Ancient Syles and YouTube Commercials – VERY Rough Draft

Hey there peer group – a couple of notes. Steve said it was better to be on time thanperfect so this draft is VERY rough. It contains my thoughts more than the names of styles and explanations – I am also adding in parrhesia, personification, metronomy, and middle style. My citations are all over and incomplete. I’m short on the word count. I’m still revising my rough draft, so hopefully I’ll have more to post as the weekend goes on, but I wanted to make sure I had posted at least the majority of my draft. Hoepfully, you’ll enjoy what I have so far. THANKS!! Aimee

Aimee McVay Conat

ENG 328

Ancient Styles and YouTube Commercials

October 8, 2010

No one Wants to See You Naked, Either!

            The Superbowl is known for many things: great team match-ups, great food, great rivalries, and great commercials. Commercials that are sure to burn up around the water cooler (or coffee pot) on the Monday morning following. Commercials that are told, re-told, and viewed for endless minutes on You Tube or other websites. Commercials that cost $3 million for a 30-second spot according to MSNBC.com’s Bill Ward. However, there is one thing that makes these Super Commercials the same as all the other ones: the use of rhetoric and ancient styles to persuade the general, commercial-watching public into buying their product, item, or value statement.

            Teleflora showed a commercial that starts out with a woman, Diane, getting a delivery. She is told that they are flowers and her co-workers “ooh” and “aww”. When she opens the box of flowers, we see that they are not bright in color, are somewhat wilted, and sparse. The flowers begin to talk and proceed to insult the woman. The flowers say, “Oh no! Look at the mug on you! Diane! You’re a train wreck! That’s why he only sent a box of flowers!” (Teleflora’s Talking Flowers, 2009) The commercial voice-over then says that by ordering flowers in a box, you are taking a chance because “you never know what they’ll say” and the flowers then deliver their final insult, “No one wants to see you naked!” The voiceover tells the audience that Teleflora’s flowers are designed and delivered by local florist’s and shows a delivery man delivering a beautiful bouquet of flowers to someone’s home. The voiceover concludes by saying “That’s the Teleflora difference.” (Teleflora’s Talking Flowers, 2009) The commercial cuts back to Diane holding her box of  flowers when her co-worker, Gary, starts to say, “I’d like to see you…” when Diane cuts him off.

            Now, to over generalize based on personal experience, men (they specifically use the gender “he” in this commercial) typically equate the quality of flowers with the quantity of dollars. To imply that the packaging of flowers implies feelings or desires is hyperbole. While the old phrase “actions speak louder than words” does hold true sometimes, it is safe to say that the in this case, the fact that flowers were sent at all speaks louder than where the actual flowers came from.

            It appears as though the writers of this commercial were sitting there with their copy of Crowley/Hawhee at their side to use as a checklist. However, the first style that jumped out at me was the commercials use of repetition. This is only a 30-second spot and yet the word “flowers” is used five times in the first twenty-seconds of the commercial. Repeating the word over and over, and showing various people in the commercial saying “flowers” is very bluntly and adeptly drawing our attention to the fact that this is about flowers. However, I find it interesting that the commercial stops using the word flowers once Teleflora has been introduced as the better choice – now they are bouquets that are “hand arranged and hand delivered” (Teleflora’s Talking Flowers, 2009) thereby implying that flowers done by hand equal not only better flowers, but that better flowers also represent better feelings. Crowley and Hawhee say that repetition is sometimes used when there is a lack of vocabulary (243), but in this instance, that is not the case. Here, flowers is a word used in derision to really make the point the flowers are bad, but bouquets are awesome. Why send horrible flowers when bouquets better show your feelings?          

            The insults from the flowers, the image of beautiful, fresh flowers being delivered by an attractive delivery man, and the subsequent voiceover lauding the merits of ordering from Teleflora want to lead the viewer to think that a woman getting flowers would rather have them from this service than another. Say, 1-800-FLOWERS or ProFlowers.com. The commercial also wants the viewers to believe that these other flowers will send the wrong message to the recipient of those flowers, hence the horrible insults.                       

            The arguments for using Teleflora and not using another mail order flower services plays upon two main things: That the senders of flowers (assumed to be a man, based on the voiceover’s use of the pronoun “she” and “her” when warning against the dreaded flowers in a box) want to please the recipient and that the recipient is going to find a hidden meaning in the flowers based on how she gets them and where they come from. While it is true that both sender and receiver want to pleased and satisfied with any flower purchase, by having the “other” flowers be ugly and insulting is driving the point home a bit harshly. Furthermore, by making the co-worker of Dianne who gives her flowers be less attractive than the hunky delivery guy, this visual argument seems to be saying that better flowers come from better looking people.

            There are no real facts used in this commercial. Instead, the commercial relies entirely upon the visual contrast between the two types of flower ordering – the ugly, insulting flowers versus the silent yet beautiful flowers and the unattractive co-worker versus the good looking delivery man. Because of this use of hyperbole, the argument is not only weak, but it is completely overshadowed by the offensiveness of the commercial. It plays upon the worst fears of most women – that the man that they are with finds them ugly, unattractive, and unworthy of receiving “nicer” flowers. Therefore, it does not achieve its goal, which is to get the viewer to use Teleflora for their flower needs. By not showing a realistic representation of flowers in a box and comparing them side-by-side with a comparable bouquet from a Teleflora florist, they are unable to truly support their claim that Teleflora is any better.

            Teleflora takes a lot for granted with this commercial. They believed or assumed that little to no women watch the Superbowl. They believed or assumed that the commercial would be taken in jest and not in offense. They also believed that in order for me to believe that if my husband wants to see me naked, he will send me flowers from Teleflora. However, after viewing this commercial, I have informed my husband that the only thing that will be dropped if I get flowers from Teleflora will be the flowers into the garbage can.

 

 

 

Works Cited

Ward, Bill. “Commercials: From Foul to Fabulous” 2 February 2009. 3 October 2010.

< http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28963887/>.

“Teleflora’s Talking Flowers”. www.teleflora.com. 1 February 2009.

            < <http://www.teleflora.com/teleflora-super-bowl-flower-commercial.asp>