter where we discussed David Horsey’s question of why people ignore reality. There are some people who ignore aspects of poverty around the world or in their own country, simply because it’s easier to do so than to contribute, because they don’t believe that there is an actual issue, or because they believe that impoverished people, and this example can be used specifically with the US, are where they are because they put themselves there. There is no doubt that poverty exists, I would say that is a fact; I think the conflict arises in the idea of why it exists. And even to say that poverty exists could come into question when someone asks what poverty is. I think the descriptions will vary.
Woodward and Denton give examples of beliefs that contribute to someone’s attitude towards abortion. The first one on the list states that “The purpose of sexual intercourse is procreation.” Sexual intercourse does lead to procreation, and in many cases that is the purpose. But because there are other things that can be argued for the purpose of sex, such as love and happiness, this is a belief and not a fact. If you take out the word “purpose” and say, “sexual intercourse leads to procreation,” you might be making a true statement but even then it’s not a fact because sex doesn’t lead to procreation all the time.
We have learned in communication studies that language is abstract, therefore the word “cup” doesn’t make it is cup—it’s just a term that we have assigned to the object. Along with this, we have created numbers to show values. In this way, I guess someone could say that nothing we say has factual basis because it’s all created language. In relation to math and values however, there is no doubt that “2 + 2 = 4” right? I might be making this question way more philosophical than it needs to be.
Campbell argues that a lot of rhetoric is focused on getting people to move towards a particular kind of action. This goes hand in hand with the idea that we believe something about an object, and then develop an attitude towards it which influences our actions. The more we know about something the deeper and better we can form a belief. Ultimately, I think that there facts and not everything is a belief, because there are certain things that you can’t disagree upon, such as the value of 2 and 2 or primary colors. But I do think that more beliefs exist than fact, and perhaps we base many of our beliefs on these facts.
Response to Arianne's Question #1
Depending on the image or words portrayed I definitely think that dynamic pictures, static concrete pictures, or concrete pictures can be just as effective as a combination of the three if not more. As you said, the interpretation of the text varies from person to person, culture to culture, and can even mean different things at different times. I think what is most effective in evoking a reaction or connection with an audience is finding an emotional appeal to connect with the audience, whether is humor, sadness or anger. For instance, the image in our text on page 385 with Florence Thompson and her children do a couple different things for the person looking at it. Before I read the caption, I knew that there was a sense of worry and tiredness in the mother’s eyes. Her children’s faces aren’t even shown in the picture, they are turned away resting on her shoulder which could indicate that they are tired, or need caring. After reading the caption, it is still a sad image, but I’m sure someone who lived in the Great Depression would be triggered with memories because it’s something they lived through.
I would agree that Obama’s campaign for “hope” was extremely effective in light of the United States’ situation—a time when the majority of the US were tired of the old and ready for something new—“HOPE” is the simplest, most effective and relatable way Obama’s campaign could have gone, because it not only says that they are what America is hoping for, but they are giving them the chance to do so.
I would agree that Obama’s campaign for “hope” was extremely effective in light of the United States’ situation—a time when the majority of the US were tired of the old and ready for something new—“HOPE” is the simplest, most effective and relatable way Obama’s campaign could have gone, because it not only says that they are what America is hoping for, but they are giving them the chance to do so.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)