As I start my Appeals Activity I have chosen two examples from the list given on our assignment. For my first example, I have picked a video of a commercial that is on YouTube. The video follows a man with his family that appears at a mechanic that suggestions to fix their truck would cost more than that truck is worth and that it would be best to just sell the truck (Chevy Runs Deep). The main character is the gentleman of the family and follows him as he gathers things from his truck only to come across an old photo of him as a child with his father and the same truck he plans to sell.
After he looks at the picture he sees his own son in the rear view mirror and realizes this truck is worth more than any amount of money and that it holds an untold amount of sentimental value. With this in mind, he ends up writing a check for the surprised mechanic and tells him to go ahead and fix the truck. After watching this commercial I believe the central message to remind us that some of the things we own hold a value that may not be seen by others and even we might need a reminder to see their true value.
Thinking about my position as an audience member of this commercial I would say I am both a neutral and sympathetic member. To explain I am neutral audience member when it comes to my feelings towards a Chevy vehicle. Even though I have owned a couple of Chevy vehicles I do not feel the need to only buy Chevy. Where I am sympathetic is towards to underlying message of the sentimental value of some of our objects. There are things I have in my personal life that I keep even if they might not have much monetary value.
These items hold a lot of memories of people that meant the world to me so there is almost a piece of them tied to these objects. I would say that this commercial was made for a sympathetic audience. Watching it for “Chevy Guys” they will feel for their Chevy’s and probably feel that they are just like the father in the commercial. They would do anything to keep their Chevy running and in the family. This commercial absolutely uses pathos appeal to speak to its audience.
When the father looks at a picture of him, his dad and the truck he thinks of all the memories made with this truck and then thinks of all the memories he will make with this truck and his own son. This is a very heartfelt moment and you would be considered soulless if this moment did not tug on your heart strings. To conclude this first part of my Appeals Activity I would say this commercial’s argument is very persuasive. The commercial really tugs at your heart and ties in the sentimental value that we all have with something in our life.
This commercial will really speak to true “Chevy Guys” that can recall all of the memories they have with their own Chevy. In the end, I found this to be one of the better commercials I have seen in awhile and would not change much as I felt the message and way it was delivered really hits home. Moving on to my next example for my Appeals Activity I watched another video. In this video, a gentleman Lawrence Lessig talks about copyright laws and how they stifle creativity (Do Copyright Laws Stifle Creativity).
The central message of this video is how it’s not right that people do not always have the ability to use their imagination to recreate media that we see on tv or hear on the radio without fear of legal ramifications. In this day of social media, it is not unusual for someone to post a video of their version of a popular dance or remake of a popular song. This is a form of individual expression and should be embraced not suppressed and controlled. I would have to say my position as an audience member for this video would have to be sympathetic.
People should be allowed to create their own versions of popular media and should even be praised when they do so in a different or unforeseen matter. Going further I would say that this video is made for a sympathetic audience that would agree with the overall message and maybe go out and try to make a change to help people be allowed to create without having fear of their actions. You can get that sense when he uses a video of a baby dancing to music and hearing that when the baby’s mother posted the video she received a notice that her video infringed on the music owner’s copyrights and she would have to take it down or else.
That is wrong and unjust as it is human nature in our modern society to share life’s moments online for others to see and experience without seeking to make money off of someone else’s work. As far as appeals, I feel the presenter used pathos when he talks about a mother being attacked for posting a video of her baby dancing to music. You can feel for her and how it is wrong for a big company to pick on a mother for sharing a precious moment without seeking financial gain.
I also feel that the presenter uses logos as he presents multiple videos of people recreating dances and clips from movies to look like the characters are saying the words to songs. These videos are the facts to support his presentation and sell his argument. I do feel the author makes a very persuasive argument and brings up a topic that I have not ever considered up to this point. It is wrong that people have to worry about sharing ideas and creations that they come up with even if it might be tied to someone else’s work.
Most of these people are not seeking financial gain and big companies should not fear these people. If someone is out to seek financial gain off someone else’s work that has a copyright without permission, that is a separate matter that should be handled accordingly. Lastly, if I were in charge of this presentation I might add more examples of an average person being intimidated by a company or corporation. I feel strongly when it comes to these kinds of stories and I feel that with another example or two that anyone watching would be moved to action and make a stance.
