Tuesday, September 25, 2012


In this picture we see that what's being advertised is the Burger King Whopper, and it's basically bringing down its competitor, McDonald's, by saying that their product is bigger! in this picture they show that the Whopper is indeed bigger and they try to convince people by showing them that it's true. The speakers in this image are the people trying to promote the whopper and how great it is but, they don't show for example how many calories it has, what it can do to your health nor if it's cheap or not all they are saying is "Buy a Whopper over a Big Mac because its bigger. The type appeal in this is logos, because it gives us reasons on why to buy it (because it's bigger), and Ethos because it gives credibility with the image shown. To me this advertisement does persuade me in some way because the nice looking burger makes me hungry and the message that they give us saying that it's bigger than a Big Mac so in my mind what runs trough it is "go to Burger King!!!!!!!!!"


   Here we a whole value meal, and in my opinion the speaker who is the people trying to make us buy the product is persuading us to buy the whole meal with includes the fries, burgers and soda.
This is the edited perspective that the McDonald's meal. The actual burgers look kinda like the one on the bottom right and thats whose perspective is left out (the real one). The type appeal in this is pathos in my opinion because it alters people's emotions on this product. This advertisement wasn't successful because it doesn't say anything meaningful to their product to try to persuade us into buying this.                                                                                                                                                                                          
         

1 comment:

  1. Your analysis on the whopper ad is fabulous. You go into detail as you describe the intended audience, the hidden messages (and what is not included) and the different kinds of persuasive appeals. I think you could've gone more in depth during your second ad analysis.

    ReplyDelete