What comes to mind when you hear the song “Angel” by Sarah McLachlan? Do you get teary-eyed and have to change the channel like the musician herself? When I hear this song the first thing that comes to mind is a bunch of wide-eyed mistreated puppies and kittens. Who is behind these television ads, (if you don’t already know)? The answer is the ASPCA. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, was the first humane society to be established in North America back in 1866. The organization’s goals and mission statement is “to provide effective means for the prevention of cruelty to animals throughout the United States.” This non-profit organization’s focus, outlined by their current President and CEO Matthew Bershadker, is to get pets out of shelters and keep them in homes, while increasing the protections of animals under the law. The ASPCA utilizes both television advertisements and its website to encourage people to “make a difference for animals in need,” by either making a monetary donation or adopting an animal. ASPCA uses multiple kinds of persuasive appeal to encourage their audience to donate, which is where they make most of their revenue. I have a problem, as do many others, with how the ASPCA convinces people to donate to their organization. It is not ethically or emotionally fair to guilt people into giving money. The ASPCA is “their voice.” As stated earlier, the ASPCA works to prevent animal cruelty. Two of their most well-known examples of popular rhetoric are the use of television advertisements and their website. The first image seen in its commercials is an animal they are saving, so that the noticeable fixation on your screen is a mistreated puppy. Similarly, the ASPCA’s website organization, content, and layout are all formatted primarily to entice and encourage the public to donate money. Clearly, the ASPCA’s intended persuasive appeal is for whoever is watching or visiting the site to donate. After careful examination of both its television advertisements and website, one can see that the ASPCA knows how to rake in the cash by using guilt against its audience. The sole purpose of the organization’s commercials and website is to get its audience to support its cause through donations, not to educate you on animal abuse. Because the video makes such a strong emotional appeal, it more effectively targets people, especially women, who tend to be more susceptible to sentimental propaganda. The main kind of persuasive appeal used in the ASPCA commercials and on the ASPCA website is pathos. Pathos is an appeal to emotions and is a way of convincing an audience of an argument by creating an emotional response. Referring to the television advertisements, these videos say animals are abused and helpless. These animals need to be rescued from their abusive homes, and even though many have been helped, there is still more to be done. Therefore, more donations are needed. The tone in these videos is hopeful yet morose. It is hopeful because they say it is not too late to save more animals, but it is
…show more content…
The Sarah McLachlan commercial originally aired in 2006 and managed to raise $30 million in the first few years of its release. Over 10 years later, and it is still well-known. The commercial’s concept has stayed the same over the years, and the only thing that changes are updated images and current popular celebrities. However, it is unfair to “use” these images purposely to make the audience feel bad. The ASPCA uses the very animals they claim to save, by showing the pitiful, pathetic photographs and videos of abused animals making eye contact with the viewer. The more people see that, the more they are going to donate—and the ASPCA knows this fact well. You never see the rehabilitated dog they rescued from the dumpster, or the happy cat with its new family in her new home. These notorious, gut-wrenching, and tear-jerking commercials are deceptive and traumatizing as many people change the channel when they come on because they are so difficult to watch. Brutal? Yes, but clearly those who are able to withstand watching know it's important. Those who can’t still make a donation
The Sarah McLachlan commercial originally aired in 2006 and managed to raise $30 million in the first few years of its release. Over 10 years later, and it is still well-known. The commercial’s concept has stayed the same over the years, and the only thing that changes are updated images and current popular celebrities. However, it is unfair to “use” these images purposely to make the audience feel bad. The ASPCA uses the very animals they claim to save, by showing the pitiful, pathetic photographs and videos of abused animals making eye contact with the viewer. The more people see that, the more they are going to donate—and the ASPCA knows this fact well. You never see the rehabilitated dog they rescued from the dumpster, or the happy cat with its new family in her new home. These notorious, gut-wrenching, and tear-jerking commercials are deceptive and traumatizing as many people change the channel when they come on because they are so difficult to watch. Brutal? Yes, but clearly those who are able to withstand watching know it's important. Those who can’t still make a donation