Explanatory Synthesis: Advertisings Fifteen Basic Appeals
Jib Fowles, creates a basic system to navigate the American advertising industry. By creating a basic appeal list, Fowles narrows down the psychological side of advertisement. Elaborating on his list he covers the need to escape, the need for dominance, as well as thirteen other basic needs. Over the course of several decades’ advertisement has changed along with the era to catch the attention of the general public. With each passing decade the general public appeals to different ideals. Depicting a mother, and child together in the 1940’s ad at a doctor’s office a mother exclaims “I’m going to grow a hundred years old!” (Camels 1940’s ad- Pg.578) The ad goes into detail about doctors, …show more content…
The act requires a variety of stipulations. One being the color graphics depicting the negative health consequences of smoking. As well as print messages to be displayed on twenty percent of all ads with a warning of the health risks. R.J Reynolds Tobacco Co VS the FDA was a case against the act in stating being limited by speech, or graphics is against the first amendment. Visuals are key in advertising it helps hold the attention of the viewer. For over fifty years the government has required some form of health warning on tobacco packaging, and advertisements. In the 1979, Camels ad its most evident of the health risk warning, by the warning label print on the front of the ad. The congress passed the Tobacco Control Act in order to reform the language used in advertisements so the general public “be intelligent and well informed” () Since the 1940s ads progressively gained more attention with underlying tones of one of the basic needs appeals as told in fowles article. The Reynolds case caused a chain reaction in the tobacco community. In 2011 five other companies followed suit, trying to appeal the act. The argument that emotion conflicting ads helped the companies to overshadow misleading facts about cigarettes was leading evidence in the final decision. In 2012 Zauderer Vs. Office of Disciplinary Counsel is a case that was apart of the domino fact, as an appeal to the Tobacco Control Act. Zauderer presented his case from a different perspective. Judge Leon noted that “compelled speech” is “presumptively unconstitutional” and is typically subjected to strict scrutiny. Ads are always being regulated, cycling through the system before its shown to the public. Zauderer claims that the government was only allowing ads as long as it held government interest. To which The FDA responded, stating the