This is a really bold statement. Its different from the picture of the bench because as I recall I was told the picture of the bench was in Colorado. This picture is somewhere on the West Coast because of the palm trees in the back. If I saw this I would just throw it over my shoulder, but I do understand the purpose of the sign and the message it is trying to convey. The way I would compare this to pathos is that it is sort of pleading to the viewer to be more self conscious of their water consumption, but making a bold statement that gets right to the point. I would relate it to a nagging parent. We just want them to stop nagging, but we walk away knowing that they are still right and that they are only telling us for our own good.
This message is more emotional than anything else but it still has a decent amount of logic behind it. The billboards say what they are trying to say, and they do this through creativity. The large billboard skeleton looks empty with the small message on it, however I guarantee people can still see it just as well and are even more persuaded by it because of this. The ad uses only what it needs to in order to get the point across, and that is exactly what it is trying to say. Use only the amount of water you need. The ad's claim is use only what you need (in terms of water) and then they use only what they need to for the billboard. Simple, but effective and helps support the argument.
The purpose of this ad is to ask consumers to save water. This ad doesnt exactly promise anything. It more so says that if you keep using all the water, negative results will come from it. This ad suggests that we do not need to use as much water as we think we do. Just like you don't need a whole bench to sit on, or a whole bilboard to serve the purpose it intends to. These ads are urging consumers to be more conscious of the amount of unnecessary water you use. These ads are simple and to the point, just like saving water can be if everyone contributes and help solve the impending problem. However, this ad doesnt give solid examples of how to make this problem better. On the other hand, it is obvious how everyone can save water and end the problem.
The detailed background info about the city of Denver and how these ads were created as explained by Josh is really helpful. They are very much grounded in pathos as well as ethos when we know the author is the city of Denver water company—they are the authority on water use in Denver so this ties into their ethos. I agree that the ad doesn't really overtly 'promise' anything in the way we've been talking about. But what's the long-term 'promise'? Erin, you mention in your last sentence about 'ending the problem’ so is there some kind of implied promise? We live in ABQ so we’re also very familiar with water conservation efforts (as would be the audience for this ad in Denver) so the authors don’t really need to explain much for us to get the ad. And true, there aren't really any solid examples to back up their argument. Why don’t they need to give any examples? Why do we get it so easily?
For next week--dig a little deeper in your analysis in terms of argument. You all think these ads are effective. I do too—they are very clever and I can see why they were so effective as Josh explains…but why? Why is 'Use Only What You Need' something we all just accept as a good reason for conserving water?
USE ONLY WHAT YOU NEED
This is a really bold statement. Its different from the picture of the bench because as I recall I was told the picture of the bench was in Colorado. This picture is somewhere on the West Coast because of the palm trees in the back. If I saw this I would just throw it over my shoulder, but I do understand the purpose of the sign and the message it is trying to convey. The way I would compare this to pathos is that it is sort of pleading to the viewer to be more self conscious of their water consumption, but making a bold statement that gets right to the point. I would relate it to a nagging parent. We just want them to stop nagging, but we walk away knowing that they are still right and that they are only telling us for our own good.
ReplyDeleteThis message is more emotional than anything else but it still has a decent amount of logic behind it. The billboards say what they are trying to say, and they do this through creativity. The large billboard skeleton looks empty with the small message on it, however I guarantee people can still see it just as well and are even more persuaded by it because of this. The ad uses only what it needs to in order to get the point across, and that is exactly what it is trying to say. Use only the amount of water you need. The ad's claim is use only what you need (in terms of water) and then they use only what they need to for the billboard. Simple, but effective and helps support the argument.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of this ad is to ask consumers to save water. This ad doesnt exactly promise anything. It more so says that if you keep using all the water, negative results will come from it. This ad suggests that we do not need to use as much water as we think we do. Just like you don't need a whole bench to sit on, or a whole bilboard to serve the purpose it intends to. These ads are urging consumers to be more conscious of the amount of unnecessary water you use. These ads are simple and to the point, just like saving water can be if everyone contributes and help solve the impending problem. However, this ad doesnt give solid examples of how to make this problem better. On the other hand, it is obvious how everyone can save water and end the problem.
ReplyDeleteThe detailed background info about the city of Denver and how these ads were created as explained by Josh is really helpful. They are very much grounded in pathos as well as ethos when we know the author is the city of Denver water company—they are the authority on water use in Denver so this ties into their ethos. I agree that the ad doesn't really overtly 'promise' anything in the way we've been talking about. But what's the long-term 'promise'? Erin, you mention in your last sentence about 'ending the problem’ so is there some kind of implied promise? We live in ABQ so we’re also very familiar with water conservation efforts (as would be the audience for this ad in Denver) so the authors don’t really need to explain much for us to get the ad. And true, there aren't really any solid examples to back up their argument. Why don’t they need to give any examples? Why do we get it so easily?
ReplyDeleteFor next week--dig a little deeper in your analysis in terms of argument. You all think these ads are effective. I do too—they are very clever and I can see why they were so effective as Josh explains…but why? Why is 'Use Only What You Need' something we all just accept as a good reason for conserving water?