"Give Fun, Get Fun"

Throughout our entire class this semester, Dr. Adams has reiterated countless times how scary rhetoric can be when we realize, studying it like we are now, that rhetoric works its magic on us without our conscious knowledge of it even happening. I know we have talked advertisements to death, but I am a little ashamed to say that I unknowingly got sucked in by a cell phone ad myself. Not just a singular ad compelled me, but a number of other factors were a part of my decision to buy this new smart phone.

This past year, my trusty slider was falling apart. I also had to endure hanging out with my friends who owned smart phones (a rapidly growing number) and reprimand them for constantly having their eyes on its screen, checking Facebook or perhaps the weather. (However, I was always jealous of the “Tipulator” when it came to paying the bill at restaurants). Even my parents, who are technologically challenged, had Blackberries. I soon began to curse my simple, numeric keypad and feeble camera with each use without even really feeling that strongly about it. My point is that slowly, somewhere deep inside, I began to resent my own possession, and I think that is part of rhetoric’s success – making you dislike what you already own enough to feel okay about discarding it in an instant in favor of whatever is new.

When it came time for my free upgrade, I perused the Sprint store with little interest. What do I really know about technology, anyway? I just wanted something that worked. Because I knew I would not downgrade, I went for the only phones available these days. I went straight for the phone whose commercial I remembered best on television, the Palm Pixi. It wasn’t that I particularly wanted it, but I remembered seeing it and that’s what mattered at the time. And I liked the song in the background. So, the advertisement succeeded because as a consumer, I based my choice upon the catchiest, most aesthetically pleasing commercial. Sad, I know. But at least I have that tipping app. I always wanted…and it’s pretty fun (see slogan at the end of the commercial).

Kenneth Burke Goes to Punjab

NPR reported today on a perfect example of the power of symbols in society. Two reporters traveling down the Grand Trunk Road, which runs the length of India, saw a strange phenomenon when in Punjab, a sort of nouveau-riche state near the India-Pakistan border (The journalists can explain a lot better than I can about how the statues look and function within society, so click here for the full story). What I could comment on, thanks to our rhetoric class, was how the large, colorful concrete statues the journalists saw perched on top of roofs and by roadsides fit into Kenneth Burke's symbol schema. These statues serve as nothing more than status symbols: none of the locals could provide any logic or background information about what the statues symbolize or represent, other than to say that only wealthy Sikhs own them. Not just any Sikhs, by the way--in the rapidly industrializing Punjab, these Sikhs often traveled abroad to earn a great deal of wealth, which they sent home to their families. The NPR journalists commented on the pervasiveness of McDonalds' drive-thrus, car dealerships, and all sorts of Western-style advertising not as present in poorer areas of India. I couldn't help but wander if the idea of identifying with some sort of icon or symbol seen in these advertisements hadn't seeped into the Sikh consciousness, making them ready for some sort of symbol of their own with which to indicate status. No matter what the underlying cause, the facts remains that Sikhs of Punjab have chosen concrete statues of airplanes, eagles, lions, and other fantastic creatures as their symbols of inclusion.

If pro is the opposite of con, is progress the opposite of Congress?

Anyone who has set foot on Loyola’s campus in the past few months has seen the chaos and mess caused by the construction. We have moats, dirt piles, huge holes, bridges, and heavy machinery all over campus, impeding the flow of foot traffic and making it difficult to get anywhere without taking some complicated detour. While I understand the reason for the construction, it doesn’t help my frustration it having to take round-about routes to get to class. I’m angry that it is happening now, during the middle of the school year, and that it’s still going on. I believe that the administration knows that this construction is frustrating people, and so they use rhetoric to try and deflect these feelings away from themselves. Have you ever seen these signs:



Brilliant! Instead of asking us to “Pardon the mess” or the construction, we are asked to “Pardon [their] progress.” This sign effectively uses rhetoric; it makes those who are bothered by the construction feel badly because they are bothered by progress. Who wants to oppose progress? No one does, and this is exactly what the sign makers want. Now, instead of being angry and frustrated with construction, people begin to think more positively about the progress being made on campus.

The subtle use of certain words to convey different connotations is not a new idea. Politicians and administrators use carefully chosen words to but lighter or more favorable spins on sometimes not-so nice ideas. For example, calling garbage men waste management associates, or saying preemptive counter attack instead of simple attack, create more pleasant connotations in the minds of people. The “Pardon Our Progress” signs are a classic example of rhetoric in action. Did they work?

Faulkner vs Hemmingway: A fight to the death?

Many times in my career as a writer, I’ve been told to “write like Hemmingway and not like Faulkner.” For those of you who may not be familiar with these authors, Hemmingway’s writing is characterized by his short, pithy, almost choppy sentences and directness. Faulkner, on the other hand, was not very fond of punctuation and so often fell victim to the run-on sentence. I’ve heard that he holds the world record for longest sentence, and if you’ve ever read his stream of consciousness works it’s easy to believe. When we learned about the difference between writing and reading levels, though, I began to think about this criticism. Who, out of Hemmingway and Faulkner, has the highest reading level? Highest writing level? So I decided to test this out for myself. I took a small passage from one of each author’s novels—Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury and Hemmingway’s The Old Man and the Sea—copied it into Microsoft Word, and tested for the reading ease, Flesch-Kinkaid writing level, and the percent of passive sentences. According to my tests, Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury had a reading ease of 76.1, a writing level of 6.1, and 0% passive sentence, while Hemmingway’s The Old Man and the Sea had a reading ease of 88.4, a writing level of 5.3, and 0% passive sentences. To be fair, a better “experiment” would involve taking more passages from several different texts and averaging the results, but I think these statistics are pretty telling. These two random passages yielded extremely similar figures. What I found most interesting, though, is the fact that these two authors are great figures in American Literature. No one would say that either Hemmingway or Faulkner couldn’t write, at least without getting flack from the academic community, but they are writing at a fifth grade level. This makes me re-evaluate just how much weight I put into reading and writing levels.

Truth and Tampons

We’ve all seen them—those annoying “feminine hygiene” commercials, and we know the usual MO. These commercials are aimed a very specific audience: young, middle class females. And a lot of times they are quite effective. The interesting thing, though, is that the “generic” tampon or pad ad is pretty formulated; they are all deceptively similar. Girls, you know what I’m talking about, and boys, you’ll see what I mean once you start actually paying attention (and believe me, you will). But there is a new line of “girl products” on the market, U by Kotex, and have shaken up the tampon market, if you will. Not only is the product presented in a hip and fun way (“Look, the brand is simply the letter ‘U’! How hip!”)—with a cool name and chic black and neon color packaging, the commercials for U by Kotex are breaking the tampon commercial norm. And they way they are doing it is by exposing and making fun of the typical feminine hygiene product ad. Take a look for yourself.

First, watch this. It’s one of the more “out-there” commercials, but it demonstrates the general idea:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-4APMv2QKo&feature=related

Now watch this U by Kotex commercial. This commercial features a young woman sarcastically taking about her period, describing that attitudes seen in most other tampon ads:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpypeLL1dAs&NR=1

Finally, this commercial for U by Kotex “exposes” tampon commercials. I think this demonstrates rhetoric at it’s finest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOM4AMV050A

Now, do you think that these mocking commercials are more effective than the other ones? They seem to have some element of “We’re being honest with you, so you should by our product,” but this is still a rhetorical technique. Girls, would you try U by Kotex? Why or why not? What other techniques are these advertisements using?

Quick-Trim or Slick-Trim

Ok, a much as I LOVE the Kardashian sisters, I must say that I don't particularly love their new Quick-Trim endorsement. Quick-Trim being a diet cleanse formula to help you lose weight.

Of course, this ad is unbelievable because these sexy sister's dont need the product to lose weight (their bodies were already very trim!) But I guess their faces as the spokesperson of the product, help to show women what you can become by using it, proving Burke's theories.

Their tag-line, "How hot can you be? Quick-Trim, live the dream," plays into the purpose of, "right now, you aren't hot, but Quick-Trim can make you hot" while also playing into the whole scapegoat theory at the same time by saying, "if you use Quick-Trim, you'll become hot," message.

Bad enough young women and men in this society often times play into their insecurities and follow messages of this nature that leave them feeling vulnerable. Of course, we all dream about being something other, whether it's thinner, taller, smarter, whatever, so much so that I myself even Googled this product to see what all the hoopla was about.

Guess these advertising tactics really work. Pick of symbol of "hotness" (i.e. Kim Kardashian) and make women feel vulnerable and insecure by wanting to fit in and be hot by her standards.