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.