Media Log Two

     It's a good thing our media logs are due on Sundays. They coincide perfectly with my pre-existing Sunday plans of sitting in my room with my laptop and a about ten different fashion magazines. Sorry to disappoint any of you readers looking for me to analyze song lyrics or something of the sort, the only think your likely to find here is my thoughts on ads in fashion magazines.

     I'd like to start this log off by defining a term. 

        Pun(n): Bad joke, usually having a double meaning, which no one finds funny. The jokester usually finds themselves knocked out on the ground or being thrown tomatoes at. (As defined by Urban Dictionary)

     Do you hear that Neutrogena? Puns aren't funny. Especially the one you used. Right, now that I got that off my chest into the actual content of this ad.

     This add uses two of Advertising's 15 Basic Appeals, the need for attention and the need for autonomy. The need for attention is obvious in that this is a beauty product used to enhance your own personal appearance and draw every one's attention on you. The need for autonomy is seen when the ad says, "Does your makeup do that?". The ad argues that their product is unique, it is the only one that can make you your most confident and beautiful self, any other product won't. If you use something else then you're missing out, and you don't want to miss out, do you? No. You want to have beautiful, confident, oil-free skin. Neutrogena uses this techniques to make you stand out by grouping you with the average makeup user. It encourages you to break the mold and be different, fulfilling our need for autonomy.

     The use of weasel words in this advertisement is another very obvious tactic used to persuade. Words like, "exclusive" "instantly" "continuously"convince the reader that this is a revolutionary product with fast working results. And let's not forget the "Rice Protein Complex". No one knows what it means, but it makes that product sound more scientific and tested. In a way, it makes the reader inferior, mentioning things that they would have no way of knowing what it means so all they can do is read the description and nod along, assuming that it must be true. The reader is more likely to believe what the ad is saying, because there is some scientific "complex" behind it. 

     This ad has combined both weasel words and Advertising's 15 Basic Appeals to create an overall successful argument. However, in my perspective, if I were the average reader (not a high school student trying to run a media blog) I wouldn't have read past the awful pun. 

Media Log One

     Internet friends, believe it or not what you see before you is in fact a real ad. I'll give you a second to let that sink in. Trust me, when I first saw it, I thought it was a joke too. Sadly, it isn't. This is an ad that has been printed in multiple issues of Teen Vogue (the one I used was the April 2013 edition), and one look at the website tells you that they mean business. Now what is it exactly about this ad makes me so entirely repulsed? It's hard to pin down one thing. (I assure you it isn't just the sheer tackiness of the shoes)
     This ad is effective in making the mindless teenage magazine browser stop and double take. The bright colors make it hard to focus on just one thing, and the confusing picture forces the onlooker to actually read the words at the bottom. But what is the ad really trying to say? The girl on the far left in the picture is covered in gold. She is not only wearing a gold shirt but is holding gold bars. Behind the models, the amps are draped with gold chains. The title of the company contains a money sign. The company is trying to argue that If you have these shoes you will not only look rich but become rich. This appeals to our need for prominence and attention. It captures our need for prominence by claiming that these shoes are a sign of wealth and there by make them admirable and respectable. The need for attention is satisfied in this add by just one look at the product they are selling. The shoes (aside from looking like a nine year old went crazy on a pair of converse with zebra duct tape) are brightly colored and add two inches of height, this would make you stand out in a crowd.
     While thinking about this claim made in the ad I found myself thinking back to last quarter's work on reasoning fallacies. Let's put this ad into a syllogism, shall we?

If I am two inches taller, then I will acquire Daddy's money.

I am two inches taller.

Therefore, I will acquire Daddy's money.

Seems like a bit of a slippery slope to me. The argument is so far fetched and unrelated that it fails to make any sense.
     Daddy'$ Money has taught me a few things about what makes an effective ad through their short comings. First, it is important to make sure that the argument you make has sense to it. Second, Do not overwhelm the onlooker. Colors may be good at catching one's attention, but in this case they seem to do more harm than good by distracting from the actual product. And lastly, make sure your product actually has a market.
     Honestly, these shoes are pretty bad, Why would you put this ad in a Teen Vogue? I'd like to think that the people reading this magazine are much like myself, fashionably aware teenage girls who are looking for the next trend, not the trend in 2010. The company fails at establishing credibility, or ethos, with the reader and therefore further collapses their argument.
    In conclusion, this ad ultimately fails at persuading the reader to buy their product because it is distracting, doesn't make sense, and doesn't know its audience. If the company continues to advertise like this, it won't be in business much longer.