Although we are looking at two ads selling the same product
(beer), because these ads are from two different time periods it is very
important to look at the rhetorical situation. The Budweiser ad from the 1960s
portrays a man and a woman, with the woman pouring beer for the man while the
man is holding a tool and working on a mechanical project. The combination of
both a man and woman shows the importance of the family, however the woman
pouring the drink for her husband implies that she has an inferior role to him.
In addition, the fact that the man is holding a hammer supports the male
stereotype at the time of being the dominant figure in the workplace. All of
these images reflect the social norms of the 1960s, but they do not support major
cultural movements like the women’s rights movement. We can see this because in
trying to sell their product, Budweiser is sticking with the traditional
woman’s role as a housewife rather than the newer idea of woman’s independence.
In the 2010 Bud light ad there is no focus on the family or
the roles of women verses men in society, and this is because there is a
completely different rhetorical situation. Firstly, this ad is a commercial
rather than a printed ad, because now it was more likely that the company will
reach people through television rather than printed forums. The commercial
itself portrays a workplace that has both men and women who are equal. Rather
than focusing on gender roles in society, this ad concentrates on the people
saying curse words, something that’s equally accepted and condemned in todays
society. Rather than focusing on the importance of the family, an ideal that
was prominent in the 1960s, this ad replaces the family with the workplace.
Nowadays there has been less of an emphasis placed on the family, and the
relationship that people used to look for in a family can now be found among
coworkers in the workplace. The differences in the ways that these 2 companies
are trying to target their relative audiences proves a changing rhetorical
situation from the 1960s until now.
These analyses are strong across the board. I wonder two things when reading this. First, I think you've proven that the rhetorical situation has certainly changed, and along with that the modes of persuasion. What do you think accounts for this change? Why has work taken the place of family life? Not something you need to answer here necessarily, but it is certainly interesting to think about.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I don't see a place where your 1960s ad is linked, but I may be missing it. That being said, I am curious about the age difference between the men in the two ads. Are they very different ages, or do they simply represent a changing value system? Because, for example, if both audiences are men in their early twenties, that might give us some key information about the drastic shift of rhetorical situation and societal norms.
I like the analysis but i also wonder when you say that swearing in both accepted and condoned. I am not sure i agree that swearing in the office where the commercial takes place is accepted. The fact that swearing is generally not allowed in the workplace is what makes the commercial and rhetorical situation of the commercial so interesting.
ReplyDeleteI really liked your analysis of the difference of advertisement from the 1960's to now, I think it's very accurate. I think it's interesting how the time changed from women being inferior to men to them now being equal. I also think it's interesting how form of advertisement has changed over time, from paper ads to television commercials.
ReplyDeleteTo add to your point, I also feel like the ad makers replaced family with workplace because these days it is hard for family members to spend time with each other: with kids having a school, and both parents working not to mention the boom of technology. So, replacing family with workplace will make the ad more relatable to the intended audience.
ReplyDelete