viz.
Rhetoric - Visual Culture - Pedagogy
Tags
advertisement
advertising
architecture
art
assignment
Barack Obama
Comics
design
fashion
film
Hillary Clinton
Humor
In-class Exercise
information design
Iraq
Maps
news
Pedagogy
pedagogy examples
photography
photography
photography
Political Propaganda
politics
Propaganda
video
visual art
Visual Rhetoric
Writing Exercise
youtube
DisclaimerThese blog entries represent the views of their authors, not necessarily those of the CWRL, the University of Texas at Austin, or any of its affiliated entities. |
Reply to commentReplyYour contribution to the blog: Please Read Before PostingThe viz. blog is a forum for exploring the visual through identifying the connections between theory, rhetorical practice, popular culture, and the classroom. Keeping with this mission, comments on the blog should further discussion in the viz. community by extending (or critiquing) existing analysis, adding new analysis, providing interesting and relevant examples, or by making connections between that topic and theory, rhetoric, culture, or pedagogy. Trolling, spam, and any other messages not related to this purpose will be deleted immediately. Comments by anonymous users will be added to a moderation queue and examined for their relevance before publication. Authenticated users may post comments without moderation, but if those comments do not fit the above description they may be deleted. |
Recent comments
|
Maybe I will be in the
Maybe I will be in the minority here, but I do find the analogy to be a fair and meaningful one. The group sponsoring this ad asks, "Is it appropriate to compare deaths caused by terrorists with deaths caused by smoking?" It seems to me that you can, but only if you are working from a conception of the smoking industry as a group that lies to and manipulates it audience in order to keep them addicted to and buying cigarettes. By juxtaposing the phrases "terrorism-related" and "tobacco-related" the wording and visual layout of this ad implies that just as terrorists are behind the burning of the towers, cigarette companies are behind the 30,000,000 smoking. In stronger terms, this ad argues that cigarette execs are the terrorists.
A good example of this kind of thinking can be found at in the Truth anti-smoking campaign, on whose website you can find an entire category of facts that show the kinds of marketing strategies used by big tobacco companies.
Here are some examples:
"Problems with self-esteem. Has menial, boring job. Emotionally insecure. Passive-aggressive. Probably leads fairly dull existence. Grooming not a strong priority. Lacks inner resources. Group conformist. Non-thinking. Not into ideas. Insecure follower. These are all terms taken from Big Tobacco’s files that have been used to describe different groups of potential customers for their deadly, addictive products."
and
"In 1995, a major tobacco company decided to boost cigarette sales by targeting homeless people. They called their plan 'Project SCUM: Sub Culture Urban Marketing.'"
However, the struggle an ad like this faces is that the values that make it effective also make it offensive. Wanting to draw a parallel between the activities of those who bombed the twin towers and those who market and sell cigarettes provides the potential for a strong pathetic appeal, but only if a reader is willing to buy it. The struggle with an ad like this is that the comparison might only work is you already conceptualize cigarettes and more importantly those who sell them in an especially negative light. So, in terms of convincing a new audience, the ad might not be so effective. Which is why I find their invitation for readers to respond as genius. It seems to me that this will work to defuse some of the criticism of their ad, and create a dialogue about not only it but about how various people view the cigarette industry.