'A Rhetorical Analysis Of The Snickers'

756 Words4 Pages

Eating too much chocolate can cause acne. At least that’s what many people believe. Then why do advertisers keep advertising chocolate? In the Snickers satisfies commercial it opens with a football team having a time out. It displays Robin Williams as the coach and he starts speaking nonsense. When the assistant coach gives him a Snickers to satisfy his hunger he turns into the real coach. This commercial’s entire purpose is to sell Snickers. The commercial also showcases the rhetorical tool of a hyperbole. In this way it automatically makes commercial funny which introduces pathos. The commercial also includes ethos because Robin Williams is in it. Williams is a celebrity which will make someone want to go buy a Snickers. However, the commercial’s use of the either/or fallacy makes it weak. It introduces the fact that if a person doesn’t eat a Snickers when he or she is hungry then he won’t be able to satisfy his hunger. Besides, it is not proven that eating a Snickers bar can help satisfy a person’s hunger. Though the commercial uses pathos and ethos effectively, the exaggeration of the product and the either/or fallacy was ultimately its downfall. Since Williams is a pretty well known guy if a fan of his watches this …show more content…

Then in 1995 Snickers ran ads that featured people making a self-inflicted mistake then saying “not going anywhere for a while”? “Grab a Snickers!” In 2007 Snickers launched a campaign that featured Henry the VIII and a viking attending a Snickers feast. Presently Snickers has the “You’re not you when you’re hungry” campaign. The first one aired in 2010 displaying Betty White and Abe Vigoda playing football. It shows a group of guys playing football and White gets tackled because he/she isn’t playing right. One of the guys points out that he is playing like Betty White and his girlfriend hands him a Snickers and he turns back into

Open Document