Darn those Burger Munching Cellphone Talking Drivers!

Print advertisements are the most unreliable forms of public argument. An advertising company has to be able to create an entire appeal to a perspective buyer within the flip of a page. To make matters worse, advertisements are inconvenient for the reader; they interrupt articles, and there are too many of them. Consequently, it is very difficult to create an advertisement that creates a solid argument based on ethos, pathos and logos. Many advertisers are forced to rely heavily on emotional appeals to draw the reader’s attention and then in smaller print, add the logistics. The advertisement that we chose does not stray from this idea.

At first glance, this ad had a pathetic appeal in the form of confusion and humor. My eyes were not drawn to the bracelet in the corner or the large runner to the left, but instead the large warning sign off in the distance. I read it and wondered what was meant by “Burger munching cell phone talking driver one mile ahead.” Clearly, I am not part of the target audience for this advertisement, as I could be classified as such. In reality, there is a large majority of people that could fit into this category. Still, it is interesting to note that it is easy to distinguish who the target audience is, and where this ad might be from, just from first glance. Without ever seeing the magazine of origin, I can deduce that it is from a fitness magazine; otherwise RoadID would not have separated the runner from the burger munchers. My confusion came from the meaning of the sign, but my confusion gave rise to humor. It is just bizarre to make a reference like this. Also, it is not very often that people are called, “Burger munching cell phone talking drivers.”

Aside from the humor, this sign does not seem to be logical in context of this particular runner. Even after taking the whole advertisement into perspective, I am still confused as to what the actual warning that this sign is supposed to yield. The RoadID is supposed to identify the runner in case of an accident, which is logical, considering most runners do not carry a wallet or have their name tattooed to his/her body, but I still didn’t see the value of this warning. The runner is on a seemingly deserted road in the middle of nowhere, running to who knows where. My first thought was that this runner might pass out from heat stroke or dehydration and then the driver would have to report the accident. In that case the sign is calling the person who is supposed to help the runner, lazy or irresponsible. Later, I realized another potential reason for the warning; that the runner is going to be hit by the driver. Still the reasoning for the sign is invalid. There are other ways to prevent being hit by the supposed irresponsible driver. Perhaps the runner doesn’t need to run down the middle of the road or maybe after seeing the car, the runner could move aside. It seems simple, but the advertisement argues that it is important by adding, “RoadID…because these signs don’t exist.” I immediately felt further alienated, yet could not help but laugh, because again this warning sign is pointless. The entire advertisement is a hyperbole. I do not see why anyone would need a sign for this. Nonetheless, I wanted to see if the information at the bottom of the page could give me any insight into the reason for the RoadID.

The paragraph is filled with rhetoric; however it is seemingly unsuccessful as a means of persuasion. RoadID attempts to add some logistics to their advertisement, the only problem is they don’t have any sound evidence in support of the RoadID. Instead, the ad uses vague terms to describe the necessity of the RoadID, such as: “Each year, runners who thought it would never happen to them end up in the hospital as a John or Jane Doe (…).” This statement really tells the reader nothing, it is important to have statistical data for how many people actually end up in the hospital each year. I do not have any reason to believe that there are a lot of runners that have ended up in the hospital. The lack of statistics makes me doubt the exigence for this specific kairos. It seems to me that there is little motivation to promote the RoadID. The whole situation seems infeasible; I know plenty of people that fun without needing their id. The ad also uses exaggerated terms in the form of this hyperbole; “The most important piece of running gear that you’ll ever own.” Somehow I have a hard time believing this to be true. There are some core elements a runner needs, before he can even think about getting in an accident. Continuing on, the advertisement does not give anymore hard evidence or details about the RoadID other than that it is “Comfortable.” There are only more emotional appeals, in a sense trying to create a sense of distress. As if to try and get the reader to think, “What if this happens to me?” This is summed up in the last sentence. When the ad uses a paronomasia, “It’s not just a piece of gear, it’s a piece of mind.” This advertising company used emotional appeals, to try and make their audience feel a need for this product.

Personally, I don’t think that the ad succeeded. This is most likely because I am not part of this ad’s demographic. Perhaps runners have felt a need for such an important asset to running, I however have not. The ad relies too heavily on emotional appeals. I would expect to see more logistical data to support the claim that this product is needed, and I that it would enhance any argument made for the RoadID.