The charity/issue leaflet we will discuss is an “Adopt Me” leaflet for the adoption of dolphins. The company supporting this is called WDCS and is not a well-known company, so the company name and logo are well presented, as they are in large, white, bold lettering on the bottom-right of the leaflet. The next technique used, is the use of colour co-ordination, as a blue background is used for the leaflet, which relates to the meaning of the leaflet, dolphins. And as dolphins are blue, so is the background!
The picture used is of four dolphins, assorted randomly on the page, made to look like they are swimming in the sea, which supports the aim of the leaflet. The caption used in the issue leaflet is ‘Adopt Me! ‘ clear, concise, and straight to the point wording. There is a great amount of copy on the page, suggesting ways to help dolphins, or adopt them, with the main being, ‘Will you adopt Rainbow or one of friends? ‘. The technique of personal address is used here, to propose the question directly to the audience. The other copy informs on how paying a minor fee each month could save a dolphin.
Another technique used is a rhetorical question, ‘Please will YOU help us save them? ‘ which also “goes straight to the heart”, and straight to the point, and as donations are wanted, it seems a good technique to use. Other smaller pictures are also used on the leaflet, which display various dolphin products (mugs, hats etc. ) that can be purchased to help to raise more money for the issue. Now that all four adverts- two product adverts and two charity/issue adverts have been deconstructed and analysed, we can look at the differences and similarities of all adverts.
There are many differences between both the T. V adverts, and they include the use of colour; the Coca-Cola advert was red, white and black, a range of vivid colours, which shows that they have money to spend on livening up their adverts, and displaying them in an attractive manner, to increase the popularity of their company, by associating well-known colours to their product, whilst the NSPCC advert was grey and dull, mainly due to the fact that it was imposing a sense of sadness, but also because of the budget allocated to the advert.
The themes of the adverts were also quite different; Coca-Cola were advertising their product to increase profits and popularity, with fun, and lively conceptions, whereas the NSPCC advert was intended to raise awareness and donations, with a ‘sad and guilty’ scheme. There were also a few similarities between the adverts such as both adverts showed their company’s name and logo throughout the advert, and many images were used to capture the essence of the advert. Also, both Coca-Cola and the NSPCC used music in the background, as a method, to promote their adverts, recognising that it is a well-used technique.
Both the advert for L’Oreal and the leaflet for ‘Adopting Dolphins’ had some differences and similarities too. The L’Oreal advert was aimed at a younger audience of teenage girls or younger women, with the use of pink shades of colour and celebrity endorsement to support the advert, whilst the dolphin leaflet was aimed at an older audience (as it is quite unlikely that many teenagers or younger people would spend their money or pocket money on supporting a dolphin), as a sympathy vote, to elevate contributions, by the subtle shades of blue, and request for money.
Another difference is that L’Oreal could afford to keep their advert, as their company name is widely-known, but the dolphin leaflet organization (the WDCS) is not widely-known, and have to advertise their cause more thoroughly. The similar concepts used again, were the bold white lettering, used for the company’s/organization’s name and logo, and a straight-to-the-point concept, as both used large images of what they were advertising/rising awareness of.
In conclusion, there are still some points to be discussed about advertising, such as ‘Is advertising good or bad? ‘. On one hand, advertising products gets the point across, is informative, can be entertaining, clever or amusing, and advertising charity/issue needs can potentially increase contributions, provide people with useful knowledge and understanding, be helpful and get the charity/issue well-noticed.
But on the other hand, product adverts can be pressurizing, as people could get teased or taunted if they don’t have a new or flashy product, can display ‘wants’ and not ‘needs’, as people would want to buy a new product even if they had the old version, so they don’t really need it but want to have it, can be very materialistic, can lead to debts, as people buy new and expensive products without realizing how much it will set them back, and can lead to jealousy or competition, as people without a new product would be jealous of those who have the new product, or would want to compete with other people to buy the newest products.
However, the advertisement of a charity/issue cannot be classified as bad, as they are there to help, not increase profits. There are many effects of advertising; the main being jealousy. Many people see adverts and others buying or showing-off that product and want to buy it or have it to themselves, even though realistically, they don’t need it. This is called materialism, and doesn’t appear in charity/issue adverts.
Noticing that product adverts are substantially more influential to the environment through materialism, I feel that they are advertising too much, in too many places, and can afford to do this because of profits, unlike charity adverts/issues are advertised in the minority, and I think that that is unreasonable, as charity/issue adverts are their to inform and help, and should be recognized more.