Advertising: Rhetorical Analysis the Met

Advertising: Rhetorical Analysis

The Met Life Insurance Company advertisement makes use of all three Aristotelian appeals to Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. The appeals to Ethos and to Logos are likely stronger than the appeal to Pathos, but only by virtue of subjective limits on the definition of "emotional." Otherwise, the advertisement employs all three appeals in a balanced fashion. The target audience is likely married and soon-to-be-married couples who have not yet taken out a life insurance policy for one another. It is also conceivable that it is directed at couples for whom the expense of a traditional token of love would be considered substantial enough that they would have to choose either one or the other.

The ad consists of a simple vertical arrangement of traditional tokens of friendship, affection, love, and lifelong devotion in that descending order. Each image is associated with a caption representing the metaphorical meaning of the image.

Ethos:

The advertisement does make effective use of Ethos (appeal to ethics and credibility), except it is implied indirectly rather than presented overtly. Specifically, the advertisement relies on the general perception and likely reaction that a life insurance company is inherently credible. Additionally, that perception is likely intensified by the contrast between the relative importance of jewelry and life insurance. Furthermore, the visual design of the ad greatly enhances the dramatic effect through the progression of images. Ultimately, the advertisement effectively appeals to the value of genuine and meaningful life security, especially in comparison with the superficial value of jewelry.

Pathos:

It is arguable whether or not the advertisement will effectively appeal to Pathos, (emotions) although it is clearly designed with that hope. In principle, recognizing that lifelong financial security in the face of family tragedy is much more important to a loved one than tangible gifts, especially those, like precious stones, that are devoid of actual inherent value. On the other hand, it is quite possible that some audience members will consider the substitution of a "romantic" gesture for a practical necessity "unromantic. It communicates an emotional appeal in two distinct ways. First, in the surprise that many readers may experience after briefly assuming that the words "I will always love you" are meant to represent the highest form of love. That pause before the realization that the implied higher form of love is represented by the insurance policy.

Second, the advertisement communicates an emotional appeal in the literal interpretation of the metaphor. Specifically, both the literal meaning of the sentiment "You mean more to me than anything else in the world" and also the actual purpose of a life insurance policy itself demonstrates love for the beneficiary. Finally, in this case, the Pathos approach is perfectly consistent with the Logos approach; in fact, it is arguable that it is only the logical implications and concepts that give rise to any reason the add could possibly appeal to Pathos.

Logos:

The advertisement also appeals to Logos (logic), but indirectly, as in the case of its appeal to Ethos. It would be almost impossible to argue that any piece of jewelry could possibly mean more than designation as the primary beneficiary of a life insurance policy. Therefore, in addition to presenting a logical argument through metaphor, that argument also happens to be factually accurate and absolutely true. For the same reason, the argument is devoid of any logical fallacies.

Analysis and Conclusion:

The advertisement is a clever use of all three Aristotelian appeals, to Ethos, Pathos, and Logos, although (arguably) with varying likely degrees of success. The appeal to Ethos relies on the perception that insurance companies are inherently trustworthy and credible institutions. Secondly, its appeal to Ethos also makes use of the contrast between the actual value of a life insurance policy and even the best piece of jewelry, from the perspective of the beneficiary or recipient. Of course, that may not necessarily be true in the case of such a large ring that it represents more financial security than the life insurance policy, but that is unlikely.