And the greatest of these is love...or is it pride?
Date: 5/5/2016
http://talentista.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2016/05/Effective-Advertisement-For-Saving-Animals-29.jpg
Denotative: When first glancing at the picture, my eyes immediately went to the cute baby cheetah walking beside her mom. Then I saw the two sizes small and extra large written on a tag which is placed on both of the cheetahs. The background is pretty simple; it looks like the animals' natural habitat with lush greens. In the corner there is a sentence that states, "Fashion claims more victims than you think.", followed by the organization that posted the ad: WWF.
Connotative: This picture is very powerful and eye-opening. The tags on the animals that I mentioned before, represents the tags that would be on people's clothes in a clothing store. This shows living, breathing animals in their environment and ultimately show that the buyers market just sees them as shirts or coats. The organization (WWF) is a nonprofit organization that is dedicated to protecting the environment through science. The fact that they published the ad has some significance. Their work at the Wildlife Fund revolves around ads like this one and showing the harsh truth that we are creating for these animals when we buy simple things like a fur coat. The sentence in the corner also has a bigger meaning. It states, "Fashion claims more victims that you think," meaning fashion (something that's a want, not a need) comes with a price. The deadly sin that this picture represents would be avarice. Avarice means, a desire to possess more than one has the need or use for. The possession that one doesn't need would be the coat that the cheetahs in the picture have to be killed for. It's an unnecessary item of clothing that costs animals' lives for human benefit. The author uses this deadly sin to portray it on the consumer and the viewer of the ad.
Intended Audience:
a) The intended audience would be anyone on the planet. The ad is very open ended and doesn't single out a single group or race. It talks about anyone who buys clothes that has an animal print on it.
b) The fact that the audience is consumers that buy fur clothing, this might be geared towards people of a higher income. Animal print clothing is usually more expensive and made by luxury brands.
c) The higher income people could either be unaware of how they are impacting the animals that die for their clothes, or they don't care. Either way they need to be more informed of their actions, hence the advertisement.
The author, WWF, uses image and layout in a very obvious way. The two cute cheetahs are centered in the picture; side by side. This is done on purpose so that your focus would be on the animals, nothing else in the picture. Color is used the same way by blurring out the background of the image and focusing on the color of the cheetahs. The orange animals pop out against the black and green blurry background; again drawing the readers focus on the animals. The World Wildlife Fund also creates the sentence in the top right corner of the ad to clarify their opinion. The sentence is very literal and has the specific meaning of, "Your fashionable clothing is killing families of animals.".
Finally, the last persuasion device that the author uses is the use of pathos. The WWF deliberately uses a mama cheetah and a baby cheetah to make you feel a certain way. Pathos appeals to the emotions of the reader by evoking pity or sadness. It specifically makes the consumer feel bad for killing a family of cheetahs and families like this one pictured.
I really enjoyed reading this blog post! I love how you linked the tags on the animals to how society views animals in business. People think that an animals sole purpose is to benefit humans; this image sends a message that it's bad to believe that animals are only needed for clothing. Overall, I love how you symbolized the tags with society's view on animals.
ReplyDeleteI loved the picture you decided to talk about!!! (very cute). When you talked about connotative part I liked how you went in depth about the tags on the animals and how you connected the authors purpose with the deadly sin. I also liked how you talked about the centering of the animals and how it is significant to the purpose. You also used literary devices like pathos in your explanation which is awesome!!!
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, that is the cutest baby cheetah ever! I really enjoyed reading your blog Bria. I do not know much about fashion and I did not know that people actually hunt cheetahs and use their fur for coats. That's just cruel and awful. At first glance I didn't even notice the words in the top right corner so thank you for pointing that out because if you didn't I would have never have known the purpose for this image. It was very eye opening and I will now consider the lives on animals before I consider buying a fur coat.
ReplyDeleteexcuse me but my name is Brianna, not Bria i think you have the wrong number!!!
DeleteI really like the meaning of the ad and the way in which you analyzed it. I wonder if the amount of clothing bought would decrease if every buyer of animal print clothing could see this ad. As you said, the author is very direct and straightforward, but this was intentional so that a message could actually be spread and not misinterpreted. The only other way to make this ad more obvious would probably be by making the quote larger or providing a picture of a leopard print jacket, but a jacket could have an opposite effect of advertising the clothing item. I also agree with your comments about intended audience. They are trying to target high class citizens who buy this clothing.
ReplyDeleteUpon first glance, I did not fully understand the implications of this advertisement. However, after reading this blog post I understand the importance and relevance of such a statement. It is truly sad that we view animals in terms of human usage rather than for their beauty and contribution to the ecosystem. This ad reflects the materialistic nature of American consumers and shows our need for introspection. I think Americans need to ask themselves how important these fancy clothes really are to them. In my opinion, it is more valuable to preserve the environment and the beautiful creatures which lie within it, than to make fancy garments that are nothing more than status symbols. I also appreciate how you point out that higher income consumers do not often realize that there really is an animal behind their leather jackets or fancy fur coats. By realizing this, we can begin to work towards a safer and even less polluted world.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, when they kill the animals to make the furs they don't kill the babies, they fatten them up first, duh. But I think the analysis of this advertisement was very in depth and well done. It's a pretty basic advertisement without a lot of detail, however you were still able to analyse the advertisement from different devices to show all the ways the ad works to guilt the intended audience. Because no matter how deep the advertisement is it's just guilting us. Overall good analysis of an advertisement. Side note: Who still buys fur clothing?
ReplyDeleteI like how you organized your thoughts in this post and elaborated well. Providing background about WWF shows you know what you are talking about, and it helps prove the point you make about animals in fashion. I also think your connection to the sin avarice was smart. Owning fur is really popular in the fashion industry but like you said, "t's an unnecessary item of clothing that costs animals' lives for human benefit". Also the persuasive devices that you analyzed were very clear and well said.
ReplyDeleteLooking at this made me very sad, I strongly disagree with the exploitation of Earth's natural creatures for selfish human profit. Inadvertently, I think this ad also shows how the parent and he baby will be separated regardless of if they are hunted because of the different sizes listed on their backs. Clearly the labels on their backs are commenting on the size of their body and what size that will be made into a coat as but also, the labels show the inevitable separation and between two helpless family members. This was a great ad to choose because it uses pathos as opposed to the expected logos appeal that some organizations that advocate for animal rights utilize very often, both ways of persuasion are effective, but i think pathos is more effective in this case.
ReplyDelete