I recently saw a link on a friend’s Facebook wall that led to a T-shirt company’s website. While looking at the different designs and shirts they have for sale, I thought they were pretty catchy and appealing. Then, I noticed that the initials of their company, which they used as designs or logos on some of the shirts, spelled a word in another language that you would not want written on your clothes. For native English speakers, it would not be something that would strike people right away as bothersome because we would read it as the initials rather than a word. I don’t think it was an intentional choice on the part of the designers, and my guess is that they don’t know that what they wrote has meaning in another language. Then I got to thinking if this would hurt their business at all.
Does the rhetoric behind such an unintentional choice end up having an effect on profits?
A shirt is something producers need to persuade consumers to buy mostly based on looks. Of course, there is a comfort element and the fact that people want the shirt to actually look good on them, but the initial attraction to the shirt comes at a glance. The first impression counts a lot. When designing clothes in general, there must be some rhetoric. Different design elements send different messages. Some of these are textual, like the one in this case, and others can be the result of a certain cut, fit, neckline, etc.
With the shirts I am talking about, the visual element says hip, young, energetic, artsy, clean, fresh, etc. The shirts feature bright colors, clean text that is arranged and bold with block letters, and no pictures. Some of the shirts have symbols, but for the most part, they use simplicity to draw the eye.
They have a message to them, which also helps to add some appeal. The idea to support self-expression and art is a common theme among the shirts and within the company. The positive message is one that makes the target audience support a feeling, and that could appeal to pathos in addition to just the look of the shirt.
However, the text is what could take away from this. People who understand the word in another language as opposed to just seeing the company name/logo could be turned-off to what they would have otherwise considered a good-looking shirt.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Hmmm. I don't think she wrote that...
Today I saw a very interesting Facebook status on my friend’s wall. It was totally egotistic, and said that she was the best, could do anything she wanted whenever she wanted, and nobody should even bother trying to stop her because she rocks and everyone else sucks. The first thing I thought was, “Okay, obviously she did not write this.” I was right. She had gotten “hacked” by another one of her friends.
I am sure almost everyone who has a Facebook has seen a status posted on someone’s wall that he/she did not write. The ones I have seen are usually exaggerated statements that the person himself/herself would never say, immature humor, or something generally weird. Usually, they are so obvious that people know right away that someone else wrote the status as a joke, so what is the point?
Is it the thrill of knowing you had temporary control over someone else’s account? Is it that people think they will actually create something so scandalous that it will go viral? Is it that people are really bored and want to have some usually short-lived entertainment?
Is it another way of communicating with friends? Who knows?
I don’t think that anyone really takes the time in a “hacked” Facebook status to try and convey any type of underlying message, so I am questioning if these are an instance where there is practically no rhetoric. It does not seem like anyone is trying to convince people to take any action other than laugh, and it certainly does not seem like people are trying to civically engage or persuade people.
Perhaps this is because the faux statuses I have seen are typically made by friends of the account owner and not bitter enemies or ex-friends. Those people are usually not trying to get any revenge or hurt their friends, and even if they were, thinking of the means of doing so, Facebook might not even be rhetorically effective. (I am not trying to condone getting revenge or using the Internet in mean ways though!) What do you think? Is there any point to a “hacked” Facebook status?
I am sure almost everyone who has a Facebook has seen a status posted on someone’s wall that he/she did not write. The ones I have seen are usually exaggerated statements that the person himself/herself would never say, immature humor, or something generally weird. Usually, they are so obvious that people know right away that someone else wrote the status as a joke, so what is the point?
Is it the thrill of knowing you had temporary control over someone else’s account? Is it that people think they will actually create something so scandalous that it will go viral? Is it that people are really bored and want to have some usually short-lived entertainment?
Is it another way of communicating with friends? Who knows?
I don’t think that anyone really takes the time in a “hacked” Facebook status to try and convey any type of underlying message, so I am questioning if these are an instance where there is practically no rhetoric. It does not seem like anyone is trying to convince people to take any action other than laugh, and it certainly does not seem like people are trying to civically engage or persuade people.
Perhaps this is because the faux statuses I have seen are typically made by friends of the account owner and not bitter enemies or ex-friends. Those people are usually not trying to get any revenge or hurt their friends, and even if they were, thinking of the means of doing so, Facebook might not even be rhetorically effective. (I am not trying to condone getting revenge or using the Internet in mean ways though!) What do you think? Is there any point to a “hacked” Facebook status?
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
"Gotta Catch 'Em All!"
Image From: http://www.google.com/imgres?q=mewtwo+pokemon+card&hl=en&biw=1293&bih=718&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=UgS0hp2yIixYHM:&imgrefurl=http://www.totalpokemon.com/tcg/base/10&docid=2kYC9AR4NQvowM&imgurl=http://www.totalpokemon.com/images/tcg/base/010.jpg&w=301&h=410&ei=oXlhT-OwKIHX0QG8_NnSBw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=901&vpy=272&dur=46&hovh=262&hovw=192&tx=106&ty=160&sig=116761782303579820487&page=1&tbnh=123&tbnw=93&start=0&ndsp=29&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:0
After mentioning to a friend that I still have my Pokémon cards, I was challenged to a battle. (Yes, by a college student.) However, there is one major problem: I have never known how to actually play the game. Actually, I didn’t even know there was a game, or a TV show for that matter, until after I bought the cards—in 1998. I didn’t even buy the cards. My mom did. As a first grader, I was on a very tight budget.
What made them so appealing?
A lot of kids I knew had the cards just to look at them and trade them for better-looking ones. They were purely superficial and served their purpose that way. Rhetorically looking at them, the picture is the main thing we see when we look at the cards. It is the biggest, and is centered, taking up about half of the page. Young kids are drawn to the mystical, imaginary creatures they see and think they look cool. When they are holographic cards with sparkly backgrounds, there is an extra desirability because the cards look unique, and for people playing the game, they usually possess more power. The visual appeals are an appeal to pathos on a first impression.
Another part of the Pokémon fad I would like to think about is the phrase, “Gotta Catch ‘Em All: Pokémon!” Though this serves the purpose of helping to establish the brand name, building ethos, it also works as a subtle way to command collectors of all levels to get out there and buy more cards (or, at least, stay engaged with the product through trading). Having some of the Pokémon is okay, but in the end, you’ve gotta catch ‘em all.
As evidenced by my challenger, the fad has not ended. There are still people out there trying to catch ‘em all. But, there are still remnants of Pokémon’s glory days, like myself, who only bought the cards as first-graders trying to be cool.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Are Our Cellphones Looking Like People?
This could seem completely crazy, and I do not blame anyone for thinking that. Even I think this is a little crazy, but I want to bring it up anyway because it crossed my mind. What I am talking about is the rhetoric of cellphones. Why do people want one type of phone over the other? What makes cellphones appealing?
Sitting here, looking at my phone that people often criticize me for owning when I had the chance to get a smartphone, I'm thinking about the features, and I think that the features popular/desired phones have are comparable to features people stereotypically find attractive in people.
For example, people generally like phones that do things for them efficiently, just as they can be attracted to a person who does not put a huge workload on them. A smartphone matches up with a person who is smart and can find out a lot of information or knows a lot of information. The traits align.
Another trait the phones and people have is a connection, no pun intended. Touch screens are becoming popular now, and they create a connection between the user and the phone. The phone is no longer a removed object, but something people can hold in their hand and feel attached to, just as they can feel attached to a person.
People like the look of a brand new phone because it does not have scratches, dents, nicks, or cracks. Models, movie stars, and people who grace the covers of magazines look this way too (at least with some image correcting!). Either way, the fact that they don't have blaring wrinkles or skin imperfections makes them perceived as attractive. We look at phones the same way. We want a phone that looks nice on the outside.
Another similarity is the "health," modern-ness, or current-ness of the phone which relates to how modern or with-the-times people are. Uninformed or extremely old-fashioned people are not what we see society promoting as an image of beauty. There are people who have the most up-to-date clothes, shoes, and accessories. Similarly, we are drawn to technology that is the most up-to-date.
The last major similarity I would like to call upon is the slenderness of the phones. Who wants a giant, bulky 1990s-style cellphone anymore? Nobody I know. People are attracted to the smooth, thin phones that they can easily slide in their back pockets or purses. Images trying to portray beauty also show slender people, not typically overweight people.
Seeing these very basic traits align, I have to ask, do you think people are subliminally persuaded into buying certain phones or even products in general because they possess traits we are accustomed to seeing as beautiful? Are the traits society deems beautiful spread across the board between people, products, etc.?
Sitting here, looking at my phone that people often criticize me for owning when I had the chance to get a smartphone, I'm thinking about the features, and I think that the features popular/desired phones have are comparable to features people stereotypically find attractive in people.
For example, people generally like phones that do things for them efficiently, just as they can be attracted to a person who does not put a huge workload on them. A smartphone matches up with a person who is smart and can find out a lot of information or knows a lot of information. The traits align.
Another trait the phones and people have is a connection, no pun intended. Touch screens are becoming popular now, and they create a connection between the user and the phone. The phone is no longer a removed object, but something people can hold in their hand and feel attached to, just as they can feel attached to a person.
People like the look of a brand new phone because it does not have scratches, dents, nicks, or cracks. Models, movie stars, and people who grace the covers of magazines look this way too (at least with some image correcting!). Either way, the fact that they don't have blaring wrinkles or skin imperfections makes them perceived as attractive. We look at phones the same way. We want a phone that looks nice on the outside.
Another similarity is the "health," modern-ness, or current-ness of the phone which relates to how modern or with-the-times people are. Uninformed or extremely old-fashioned people are not what we see society promoting as an image of beauty. There are people who have the most up-to-date clothes, shoes, and accessories. Similarly, we are drawn to technology that is the most up-to-date.
The last major similarity I would like to call upon is the slenderness of the phones. Who wants a giant, bulky 1990s-style cellphone anymore? Nobody I know. People are attracted to the smooth, thin phones that they can easily slide in their back pockets or purses. Images trying to portray beauty also show slender people, not typically overweight people.
Seeing these very basic traits align, I have to ask, do you think people are subliminally persuaded into buying certain phones or even products in general because they possess traits we are accustomed to seeing as beautiful? Are the traits society deems beautiful spread across the board between people, products, etc.?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)