Observations
1. Dramatic music plays right when the commercial begins and stops once the voice begins.
2. Video begins with an up-close image of the egg dropping into the butter in a saucepan.
3. As the egg begins to cook, the camera moves away from the egg, allowing the viewer to see the saucepan.
4. The butter is called the viewer's "brain".
5. The egg being cooked is called the viewer's "brain on drugs".
6. Partnership for a Drug-Free America, in white print at the end of the video, pops up.
Inferences
1. The makers of the commercial want to connect the effects of drugs on the brain to something everyone has done: fried an egg.
2. The commercial is simple because the message is meant to be understood easily and without much effort.
3. When the voice says "Get the picture" after calling the fried egg a brain on drugs, wants to have the viewers think of the fried egg every time they think about doing drugs.
4. The audience is probably pre-teens to teenagers because if the video's simplicity.
5. Because only a voice is heard and no faces are seen, the voice is the only thing that is connected to the commercial, which may be done to create all the attention on what is occurring to the egg.
Video Two
Observations
1. 90's star, Rachael Lee Cook is holding an egg and compares it to the viewer's brain.
2. The frying pan is compared to heroin.
3. The commercial says that after snorting heroin, your brain, or the egg, is demolished by the frying pan, or the heroin.
4. The goo and debris of the egg that is smeared all over the frying pan and dripping onto the floor is the aftermath that your body endures from snorting heroin.
5. The smashing of plates is what your family goes through.
6. Along with the plates, wine glasses, a clock, a blender, a lamp and so on are smashed to symbolize your friends, your job, your money, your self-respect, and lastly your future.
7. The phrase "Any Questions" is said at the end, just like in the first video.
8. Office of National Drug Control Policy/Partnership for a Drug-Free America also shows up on the screen.
Inferences
1. Like in the first commercial, this commercial wants to connect the abuse of drugs to something everyone can relate to: an egg being smashed.
2. Unlike the first commercial, the drugs is narrowed down to only one drug: heroin. This may be because of the time period, in which heroin may have been more of a problem among teens.
3. The inclusion of Rachael Lee Cook, a well-known teen actor, is to convey the message that its not cool or smart to do drugs and because Cook doesn't do them neither should you.
4. Like the first video, this one is most likely meant to reach out to teenagers.
5. Instead of focusing on what is done to the egg, this commercial goes farther by wanting to show the trashing of the kitchen as the trashing of your life if you partake in abusing heroin. This couldn't be done as intensely without the use of a teenager trashing the kitchen.
Rhetorical Strategies Compared/Contrasted For Video One & Two
Even though both of the videos, petitioning a drug-free America, are reaching out to the same audiences and share the same purpose, each goes about this in different ways using different strategies. Using pathos, or an emotional appeal, is more prominent in Video Two. Having Rachael Lee Cook not only demonstrate what can happen to your brain if you snort heroin, but what can happen to your life including your family, friends, self-respect etc. strikes a nerve easier with the audience. It also creates a more dramatic tone, making the emotion more pronounced and easily felt; allowing the viewer to see that their actions of using drugs won't only effect themselves makes the decision harder. Video One, on the other hand contains more logos, or logical appeals. Video One's message is simply that when you do drugs, it fries your brain, which they convey with the frying of the egg in the frying pan. This message is very logical because obviously why would anyone want their brain to be like a fried egg? Video Two likewise uses logos by comparing an egg to your brain, and the smashing of it to what happens to your brain when you snort heroin. These actions warrant the question of why do drugs if this is the outcome. When both commercials ask the question at the end ("Any Questions?"), this adds to their credibility because it gives the impression that they know what they are talking about; that these are the only outcomes that can occur from doing drugs. The fact that both commercials were made by Drug-Free America partnerships, and the Office of National Drug Policy adds to their credibility because knowledge about drugs is their job. In the second video, Rachael Lee Cook brings even more credibility by being a well-known teenage movie star and someone looked up to by teenagers world-wide. I believe both videos to be effective in portraying their message and getting the point across. Video Two uses pathos and ethos more effectively, in my opinion, which may be because of the different time periods in which each was released. Because the second video was created later than the first, it would be able to take the strategies used in the first and perfect them.
