5.  Discuss the communication itself. In your opinion, is the advertisement persuasive? I want you to answer this question by commenting on four elements: Whether the advertisement is a) weak/strong, b) one-sided/two-sided, c) overt/implied, and d) discrepant with the audience/in-line with the audience. Then, tell me why. That is, answer along the lines of: “The advertisement was weak because …” and “The ad was one-sided because …” etc. After discussing those ideas, let me know whether the way the advertiser presented the ad was persuasive.

6.  Discuss the target of the communication. Who are the advertisers targeting, how can you tell, and was that a good decision?  How might this ad be different if directed towards an audience from a more interdependent culture?

7.  Describe how AT LEAST ONE social psychology concept that we have discussed that applies to this ad (e.g. dissonance, emotions, attitudes, self-monitoring, etc. – your choice). First, define that concept and then discuss how it is relevant to the ad’s persuasiveness.

Grading Rubric (Applies to each of the 6 questions above)

A good “Example” paper from a prior student is on the next page

Advertisement Analysis (Assignment #3) – Paper from a prior student (Last Name A-H)

1a. Discuss what product this ad attempts to market and describe where the ad came from. Describe or attach (You can attach the advertisement at the bottom of the Canvas submission link if you have access to an electronic copy or hyperlink. You might even be able to paste it in the textbox! If you cannot show me a visual image, then fully describe what it looks like. This question is worth 5 points, which come from EITHER a really good description in 1a. or uploading the actual ad in 1b – your choice!).  

1b. No real "points" for this one, but if you prefer to upload your ad than do a full description in 1a, then upload it here (and slack off on the answer in 1a. Just make sure to tell me where the ad came from in 1a). 

This ad is marketing the Colgate Total product family and found in People magazine.

2.  Discuss which component(s) of attitudes (e.g., affective, behavioral, cognitive) to which the ad appeals. How can you tell? Was this a good strategy for this product/audience?

The advertisement is working on both affective and cognitive appeals. It’s affective attitude appeal is in choosing a spokesperson and then running the headline as a quote from Kelly Ripa; this elicits a (hopefully) positive emotional response and then associates the neutral stimulus (Colgate Total products) to the positive response; additionally, the audience should want to imitate/emulate the successful traits of a celebrity, therefore, if Kelly Ripa uses this product and has white teeth, then if I use this product I will have white teeth like Kelly Ripa. Additionally, it appeals to ones’ cognitive attitude by establishing a unique selling point, “Eliminates 15x more bacteria to improve the health of your mouth” It also posits this in a feature/benefit way; feature = eliminates 15x more bacteria, benefit=improves the health of YOUR mouth. This was a good strategy in it assures the greatest message comprehension in its audience reach by using two attitudinal appeals.

3.  Discuss the route of persuasion do the advertisers seem to use (e.g., central/systematic route vs. peripheral/heuristic)? Was that a good choice? Specifically, what central or peripheral cues are used?

They seem to be using both routes. By choosing a celebrity endorsement, Kelly Ripa, the advertisers frame this as a peripheral/heuristic persuasion- those persuaded by this spokesperson’s claim would be convinced after reading her quote. By also including a USP backed by a fact (a numerical claim has more validity than one without) it appeals to the centrals. By providing the “central-routers” with accurate and useful information and providing an emotional appeals (in the form of a spokesperson) to the “peripheral-routers” the advertiser is able to cast its net wide in its message acceptance.

4.  Does the ad attempt to describe the source of its product information (e.g., "dentists agree that _____" or "experts suggest ____?"  Do these sources come off as credible and/or attractive? If there was no expert, do you think one would have helped? Why or why not?

I don’t think an expert would make the message more credible. Because this ad is already utilizing two different persuasion techniques, any more messages in this ad would only take away from the already effective message (it would add too much clutter).

5.  Discuss the communication itself. In your opinion, is the advertisement persuasive? I want you to answer this question by commenting on four elements: Whether the advertisement is a) weak/strong, b) one-sided/two-sided, c) overt/implied, and d) discrepant with the audience/in-line with the audience. Then, tell me why. That is, answer along the lines of: “The advertisement was weak because …” and “The ad was one-sided because …” etc. After discussing those ideas, let me know whether the way the advertiser presented the ad was persuasive.

The tactics used in this one-sided argument is strong. This ad is successfully on-target with its audience because it is making two separate appeals: 1) an emotionally AND implied (quote/endorsement by celebrity Kelly Ripa) argument along with 2) a logical AND overt (scientific claim of effectiveness) argument.

6.  Discuss the target of the communication. Who are the advertisers targeting, how can you tell, and do you think the advertisement reached that audience? This might depend on where you saw the ad. For example, if the ad involves toys, advertising in an American Association of Retired People (AARP) magazine may be a poor choice. Finally, I assume most of your ads will center on Americans (though this is not required). If so, then how would you alter the ad if you needed to direct it towards an audience from a more interdependent culture? If it already is from an interdependent culture, then how would you alter it for an American audience (or would you even need to do so)?

This ad came from People magazine. People’s audience being comprised of 70% women, and Live with Kelly and Michael’s primary target audience comprised of women 25-54. The advertisers are clearly targeting women; this decision is on-target because of the great overlap in choosing this spokesperson for this ad/placement combination; this was a good decision. Another spokesperson would have been needed in a more interdependent culture- Ripa’s appeal is because she is a hard-working INDEPENDENT woman. Perhaps a spokesperson who adhered more strongly to conservative gender roles (for example Ree Drummond, the Pioneer Woman).

7. Describe how AT LEAST ONE social psychology concept that we have discussed that applies to this ad. You can look at dissonance, emotions, attitudes, self-monitoring, etc. There are tons of concepts we have covered other than these, so feel free to dive into other chapters as well. I do want you to define that concept first (“Dissonance is …”) and then apply it to the advertisement you found.

By using a celebrity endorsement, a person who identifies with Kelly Ripa will likely maintain a degree of self-monitoring that aligns with characteristics of Kelly Ripa (mimicking a celebrity). Example, “Gee, I totally ‘get’ Kelly Ripa, she’s just like me in a lot of way…oh look she uses Colgate…Cool so do I -OR- maybe I should consider buying this.” Said another way, because the audience can identify with the celebrity, they would be more prone to take the behavior that exhibits traits of said celebrity (Kelly Ripa uses it, so will I).