Critique of an Advertisement

Critique of an Advertisement

The primary objective of an advertisement is to inform the target market about the availability of an excellent, service, or idea, to persuade people to take a favorable position about the issue being promoted or to remind people about something of value to them. The paper examines the print advert run by the Moms Demand Action, a gun-control organization concerned about the rise in mass shootings in the United States occasioned by the ease of access to guns by young people. The advert uses the images of two young children, where one holds a Kinder chocolate egg, while the other holds a rifle. The advertiser uses visual images and text adeptly to underscore the hypocrisy in U.S. society and to reiterate the need for gun control laws.

The advertisement identifies the sponsor as the Moms Demand Action lobby group that seeks to educate the public about the dangers of guns in the wrong hands. The organization runs its campaign under the slogan, “For Gun Sense in America,” which implies it believes the current gun control and ownership laws are inherently weak and ridiculous. The advertisement is useful because it arrests the attention of the reader and demands action. The person who comes across the advert has to put his or her mind to task because the advertiser requires the audience to respond to a question. By highlighting the request “Guess Which One” in red, the advertiser wants the audience to deliberate and ascertain the more dangerous of the two items, the Kinder egg or the rifle. In essence, the Kinder egg has been in the U.S. for the safety of children, but the gun has not. Therefore, the advert accentuates the double standards society applies under the guise of protecting children.

The advertisement’s “call to action” is to invite the public to consider the reason children cannot buy Kinder chocolate eggs because of concerns about their safety. However, the same children can access assault rifles that are far more dangerous than the Kinder chocolate eggs. The use of two innocent-faced children captures the attention of the audience and invites consideration of the dangers to which children are exposed. In essence, children can access guns and use them to commit heinous crimes but cannot purchase the less harmful Kinder chocolate eggs. The implication is that society should question such laws and regulations and prioritize issues of national significance..

The text is brief but highly effective because the advertiser wants to prick the conscience of the target audience and the nation. The use of children in the advert makes it useful because of the unacceptably high number of children who have lost their lives or been wounded in senseless mass shootings. The words that call the audience to action are printed in tiny letters; the strategy is highly compelling because it makes the reader pay close attention to the meaning. The children have somber but reflective moods that underscore the magnitude of the challenge they face and the possibility that society could come to its senses and accord them the security they need. The advertiser pays close attention to detail to produce an emotive advert that depicts American culture and the legislators who enact laws as irrational; banning Kinder eggs for the sake of the safety of children but allowing them to access dangerous weapons appears preposterous.

The target audience is the government that passes and enforces legislation. The advertiser puts the government to task to explain the reasoning behind banning harmless objects while approving highly destructive ones. The use of bans in the advert implies government action because only the state authorities can enforce such laws. Correspondingly, the advert targets the public to consider the effectiveness and relevance of such laws and to demand strict action from the state authorities. The advert uses the association principle in that it alludes to the children who hold dangerous items instead of valuable things that would enhance the quality of their lives and future.

The advert uses creative strategies to pass the message to elicit the right response. For instance, the two children are school-going age; the advertiser places them in an empty classroom to highlight the effects of guns on schoolchildren. The worst mass shooting incidents have happened in classes and school compounds. On the chalkboard is the word “agenda” to point out the need for the government to get its priorities right. The use of a boy and a girl in the ad implies that all children are at risk irrespective of age or gender.

The advertisement is a creative way to examine one of the most intractable challenges in modern society. The advertiser recognizes the need to appeal to logic to enable the government and the public to reevaluate the existing gun control laws. I believe the advertisers of the ad created it the way they did because they wanted to point out the government’s lack of urgency and foresight when enacting safety laws for children. Equally, the advert promotes a pro-social message that could bring a change in legislation that would lead to tight gun control laws. The advertisement is effective because it examines a current problem with which every citizen can identify and appeals to logic to ensure people deliberate on the lax manner the country handles important social and safety issues.