The advertisement ANALYSIS
The advertisement has been structured in a creative way. Various elements have been used to create meaning and provoke the emotions of the readers. The two children, the gun, the written messages and a classroom set up have all been used to enhance and pass information. What grabs attention is a picture of a child holding a gun. Even if the children used in the advert are two, attention gets directed to the one who is holding the gun compared to the other that is holding Kinder chocolates eggs because guns are banned to children. The background of the ad contributes to creation of interest because the children are in a classroom setting. It leaves one asking, why would a child posses a gun in school yet it is banned? Judging from the messages and the pictures the advertisement uses, it is easy to tell that its main goal is to advocate for a ban on dangerous weapons. The message below the ad, “why not assault weapons” indicates that they want an action to be taken on the use of weapons. It could be that major assault weapons should be banned or their laws be reformed that would reduce the amount of violence related to guns that has been widely reported in America.
The target audience of the ad is defined from its messages. On a broad basis, the ad is directed to families in America who can be able to support the assault for weapons. The Moms Demand Action wants assault on weapons meaning that it also targets those who have the authority of reforming laws. It is majorly targeted towards the government, legislators to be specific because they have the capacity to ban weapons or come up with strict measures to their usage. The audiences are targeted due to many reported cases where people have lost lives due to gun violence, among them being children. The advertisement passes the message by use of the phrase “why not assault weapons.” This phrase passes a message that weapons have not been banned in America and therefore, calls for their assault. The ad convinces one to take action by using ethos. It appeals to credibility by giving the name of the organization that is calling for change, ‘Moms Demand Action for Gun sense in America’. Another way that makes it convincing is its appeal to pathos. It uses the images of children, one holding a gun to appeal to one’s emotions because many families in America are victims of gun violence. It is relevant and also significant because in many lives have been lost in the United States. The advertiser uses children because they easily appeal to people’s emotions compared to adults. It also uses them because many parents in the United States have lost their families and children to guns.
The ad uses an advertising technique of rhetoric. The question is for the audience to describe something that is banned in American in order to protect the children. Use of rhetoric makes the reader to have a deeper look at the advertisement in order to understand it and support gun control. The intended use of the product is to get support so that use of guns can be controlled in America and major assault weapons be banned. The image is designed in a way that makes it easy for the reader to spot the intended message. Images have been fairly used, not too many or too few, just enough. The pictures are clear that enhances the intended goal. However, font of the wording below the ad is rather small. Use of images such as tables, a chart and images on the wall are used to further communicate messages about the background of the ad, a classroom. Color has also been used, such as, red writing to show what the audience needs to analyze. The layout is balance hence contributing to clarity of the advertisement.
The ad combines both words and images to pass the intended information. In the message saying that, “we won’t sell Kinder chocolate eggs in the interest of child safety” means that kinder chocolates are banned while the weapons are not banned. I could be compelled to support call for action that is advocated in the advertisement because it is a matter of interest and relevance. Coming out to the public to support the change gives credibility to the organization which further creates interest and the need to support the organization. However, it is worth to note that in relation to logic, the ad lacks effectiveness. It all emanates from the relation between the background and the messages. One can easily conclude that the logic of the ad is somehow contradictory. The children are in a class/school setting and holding different things. Holding a gun in school and stating that they are not banned in America is not logical enough because the weapons are banned in schools. The ad would have considered using the message in an environment where guns are not banned in order to enhance its effectiveness. Again, logic is found lacking in the message that say one of the children is holding something banned in America to protect them. The message that says “Kinder chocolate won’t be sold to the interest of child safety” means that what is banned in America to protect children is Kinder chocolates. The statements lack coherence and are contradictory because Kinder chocolate eggs are only banned in schools, not in America.
In summary, the advertiser has used several aspects to appeal to people’s emotions. Using children easily touches people hearts because they are a vulnerable audience. The emotions on the faces of the children, sadness also means that it is a matter that requires attention. However, lack of logic distracts the audience because one can easily get a different meaning from the one that is intended.
In analyzing and by just looking at the ad, I did not instantly get the intended message. The images of children in a classroom holding different things did not make sense at the beginning. Looking at the written messages, the ad however, started shading some light and I got a glimpse of what the advertiser intended to pass across. Though the messages were somehow distracting, I used logic and critical analysis to understand the purpose and give meaning to the words. It was easier to analyze the ad by using the images and the source of the information. Before even going to the written messages, I used the skin color of the children in making a guess on the environment and the intended audience. The messages enhanced images by confirming the meaning such as stating that the organization was American. On overall terms, the ad was good, giving it a critical eye and relating it to the recent events in America made it much easier for me to analyze it. It was intriguing to integrate various aspects of the ad to get the meaning out of it. I paid attention to aspects such as color, design, how the messages are structured and why images are placed where they are. Engaging in this process helped me a great deal in coming up with conclusions.
In order to state what I could do different, let me first acknowledge that the ad effectively appeals to the emotions of its readers. It uses children, color and the images to attract attention. However, what I could change in the ad is how the message is passed through words. I could appeal to logic by doing away with the distractions that are created by the ad itself. My use of words would be direct; a call for action to control the use of weapons in America. Using a statement that tells the reader to guess the item that is banned in America is not intriguing enough. I could use logic by giving statistics or evidence that will also affect their emotions. For example, I could give the numbers of lives that have been lost to gun violence. This strategy will inform people as well as compel them to act because they will be able to see how serious the matter is. I could also make the wording that is below the ad to be more visible. Its font is small and may be difficult for other readers to read it. Making it bigger is important because it is the part that gives the intended purpose of the message.