Encounter

For my encounter, I went to a cell phone kiosk at Provo Towne Centre. There I talked with salesman John Smith under the premise that my parents were downgrading their service and my plan with their provider expired in a couple of months. He tried to convince me to switch my service to Verizon.

The WATCO was, "WATCO switching to Verizon on your ability to connect with others?" The enthymeme was, "Switching to Verizon will improve your ability to connect with others... because switching to Verizon gives you better service and coverage." The implicit assumption was that better service and coverage make it easier to connect with people you know.

The argument John made was that Verizon will serve me better than any other phone company and that because of this, I should switch my service to Verizon when the contract is up on my phone a couple months down the road.

The audience being targeted was me––someone who was looking to switch my phone service from T-Mobile to something else if I could find a plan that was better than my parents’ family plan, which I’m currently on.

John’s goal was to persuade me to switch my phone service to Verizon. He made his argument mostly through ethos, building the company’s credibility. He told me Verizon has three times the number of cell phone towers of any other cell phone company, and that it has the largest network of users. (If it has that many cell phone towers, one can trust that his or her calls won’t be dropped, and if the company has a network that large, their service must be superb.) Bringing the argument down to a personal level, John told me he himself is a Verizon customer and described his experiences having service through the company. He said his phone had never dropped a call while he has been with Verizon, and related the experience of one of his friends, who had a problem with his phone; Verizon sent him a brand-new phone.

The argument was effective. John did make concessions, noting that if most of the people I call are on T-Mobile (my current provider) then it would probably be wise to stay with them so I wouldn’t be charged for my calls. He also told me his commission worked differently than that of the salesmen at the other kiosks. This made me less distrustful of him and made me feel more like he had my best interest at heart.

The argument was sufficient; in fact, if I was thinking of changing my provider, I would probably seriously consider Verizon. I also felt the argument was relevant; John asked what I primarily use my phone for, how many minutes I use every month, how many texts I send in a month, etc. and tried to aim me toward a plan that would accomodate my usage.

"Home Invasion" advertisement

Please view the ad here:

"Home Invasion" advertisement

The goal of this advertisement is to get California residents to vote “no” on Proposition 8. The argument made in is that the LDS Church is trying to take over California’s government through its members’ support of the proposition. The enthymeme runs something like this: “What are the consequences of the LDS Church’s involvement in Proposition 8 on gay marriage? Because the LDS Church’s involvement will means it wants to take over the government.” The implicit assumption is that the LDS Church wants to take away people’s rights. The ad is targeting California residents, as they were the ones who would ultimately vote on the proposition––specificially, I would venture to guess, those who hadn’t made up their minds about how they were going to vote.

The argument is being made with pathos and logos. The eerie music and quick cuts, the analogy of missionaries unlawfully entering someone’s home, removing the couple’s rings, digging through their personal belongings, and tearing up their marriage certificate all evoke fear. The gay couple depicted in the ad (two aesthetically-pleasing, conservatively dressed women) is far from the stereotypical pair of flamboyant, feminine men. This draws the audience closer to the couple; these could be the people next door who are having their lives destroyed.

As far as logos is concerned, the people who created the ad tried to draw a logical connection between the LDS Church is taking away marriage rights and taking away subsequent rights thereafter. The poor dialogue at the end (“What should we ban next?”) makes this too much of a stretch. Ethos is another area where this advertisement really hurts. The commercial looks like it was filmed on a low budget, the dialogue is poor, and the men playing the missionaries are not even wearing the telltale nametags. It looks like something a Proposition 8 opponent filmed on his handheld camera.

The argument is certainly relevant for California residents, who voted on the issue in November 2008, but is far from accurate. It could be seen as being a typical argument, with the conflicts between church and state coming into the spotlight, and so, at least to some, it could be a sufficient argument (if the church is trying to take away rights and take over the government, what other reason do we need to vote no?)

Ultimately this advertisement is ineffective. Rhetorical arguments are supposed to target the fence-sitters and those in the immediate vicinity of the fence. This ad is far too over-the-top for fence-sitters. People who strongly oppose Proposition 8 and/or Mormons would identify with this ad, but a lack of concessions and an evident attempt to evoke fear and paranoia would probably be a turn off for most people undecided on the issue.

Not Your Grandfather's Old Spice Advertisement

This advertisement argues that using Old Spice deodorant will make a man more desireable, enhancing his social life and putting him on the same plane as a model. It targets an audience of younger men interested in attracting women; the advertisement depicts a man in his late teens or early twenties engaged in a flirtatious conversative with a girl (he is, in fact, getting her number). Young men who envision themselves doing something like this are in the crosshairs of this Old Spice ad.
The goal of the advertisement is to persuade the audience (young men interested in young women) they should use Old Spice, because it will “add spice” to their lives and help them meet and date women.
The argument that he should buy it is made largely with a blend of pathos and logos. The girl tells the young man, “Well, I don’t usually date models, but okay, here’s my number.” The audience may or may not be male models, but that doesn’t matter. According to this advertisement, if you wear Old Spice you’ll be on par with one and will be assured the same success achieved by the young man in the ad. This is poor logic, however (it requires a lot of imagination to take it from an A to an A1 argument), and needs a little pathos to push it along. This comes in the form of the tag line, which is, “Add some Spice to your life.” The red background, while the trademark color of Old Spice deodorant sticks, is also the color of passion, playing into the idea of the pursuit depicted in the advertisement.
These both appeal to the emotions, and could probably net the audience (girl-crazy teenagers and twentysomethings). This renders the advertisement effective, though when one thinks about the logic behind the argument, it is a ridiculous concept.