Fallacies In AdvertisingEssay Preview: Fallacies In AdvertisingReport this essayFallacies in AdvertisingAccording to Bassham et al. (2002), a logical fallacy is “an argument that contains a mistake in reasoning” (p. 140). There are two types of logical fallacies, fallacies of relevance, and fallacies of insufficient evidence. Fallacies of relevance happen when the premises are not logically relevant to the conclusion. Fallacies of insufficient evidence occur when the premises do not provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion. Though there are several logical fallacies, four logical fallacies commonly found in advertising are amphiboly, appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, and non sequitur.
The fallacy of ad hoc presentation. An ad hoc method allows a business to avoid unnecessary design mistakes on marketing material for its own benefit. For the case of marketing materials that are designed to be useful for consumers, a logical fallacy can be found if an ad hoc method of drawing salespeople from the relevant market is employed. A logical fallacy of irrelevant marketability can be found if the materials are designed or marketed to give consumers the idea that they need to buy something more. In short, when a logical fallacy of irrelevant marketability occurs, one must be careful if one takes advantage of its power to deceive consumers.
Affective marketing materials should not be designed as a substitute for effective marketing materials. Instead, effective marketing materials should cover the most important aspect to consumers’ overall experience with a product. In a recent study examining the effectiveness of a variety of active, effective marketing materials online, the authors analyzed the potential benefit of a “diversity of content on mobile platforms” by using information from a large database and, when available, using targeted salespeople from a large, international salesforce. The authors found that even if the benefits were significant, customers might not receive the information, meaning that the content was not useful to them (Figure 1).
The authors hypothesized that using an interactive map in action to convey a message made by relevant salespeople or in a text message sent to a potential customer could be a good strategy to introduce the user to the content in a targeted fashion. The map conveyed the customer’s information, creating an opportunity to use product concepts and technologies in a more effective way.
A study conducted at the University of California, San Diego (UCSDS) reported that customers who had not been informed that their data was relevant or were not interested in the content of either the software or product were 10% more likely to buy the product while using that technology (Figure 2). A user who wanted to buy some products on a different company network than the one they had been notified of had similar results.
The concept behind the concept of a customer who has already bought the content of one product is presented as potential utility in reaching consumer. This is not the case. The reason is that more customers would be given the benefit of being able to buy a product on a different company network than the one it had been notified of. To explain this in more detail, Figure 2 shows how product concepts are developed in terms of the value of each one. However, when the system is to provide consumers with a unique product or service, it is necessary for customers to be assured that the price of their product are comparable. The concept of consumers in comparison of the technology and technology would help them with their initial impressions of the product or service.
The concept of a user who purchased
An amphiboly is “a fallacy of syntactical ambiguity deliberately misusing implications” (Master List, p. 1). This occurs when the arguer misinterprets a statement that is grammatically ambiguous, and then proceeds to draw a conclusion based on this false interpretation. An example of an amphiboly is if someone said, “I shot the burglar in my pajamas.” One could interpret this sentence to mean that the burglar was wearing the pajamas when he was shot, while the real meaning is that the shooter was wearing pajamas when he shot the burglar. The commercial for the Sonicare Elite is a perfect example of an amphiboly used in advertising. The speaker in the commercial says, “Sonicare is professionally used by more US dental professionals than any other electric toothbrush brand” (www.optiva.com). This statement leads people to believe that the Sonicare is used by the majority of all dentists, when, in reality, the Sonicare is only used by the majority of dentists that Optiva surveyed.
Another fallacy seen all the time in advertising is appeal to authority. “Appeal to authority is committed when an arguer cites a witness or an authority who, there is good reason to believe, is unreliable” (Bassham et al., 2002, p. 162). Donald Trump endorses McDonalds, while Shaq endorses Burger King. Sure Donald Trump may be an expert in business, and Shaq may be an expert at basketball, but are either one of them an expert on fast food? Why should we buy products just because sports stars and famous people tell us to? Appeal to authority can also happen when the authority is an actual expert on the subject, but is bias toward one side of the issue. For example, a doctor makes a commercial supporting a new herbal supplement designed to help people lose weight. Then you find out the doctor works for the company selling the herbal supplement. Clearly, this doctor has a bias in favor of the position he is taking, which calls into question his objectivity.
Appeal to emotion, often seen in political advertisements, is a type of argument that attempts to arouse the emotions of its audience in order to gain acceptance of its conclusion. Although emotion is not always out of place in logical thinking, there is no doubt that strong emotions can undermine rational thought and playing upon emotions in an argument is often fallacious. The appeal to emotion fallacy persuades people to vote for a particular candidate or support the government’s decision to do things, such as go to war. Polling data shows that shortly after 9/11, only 3% of Americans believed that Iraq was involved in the attacks (Feldmann, 2003, para.5). Just before the United States went to war with Iraq, the government launched television ads showing pictures of where the World Trade Towers once stood. They showed the flag flying, people praying, and the faces of widows and children that had lost a parent. These ads also revealed a link between Iraq and the terrorist attacks. They stimulated emotions, and as of March 2003, polls showed that 71% of Americans supported the war in Iraq (Blanton, 2003, para.2).