The primary claim or "promise" of the ad is basically "forget cars, ride bikes," and in so doing you will be green, healthy, and economically wise. The spoof part is basically saying “you may get great mileage, but you could get better.”
There are many good reasons to ride bikes instead of cars such as being environmentally concerned, being healthy, and also just saving money. The ad has a great message. If this ad was taken to heart by every American the air would be far less polluted, we would be considerably less depended on foreign oil, obesity wouldn’t be a problem, and the average household debt would be less.
Certain parts of the ad do a good job of communicating the central message. Really the two main statements in this ad are not even being said buy the photos themselves, but the words underneath. The price and MPG are a huge contrast. The unlimited MPG of the bike shows that the bike is an unlimited resource whereas the car you will have to keep refilling it with gas. Another communication is the irony of the car when viewed next to the bike. The landscape surrounding the car is nice, and the driver is outside “breathing the fresh air,” when really if he wanted to breath the fresh air and partake of the scenery, he’d be on a bike. This is also ironic because the air would be not so fresh when tons of cars pump exhaust into it.
The primary claim or "promise" of the ad is basically "forget cars, ride bikes," and in so doing you will be green, healthy, and economically wise. The spoof part is basically saying “you may get great mileage, but you could get better.”
There are many good reasons to ride bikes instead of cars such as being environmentally concerned, being healthy, and also just saving money. The ad has a great message. If this ad was taken to heart by every American the air would be far less polluted, we would be considerably less depended on foreign oil, obesity wouldn’t be a problem, and the average household debt would be less.
Certain parts of the ad do a good job of communicating the central message. Really the two main statements in this ad are not even being said buy the photos themselves, but the words underneath. The price and MPG are a huge contrast. The unlimited MPG of the bike shows that the bike is an unlimited resource whereas the car you will have to keep refilling it with gas. Another communication is the irony of the car when viewed next to the bike. The landscape surrounding the car is nice, and the driver is outside “breathing the fresh air,” when really if he wanted to breath the fresh air and partake of the scenery, he’d be on a bike. This is also ironic because the air would be not so fresh when tons of cars pump exhaust into it.
I accidentally posted the same comment twice, because my computer froze up and told me it didn't post the first one even though it did. My bad, disregard the second.
The ad is fairly basic and straight forward, I would say finesse is missing. It would be a better ad if it were less direct, and more subtle, maybe showing someone filling up the car at a gas station with money coming out of their pocket, and another person riding by on a bike with lots of money in their wallet, sticking out of their back pocket, this directness could influence the audience to pay less attention to it, it is so straight forward that they might look at and feel that they comprehend it all and move on, without taking the time to really think about the statement the ad is trying to make. The main point of the ad can be said to be ambiguous, because it is not said anywhere on the ad, but it is fairly obvious, “as environmentally conscious as a prius might be, a bike is still better, and cost less.” Ambiguity helps this argument/ad because it is so straight forward, while I think a more complex ad would draw more attention, this ad is sure to get your point across without much chance for misinterpretation.
Becky—good job explaining the pathos-based appeal: people think driving a hybrid helps reduce air pollution, but even a hybrid car can’t possibly compete with the non-polluting bike. You all are also making logos-based appeals in terms of price—cost versus MPG.
Brennan also explains the spoof aspect, which was helpful. I could see this ad as not being a spoof ad necessarily, but being a successful argument in favor of public transportation (city of ABQ…or probably cities in areas with more significant pollution problems—California, for example). I think it’s really strong argument generally speaking to not buy a car at all—but I do appreciate the spoof aspect. Brennan also points out the landscaping around the car as being a significant part of the spoof effect—cars are never ‘green’ in comparison to bikes—I didn’t notice this so I’m glad you discuss it.
Travis discusses how the ad could be more effective perhaps—but then would the argument be more about saving $$ with less emphasis on pollution? The ambiguity also lies in the comparison you guys make between the car and the bike. What is the essential association you want readers to make? It’s not just that both bikes and cars are forms of transportation. It’s the effect of the transportation on the environment and in terms of cost—cost to the environment…? We all know that cars pollute and bikes don’t and that bikes are cheaper—but we don’t usually think about bikes in terms of MPG. None of you talk about the MasterCard ads—but you’re also clearly drawing from this common comparison as well.
The primary claim or "promise" of the ad is basically "forget cars, ride bikes," and in so doing you will be green, healthy, and economically wise. The spoof part is basically saying “you may get great mileage, but you could get better.”
ReplyDeleteThere are many good reasons to ride bikes instead of cars such as being environmentally concerned, being healthy, and also just saving money. The ad has a great message. If this ad was taken to heart by every American the air would be far less polluted, we would be considerably less depended on foreign oil, obesity wouldn’t be a problem, and the average household debt would be less.
Certain parts of the ad do a good job of communicating the central message. Really the two main statements in this ad are not even being said buy the photos themselves, but the words underneath. The price and MPG are a huge contrast. The unlimited MPG of the bike shows that the bike is an unlimited resource whereas the car you will have to keep refilling it with gas. Another communication is the irony of the car when viewed next to the bike. The landscape surrounding the car is nice, and the driver is outside “breathing the fresh air,” when really if he wanted to breath the fresh air and partake of the scenery, he’d be on a bike. This is also ironic because the air would be not so fresh when tons of cars pump exhaust into it.
The primary claim or "promise" of the ad is basically "forget cars, ride bikes," and in so doing you will be green, healthy, and economically wise. The spoof part is basically saying “you may get great mileage, but you could get better.”
ReplyDeleteThere are many good reasons to ride bikes instead of cars such as being environmentally concerned, being healthy, and also just saving money. The ad has a great message. If this ad was taken to heart by every American the air would be far less polluted, we would be considerably less depended on foreign oil, obesity wouldn’t be a problem, and the average household debt would be less.
Certain parts of the ad do a good job of communicating the central message. Really the two main statements in this ad are not even being said buy the photos themselves, but the words underneath. The price and MPG are a huge contrast. The unlimited MPG of the bike shows that the bike is an unlimited resource whereas the car you will have to keep refilling it with gas. Another communication is the irony of the car when viewed next to the bike. The landscape surrounding the car is nice, and the driver is outside “breathing the fresh air,” when really if he wanted to breath the fresh air and partake of the scenery, he’d be on a bike. This is also ironic because the air would be not so fresh when tons of cars pump exhaust into it.
I accidentally posted the same comment twice, because my computer froze up and told me it didn't post the first one even though it did. My bad, disregard the second.
ReplyDeleteThe ad is fairly basic and straight forward, I would say finesse is missing. It would be a better ad if it were less direct, and more subtle, maybe showing someone filling up the car at a gas station with money coming out of their pocket, and another person riding by on a bike with lots of money in their wallet, sticking out of their back pocket, this directness could influence the audience to pay less attention to it, it is so straight forward that they might look at and feel that they comprehend it all and move on, without taking the time to really think about the statement the ad is trying to make. The main point of the ad can be said to be ambiguous, because it is not said anywhere on the ad, but it is fairly obvious, “as environmentally conscious as a prius might be, a bike is still better, and cost less.” Ambiguity helps this argument/ad because it is so straight forward, while I think a more complex ad would draw more attention, this ad is sure to get your point across without much chance for misinterpretation.
ReplyDeleteBecky—good job explaining the pathos-based appeal: people think driving a hybrid helps reduce air pollution, but even a hybrid car can’t possibly compete with the non-polluting bike. You all are also making logos-based appeals in terms of price—cost versus MPG.
ReplyDeleteBrennan also explains the spoof aspect, which was helpful. I could see this ad as not being a spoof ad necessarily, but being a successful argument in favor of public transportation (city of ABQ…or probably cities in areas with more significant pollution problems—California, for example). I think it’s really strong argument generally speaking to not buy a car at all—but I do appreciate the spoof aspect. Brennan also points out the landscaping around the car as being a significant part of the spoof effect—cars are never ‘green’ in comparison to bikes—I didn’t notice this so I’m glad you discuss it.
Travis discusses how the ad could be more effective perhaps—but then would the argument be more about saving $$ with less emphasis on pollution? The ambiguity also lies in the comparison you guys make between the car and the bike. What is the essential association you want readers to make? It’s not just that both bikes and cars are forms of transportation. It’s the effect of the transportation on the environment and in terms of cost—cost to the environment…? We all know that cars pollute and bikes don’t and that bikes are cheaper—but we don’t usually think about bikes in terms of MPG. None of you talk about the MasterCard ads—but you’re also clearly drawing from this common comparison as well.