The primary claim in this ad is that cosmetic testing is harmful to whomever and whatever they are tested on. The woman in the ad has some sort of rash as well as marks on her eyes purportedly caused by poisonous cosmetics. The squirrel in the bottom corner of the ad knows that being the subject of such a test is unfavorable. The picture advertises that Cover Girl should not test product on animals and encourages people to purchase animal-friendly product. I assume although Cover Girl would not use such helpless and furry-cute animals for product testing, that they don't use their best models either! They probably outsourse testing.
-T. McFadden
Normally in a Cover Girl Ad there would be a beautiful model with flawless skin. Not everyone remembers the process it takes to make this make up. I think a few things are missing from this ad. First, It is missing the beautiful model that usually appears on the ads. It also is missing images of the animals after the product has been tested on them. I think the image of the model having a “bad” reaction to the makeup influences the audience’s perception. If the model had been beautiful, the audience would be more likely to go out and buy this product without thinking about how this product came to be. This ad is against animal testing on makeup products. Cover Girl is one of the companies that do test their products on animals. There is ambiguity in this ad. The ad shows that animal testing is bad and harmful to animals. The model is the one that the makeup is being tested on, not the animal. The model has become deformed due to the makeup testing. The animal is mocking the model because it is not the one being subjected to humiliation for a cosmetic product that makes up “beautiful.” The animal is also stating that it does not like being tested on by asking the model if she likes it. This enhances our argument by showing if humans don’t like the effects of makeup testing then neither do animals; and it is not fair to subject animals to such torture.
ReplyDelete~Sasha
This ad appeals to pathos by making people who look at the image disgusted. With the text and animal in the corner it also brings to light the cruelty that animals go through to make women look beautiful which will also bring about a emotional response. The ad appeals to logos because animal testing is something that everyone knows happens but does nothing about, however there is no concrete logical evidence within the ad. Most of the logos comes from what people already know about animal testing. The text and image work together by the text making the image make sense, so you know why the model has this rash and red eyes. Without the text it may be harder to understand what was trying to be conveyed. I think the image is more convincing because you hear people talk about animal testing and saying why or why not it is bad, but getting a glimpse at how it affects the animals makes a big impact. Seeing what cosmetics can do, when they are not prefected yet, to a beautiful women helps to make a bigger impact that the text. Having the animal mocking the model also helps to make the point.
ReplyDeleteOK--so the argument is don't buy Cover Girl because they test on animals? Your image tries to show what animals experience (in a way) through cosmetics testing. In terms of ethos, pathos, and logos, the ad itself attacks the ethos of the company. They engage in this unethical or morally questionable behavior, yes? So we should view the company in a negative light. But most companies test on animals--so why did you single out Cover Girl in particular here?
ReplyDeleteI would agree with Stephanie that you all are also drawing extensively on pathos. Your image manipulation choices highlight the negative physical effects (eye irritation and injury) as a result of this practice of animal testing. I'm not sure that logos is really working here. Of course it may seem logical that pain and suffering are undesirable, but not wanting to inflict pain and suffering on animals (or human beings) is a pathos-driven argument. And 'logos' doesn't refer to this kind of logic. It has to do with using facts, figures, and statistics to 'logically' persuade your audience with these kind of evidence. From a cultural perspective, intentially inflicting pain and suffering on sentient beings is wrong, but this has to do with cultural beliefs, values, and ideology(different cultures have different standards for what constitutes moral behavior) so logos doesn't apply here.
The choice of the animal at the bottom of your ad is also interesting. Stephanie's explanation here was helpful. Here, as you all explain, you're trying to put the animal in the model's place--here's how this feels--again, entirely based on emotion.