Friday, February 8, 2013
Week 2 drug prevention advertisement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zsvYL2n84I
This advertisement comes from the Government of Canada, and is aimed towards parents helping prevent drug use by their children. The first thing that stood out to me here was the beginning of the ad, where they referred to the street names of these drugs, a "language." What were they implying by giving it this title? The next thing I noticed was the extremely young age of the children used in the ad, was this on purpose? Do parents need to start worrying about drug use by their elementary aged children? Lastly, this ad is clearly directed towards parents, and their role in preventing drug use, but it does not address the severity of the current issues at hand. Is it more important to fight what is already out there, or to prevent it from spreading? What roles do parents play in drug prevention? What role does the government play? Lastly, who is the most pressure on to prevent drug use, the children themselves? Their parents? Local and national authorities? Some additional things to ponder, in what way does this ad place the responsibility and pressure on their target market, parents? How does this ad support the main point of, prevention and intervention is necessary, regardless of age?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The rhetoric of this advertisement displays several common strategies that are designed to sway viewers' thoughts and opinions about drug use. Using children was a good choice. Everyone always worries about "saving the children." By this title, the creators were conveying that the parents ought to learn the language of drug use, in order to be aptly sure if their children may have a hand the drug game. The young age of the children infers that drugs are reaching children at younger and younger ages, which means that parents may need to start worrying about the effects of drugs at earlier ages than expected. Clearly, the most pressure is on the parents more so than the children.
ReplyDelete"Think of the children."
DeleteIt's a commonplace. We are all extremely sympathetic to the very young. It's important to understand this attitude and consider it when we analyze primary sources involving children.
Other things in our lives automatically tug our heartstrings. These can be generalized with the phrase "danger to innocents". Spiderman's bus full of people, the girl depicted in this week's post ("Montana Meth Project"), and the animals in that Sarah McLachlan commercial all seem innocent to us and thereby make us feel for them.
On my personal view of point, one of the most outstanding things in this ad is the word "language". "Language" is used to describe one of tools of communication in real life. But in this ad, it shows a different meaning of "drug abuse". The creator calls drug abuse "language". From this, we can see that it is more common of drug abuse in our life, not only in adult world, but also young world. The aim of this ad is to appeal adults to keep their children from drugs. This is adults' responsibility.
ReplyDeleteI am using Prompt 1. The video obviously uses specifically aged children in this video to get their point across. A parent watching this ad would immediately think about their child and wonder if they are learning this new drug "language". I think the add is effective because no matter what age the viewer's child is, the surprisingly young age of the kids in the commercial would cause them to think about what their child knows. If there child is much older then they may fear that they already know too much, and if their child is around the same age they will obviously become concerned with what they are starting to learn.
ReplyDeleteGood point. Using children was an excellent strategy to get their point across. The effect of using children hit home for many parents with children of all ages. This is the effect of pathos, it made parents question what their children know about drugs. The fact that these young children know the jargon is enough to question how involved they are in drugs which become a frightening thought to think about.
DeleteI am responding to Ryan's question about the age of the children. It seems as though, yes, the age of the children was on purpose in order to cause more awareness towards parents. Using members of a younger generation usually allows advertisements to spark interest with old generations because they take on a more protective role. Since drugs are continually evolving and continuing to reach a younger audience having them list off the new slang terms for common drugs would likely provoke the older generations to make changes happen, whether it's with their own kids or with others. Every part of the ad seems deliberate to have some kind of response with parents.
ReplyDelete(In class activity) The children were used to grab attention of parents from a young age, but we feel as if the kids being used is a bit of an exaggeration. We are going against the grain a bit and we question the effectiveness of the ad. From experience, some of the names are very rare and in fact most of the group had never even heard of them. We feel it is a bit of an exaggeration to use kids who are so young, as even at the older age, it is not common to know a lot about drugs. With this, we question how effective the ad is, and whether parents actually believed this ad. Innocent looking kids can work, but it has to be in the realm of reality to be effective.
ReplyDelete