Philanthropies Don’t Just Benefit The Organization:
The Crucial Catch Campaign
An advertisement the Crucial Catch Campaign aired on ESPN this past October 2013.
For my rhetorical analysis I picked this artifact because when I first saw this advertisement on ESPN I thought to myself, “You have got to be kidding me.” It was hard for me to believe that Tina (the woman in the advertisement) found out she had breast cancer because she watched a football game. I wanted to look into the history of the overall campaign and figure out how and why the NFL used Tina to persuade their audience. Another item that stood out to me about this advertisement was that a woman talking about football. She wasn’t just any woman she was older, married, and has three kids. Most commercials that I have seen on television use women that are young and attractive such as in this Hardees commercial:
Before I could make an argument about what the advertisement was doing rhetorically I researched the history of the NFL, the overall campaign, and figured out the NFL’s target market. I found that prior to this campaign, the NFL's television ratings were decreasing and they had a bad reputation due to the player’s behaviors. For example, many players were getting in trouble with the law like Michael Vick. Vick had his dogs fight each other and this caused copious negative publicity. Overall the Crucial Catch Campaign raises money for the American Cancer Society through donations, merchandise, and auctioning items used by players/coaches. However, the NFL doesn’t focus on all forms of cancer. They focus on just breast cancer during October. Also, during the football games all players and coaches wear pink accessories, and the field had pink ribbons spray painted on it. Lastly, the target market of the NFL is adult women. The question remains: Why women?
In order to understand how this advertisement’s role in the Crucial Catch Campaign played a duty in improving the NFL’s reputation and increasing revenue one must look at the advertisement through a rhetorical lens. When one uses a rhetorical lens he or she are able to see that this advertisement was able to persuade its audience to support the Crucial Catch Campaign through the elements of terministic screen, kairos, and interpellation. The purpose was to gain the interest of females to increase television ratings, increase revenue, and improve its reputation. Terministic screen was used in the advertisement by using Tina’s personal story. She is a woman that the audience could trust and connect with. Then it used kairos by having the advertisement aired during the right time and place. Lastly, it used interpellation to call forth women to participate, buy merchandise, and help woman like Tina. As a result of this advertisement, more women watched NFL football, bought pink merchandise, and talked highly of the NFL's philanthropic state. Since rhetoric was used in this advertisement, it engaged the audience and helped persuade them to come to a conclusion on their own about whether they wanted to participate in this campaign. This has a greater effect than simply telling the audience what to do.
My analysis matters because the NFL isn’t the only one that is employing cancer as a influential instrument. Famous athletes such as Lance Armstrong and Manti Te’o have both abused cancer to diminish public doubt and mockery. Even Mike Anderson, Armstrong’s own personal assistant said, “They threw up that cancer shield in order to defend himself.” Manti Te’o continued to talk about his love for a leukemia victim after he found out she didn’t exist. Each of these athletes received lots of publicity due to cancer’s employment in gaining the public’s attention. Society needs to be aware of the rhetorical elements that are hidden within the Crucial Catch Campaign’s message so they can see that the NFL is just another revenue and reputation driven company of the 21st century.
Here are some images of NFL pink items:
QUESTIONS: 1. From my research, I found that the NFL’s website claims, “all proceeds go to the American Cancer Society.” However, many articles have said that isn’t true. Does this concern you as a consumer? Why or why not?
2. How would the Crucial Catch Campaign be different if it didn’t focus on breast cancer but rather focused on all types of cancers since it benefits the American Cancer Society? More specifically how would the terminsitic screen, kairos, and interpellation change?
3. From watching the advertisement, what are other rhetorical elements that you think are used to persuade the NFL’s audience?
4. Has this blog influenced you to think twice about the Crucial Catch Campaign's true message? Why?
This is an interesting discussion because millions of dollars are spent on this campaign about women's health but the 'vehicle' for this movement is a primarily male dominated game/viewership. This is especially interesting since research tends to show that women are the caretakers of families, not men. Women live longer because they typically get healthcare when its needed and men generally put off going to the doctor, so why advertise this way? it seems like a complete waste
In watching the advertisements as well as the different rhetorical artifacts utilized in the "Crucial Catch Campaign", I felt that this was an effective campaign for the NFL. In watching games, I also felt it was a great way to bring attention to breast cancer awareness. But after reading this blog as well as watching the breast cancer movie in class, I have become more aware of the marketing strategies behind particular breast cancer awareness campaigns like this particular one.
In regards to your first discussion question, I think that false advertising regarding this campaign is a huge issue. If there is question regarding what the proceeds are being used for, it is important for the NFL to clarify or change the claim that all proceeds go to the American Cancer Society.
Since breast cancer is becoming such a phenomenon in our society especially in regards to advertising and marketing, I think that just highlight breast cancer was a strategic move for the NFL. The pink color that everyone associates with breast cancer stands out when worn with uniforms, etc. In terms of kairos, this is a time period in which breast cancer awareness dominates our society as well as media, so it makes sense that they chose breast cancer awareness as the main goal for this campaign. Also, with breast cancer relating to more females than males, the NFL was able to gain more support from the female audience that they didn't have prior to this campaign.
This blog has influenced me to look into campaigns that promote awareness regarding illnesses. It is important to note whether the company could be promoting this for their own benefit or whether or not they are truly helping the cause.
Jessica- I don't believe this advertisement was a waste for the NFL because they were able to reach so many people and influence them to participate in the Crucial Catch Campaign.
Mary Sloane - I agree with your claim about it being important for the NFL to change their claim. If the NFL were to change their claim, they would be more ethical of a company. I believe that consumers would still purchase the items if they put the true amount that goes towards the American Cancer Society.
This is an interesting discussion because millions of dollars are spent on this campaign about women's health but the 'vehicle' for this movement is a primarily male dominated game/viewership. This is especially interesting since research tends to show that women are the caretakers of families, not men. Women live longer because they typically get healthcare when its needed and men generally put off going to the doctor, so why advertise this way? it seems like a complete waste
ReplyDeleteIn watching the advertisements as well as the different rhetorical artifacts utilized in the "Crucial Catch Campaign", I felt that this was an effective campaign for the NFL. In watching games, I also felt it was a great way to bring attention to breast cancer awareness. But after reading this blog as well as watching the breast cancer movie in class, I have become more aware of the marketing strategies behind particular breast cancer awareness campaigns like this particular one.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to your first discussion question, I think that false advertising regarding this campaign is a huge issue. If there is question regarding what the proceeds are being used for, it is important for the NFL to clarify or change the claim that all proceeds go to the American Cancer Society.
Since breast cancer is becoming such a phenomenon in our society especially in regards to advertising and marketing, I think that just highlight breast cancer was a strategic move for the NFL. The pink color that everyone associates with breast cancer stands out when worn with uniforms, etc. In terms of kairos, this is a time period in which breast cancer awareness dominates our society as well as media, so it makes sense that they chose breast cancer awareness as the main goal for this campaign. Also, with breast cancer relating to more females than males, the NFL was able to gain more support from the female audience that they didn't have prior to this campaign.
This blog has influenced me to look into campaigns that promote awareness regarding illnesses. It is important to note whether the company could be promoting this for their own benefit or whether or not they are truly helping the cause.
Jessica- I don't believe this advertisement was a waste for the NFL because they were able to reach so many people and influence them to participate in the Crucial Catch Campaign.
ReplyDeleteMary Sloane - I agree with your claim about it being important for the NFL to change their claim. If the NFL were to change their claim, they would be more ethical of a company. I believe that consumers would still purchase the items if they put the true amount that goes towards the American Cancer Society.