While in London over spring break, I spotted an ad on the Underground system for making smart investments. The ad uses allusion to convince people to join an investment management company.
In the center of the ad, there is a quote from Variety Magazine, "Rock'n'roll will be gone by June." This quote, expressing an unusual sentiment, is from 1995. Readers are expected to be confused by this statement, as rock'n'roll is clearly still a lively genre. Following this example, the ad urges its viewers, "Do you put up with the status quo or are you looking for a better way to invest?" The company is using an allusion to a common genre to first draw readers' interests and then to exemplify the dangers of resisting change. It is implied that, if readers do not join this investment company, they too will be lost in the many changes coming in the near future.
Although this ad may use a logical fallacy (perhaps a false analogy), it is nevertheless attention-grabbing and effective at maintaining viewers' interests. Especially in an ad for a subway, space and both attention is limited. The puzzling and large quote convinces readers to pay attention to the company's message. Overall, the ad piques viewers' interests well and achieves its purpose fairly effectively.
Monday, March 28, 2016
Sunday, March 13, 2016
TOW #21 - Stephen Colbert (Written)
Stephen Colbert is most widely known for his satire TV show The Colbert Report in which he plays an ultra-conservative TV host and mocks American politics. Colbert tends to stay in character while he is in the public eye, and, as such it can be hard for viewers to glean his actual political views. They understand that he is mocking right-wing politicians, but where do his views truly lie on the spectrum? Colbert delivers a fairly moderate message in a special article for Glamour magazine, in which he uses both humor and serious rhetorical questioning to advocate for a greater number of women in the public sphere.
Colbert's message is, although by no means radical or even groundbreaking, clearly intended to be feminist. It is well-known that Colbert is a white man, which could hurt his ethos to some readers. As a white man, it may be more difficult for Colbert to understand the complicated dynamics of sexism in the United States--and perhaps more difficult for him to address these issues without sounding condescending. Colbert uses self-deprecating humor to convey to his audience that he is aware of his privilege. He opens his piece by writing, "I want to thank the staff of Glamour for asking me to contribute. It's a nice consolation prize for being passed over for their Woman of the Year Award. Not that I wanted it anyway. I believe that honor should go to a woman. I'm a bit of a feminist that way." The sarcastic pat-on-the-back proves to readers that Colbert knows when he is overstepping. It is reassuring to readers that this will not be an article from a self-acclaimed mansplainer, but a genuine, honest feminist piece.
Aside from Colbert's humorous asides, he injects his piece with serious rhetorical questioning to address the issue at hand. He asks, "Where are all the lady blacksmiths? What about the bait-and-tackle shopkeepers, pool maintenance professionals, building superintendents, or CEOs of Fortune 500 companies? Why are all those minions shaped like tiny phalluses? Why did Mad Max get top billing in Fury Road when he was essentially just a grunting tripod for Charlize Theron's rifle?" Although some of the subject matter is silly (blacksmiths, pool maintenance professionals, etc.), Colbert manages to hit the pressing questions of the day. Where exactly are all the women? Even when they do get starring roles and high accomplishments, why are they pushed aside to make room for the men? Because Colbert is Colbert, he can't just ask these questions without injecting a little humor. But the thoughts the questions provoke are serious, and he implies the idea that women should be better represented and celebrated.
Colbert's message doesn't quite disturb the status quo to be revolutionary. Then again, it isn't intended to be revolutionary. Colbert is sharing a palatable message appealing to a broad audience, who can then go on and write their own revolutionary pieces. Colbert is just getting the ball rolling.
Colbert's message is, although by no means radical or even groundbreaking, clearly intended to be feminist. It is well-known that Colbert is a white man, which could hurt his ethos to some readers. As a white man, it may be more difficult for Colbert to understand the complicated dynamics of sexism in the United States--and perhaps more difficult for him to address these issues without sounding condescending. Colbert uses self-deprecating humor to convey to his audience that he is aware of his privilege. He opens his piece by writing, "I want to thank the staff of Glamour for asking me to contribute. It's a nice consolation prize for being passed over for their Woman of the Year Award. Not that I wanted it anyway. I believe that honor should go to a woman. I'm a bit of a feminist that way." The sarcastic pat-on-the-back proves to readers that Colbert knows when he is overstepping. It is reassuring to readers that this will not be an article from a self-acclaimed mansplainer, but a genuine, honest feminist piece.
Aside from Colbert's humorous asides, he injects his piece with serious rhetorical questioning to address the issue at hand. He asks, "Where are all the lady blacksmiths? What about the bait-and-tackle shopkeepers, pool maintenance professionals, building superintendents, or CEOs of Fortune 500 companies? Why are all those minions shaped like tiny phalluses? Why did Mad Max get top billing in Fury Road when he was essentially just a grunting tripod for Charlize Theron's rifle?" Although some of the subject matter is silly (blacksmiths, pool maintenance professionals, etc.), Colbert manages to hit the pressing questions of the day. Where exactly are all the women? Even when they do get starring roles and high accomplishments, why are they pushed aside to make room for the men? Because Colbert is Colbert, he can't just ask these questions without injecting a little humor. But the thoughts the questions provoke are serious, and he implies the idea that women should be better represented and celebrated.
Colbert's message doesn't quite disturb the status quo to be revolutionary. Then again, it isn't intended to be revolutionary. Colbert is sharing a palatable message appealing to a broad audience, who can then go on and write their own revolutionary pieces. Colbert is just getting the ball rolling.
Sunday, March 6, 2016
TOW #20 - Inventology (IRB) - ARGUMENT
In her book Inventology, Pagan Kennedy attempts to uncover the ways in which people invent things. Her hope is to create a guide that galvanizes future inventions. Inventology is the latest in the stream of psychology-esque books sparked by Malcolm Gladwell's writing. Gladwell has found success in making sense of the chaotic, linking together seemingly unrelated events with overarching themes. His successors have all attempted this, to varying to degrees of success. Kennedy takes a slightly different approach: she argues that there are various components, all equally important, that may lead to invention. However, this argument hinders her ultimate purpose of creating a guide for modern inventors. The various segments (e.g. "Problem Finding" and "Discovery") result in a sense of disjointedness and dissatisfaction.
Perhaps this is not so much Kennedy's fault, as it is the simple nature of invention. It is undeniable that sometimes serendipity leads to beautiful invention, and sometimes it is methodical data-mining that leads to the same beautiful invention. Nevertheless, it is somewhat dissatisfying for readers to constantly switch from one mindset to another. In one chapter, Kennedy emphasizes how inventions just arrive at certain people's feet. In another chapter, Kennedy discusses individuals' careful search for the Next Big Thing. Kennedy is not being disingenuous, but readers are forced to jump from one concept to another with no satisfying conclusions. It is like listening to an orchestra crescendo to nothing over and over again.
While I personally do not disagree with Kennedy's argument, the presentation leaves readers wanting. Perhaps if Kennedy were able to find connections between the various components of inventology, rather than completely segregating them, it would be more enjoyable to readers.
Perhaps this is not so much Kennedy's fault, as it is the simple nature of invention. It is undeniable that sometimes serendipity leads to beautiful invention, and sometimes it is methodical data-mining that leads to the same beautiful invention. Nevertheless, it is somewhat dissatisfying for readers to constantly switch from one mindset to another. In one chapter, Kennedy emphasizes how inventions just arrive at certain people's feet. In another chapter, Kennedy discusses individuals' careful search for the Next Big Thing. Kennedy is not being disingenuous, but readers are forced to jump from one concept to another with no satisfying conclusions. It is like listening to an orchestra crescendo to nothing over and over again.
While I personally do not disagree with Kennedy's argument, the presentation leaves readers wanting. Perhaps if Kennedy were able to find connections between the various components of inventology, rather than completely segregating them, it would be more enjoyable to readers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)