Blog Project
Nick Voyzey
Brynli Scott
Nick Voyzey
Brynli Scott
Alyssa Jerek
Michael Ricke
These two ads, dealing with the drug of marijuana, attempt to convey two different sides of the effects of marijuana. Which one do you think is more effective on the audience, and why? Who might these ads be targeting (what is their audience)? Do either of these ads change your opinion on the consequences, both legal and physical, of the usage of marijuana?
I believe both of these ads are very effective in reaching their target audience of high school and college aged kids. The first is effective for two reasons. 1. because the picture of Michael Phelps has been going around for years and almost everyone has seen it. 2. because the accomplishments listed next to the image try to get the reader to make the connection between winning and weed and how smoking weed does not have any adverse affect on athletes. The second is effective because it plays on peoples emotions more. Its showing a person who could have been great but decided to smoke instead. With topics like this, I feel like most people have a set opinion that really wont change very frequently. These are good ads but i dont think that they are really going to be converting people either way.
ReplyDeleteI agree these ads are both effective in their own way. The first uses the ethos of Michael Phelps to show the viewers that smoking weed does not have any detrimental affects to athletic performance. The ad also has some facts on Phelps' accomplishments which are very effective in showing that he was not adversely affected by weed. The second ad uses pathos and shows a person who smoked weed and became a "never was" because of the adverse affects. I think that the ad against weed is the more effective though because to me pathos is more effective than ethos. Both of the ads are great, but as Mia said most people already have their own views on this topic so they most likely will not be swayed to the other side.
ReplyDeleteI think both ads were able to convey their message appropriately but I believe the first ad would be more effective as they are showing Michael Phelps, who many people recognize with his accomplishments in a very big font, suggesting he is still able to accomplish all this even after smoking weed. They even suggest to not let the government fool you, which catches your eyes, and would make the reader think, really the government is fooling us? Is it really not that harmful?
ReplyDeleteThe second ad is effective too but to me, I don't see anything drastic going on that would catch my eye or make me rethink about what they are trying to persuade.
I believe both ads are effective, depends on the audience. I think if someone is seriously interested in using some kind of drugs or is already a drug addict, the ad that emphasizes the legalization of marijuana is more effective than the other, because it brings a message that these people want to see because they want this product. On the other hand, for people who are not considering to become an addict and do not want any kind of approximation with drugs, the second ad reinforces their ideas about how bad marijuana can be, in other words, it is more effective for them. I believe both ads are effective, but I think our expectations and beliefs have some influence in our interpretation of them and also in the relevance we can give to each one. They did not change my opinion and reinforces what I believe about how drugs, in this case marijuana, can preventing us from achieving success because of its effects.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think that both ads have their target audiences of marijuana smokers and non-marijuana smokers. For me, the first ad is definitely more effective because they give statistics, they give facts, and the ad uses Michael Phelps as a popular example of just how marijuana doesn't have bad health effects. With the facts given, I think it definitely persuades people who are on the fence about marijuana to be in favor of the legalization of it. The second ad doesn't really do anything for me, not because I am pro marijuana, but because it doesn't tell me the facts about what marijuana actually does to the lungs or why it is exactly a "waste." I think that ads like these really need to do their research before posting about how "bad marijuana is for you." Just because something is deemed illegal by the government doesn't mean they're right or necessarily mean that it is bad for you. If anything the subject of marijuana becoming legalized has deviated a little bit from health issues because of the bad myths on marijuana found to be untrue, but now the legalization comes right down to a money issue of how it would be taxed if legalized. I do agree that the ads won't persuade everyone who have a set decision, but it really does make you think on both ends of the spectrum.
ReplyDeleteThe second ad did nothing for me. There weren't any facts about the adverse effects of Marijuana other than the standard "it's illegal and bad for you, so don't do it, it will ruin your life". This is a tactic that does nothing for me, because I fully believe my decisions are my own, and once I have an opinion on something I'm not easily dissuaded. The Michael Phelps ad, like other people said, uses someone who has demonstrated amazing feats of power and athleticism and he smoked marijuana. The first ad, for me, makes the second ad's point mute, because it just disproved that entire argument. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is another example that disproves the second ad. He a talented actor, who readily admits to use of marijuana, clearly he's successful and not slumped over doing nothing with his life like a schmuck. The second ad wants me to believe Marijuana will ruin my life, I don't buy it. The use of numbers in the first ad is also helpful, because again, the second ad doesn't give me any credible information, so at least the first ad is giving me the particulars of someone who has smoked marijuana and is successful.
ReplyDeleteThe first ad is, at first sight, effective to its audience primarily because of the use of Michael Phelps, like most of you have pointed out. But the "facts" don't do much for me. For one, check out the site this ad comes from, clubfbi.com/marijuana. The site has no proof of the statement at the bottom of the page, no studies, and to me, it just seems too unreliable. I'm not saying these things are lies but for them to be effective I need to see some proof. I hear all the time that weed isn't bad for you and guess who it is coming from? Its smokers trying to justify their use of it, not very reliable sources. However, the second ad is actually a little more effective for me. First off, it definitely provokes my emotions because I have seen what this image is suggesting first hand. Obviously this doesn't happen to everyone who smokes marijuana but having numerous friends who have become incredibly lazy because of this drug helps to provoke the emotions this ad is pulling at. Also, the second ad is backed by the Australian government, a much more reliable source than clubfbi.com, don't you think? Overall, for me the images in each ad do a little less than the sources they come from. It is hard to trust a website that asks for "a donation to keep us toking" (go to clubfbi.com, it's one of the first lines), especially over the Australian government. So I guess it is really the "ethos" of the second ads supporter over the ethos of Michael Phelps that makes that second ad more effective to me. Besides, is showing a very strong role model smoking weed really appropriate? Do we all really think that the kids who look up to Michael Phelps should think it is all right to start smoking weed? I know the ad is geared toward our generation but that doesn't mean people younger than us won't see this ad and also be influenced by it.
ReplyDeleteWhile the second ad is an advertisement that we are accustomed to seeing on television and in other forms of media, I think that they first advertisement has a much stronger message. Michael Phelps has performed amazing physical feats and has admitted to smoking marijuana. 14 Olympic gold medals and 37 world records are very impressive statistics. In fact, many famous and successful people have admitted to smoking marijuana. Even our own president has admitted to smoking marijuana. Is it illegal solely because the government says that smoking marijuana, which is less harmful than cigarettes, is bad for our health? Our is is more about government and bureaucracy control over our everyday lives?
ReplyDeleteI think both of them are effective ads to me, the difference of these two ads is the ways they make people to convince is different. The first one list two famous people: famous athlete Michael Phelps who take Marihuana and had won 14 olympic god medals and 37 world records, and the second one is the president Obama. It takes these two great people as examples to prove that Marihuana is not that bad for people is pretty convincible for people. And the second one , the picture it uses is pretty vivid for the viewers see how bad effect the drug Marihuana it can have for a healthy people. It's kind compelling for people to see picture, the guy sitting there himself without any energy and is very weak , and it makes the audience get scared by Marihuana to see how it can change a healthy person into some drug addicted person. And whose regular lifestyle has been ruined by it.
ReplyDeleteAs said before most of us already have our personal views and opinions on marijuana. Therefore if one were against marijuana the second ad will have a bigger effect because it's what they want to hear/see even though there are no facts. That just gives them another reason to be against marijuana. For people who are for marijuana the first ad will definitely appeal to them more. Even for people who aren't sure because it gives the FACTS and includes Michael Phelps. So therefore I guess you can say that the ads are effective in their own way depending on the audience. It doesn't change people's opinions just enhance them.
ReplyDeleteThe thing I found most interesting about the advertisements is that both ads focus on marijuana and swimming. I find that interesting, why would the advertisers have a central theme on how marijuana influences the ability to swim? It makes me wonder if it would have been just as affective if they would have chosen another sport to illustrate or for that matter not even a sport at all and instead used an example pertaining to school and academics. I feel that these ads strictly focus on how the lungs are affected through smoking marijuana…but it makes me think how it affects the mind/brain. Of course since the theme is based off a sport they will look at the lungs, which the stronger your lungs are the longer you can hold your breath and the less oxygen you need to take in when swimming. But if the advertisements were used in an academic setting, would their topic be on brain function when smoking marijuana? Since the ads focus on the lungs and body, it's clear that the advertisement's ideal audience are athletes, probably in high school, college, or those who have a career in sports. I think both can be seen affective but the style of the second ad is more appealing to me. While the first ad focuses on Phelps and gives hard facts, the advertiser cover's the face in the ad with words. Also the ad was created by the Rigo design studio, which makes me wonder who they are. I don't know if they are a reliable source, or just a group of people that go against the government. At least for the second ad, the National Drugs Campaign is something known, and should be trustworthy based on the fact that it comes from the Australian government. I also find the second ad more creative and eye catching, which attracts me to their message.
ReplyDeleteI think both of the ads are effective in different ways. The first one put more emphasis on the fact and truth and the second one emphasizes the dramatic effect. First uses the picture of Phelps and very precise and strong words to show the data about the Phelps great swimming talent. At the bottom, the words: do not let the government fool you, display the argument. It points out that the concept that smoking marijuana is less harmful is wrong. And government kinds of help the public accept this wrong concept. Thus, the words companies with Phelps’ picture are strongly persuasive because both of them are true and relate to our life. The second one though does not use the picture of Phelps, the man in the picture makes people associate with the Phelps. And more interestingly, the structure of this picture use the surface of the swimming pool to show the different life one may have after his smoking marijuana. The man’s facial expression, his posture and the background, all of them become a huge contrast. Such contrast directly rejects smoking marijuana.
ReplyDeleteI think that this ad is targeting young athletes. The first ad is saying that smoking marijuana has no negative effects on you because if Michael Phelps smoked weed and won all those medals, than it doesn't do anything bad. The second ad is saying that if you smoke weed you will not become Michael Phelps. I agree with the second ad because I don't think that the act of smoking marijuana is the actual thing that makes you lose your potential, it is the lifestyle and other negative choices people who smoke marijuana make. Marijuana is a gateway drug, it makes you lazy, and it is illegal. These three things do not help you meet your full potential. I don't care how good Michael Phelps is, clearly he is a freak athelete and can handle the effects of marijuana, but not everyone can.
ReplyDeleteThe makers of the legalized marijuana ad direct the ad towards the younger, inexperienced generation whom the advertisers think will believe anything that they tell them. The anti-drug advertisement appeals to people like the elderly, parents, or ones who have had traumatic experiences with drugs. My personal view of the advertisements is that drugs were made illegal for a reason, so advertising for the legality of them, just doesn’t make any sense. Drugs routinely get people sent to jail for selling and taking them and often times ruin a lot of relationships and people’s lives. If you watch any movie that has drugs in it, viewers can see the effects that it has on the characters. Even though cigarettes have the ability to cause lung cancer and marijuana has a lesser ability, marijuana just makes people act stupid and screw up your life. So if you are a person wanting to mess up your life, believe the legalized marijuana, but if you are a person wanting to know the real effects of the drug then believe the anti-drug advertisement.
ReplyDeleteThese advertisements are attempting to target those people who are on the fence of whether or not to smoke marijuana. If someone has a strict view on marijuana, either for or against, these ads will not really help to sway, due to the fact that neither, in my opinion, are very strong and convincing. With that being said, of the two, the first one, with the picture of Michael Phelps, is more convincing for me. This is due to the fact that is uses facts in the ad. Lose facts, but facts none the less. It gives an example of someone that has smoked weed to some extent, and still succeeded in life. The other one is very general, and does not give a specific example like the 1st. One thing that I found funny about the advertisement with Phelps is mocking the first one. First, it uses the same topic of swimming in the advertisement. Also, at the bottom, it shows the reflection of the words legalize marijuana. Just something that I noticed.
ReplyDeleteWhat is interesting about both of these ads is that they show two different sides to the same story that can't possibly both be true. Weed cannot both be harmful enough so that you can' swim properly and that the best Olympic swimmer of all time can do it. Both ads are effective in their own ways, but i think the first ad gets its message across much better than the second ad. The main flaw with the second ad is that its the exact same as any other anti-drinking/smoking ad. It has the stereotypical teenager who's life has been ruined by the use of drugs and all the same words. Its not that this wouldn't be a bad advertising technique, its just so overdone that its has lost its effect on its target audience of teenagers. So while the anti-smokers are beating a dead horse, the pro-marijuana ad is using a fresh face to prove its point. Using the Michael Phelps weed picture really reaches everyone because everyone knows who he is and what he has achieved, and you would be hard pressed to find a person who didn't admire his accomplishments or moreover is a huge fan of him. And showing that a heavy weed smoker can be the fastest swimmer in the world, while it may or may not be true that he is a heavy smoker, is very effective. And while both already connect with their respective hardcore supporters, the first ad has more power in trying to convert non-believers. Now personally, as someone who is straightedge, i don't currently or plan to ever indulge in any recreational drugs, including alcohol. But as long as a drug that can kill so many people and change so many lives as alcohol is legal why can't a drug that is as harmless as marijuana be legal? And that is exactly the message that the first ad conveys and conveys it well.
ReplyDeleteBoth ads appeal to the same audience; however, each ad reflects different views on the issue of marijuana use. The first ad uses the success of Michael Phelps career to display that everyone can use marijuana and still be successful; the second ad portrays that one can only choose one or the other. Marijuana is not a physically addictive substance; that is, there is no chemical dependence that the body develops on THC, the active chemical in marijuana. Marijuana is portrayed as a substance that ruins the lives of its users. Marijuana has not really been proven to be beneficial, or for that matter necessarily detrimental, at least not explicitly. These ads rehash the two popular views on the use of marijuana as both a "fun" substance to be used in proper context, or as a life-ruining dangerous drug.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that both ads are effective, but the first one with Michael Phelps is more effective. This is because it has real evidence to support the claim it's making in the advertisement. Most people know about how successful of a swimmer Michael Phelps is, and that he smoked marijuana. And yet, he was still an incredible swimmer. So that shows an actual case in which marijuana did not negatively effect an individual. I think this goes along with the common theme of this blog of how the public views beauty. The mass media has portrayed a message of what we should think is beautiful, and most of us buy into it, mostly subconsciously, because we are subject to it all our lives. The same happens with marijuana. We have, ever since we are young kids, have been told how harmful and awful weed is and how much damage it can do, without ever being told real facts about how it effects the body or any real evidence. The truth is, there are no documented cases of marijuana related deaths and yet, as we read in class in that newspaper article, that there are over 80,000 alcohol related deaths a year. Alcohol and marijuana are both drugs, but one results in death and the other doesn't. So how does it make sense that the one that results in actual deaths is legal and the other one is not? Look up the facts. Alcohol is way more detrimental to your body than marijuana is. Then again, marijuana and alcohol, just like any other human indulgence, can be harmful in excess. Also, the first ad refers to marijuana compared to cigarettes. Cigarettes have been proven to cause many diseases or even death, but where do you see those sort of statistics for marijuana?
ReplyDeleteThe ad with Michael Phelps is very effective. He did break many titles in the Olympics. He is a hero to some people. The kids who see and hear him smoking marijuana can only think that it's the right thing to do and that smoking will make them a better swimmer. However, that doesn't mean every kid thinks that. Younger kids may not even know anything about marijuana, and the older kids hopefully know better. Sometimes people have moments in their lives that they aren't proud of. Either way it's their chose in the matter. Yes we've all been told throughout jr. high and high school that drugs and alcohol are bad and seeing celebrities do drugs can influence individuals, but it all depends on the individual. We each have a chose to say yes or no to drugs. Saying you did it just because a celebrity did is a poor excuse. You should want to be a unique individual, not a copier of someone else. Is marijuana really that harmful on the body as people think? The government hides many things from us and it wouldn't surprise me if they are hiding the real damages that marijuana does on an individual.
ReplyDeletePersonally, ads like these don't effect me in a significant way. My personal views on whether marijuana should be legalized is irrelevant, but these two extremes do not seem beneficial. I understand making pro and con advertisements to the extreme, it brings awareness to something that is a big political topic today. But making extreme advertisements doesn't stop people from doing it. When advertisers make those posters you saw in your high school health class about cigarette smoking, it most likely made you cringe and feel uncomfortable...but people still smoke. These advertisements can be effective on children around the age of 13-15, but any lower or higher than that it doesn't do any good. Either they don't know what marijuana is or they know enough about it to know the risks and benefits. I also don't believe extreme advertising works because of the Above The Influence campaigns shown on MTV. Those advertisements are aimed at 17-24 year olds who will be experimenting with drugs and alcohol. Now, not every young adult chooses to partake in illegal activities, but most try it. The campaigns only show kids getting out of control and being a hot mess, but thats not always the case. And extreme advertising typically does not show how young adults can participate in these typical college activities and be safe about it. I like the fact that the first advertisement about marijuana shows that its not all a waste and it shows the other side of extreme advertising, which i believe more companies should do.
ReplyDelete