After looking through a few websites that had lists of interesting or creative print advertisements, several ads from the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) caught my eye. I found a list of 55 WWF ads all together in one place, and decided to pick this one of a “homeless” tiger – just one in a series of many similar ads. The list of 55 ads was on speckyboy (http://speckyboy.com/2009/04/16/55-inspiring-creative-and-potent-ads-from-the-wwf/), an online design magazine. The context of a design magazine tells us that those readers probably were not the ad’s original intended audience.
A first look at this image provokes the emotions of sadness, pity, disgust, and surprise. It really depends on the viewer to see how powerful these emotions may manifest themselves, as in, how high the viewer holds animals like tigers and elephants. The makers of the ad likely wanted readers to primarily feel the emotions of pity and sadness towards this situation. We generally relate to tigers as noble, elegant, and almost regal, but in this image, the tiger is laying sadly and helplessly in the open. It is a debilitating and humiliating position for any animal: surrounded by trash in a lackluster environment. It seems like a high-traffic pedestrian area, and most people are just passing by, with one person looking down on the tiger. With the image being black and white, the contrast from harsh light to gloomy gray is emphasized. We miss all of the rich colors of the tiger, and all of this contributes to the dreariness and feelings of helplessness in the picture. All the emotions that we would (or should?) feel towards a helpless and homeless person, like pity and sadness, are applicable to this ad. The element of surprise comes as we see the tiger take the place of a homeless person.
There’s also a pathetic appeal from the short phrase at the bottom of the advertisement. It states in four succinct words: “mindless deforestation wrecks homes.” The message is clear: human deforestation destroys the natural environments of wild animals. However, the authors use powerful and emotional words to evoke more out of the viewer. Deforestation isn’t just bad, it is mindless. It gives the connotation that deforestation isn’t necessary, and that the people responsible for deforestation aren’t giving any thought to the plight of the wild animals. Also, animals don’t just lose their homes, but their homes are wrecked. This simple phrase of emotionally charged text coupled with the mix of emotions in the visual appeal clearly states the argument of the advertisement: deforestation causes tragedy for wild animals, removing them from their homes, and you should do something about it.
The advertisement urges the viewer to do something to help the tiger. Obviously, it’s not a real situation, and even if it was, you couldn’t physically go to the place to help the tiger. The only logical behavior left is surely what the authors of the ad intended: to support their cause of wildlife preservation through the donation of money. Other than the phrase at the bottom, there isn’t any additional text on the ad, but the brand and logo of WWF are in the top left corner. The everyday viewer doesn’t have a direct hand or influence in deforestation, so it’s clear that donation is the simplest path to supporting the cause.
As for the interpretation, we have all the common reactions of pity and disgust (not towards the subject but towards the situation) towards homelessness, but it is increased by the presence of a noble animal like the tiger. Our interpretation is: “This is wrong! A tiger shouldn’t be subject to conditions like this, but deserves to be in the wilderness.” It is emphasizing the reality that animals deserve to live in their natural habitats, and deforestation destroys that possibility. In order to stop this, the World Wildlife Fund is asking the viewer to donate to their fund in order to save the animals.
However, as I was thinking about this ad and looking at it more in depth, I was hit with another level of sadness and disappointment. Our interpretation is that such a noble animal like a tiger doesn’t deserve to live in abject poverty and humiliating circumstances like we can see above, but what about a human being? As I said before, the emotional potency of this ad depends on how the viewer values animals. The ad includes an element of surprise because of the tiger in an uncommon habitat, but generally, we are desensitized to the plight of homeless people. Like the people passing by the tiger in the ad, we would likely pass by this ad if it was a typical homeless person in this situation and not a tiger.
As for Aristotle’s stereotypical types, this advertisement doesn’t really appeal directly to any age group or even any certain class. It could be argued that young people who are quickly passionate and believe in goodness fit the mold of who this advertisement might appeal to, according to Aristotle. The anger and passion of this image, if strong enough, could spur a young person to take up the cause of wildlife preservation in a radical way. Of course, more generally, the WWF would prefer that the advertisement moves wealthy people to donate to their cause, but nothing in the ad is particularly targeting wealthy people. As with most all of the WWF advertisements, they hope to target people who have high regard towards animals and their conditions, and who want to make a change through their advocacy and donation.
In general, this advertisement is memorable because of the surprise factor of seeing a wild animal in a position of humiliation and homelessness. We should feel sadness and disgust towards this situation, and therefore the advertisers from the WWF were successful in arguing their point. The advertising campaign of animals in decrepit homeless environments has an effective pathetic appeal.
No comments:
Post a Comment