Compare how audiences are positioned by the representations in this WaterAid advertisement and the WaterAid advertisement you have studied.
Compare how audiences are positioned by the representations in this WaterAid advertisement and the WaterAid advertisement you have studied.
The WaterAid "No Choice" (2013) advert is a typical charity campaign showing the vast poverty of a third world country from a point of view of a child, in this case called "Jean". The more recent "Claudia sings sunshine on a rainy day" (2016) is a more enlightening campaign this time showing the effects of your donation rather than the causes for your donation.
The 2016 ad opens with a rainy day (in presumably England) and cuts to a sunny day in Africa. This is ironic since we want a sunny day yet people in Africa need a rainy one. We sit down and mope about the bad weather whereas those in Africa they embrace it
· This is used to maybe show us how happy deprived children living in those conditions would be once we start donating thus influencing us to donate for their enlightenment rather than their survival.
The 2013 ad instantaneously is dire and depressing. Our point of view is a child called Jean drinking dirty water. We then get the constant message that they have "no choice". This ad shows their lives before we donate and is the reason why. Unlike the other ad this creates sympathy towards Jean and every other person deprived of clean water enough to influence someone to donate a sum of money.
The "sunshine on a rainy day" ad is practically a binary opposition to the "no choice advert" in terms of tone message and editing. The lighting for the "no choice" ad is dark and gloomy with low angle shots of the various indigenous people suggesting they are not in a state of security. The non digetic sound plays a depressing and sour one note piano soundtrack. However the "sunshine on a rainy day" ad has an aesthetically bright and natural lighting with various high angle and mid shots emphasizing their new state of equilibrium. The non digetic sound is also once again a binary opposite since there is only just digetic sound in the ad.The audience will take notice of the drastic change of tone and puts them at a sense of ease and empowerment, enough to possibly convince them to donate in order to see deprived children live rather than survive as they previous ads have denoted.
Although there are notable differences there is yet familiarity. The children of Africa are continuously the main showcase for both adverts and one creates sympathy and the other enlightenment in order to want to donate. The Africans are once again presented as people deprived of clean water, we know this since both adverts address this and contextual information we know from beforehand. Both makes the audience trust their established 100% donation shown at the end of both ads thus showing that both adverts want to same outcome (donations) but go about through very different strategies by doing so. One gives audience hope the other despair.
Another notable difference is how differently the two ads follow Todorovs narrative theory. The "no choice" ad begins with the disruption showing the deprived children and we as an audience recognize this disruption and in an order to repair this disruption the advert shows a number of ways we can donate money in order to help.This makes us want t help more since children like jean never had an equilibrium but the ad makes the audience responsible for their new equilibrium. However "sunshine on a rainy day" begins with an equilibrium with the girl walking and singing to then skip the disruption and recognition of the equilibrium and the attempt to repair the damage straight to the new equilibrium. This may be a message to the audience saying that with their donation there will only be an equilibrium with no damages in order to be repaired. Also note that "no choice" contains Step 2,3 and 4 of Todorov's narrative theory whereas "sunshine on a rainy day" only has 1 and 5, this further adds to the binary oppositions and the break of character from Wateraids established sub genre of charity adverts.
Overall both adverts are accurate representations of two ends of a spectrum, the cause ("no choice") and the effect ("sunshine on a rainy day"). Both aims to get those donations from the audience yet they do position them in different manner. "Sunshine on a rainy day" break traditional convention and gives a sense of ease whereas the other makes the audience uneasy, your audience will either donate for their happiness and well-being or for their survival.
Although there are notable differences there is yet familiarity. The children of Africa are continuously the main showcase for both adverts and one creates sympathy and the other enlightenment in order to want to donate. The Africans are once again presented as people deprived of clean water, we know this since both adverts address this and contextual information we know from beforehand. Both makes the audience trust their established 100% donation shown at the end of both ads thus showing that both adverts want to same outcome (donations) but go about through very different strategies by doing so. One gives audience hope the other despair.
Another notable difference is how differently the two ads follow Todorovs narrative theory. The "no choice" ad begins with the disruption showing the deprived children and we as an audience recognize this disruption and in an order to repair this disruption the advert shows a number of ways we can donate money in order to help.This makes us want t help more since children like jean never had an equilibrium but the ad makes the audience responsible for their new equilibrium. However "sunshine on a rainy day" begins with an equilibrium with the girl walking and singing to then skip the disruption and recognition of the equilibrium and the attempt to repair the damage straight to the new equilibrium. This may be a message to the audience saying that with their donation there will only be an equilibrium with no damages in order to be repaired. Also note that "no choice" contains Step 2,3 and 4 of Todorov's narrative theory whereas "sunshine on a rainy day" only has 1 and 5, this further adds to the binary oppositions and the break of character from Wateraids established sub genre of charity adverts.
Overall both adverts are accurate representations of two ends of a spectrum, the cause ("no choice") and the effect ("sunshine on a rainy day"). Both aims to get those donations from the audience yet they do position them in different manner. "Sunshine on a rainy day" break traditional convention and gives a sense of ease whereas the other makes the audience uneasy, your audience will either donate for their happiness and well-being or for their survival.
Comments
Post a Comment