Deliverer V. Receiver: The Eternal Battle

Response to Gina’s question I (Questions for Week 4)

Product placement has become such a regular part of the American media and because so many celebrities have become spokespeople for various products, and because of this, it seems obviously unbelievable that each of them would be a veritable supporter of the advertised merchandise. Undoubtedly, their status and supposed use of the product at hand influence its sale and general success, but it is clear that their incentive is money, and/or exposure (and I will not speak of campaign advertisement, like supporting the fight again breast cancer). In regards to Woodward and Denton’s claim that "the person who has been the most effected by a persuasive message is the advocate who delivered it,” I would argue that the person referred to here is the actual producer of the product. They have to tell the advertising department or agency why they want to sell their product, who in turn will create a means to do so. It is the public relations team or the advertising group that has to believe in the product, be its advocate, in order to deliver it successfully. Of course, whether or not they really advocate it is indefinitely unknown. Is this ethical? Such is the open-ended and often heatedly debated question around the industry of advertisement and public relations. Take a look at this advertisement produced by the Corn Association;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVsgXPt564Q&NR=1

It seems rather unlikely that the deliverers, the producers, of this ad were unaware of the detriments of high fructose corn syrup, yet they found a way to deliver their message in a manner that might convince people that it is really is reasonable to consume. Would Aristotle consider their manner of presentation open-minded or objective? Would he consider the source (the Corn Refiners Association) to be fair, honest or reliable? Does the persuader “seem to have honorable intentions toward the audience?” (Woodward & Denton 109). This to me seems like nothing more than reputation management after a well-publicized debate over the hazardous health effects of high-fructose corn syrup and its high content in most food products sold in the United States. In retaliation to this, check out one of many parodies of this advertisement posted on You Tube made by unknown citizens as well as by organizations such as the HolisticOption.com;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYiEFu54o1E&NR=1

Though this is poor video production and less aesthetically pleasing than the first commercial, the message delivered includes the facts left out in the campaign launched by the Corn Refiners Association. Of course, this video does not have valid credibility, which is what would limit its circulation outside of the realm of the Internet. What is important to note here is the difference between the two messages and the importance of delivering one message that includes both points of view so the audience is well informed. Additionally, in watching these two videos, the audience will likely already have their own opinions of high fructose corn syrup and their reactions will depend on their preconceived ideas. As Woodward and Denton mentions, “an audience’s awareness of an advocate’s place and character is often the first important moment in the communication process.”