This paper compares three notable advertisements to analyze what distinguishes memorable, effective advertising from campaigns that alienate or offend viewers. Drawing on a viral Volkswagen television commercial, Chanel's 2011 print campaign, and Lance Armstrong's FRS energy drink advertisement, the paper examines elements such as visual storytelling, brand identity, emotional appeal, and ethical boundaries. It argues that effective ads create genuine emotional resonance or visual intrigue, while ineffective ones rely on exaggerated claims or ethically questionable appeals—such as tying a sports drink to a cancer charity—that undermine consumer trust.
This study guide is drawn from PaperDue's library of 130,000+ paper examples across 47 subjects.
The paper demonstrates comparative textual analysis applied to visual media. Rather than summarizing what each ad contains, it interprets how specific design choices — such as the woman's submissive-defying posture in the Chanel ad or the absence of nutritional information in the FRS ad — communicate meaning and shape audience response. This close-reading approach is fundamental to media studies and communications analysis.
The paper opens by establishing the central question through the Volkswagen ad anecdote, then devotes one section to the Chanel print campaign as a positive case study and two sections to the FRS advertisement as a negative case study — first addressing factual and rhetorical weaknesses, then escalating to the ethical dimension. The conclusion is brief and pointed. This structure mirrors a classic compare-and-contrast essay with an argumentative tilt toward the negative example.
One of the most popular and most-forwarded advertisements in recent memory is the Volkswagen advertisement that features a young boy dressed in a Darth Vader costume apparently using the Force to start the family car. People watched the advertisement over and over again on YouTube, as if it were a short film — remarkable in an era when "skipping" past advertisements, thanks to digital recording technology, has become increasingly common. This raises an important question: what makes one ad memorable enough for a viewer to watch it voluntarily, while another is almost painful to sit through?
Print advertisements that appear in magazines do not enjoy many of the advantages of televised spots: they cannot move, or use extended narrative to tell a story. Yet many effective fashion advertisements create a compelling sense of ambiance. The 2011 campaign for the Chanel fashion line depicts a young woman and a young man wearing black and white clothing against a safari background. They may be lovers, but they stare coolly into the distance. Chanel carries a slightly matronly, upscale image, but the youth of both figures lends freshness and added zest to the photographic depiction of the clothing.
The young woman wears short boots that seem at odds with her fashionable, formal suit. She wears heavy, chunky jewelry typical of the Chanel aesthetic and swings a bag casually in her hand. Her feet are propped up — even though she is wearing a skirt — while the young man wears a white flower on his suit and sits in a submissive posture at her feet. The woman's skirt features an animal print rather than the traditional Chanel plaid. The advertisement breathes new life and excitement into an established brand, giving Chanel some of the fashion-forward attitude it once had before being eclipsed by trendier upscale labels.
Promoting a product that is supposed to be both functional and pleasurable is more difficult, and advertisements in this category can easily run afoul of the viewer's common sense through exaggerated claims. FRS is an energy drink promoted by cyclist Lance Armstrong. The advertisement depicts Armstrong holding his bike, with the slogan "Don't Crash" emblazoned beneath him — presumably meaning one should avoid an energy crash during prolonged physical effort, with a secondary nod to the literal hazard of crashing on a bicycle. Armstrong's arms extend outward, spanning the full width of the bike frame.
However, the advertisement offers no clear indication of what FRS actually contains as a nutritional supplement. Is it high in carbohydrates? Protein? Sugar? Armstrong's presence alone is meant to inspire the viewer to buy the product. It is difficult to accept the premise that a consumer can be transformed into one of the most talented cyclists in the history of the sport simply by drinking a sports beverage. The slogan reads simply: "Drink FRS: Healthy Energy." In fine print, the advertisement states that FRS contains a substance commonly found in fruits and vegetables that acts as an antioxidant — but it is never stated that Lance Armstrong actually drinks FRS, nor is it explained why this particular chemical compound is especially effective beyond a vague claim about helping the body become more energized.
The contrast between the Chanel print campaign and the FRS advertisement illustrates the difference between advertising that earns a viewer's attention through genuine visual appeal and brand coherence, and advertising that attempts to shortcut that process through celebrity authority and emotional coercion. The most effective advertisements — like the Volkswagen spot that opened this discussion — create authentic emotional resonance. Those that rely on exaggerated claims or exploit a consumer's sympathy ultimately undermine the very trust they seek to build.
You’re 82% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.