Australian Red Cross Advertisement Analysis

The final and the strongest appeal in the advertisement is pathos, the appeal to emotions. Throughout the ad sick children are being shown and getting treated by a doctor or nurse. Showing the family and children laying down on beds who are being diagnosed for cancer. By showing these images the audience feels a sense of loss, fear, pain and grief, even though they do not personally know the children. Also, by not helping these children the audience might feel

Throughout the commercial sick children and shown being given different tests and laying in hospital beds. By showing these images the audience feels a sense of fear, loss, pain, and grief, even though they do not personally know the children. By not donating the audience does feel responsible for these sick children potentially losing their lives. At the same time the commercial causes such negative feelings, it also provides positive ones such as hope and pride. By donating to St. Jude’s hospital a child’s life can be saved and that is because of you. This is effective for St. Jude’s because most people would rather feel positive feelings rather than negative, so they are more likely to call and donate to keep that positive feeling going. Also, ending the advertisement on a positive note by telling the audience “You can bring them that hope” the audience is drawn into pathos all over

Once the “Give Blood” tab has been clicked, a very large photo of a child in a hospital bed covers the page. This is a good example of the use of the pathos rhetoric. This child, who is possibly dying, along with similar photos, spark something in the reader’s heart. It definitely calls for an emotional response that will require action that accompanies their message (the donation of blood or money). This entire website is full of pictures and short messages that warrant an emotional feedback. That being said, the Red Cross is not begging for sympathy or toying with the public’s emotions in a way that makes them seem superficial. They maintain a balance of sensitive content through pictures and messages and dignifying stoicism in their data.

In addition to all the examples of pathos, they express a lot of ethos in the ad. This is mostly shown through Sarah McLachlan. Not only does McLachlan speech throughout the video in a soothing tone but she is also the one singing “Angels” in the background of the video. They don’t directly say it, but you can tell from the context that Sarah McLachlan is a huge advocate for the BC SPCA company. This is most likely because she is seem sitting on the couch petting a rescued dog and you can hear the sadness and pain in her voice. Sarah McLachlan is a famous person and when people see the commercial and recognize her they will want to help and donate just like she is. Sarah McLachlan is probably a role model to many and a lot of people want to follow in the footsteps of their role model. The people who see this commercial they will trust it because of Sarah McLachlan. The positive to this is that more people will want to donate to BC SPCA.

The ASPCA announcement uses the rhetorical devices, logos and ethos to convince its audience to donate. Logos is the appeal to logic, and ethos is the appeal to morals. The commercial states facts about how thousands of animals are abused every day. It states that a small donation of only eighteen dollars a month can make a big difference by providing many different forms of aid to the animals. The ASPCA advertisement translates this to sixty cents a day to show how small the donation really is. This is somewhat of a logical and ethical appeal. It appeals logically to the audience because for just a small monetary donation the viewer can help save abused and neglected animal from their abusers and provide medical care, food, shelter and love. This shows that the donation can be used in many essential ways to care for the animal, and that their donation is responsible for giving the animals a second chance. This too is an ethical appeal because donating will make the viewer feel like a good, virtuous person because they contributed to an important cause. One the other hand if they don’t decide to donate they may a have a burden on their conscience because not that much money is needed to help make a big difference. In other words the viewer may feel like an unethical and bad person. The advertisement goes on to state that if you donate then you will receive a welcome kit that contains a t-shirt, wristband, and a photo of an animal that has been given a second chance because of you. All of this is a further amplification of the logical reason to donate to the ASPCA. The advertisement also uses ethos by having the Grammy winning artist Sarah Mclachlan as the speaker. Sarah seems to speak very truly and caringly about the ASPCA as she pets a dog that’s in her lap. This makes the audience feel like Sarah truly cares about the treatment of animals. As a

'Proponents of financial incentives for organ donation assert that a demonstration project is necessary to confirm or refute the types of concerns mentioned above. The American Medical Association, the United Network for Organ Sharing and the Ethics Committee of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons have called for pilot studies of financial incentives. Conversely, the National Kidney Foundation maintains that it would not be feasible to design a pilot project that would definitively demonstrate the efficacy of financial incentives for organ donation. Moreover, the implementation of a pilot project would have the same corrosive effect on the ethical, moral and social fabric of this country that a formal change in policy would have. Finally, a demonstration project is objectionable because it will be difficult to revert to an altruistic system once payment is initiated, even if it becomes evident that financial incentives don 't have a positive impact on organ donation. '(http://www.kidney.org/news/newsroom/positionpaper03)

Though being meant for mainly United Kingdom viewers, the advert hit social media and gained many more views. The grain of a wider audiences definitely spread the British Red Cross mission to grab people’s attention and have viewers donate to continue their services.

Advertisers know that in order to stand out they have to be visibly eye catching. The ASPCA knows this and use it to their full advantage. The ASPCA gets the majority of their money through donations and sponsors. ASPCA also knows that they are not the only charity out there trying to save animals. In order to be relevant they know they have to use Aristotle’s Theory of Persuasion to appeal not

The article “Need an Organ? It Helps to be Rich,” by Joy Victory informs readers of how medical systems work for those who are in need of an organ transplant. In the article, Victory talks about a 34-year-old man named Brian Shane Regions - who is in need of a heart transplant, but is not able to secure one because he is not insured. Therefore, not having insurance, Brian is put into an unfortunate situation because he is simply not getting any treatment for his heart failure. This is a great example of how patients without insurance could not be provided with an organ donor. Victory argues a variety of issues concerning how the organ donation system is unfair to certain people. A transplant cost a bundle amount of money, which leads to the rich only able to have the procedure done. While the poor cannot afford the cost of the transplant, creating an unfair situation for the less fortunate. The transplant centers can do anything as they please because they simply care more about the money. However, not all transplant centers treat their patients unfairly, several centers are truly able to support the uninsured patients in need of a transplant. It is simply unfair for the patients, who do not have enough money to pay for transplant and the medical systems are unethical.

It says “MONEY ISN’T EVERYTHING.” which is purposefully printed in larger font than the rest to establish the theme of the advertisement. These words directly relate to the underlying motif of the ad. The indirect message that it transmits is that “something more than money is needed and the image should tell you what it is.” The second main element is the box itself. We as humans are trained to see donation boxes as a means to collect financial donations. The creators thus play with this simple logic to emphasize on their argument. The image of blood in the box, and not money, contradicts this common conception and points the readers to the kind of help needed from them. An unnatural image of blood in a donation box sparks a conflict in the viewers’ brain and grabs their attention. People are able to tell right away that something is wrong with the picture. This very fact that something is different about the picture also tells the viewers that there is a concealed message. On the contrary, if the box were to be an ordinary donation box with a few dollars and coins inside it, and the text in a more direct manner stated “WE ALSO NEED YOU TO DONATE BLOOD,” people would have turned away from the ad. (ADD SOMETHING HERE IF NEEDED)

For this article critique, I chose to write about the New York Times article “Why People Don’t Donate Their Kidneys” by psychiatrist and lecturer Sally L. Satel. The opinion piece focused the more than 100,000 Americans waiting for a kidney donation, and why they are not receiving those donations. Even though demand from these patients is growing, the donation rate has flatlined. The author cites the inability to pay donors as the main source of the problem. Satel claims that by stigmatizing and disabling the act of rewarding organ donors, Americans lose valuable donations that could save lives.

Peter Singer provides the specific number, $200, to demonstrate how reasonable it is to save a child in poverty. Additionally, he repeats, “to save a child’s life,” which demonstrates exactly what a $200 donation could do for a helpless child. As an example, Singer references a credible philosopher, Peter Unger, and acknowledges that, “by his calculation, $200 in donations would help a sickly 2-year-old transform into a healthy 6-year-old.” Next, he establishes that, “if you were to give up dining out just for one month, you would easily save that amount.” Singer emphasises this to show the reader how simple it is to save $200, and, more importantly, save a child’s life. By repeating this number multiple times, following with, “to save a child’s life,” throughout his essay, Singer implies a reasonable yet urgent tone in order to convince the reader that if they donate, they will save a

Throughout the history of civilization there have been countless attempts to provide those less fortunate with goods, services, or jobs in order to help impoverished people get back on their feet and contribute to society. One such company that has over one hundred years of experience in helping people who are less fortunate is Goodwill Industries International Inc., and as the name would suggest, they are incredibly effective at reusing goods, and providing job experience to impoverished people ("Donate Stuff. Create Jobs."). A crucial skill in Goodwill’s collection is that of global brand recognition and advertisements that attempt to persuade the reader into donating goods, volunteer time, or jobs ("Donate Stuff. Create Jobs."). With the

The topic of blood donation well-researched, with strategies having been devised to try and increase donation rates all over the world. Australia faces a challenging set of circumstances, in which remuneration for donation is illegal (ARCBS, 2013). It is thought this may be a contributing factor to the poor repeat donation rates in youth demographics, for whom altruism is no longer a primary driving factor when considering donation (Russell-Bennett, Hartel, Previte & Russel, 2012).

| Awareness of The Australian Red Cross Blood Service is directly associated with young people’s attitudes towards blood donation