Analyzation of Rhetoric in Clean Water Advertisements
The fact is simple: Water is becoming scarce. According to Unicef, an organization dedicated to fixing childhood water scarcity, four billion people every year face extreme conditions of water scarcity for at least one month, which is over half of the world population. Additionally, in as short as eight years, seven-hundred million people could be displaced by water scarcity. But, not only is one of the most important elements to our survival becoming scarce, but what we have left is not even entirely clean. Many individuals must walk miles every single day just to get a few gallons of borderline undrinkable water which is sure to spread disease. Unfortunately, it is the only option they have. While it can be hard to truly know how dire our situation is, organizations like Unicef and Lien Aid are putting out advertisements and PSA’s that make good use of Aristotle’s pathos and logos, as well as visual rhetoric and commonplaces respectively. In order to bring awareness to the clean water crisis, Unicef uses logos and visual rhetoric in order to teach its audience quickly and effectively. On the other hand, Lien Aid made a public service announcement that uses appeal to Pathos through a commonplace lens, which tells a similar message to the Unicef ad while using different strategies. By comparing these rhetorical pieces one can see exactly how the ad and the PSA line up, and why their strategies do so well in conveying meaning to their audience.
The Unicef ad may appear simple at first glance, but upon further analysis it becomes clear that the ad is in fact very complex in the strategies it deploys to get the viewers’ attention. It depicts a glass of murky water, with a small textual fact at the bottom that explains the circumstances of water scarcity and quality issues. While it may initially seem unbecoming of the ad to include so little to talk about so much, its deceptive simplicity is exactly what makes it strong. The placement of the image in this ad is one of the most important elements in its design. Because the glass of water is placed directly in the center and is made to be the largest element in the ad, it is almost always going to be the first thing someone sees when looking at it. The target audience is also unaccustomed to seeing water of that quality, making it a fairly jarring image which helps keep the audience’s attention focused on the ad, especially when combined with the implication that millions of people would happily drink this water without a moment’s hesitation. On top of all this, the ad in its entirety makes use of drab and dreary colors. The background is gray, the text is black, and the glass is filled with dirty, brown-colored water. These colors create a dire and sad mood, allowing its meaning to sink deeper into the audience. When understanding the larger purposes behind the design of the ad (the size, placement, and nature of the image) and how they work together, the audience can come to a better understanding of how the ad works and how it employs visual rhetoric to accomplish its task.
Contrary to Unicef’s use of visual rhetoric, the PSA by Lien Aid uses commonplaces in order to create a compelling announcement about water scarcity. They start by introducing a young boy, which is already an element of innocence brought into the PSA. The narration and visual elements in the video suggests that the boy wants to follow his dream to swim competitively, but it becomes clear that he is unable to because the pool is dry. A few seconds later, the viewer finds out that the reason is because his town, city, or village is out of water. The ad makes good use of a well known commonplace: follow your dreams. It is perhaps the one commonplace that truly everyone can relate. Especially as children, everyone dreamt of what they wanted to be once they were grown up. Unfortunately for this boy and hundreds of millions of children, their dreams are becoming ultimately impossible to achieve. With this narrative established, the audience is immediately able to relate to the young boy and can empathize or sympathize with his disappointment when he sees the pool. In turn, Lien Aid hopes that these feelings will encourage their viewers to help people like the young boy in the PSA by donating to their foundation.
“900 million people in the world drink this water every day”. This is the text that sits below the glass of dirty water on Unicef’s advertisement. By analyzing Unicef’s ad through a visual rhetoric lens along with the text, it can be determined that the ad is appealing to logos in order to encourage its audience to act upon the issue presented. Logos is best represented by the textual element in the ad. The words “million”, “drink”, and “every” are the most important elements of this text as it draws emphasis to the important issues at hand in a way that is easy to read, absorb, and understand. This applies to logos because Unicef is telling us a fact: a proper, logical fact that carries enough weight to get its viewers to care, even if only for a little bit before they go on about their day. It is also important to mention the placement of the text, which is right under the image of the murky water. This is important because it is automatically the next thing the viewer sees. Every passerby seeing the ad reads it the same way; First they see the image, then they see the text. This ensures that every person is seeing the same thing and that there is no miscommunication on part of the advertisement. Combined with the jarring image above, the text is surely to make people understand how troublesome the water crisis is becoming.
While the Unicef ad does a good job at representing logos, Lien Aid leans more towards pathos because it aims to evoke empathy and sympathy from its watchers. This is done by the aforementioned use of commonplaces, where the audience feels pity for the boy who is unable to accomplish his dreams because of something completely beyond his control. It is a feeling that everyone can understand, and the thought that these issues are really happening is supposed to encourage people to donate to Lien Aid. This effect is especially potent because of how they told their story through the eyes of a child. Most people seeing this ad are of the belief that children should not be unjustly robbed of the ability to achieve their dreams. The story presented in the PSA is impactful even further when combined with the music played in the background and the somber tone of the narrator’s voice. These auditory elements are just as important as the visual ones, because if they were stripped from the video, it would not evoke any emotion from the people watching and the message would fall flat on hundreds of thousands of people.
I do not have a conclusion paragraph drafted yet
I want to know how I can improve my analysis of my two artifacts. I know there is not much actual comparison between the two, but that’s because I just haven’t written it yet and I plan on doing so later (along with a conclusion). If there is any extra analysis that I could include, please let me know (along with any other mistakes you see along the way).
Overall, I really liked the individual analysis in your essay. One thing I would add to the introduction and throughout the essay is a clearer description of your lens. For example, you explained how the ad uses pathos and logos, but didn’t emphasize how they are used to build credibility and trust to their argument. I’d review the “Choosing a Lens” page. Finally, I would also give a brief description of each artifact in the introduction.
I feel like you do a good job of painting a clear picture of what the problem at hand is to the reader/viewer. Your analysis of the topic is clear and direct to the point. However, I would switch it up and maybe say “advertisement” instead of “ad” it felt very repetitive in your first or second body paragraphs. Or maybe just remove it because I feel like your audience knows at this point what you are addressing.