Cordaid Handbag Advertisement

          

         In the closed society we live in today, it is hard to imagine a completely different world outside of our tiny sphere. A world where grocery stores are not a five-minute drive away; where 100 stores are not in on building; or a world where education does not come free. But even though we cannot see it, we are constantly being asked to donate, and donate, and donate to these faraway lands that do not live the lives we live. However, in their advertisement, Cordaid, The Catholic Organization for Relief and Development Aid, presents an advertisement that does not only make this concept come to life, but makes donating feel like an obligation. Considering this company is based in the Netherlands, the target audience for this campaign was intended for the citizens of the Netherlands. More specifically, the ad is targeted mainly at women, which can be assumed by the use of a female model as well as the handbag, which is most commonly associated with women. The main purpose of the advertisement was to gain donations for Cordaid to go towards their work with those in poverty. The advertisement does this by exaggerating people’s reliance on materialistic fashion items to arouse feelings of guilt that people are spending money on handbags rather than helping others get food.

            In order to convey their purpose, Cordaid uses a comparison in order to evoke guilt in their audience ultimately leading to donation. The image is unlike others with a similar purpose, as it does not use crying children, or people with diseases, or starving people to make their point. Instead, it offers a simple comparison between food and a handbag. It presents facts in the form of numbers and prices making a clear comparison. The large amount of money that is spent on an unnecessary item compared to the small amount of money that it would feed this women for a week is clearly stated. Therefore, the audience sees that it is logical to spend the money on food, as it is a basic physiological need. If the target audience can afford to pay a large amount for an unnecessary item such as a handbag and other fashion items surely they could donate “€1.50” for someone who needs it. Although the advertisement is unlike other ads in this category that show sick and unhappy people, there is still an element of emotion in the face of the model. Her mouth is frowning and her eyes are squinting and the wrinkles above them makes her look stressed and unhappy. Although most charity-related advertisements use solely pathos to make their argument, I believe the logic used in this argument is just as effective.

            Overall, I do believe Cordaid accomplished their purpose by making an advertisement that does not solely use emotion, but logic to make to their point. By comparing a materialistic item against a necessity, people feel guilty that they are wasting money that could be spent feeding someone for a week. Stirring up this feeling of guilt is what makes people feel obligated to donate.

An Argument against Television for Children

The effect of television on children is an endless debate that has been going on for years. Many studies have been conducted examining the effects of violent TV shows on the minds of young children. However, Seth Mullins, an experienced writer and parent, scrutinizes the impact that even harmless programming can have upon the ways that children think and feel. With both an emotional and logical argument, Mullins is able to convince parents that television is only depleting children’s minds by substituting digital images for their own inner ones and lulling their senses to sleep.

In order to convince parents of the negative effects of even harmless TV, Seth Mullins had to use rhetorical devices that would show his audience both the “evidence” supporting his argument as well emotions to display the horrors of television. So, throughout his article, Mullins used forms of both quantitative and qualitative exemplification to support his argument. For example, when opening his articles he writes, “Studies have shown that in the past few decades, a significant number of American children spent more time in front of a television set than in a classroom. Many of them were free to watch without supervision; in fact, nearly a quarter had sets in their own rooms.” With this form of exemplification, Mullins’ audience sees the numerical side of the argument that shows the general scope of the problem. To attack his audience’s emotions as well, Mullins employs a more emotional, qualitative form of exemplification that does not use numbers to make the argument, but words. In order to show parents the possible benefits of curbing television he says that if children were to step away from the screen their, “imaginations, reasoning abilities and spontaneity will flourish.” Although not numerical, Seth Mullins still gives his audience an example of what could happen if parents pull their child away from the screen.

Overall, I do believe Mullins was able to accomplish his purpose of showing parents the negative effects of even harmless television on children. The use of both qualitative and quantitative exemplification shows his audience a two-sided argument that fulfilled both their emotional and logical needs.