The ad is for Mr. Clean Magic Eraser with Febreze. This is the link for the commercial:
This ad appeals to the cognitive component of our attitude. The ad shows a house and dirt that the mom is cleaning, which plays into the stereotypical way most of us picture mothers. The rest of the family comes and enjoys the smell and cleanliness after the mom is done cleaning. In many ways this embodies what is accepted as the normal American family. This strategy is good, because women are most likely to purchase this product, therefore they are targeting the correct audience.
What route of persuasion do the advertisers seem to use (e.g., central/systematic route vs. peripheral/heuristic)? Was that a good choice? Specifically, what central or peripheral cues are used?
The central/systematic route was used in this commercial. The central cues used are a white house that has dirt like soap scum and dried on toothpaste in the bathroom. Everyone can identify with a dirty home, and seeking a better and faster way to clean, and these are the cues which are used. The magic eraser is shown to quickly clean up messes we all have memories of having to scrub these messes, and the magic eraser seems to take care of the issue. It was a good choice, because it plays off people’s memories or ideals.
Does the ad attempt to describe the source of its product information (e.g., "dentists agree that _____" or "experts suggest ____?" Do these sources come off as credible and/or attractive? If there was no expert, do you think one would have helped? Why or why not?
While the ad does not speak about being recommended by experts or anything like that, it does show a mom using the product, lending the product an air of credibility. I do not think an expert would have made the product any more credible.
What about the communication itself? Are the arguments weak/strong, one-sided/two-sided, overt/implied, discrepant with the audience/in-line with the audience, or not present at all? Were these good choices?
The arguments used are strong arguments; the magic eraser will clean anything quickly and the Febreze will leave behind a nice scent. There is only a one-sided argument and it is overt. The audience is not present in the commercial. I think these choices were very effective. The magic eraser is a product that is either going to work as it claims or not. The product working well is the only argument to be made, and it must be made overtly in order to get the point of what the consumer should buy across.
What about the target of the communication? Who are the advertisers targeting, how can you tell, and was that a good decision? How might this ad be different if directed towards an audience from a more interdependent culture?
The ad was clearly targeting women, especially moms. Given that women do a majority of the household shopping and cleaning, it makes sense that they would be the target audience. In a more interdependent culture, such as Chinese or Japanese, the target audience might have been Grandmothers instead of a mom.
Describe how AT LEAST ONE concept that we have discussed (e.g. dissonance, emotions, attitudes, self-monitoring, etc. – your choice) is relevant to the ad’s persuasiveness.
This ad is persuasive because it plays to a person’s ability to self-monitor. If someone specifically has an obsession with cleaning, this ad is relevant to them because they can measure their behavioral outcome (i.e., if they purchase the magic eraser their house will be cleaner). If a person hates to clean, and is seeking an easier way to do so this commercial is still relevant as far as self-monitoring. Their ideal behavioral outcome is to have an easier time cleaning, and perhaps a shorter time as well.