My TED Talk is going to be on the differences between name brand and generic items. In all aspects of first world life, there are name brand products everywhere. From the medications we take to the cereals we eat, there will always be a ton of different “brands” or types of products to try. But what exactly separates the “Premium” brand from the “Generic?” Why is “Crispy Puffed Rice” less appealing than “Rice Crispies?” These are the types of questions I would like to propose and answer in my TED talk.

To start off my talk I will begin with a discussion of economics and how mass producing a product works. This will give me a firm base for which to elaborate my further arguments on as my audience will now know the motivations behind why companies might make deals for generic branding.

I will shed light on some common products that are exactly the same thing though perceived differently by the general population. I will look quickly at how psychology influences our choices and decisions when purchasing all kinds of items. I will bring up a few experiments that have been done regarding branding and discuss a short general overview of the research done on the topic. This part will not be super in-depth as I want to mainly focus on the real world examples that eh audience can relate too.

I will even put in a few case studies about how marketing and “Branding” is sometimes more effective than the product itself. By showing these examples I will further establish my point with my audience as they can relate to these examples. Perhaps they have even used these exact products before. This personal connection will let the audience resonate with the message and hopefully allow them to recall it when they are in the store and making these important decisions.

RCL #8:

My speech is Steve Job’s iPhone introduction speech in 2007.

Steve Jobs uses a variety of techniques and rhetorical strategies on stage when introducing the iPhone. These include but are not limited to humor, compelling visuals, and the challenge of commonplaces the audience held about what a mobile device could be.

Steve Job’s humor is what he started off with. The entire speech is littered with jokes that poke fun at the industry and what people thought his new “advancement” would be. In fact, one of the first photos he showed on stage was this:

It’s hilarious but it also illustrates a point Steve had for his audience. The technology he was about to demo had never been seen before. People really didn’t know what to expect. This allowed him to create this humous moment while building suspense for the actual announcement of this product.

Second, his visuals were compelling. Everything about the presentation said “rehearsed” and “polished.” Steve knew what every single slide was and where it should come up in his presentation. The slides in question never wasted space and most importantly weren’t repetitive to the information that was in Steve’s speech. They only emphasized or added to this point.

Third, Steve challenged the audience’s commonplaces of what a mobile device could be. Steve would often bring up different commonplaces in the industry. E.g. “We’re gonna use a stylus.
No. No. Who wants a stylus?” and “What we gonna do is get rid of all these buttons [keyboards at the bottom of phones] and just make a giant screen.” People didn’t know what to expect from this new phone. Steve challenged existing problems with “smartphones” and then presented a revolutionary solution. By first addressing the commonplaces that people hold about what a mobile phone could be Steve made his “solutions” all the more powerful and impactful.

Cord Cutting

Since the birth of the TV, both advertising and entertainment have been centered on the big screen. A great number of people nationally have TV subscriptions but the number is declining. Over the past decade, we have seen a massive decrease in cable subscriptions and a Massive increase in streaming services. From Netflix, Hulu, and now YouTube Red streaming services have dominated the market and deeply cut into the profit margins of the large TV corporations.

This marks a trend in advertising and peoples attitudes towards ads in general.

Overall my speech was fairly successful. I accomplished what I set out to explain rhetorically. If I could go back and edit my performance beyond just “prep more” I would make sure I slowed down my speaking. While I did stay within the time limit I could have taken longer to explain my points. I wouldn’t even change the words much, I would just pause slightly longer and talk at a more conversational speed. During my practice sessions, I took almost thirty seconds longer to do my speech that my final time on stage.

One thing that I felt differentiated me from the rest of my class was my level of dress. Of all the people in the class, only I dressed up in a blazer. This was not a requirement so I didn’t really expect anyone else to, but I felt that it helped my presentation. Nothing makes me feel more confident than looking presentable in a nice suit. When giving a speech confidence is key to a good performance on stage.

The amount of preparation I underwent for this speech was adequate. From office hours to just practicing on my own all of it was necessary for a good speech, yet, even so, more could be done. Not only was my speech too fast, but more of it could have been memorized. Not the main points, but rather the thesis and transitions. The rubric said points would start to be lost with less than 80% eye contact. I felt like I met this requirement, but there is always room for improvement.

The most important part of my prep process that I feel made an impact was flipping my two main points. By talking about liberty first it allowed me to elaborate on how definitions of liberty and civic engagement can vary from person to person. If I stuck with personal definitions first and then narrowed it down to liberty my speech would have had a poorer structure and over would have been less effective.