The CCF advertisement also has a large font size for the headline but it is not as big as the RSPCA’s headline. The headline is also a rhetorical question in itself. It also involves the audience by using the word “you.” The image shows a picture of an innocent girl, having the same effect as the picture of the sheep. The audience will feel responsible and guilty if they do not help, as with the picture of the sheep. The girl might be more effective than the sheep as the picture associates with the audience more; the picture is of a human being not an animal. Using the picture of the girl was and ingenious as she stares at the audience from all directions, dominating the advertisement. The picture also focuses on an individual making the image stronger compared to a crowd of kids. This makes the audience feel they cannot get away from appalling atrocities like the story of Amie, the girl pictured. The text is small so it does not overshadow the central image but it could also be off-putting, as it seems like there is a lot to read.
The text for the RSPCA advertisement is straight to the point, first telling you what happens, secondly, why it happens, and then what could be done about it and what the RSCPA what to do.
The first three paragraphs are facts and are designed to stun and manipulate the audience right away, especially; “one sheep produces around a litre of urine and 700 grammes of faeces a day. And so do the other 799 [sheep].” The paragraph makes the reader imagine what is going on and it is very distressing. It also shocks the audience about the amount of waste a sheep produces.
It goes on to describe how “their fleeces quickly become coated in droppings,” to put weight into their argument. A list of three, “…they’re wet, cold and some even suffer skin burns,” reinforcing this horror.
The next couple of paragraphs pile on these disturbing images and ends with, “Some die.” This short sentence gives the words greater emphasis and lingers in the minds of the audience for a long time. The text continues telling us why this happens diverting any anger caused to a particular target, in this case the European meat traders. The advertisement adds, “so…meat traders…can squeeze a little profit from…livestock.” This example of personification (describing an object as a living thing) attracts attention to their greedy, profiteering attitude, basically making a big thing out of a little thing for the RSPCA’s own advantage.
A list of three, “the sheep could be slaughtered close to their farms, refrigerated and then transported,” is used to reinforce what could be done about it, to let the reader know other options so the RSPCA get sympathy for their cause. In brackets the words, “a method favoured by many farmers,” is added, reassuring the audience and getting rid of any second thoughts about not giving support, they have.
A short sentence, “at least until the law is changed,” is used for effect. It also gives the change in subject a sharp transition so it is noticed. “…there is still time to let her [Mrs.Shephard] know your views…” involves the audience so they are kept hooked until the end of the end of the advertisement.
In the next paragraph there is only one short sentence, “Which is why we need your help,” renewing the audience involvement by using, “We” and “your,” and making the sentence stand out.
In the last paragraph a clever pun (a play on words) is used, “Perhaps we can then persuade Mrs.Shephard to look after our sheep.” Mrs.Shepheard’s name is similar to shepherd- a person who looks after sheep; and coincidently she is fighting for sheep’s rights. The pun provides a quick and funny, rounded ending. A small logo is placed at the end of the text, as it is the last thing the reader sees on the page and makes one remember the charity. There is a registered charity number so you know the charity is real and your money is not swindled by a fraud as this will make members of the audience insecure about donations and/or support.
The text on the CCF advertisement however, answers the rhetorical question of the title. First, the audience is introduced to Amie and her family. Secondly it tells the audience how to sponsor and lastly, it tells you what happens when somebody become a sponsor.
The first two paragraphs use emotive language, “Amie’s mother and father would do anything for their little daughter. But a life of poverty…” giving the text a powerful start.
The fourth paragraph uses two rhetoric techniques- rhetorical questions and a list of three- “Can you imagine the pain of having to watch your own child grow up without being able to give her enough food to eat, the simplest of medicines when she falls ill, or any books to help her with her learning?” The text starts adding on the horror of the situation faced by Amie and makes the audience begin to think about taking things for granted. This could make people feel guilty about not knowing this happens somewhere in the world, interesting the audience.
The next paragraph begins with a subordinate clause, “Yet just £15 a month…” adding short important information with ‘stealth’ as a large sum of money could put off a reader. By adding the word “yet,” the £15 seems small to the captivated reader. A contrasting image to that given in the second paragraph is used, “…one where she can develop into a happy and healthy child full of hope and vitality.” This piece of emotive language is an effective reminder of what one has read before because it makes a link back to the second paragraph. It gives the reader strength and eagerness to give the CCF money to help sponsor a child. The next sentence develops that eagerness and manipulates the audience into sponsoring by involving the audience, “You can help to make that happen.” The text now moves to the right column making us cross Amie’s face again reinforcing her innocence again.
The next paragraph has emotive language and two lists of three, really emphasising the purpose of this advertisement, “…you can help her, her family and community to overcome the effects of poverty. Amie would get the nutrition, healthcare and schooling she so desperately needs.” The first list of three makes the points stick in the reader’s head and the second list of three is designed with the same effect in mind while adding extra information into the audience’s brainwashed minds.
The word “…together…” is used to start the second sentence in the next paragraph as it gives a feeling of strength and unity to the readers while also involving the audience. At the end of the paragraph a rhetorical question is used to round off the sentence and make the audience reflect on what they have read so far, “…can there be anything more worthwhile and more rewarding?”
The last paragraph manipulates the reader by rushing their decision so the CCF can quickly get the money from the possessed readers before they forget about the advertisement, “Please make that decision today…” The text ends with, “Thank you” a short sentence that emphasises the end. It gives the reader a feeling of having done something to help Amie already or makes them feel guilty.
On the cut-off slip at the bottom the words, “yes, I would like to sponsor a child,” are written in a big font to further influence the audience’s decision. To donate money and not sponsor a child the tick-box is hidden at the bottom of the slip in a small font, so if people cannot find the box, they will sponsor instead. The advertisement ends with a logo and a charity number to show the authenticity of the charity.
The RSPCA advertisement uses fact at the beginning to stun the audience. The CCF has instead used emotive language to gradually manipulate the audience. List of three’s are used in both advertisements as it is a quick, easy way to add effect to the text and communicate views that has been released in the advertisements. The RSPCA advertisement interestingly did not use rhetorical questions at all and it could have made a big difference in how persuasive the advertisement would seem. The CCF advertisement uses lots of rhetorical questions which are intelligently used to affect the minds of the audience. Both advertisements use involvement of audience especially using the word “you” which could be anticipated. Emotive language is a powerful tool and not surprisingly, both advertisements have used it, the RSPCA advertisement to a lesser extent. One would normally expect an advertisement to end with a short sentence but the RSPCA advertisement has ended their advertisement with a pun adding humour to a very delicate subject without causing substantial damage.
The RSPCA advertisement is relevant to today because livestock will be needed to provide us with food for a long time. In time, people will realise what is going on and action will be taken. I do not eat mutton or lamb and I think it should stop, as you would not like another animal eating you for food.
The CCF advertisement is relevant to today as poverty is a worldwide problem and will be for many years to come. Not only is Gambia a third world country but also others like Mozambique are even worse. There are millions of people in poverty and lots of help is needed to overcome this problem.
The picture of Amie is more successful than the sheep as she is female and is stereotyped as the weaker sex. You could argue at least the sheep get food and do not starve unlike Amie. The CCF advertisement has a better purposeful layout as the headline and text is aligned so you have to look at Amie when reading the headline and when you start reading the right side column form the left side column. The RSCPA has the better headline as the contrasting colours work well and the actual headline is one-thirds of the page attracting awareness, although the CCF headline is also good. The CCF advertisement uses more presentational devices that the RSPCA advertisement. The CCF advertisement does not mention money a lot and therefore is not off-putting. The main problem with charity advertisements nowadays is compassion fatigue especially the picture of Amie as we see so many children like her bombarded in the media.
Overall, I think both advertisements are as good as each other. I would give money to the CCF, as most people would put humans before animals. Although the RSPCA beats the CCF advertisement head-to-head on certain aspects, the CCF wins on more influencing aspects such as the layout, the headline and the picture.
