Johnson1

Simple Errors In the Use of Appeals Causing the Collapse of a Campaign

Throughout time, many topics and ideas have been argued, however there is one topic

that no one has dared to dispute, thou hath no fury like an angry mother. No matter the

species, time period, or location, mothers are notoriously known for the protection of their

young. An article titled, Mothers In The Animal Kingdom Protecting Their Young, tells us that

mother polar bears have been known to kill the father of their cub if and when they try to harm it.

On the other hand, a mother octopus will stay and protect its nest of thousands of eggs from

predators for nearly three months. That long period of constant protection often results in the

mother ingesting one of its legs in order to survive long enough for her eggs to hatch (Mothers

In The Animal Kingdom Protecting Their Young)

According to Sarah Graham, a mothers instinctual, protective ways have been linked to a certain

hormone, meaning that these instincts have physiological explanations (Graham). While it is

obvious that there is no extent to what a mother in the wild will do to protect their young, the

same can be said for humans. Todays advertisers take this understanding, and run with it. They

use certain tactics to lure moms into acting in a certain way, or purchasing a product. However,

they often face a problem in making sure the artifact is executed properly, otherwise it will not

only turn the mother away, but will also cause them to react to protect their cubs. The artifacts I

will be analyzing use those tactics to intrigue their audience of mothers. A mothers perceived

connotation of an ad or public service announcement can make or break the success of the

campaign. These artifacts prove the idea that mothers can be very sensitive and only one use of a

poorly use of appeals can ruin the entire artifact. In this paper, I will be analyzing two distinct

artifacts, who although used the same appeals and tactics of pathos, visual elements and ethos,

produced two different results.

 Johnson2

The first artifact I will be analyzing is a campaign titled, Bring Camden Home.

Camdens story, as told by Mirah Riben, goes as follows. Camden was born on March 31,

2014. Prior to Camdens birth, his mother had contacted a local adoption agency, Adoption

by Gentle Care, in the hopes of saving her family. From the beginning, the agency was

questionable at best. Camdens mother, Carrie, was forced to not only lie about the identity

of the childs father, but also about her lineage. Several days after Camden was born through

an emergency caesarian section, Carrie, despite being in a poor emotional, physical and

mental state, was forced to sign the papers that would relinquish her parental rights (Riben).

Once Carrie had regained her strength, she learned that her son was born with several

disabilities. She once again contacted the adoption agency to get her son back. According to

an article titled, What Birth Parents Should Know about Adoption Process on the Ohio Bar

organizational website, Carrie was allowed to execute this action. It States, A birth parent

may try to withdraw consent to the adoption before the "interlocutory order" (usually 30-45

days after the child is placed in the adoptive home) or before the final adoption decree goes

into effect, which is six months after placement (What Birth Parents Should Know about

Adoption Process). Despite this information, and the adoptive parents agreeing Camden

should be with his biological family, Camden was taken from his home and put into the

foster system. Carrie, knowing of all the legal fees that would be in her near future, produced

the Bring Camden Home campaign. The artifact was successful because it correctly

produced, through its use of pathos, ethos and visual elements, a positive connotation.

The second artifact I will be analyzing to argue my thesis is an ad produced by the

company, Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo, an international banking company decided to hold an
 Johnson3

event for teens to team them about financial responsibility. The event, called Teens Day,

would provide the participants with information they will need to know in the near future,

including how to start a banking account, and the process for taking out a loan for college.

To promote, and gain participants for this day, the company produced an advertisement that

includes their logo, a photo of a teen. However, this artifact, unlike the first, was a complete

and utter failure due to the fact that it produced a negative connotation for the parents seeing

it because of its use of pathos.

There are several aspects of each artifact that set themselves apart from each other.

While they both use the same appeals and target the same audience, they are presented in

different ways that can either help or hurt their cause. Take the use of ethos for instance. In

the first artifact, regarding the Bring Camden Home campaign, the bottom left hand corner

includes what appears to be some sort of logo, and a web address. However, the logo looks

rather unprofessional, as if it was created in a mediocre program by an amateur. Also, not

only is the website not a common site that we all recognize, but it also is not one we can

necessarily trust. You will notice the address ends with .com. It is a commercial website, and

can be made and produced by nearly everyone. However, with the second artifact, while

there is not a visible web address, the Wells Fargo company name is plastered all over the

advertisement. The internationally known logo is featured in the top right hand corner, and

the companys slogan is professionally printed at the bottom. Comparing the two, the Wells

Fargo ad looks far more legitimate than Camdens Campaign.

While Wells Fargo wins the round of best use of ethos, the two artifacts are neutral in

terms of their use of visual elements. The first artifact, which includes a photo of a young
 Johnson4

boy staring off into the distance, is visually striking. A viewer can clearly see and identify the

worrisome look on the childs face. It also includes a dark black background, allowing for

the grey hues of the child to fade into the background. It is the main point of interest,

followed by the use of the red lettering surrounding the photo. The color red promotes

urgency. It is a very bold, in-your-face color. The sporadic use of the color in the texts is

used to highlight important words to get their message across, and to intrigue the viewers to

continue reading the rather lengthy text.

Now the second artifact is much different than the first. The colors do not produce a

somber feel, but rather are warm and inviting. The photos the company chose is a pair of

diverse teens, who ironically are more than likely actors, smiling and enjoying whatever

science related activity they are doing. The photos are placed on a bright white background

which brings out the slogans and information quite nicely. The placement and coloring of the

text box is very interesting, and eye-catching. However, the words used in that text box is the

one thing that will ruin the success to an otherwise well-made advertisement.

What sets these two ads apart is the use of pathos. One causes the intended audience,

parents, and more specifically mothers, to feel sympathetic towards the context of the ad,

while the other, although meant to give a positive connotation, produces the need for mama

bear to protect her cubs. In the Wells Fargo advertisement, the company chooses to include

two different sets of statements regarding the pictured childrens career path. It gives a

negative attitude to the arts, making it seem like it is not a realistic life choice. The parents

viewing this advertisement take the context of the statements offensively, they see that that

company wants to correct the mistakes they have made as parents of allowing their children
 Johnson5

to pursue their dreams and instead educate them on a proper, science-based career by hosting

this teen day event. This ad is not only offensive, but according to Emily Willingham is

also incorrect. Willingham states that the average salary for a botanist is $46,000 annually

while an actors is $50,000 (Willingham). This ad has created an uproar from not only

parents, but also the entire entertainment community. It would not be surprising if several

bankers of Wells Fargo who are in fact in the entertainment industry, take their business

elsewhere. In contrast, the public service announcement that was not necessarily as well

produced, uses pathos in an extremely good way. It includes the story of Camden in the

artifact, as well as using words such as you and your, to cause the viewer to imagine

themselves in this situation with their child. It produces a sympathetic reaction and motivates

the parents to help in whatever way they can.

The use of pathos is what makes the Bring Camden Home artifact so successful,

although it provides a negative feeling to the viewer. It was well thought out and constructed.

The Wells Fargo advertisement simply is insulting to the viewers. Despite the fact that it was

more professionally constructed, and frankly used the ethos appeal and visual elements better

than the first, that last element was able to ruin the entire advertisement. These two artifacts

prove the point that one simple connotation of the use of any appeals can either cause the

campaign to thrive, such as with the Bring Camden Home campaign, or severely damage

the company name, just as we saw with Wells Fargo.

 Johnson6

Works Cited

Bring Camden Home. Indiegogo. N.D. Web. 10 Oct 2016

Graham, Sarah. Hormone Found Linked to Mothers Protective Instincts.

Scientificamerican.com. 2 Aug 2004. Web. 8 Oct 2016.

Riben, Mirah. A Mothers Fight for Her Son. Huffingtonpost.com. 16 Dec 2014.

Web. 26 Sept 2016.

Mothers In the Animal Kingdom Protecting Their Young. Davidwolfe.com. 2016.

Web. 8 Oct 2016.

What Birth Parents Should Know about Adoption Process. Ohiobar.org. 24 Nov

2015. Web. 26 Sept 2016.

Willingham, Sarah. Wells Fargo Encourages Budding Actors to Become Botanists

and then Apologizes. Forbes.com. 4 Sept 2016. Web. 10 Oct 2016.

 Johnson7

(Bring Camden Home)

(Willingham)