Gillette's recent commercial started quite the uproar just last week as waves of viewers, men in particular, took a stand against the company in disgust. The commercial itself is structured sturdily but issues of context and modern culture are what gave it such a negative impact.
The advertisement makes use of different methods of persuasion to communicate their idea. Personally, I think they wanted to give the audience both a wake-up call, and a rally. A rally to unite. Although looking through comments and the general public's reaction shows that that intention back-fired. In their ad, Gillette makes use of the three persuasive techniques: Pathos, ethos, and logos. Some examples of these techniques can be viewed as followed:
-Ethos: Up until we were 55 seconds into the video, there was a constant use of ethos. The second the video starts, there is implicit mention of multiple occurrences of sexual assault and harassment. For men that are loyal to this product, starting off like this will definitely get their attention, but their first impression is likely negative. As time passes on we see (and more importantly, hear) more and more direct confrontations of this dangerous topic. They make it clear as day that this is an issue everyone, especially men, must face. At first we can only hear the confrontation but soon, they explicitly show a collage of news reporters talking about the subject of sexual harassment.
-Logos: After the first half of the video has shown us the worse side to man, we are met with a more uplifting feature to this commercial. It shows us simple solutions to variations of sexual harassment and violence. They tell the audience that we can make a difference with the simplest of actions. Telling us to be reasonable and as Terry Crews says: "Men need to be hold themselves accountable for other men"
Pathos: It isn't as often or explicit as the other two, especially not ethically, but it's still there. Sprinkled throughout the video there are also a few appeals to our emotions. Though I'd like to focus on the two I thought were the strongest. During the first half, at second 13 to 17, we see a huge topic in modern society within a few seconds it has on screen. Bullying. Cyber-bullying to be precise (as well as a prologue to physical). We see a text pop up, "FREAK" and shortly after we see the boy who got this message hugging his mother in tears. At this moment we can still hear the implicit news reporters in the background as they distantly chatter about bullying. The boy gets more negative and insulting texts as he cries in his mother's arms. This is an emotional push compared to the rest of the video that also brings up another serious world issue in a matter of seconds. The mother and son are soon washed over by some running children. If you look closely though, you'll realize these are the same children who can be seen at the end of the video, a group of bullies chasing a smaller boy who is later saved by a role-model father. The second is the last words spoken by the narrator. These words leave the viewers with something to think about after they've seen everything. Leaving a long lasting impression to ponder. After telling us to make change he gives us one final thing to think about. The boys of today, will be the men of tomorrow.
Those defending men's rights have gone haywire seeing this ad. Many find it inspiring but others find it offensive and crippling. In this day and age, we need to be extra careful of what we say and how we say it. This ad most likely riled up people watching with how direct it became to the point it was too late to bring the intended feeling of unity by the time half the video had gone by. An interesting idea brought up by a speaker on "Good Morning Britain". Not as many women took offense to this advertisement nor understand what has men so betrayed. What if a commercial came out the same why, but the first half were to be confronting women that make false harassment allegations and taking advantage of men or the law for their benefit? What would the impact be on the ad's audience?
No comments:
Post a Comment