TOW #19- Ask Your Doctor If This Ad Is Right For You

While reading through this article, I kept trying to pick out the claim that the author, Mark Pernice, was trying to make.  Once reading through it a second time, I realized that it was not that the claim was not there, it was simply that the article convinced me so much of the argument, that I did not realize that I could possibly disagree.  Pernice makes it clear that prescription drug companies have been increasing their use of advertising for their products, and this is negatively affecting both health care and the society that we live in by using a coherent mix of statistics and relatable examples.

Through this article, Pernice often references to how different advertisements entice different types of audiences.  His own article was written for a very broad audience, as seen through his use of examples that can relate to mostly anyone that would read this article.  In a society that is constantly evaluating the effects of media on itself, this article is extremely relevant to more people than not.

In an attempt to make this article more interesting, Pernice tried to use both facts and creative examples in his writing.  With facts, Pernice was able to prove that the topic he was arguing really did exist.  To start off his argument, he needed to show that prescription providers were indeed increasing their advertising, By stating things like, "The health care industry spent $14 billion on advertising in 2014, according to Kantar Media, a jump of nearly 20 percent since 2011" helps people like me, who do not keep up with the latest trends in media usage, understand what is truly going on.  Without stats like these, I would have had no idea that there was actually an issue.  To balance out this more bland type of writing, Pernice includes examples like famous Super Bowl commercials that an audience would connect with to prove that health care companies are using the media to make money instead of benefiting the general health of their consumers.

Though he may use a variety of examples and facts to back up his claim, Pernice could have done so much more with the topic at hand.  His argument may have been persuasive enough for people that already agreed with him, but this article would probably not sway anyone that was "in-the-middle" or indecisive on this topic.  Overall, it was good, but I probably wouldn't recommend it to anyone looking for a jaw-dropping article to read.

TOW #18- Why Do We Teach Girls That It's Cute to Be Scared?

Caroline Paul, a firefighter from San Francisco, captured my eye with the title of her New York Times article, "Why Do We Teach Girls That It's Cute to Be Scared?"  Before I opened it, even the title got me thinking about the issue that society really does make it seem cute for girls, but not boys, to be scared.  I thought that it may just be another feminist rant that would lead to pay in the work force, but it introduced an entirely new topic, by using both personal anecdotes and scholarly sources to prove that society should no longer shy young girls away from risky situations, but rather encourage them to be confident and smart about their choices, like we teach young boys to do.  Although this article could apply to anyone reading it, it feels like Paul was gearing her writing towards parents, as most of her examples are directly examining the ways that children are parented.

One of her first examples was a personal anecdote about a talk that she had with one of her friends about her daughter.  The mom had said that she cautioned her daughter much more than her son, but she used her daughter's clumsiness as her reasoning.  This helped to prove that this is a real issue, that doesn't just affect a small population.  Paul builds off of this example by using a quote from Parents Psychology, stating that "...parents are 'four times more likely to tell girls than boys to be careful..."  And though this may seem like Paul is just stating facts from other people, she continues to analyze these points through her article.  However, without these examples and outside sources, this article may have seemed more like the typical feminist rant that are flooding every popular news source.

Through her almost excessive use of examples in her article, Paul successfully proves her purpose to her audience that as a society, we need to build girls' confidence instead of trying to protect them so much.  Instead of saying "aww" when a girl shys away from something, we should prove to them that they should be confident and attempt risks, or else they will not be able to learn important life lessons.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/21/opinion/sunday/why-do-we-teach-girls-that-its-cute-to-be-scared.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

TOW #17- How Could I Resist a Superbowl Commercial?

It is really quite a shame that there was no TOW due last weekend, after the abundance of interesting super bowl commercials.  Luckily, so many were such great hits that they are still being talked about in normal every day conversation.  One commercial that surprisingly got me to stop eating wings and chips with amazing buffalo chicken dip was the T-Mobile ad, starring Steve Harvey.  By using this ironic "host" and contrast with the recent Verizon commercial, T-Mobile is able to successfully show the flaws in their competitor's argument while also promoting their own business.  

The audience obviously had to be extremely broad in this commercial, as almost 50 million people were tuned into the Super bowl this year.  Any business is lucky to get air time, so this commercial had to be short, memorable, and powerful, so that its viewers did not forget about T-Mobile the moment the next commercial aired.  Their main purpose was, of course, to get people to join T-Mobile, but this commercial focused on providing a counter argument to Verizon's recent commercial when they use a visual representation of balls rolling down a ramp to show statistics for other phone companies.  

To set up the commercial as a counter argument, T-Mobile used the exact same format as Verizon, but focused on statistics that were in favor of their own company instead.  Steve Harvey pointed out that Verizon had used data from last year, saying that T-Mobile had more than doubled its coverage since that data report.  This not only makes Verizon look unreliable, but also makes T-Mobile look more trustworthy.  

Using Steve Harvey as the host of the commercial also helped T-Mobile add an extra element to their commercial that brought an ironic humor to it, contrasting to Verizon's more serious commercial.  Steve Harvey is currently best-known for his mishap with the Miss Universe Pagent, when he announced the incorrect winner.  In the commercial, he says that he won't even take responsibility for this mistake, because Verizon got it wrong this time.  

Congratulations T-Mobile for effectively using multiple layers of what makes a good commercial to make a great one.  This commercial stuck in the audience's mind, probably let them laugh a little, and most likely gained many new customers for the business.