Toyota Prius Commercial
Recently, people are becoming aware of commercials judging them, forming positive and negative opinions about the product being advertised. This is the case for Toyota, and its latest marking campaign for the Prius Hybrid. This analysis will critique the advertisement of the Toyota Prius commercial. Raising awareness of persuasive techniques in their advertisement to further their green message of “Moving Forward”.
The Prius is a full-hybrid electric mid-size car. This unique car first went on sale in Japan of 1997 as the first mass-produced hybrid vehicle. Similar to the actual car, Toyota Prius commercials are unlike any others. They present an interesting viewpoint that raises questions, typical ads do not attempt to consider.
Toyota’s logo is a symbol, a symbol representing expanding technology, advancement, and opportunities of the future. The theme of this commercial is “Moving Forward”. This campaign embodies each aspect Toyota supports. Which is advancement in lifestyle, technology that creates eco-friendly opportunities for earth.
This commercial was designed to target people, but it does much more than that. This commercial, aims at car consumers nationwide as it raises assumptions of global improvement, self-awareness, race and class. This commercial creates an atmosphere that inimiatlly gains your attention with the serious (tone) or voice of the narrator. His tone remains the same as he calmly appeals towards the logic of viewers. A logically assumption is present. This assumption questions transportation, and whether it has evolved or not. Thirty seconds into the clip the mood begins to shift from serious to light-hearted. Signals of this change is indicated from the increasing musical pitch and the image of the Toyota Prius weaving in and out of lanes, swiftly moving forward past the competition. The Prius is advertised as the answer to environmental improvement.
All major forms of ground transportation are evident in this commercial this includes walking, bicycles, motorcycles and trains. To understand the images in this ad you need to look beyond the regular people, cars, and cities. Gather all of those factors and think of the environmental cause each have. The people in this commercial appear to be all nationalities. Marking towards all races and classes. The people appear to be moving, but not going anywhere. Here is where the “Moving Forward” theme is happening. Which can mean a lack of advancement, similar to the car industry and the development of the world. The vehicles much be taken into context. They are shown in the most harmful manner. They appear at the beginning of the commercial stuck in traffic, but if you look closely you will see tires moving in a forward direction, symbolizing “Moving Forward”.
“One small step on the accelerator,equals, one giant leap for mankind”. The use of words is essential to this ad. The words can get easily overlooked due to the dominating images. Towards the end of this campaign is where the Toyota Prius is actually described. Giving us the perception that the Prius can change the world by reducing carbon emissions, being gas electric, all elements to moving forward. After watching this commercial I still wonder, is this car really eco-friendly? Are we improving the earth by purchasing the Toyota Prius? These are the type of question the commercial assume to answer, but never really do. Despite, the creative effort of Toyota, wouldn’t the best way of moving forward consist of walking in order to completely reduce carbon emissions from cars?
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Waste-to-Energy
Waste-to-energy is an alternative method for producing electricity. Waste- to- energy is the process of creating energy in the form of electricity or heat, from the incineration of waste source. Waste-to-energy is a form of energy recovery. It produces electricity directly through combustion, or productive combustible fuel commodity, such as methane, methanol, ethanol or synthetic fuels. Waste-to- energy solutions raise questions about rather; burning waste is the most efficient and safe use of trash?
Currently, there are thirty-one states that use waste- to-energy plants as their main supplier of energy, Minnesota included. MPR News reports “County wants to burn more garbage at Minneapolis incinerator”. Approval is needed from city council for Hennepin County to burn ten- twenty percent more trash to produce electricity. Current neighbors are worried about pollution from waste-to-energy plants being bad for their health. Stephanie Hemphill, of Minnesota Public Radio raises questions about weather “burning waste—even to produce electricity—is not the best thing to do with it”.
In the heart of Minneapolis sits newly constructed Twins ballpark. Hennepin county waste-to-energy plant is just northwest of the Twin’s ballpark. For twenty plus years HERC has been burning one thousand tons of garbage a day and producing electricity and steam heat for Xcel Energy and surrounding buildings. Inside HERC’s plant is a forty-foot canyon, where garbage trucks and bobcats push a mixture of wet and dry trash into a gravity pit. Giant claws feed all the trash into a huge furnace. Two thirds of the waste is paper, cardboard, and other combustible material.
This article presents great arguments, but only one side of the story is being told. The headline of this story is weather Minneapolis waste- to-energy plant should be approved to burn ten to twenty percent more trash. Hemphill provides a bias that displays a negative outlook on garbage burning. An example she uses is “…In 1999, the plant put out almost nine times its limit for hydrogen chloride, a corrosive gas”. With this quote, Hemphill is reaching her audience by appealing to their ethos. Values and beliefs are used to help followers relate this situation to their immediate lives. She takes factual evidence and supports them with opinions of her own, not credible sources.
Also, another interesting theme, is about the HERC plants producing smog. Hemphill states “The plant emits 500 tons a year of nitrogen oxides, or NOX. These are precursors to smog, which is harmful to children, the elderly, and people with lung and heart conditions”. Once again, Hemphill is reaching her audience by appealing towards their values and beliefs and basic knowledge of gases. Burning trash does contribute to air pollution, but there are other external factors that contribute to air pollution. Other external factors are cars, trucks, buses, and humans. Living and breathing humans contribute to greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases are in the atmosphere that absorb and emit radiation and cause global warning and climate change. Carbon dioxide is released into the air by human’s breathing. Carbon dioxide is also released by motor vehicles that used daily. If we are complaining about power plants emitting gases into the air, we need to focus on developing alternative methods for driving. Air quality value can be measured on a scale of 0-300. This scale rates air pollution by color and number with each category indicating safe or harmful air emittions. Studies indicate as of March 16, 2010, Minnesota air quality value is 54/ Green/ Moderate. Which means air quality is safe.
Burning trash may not be the best way to improve the earth. Further research is needed in order to understand what harmful side effects burning trash may cause. Burning trash is an alternative for producing energy, but in order to reduce greenhouse gases more recycling, reducing and re-using is the most efficient route.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/07/16/herc_burner/
Currently, there are thirty-one states that use waste- to-energy plants as their main supplier of energy, Minnesota included. MPR News reports “County wants to burn more garbage at Minneapolis incinerator”. Approval is needed from city council for Hennepin County to burn ten- twenty percent more trash to produce electricity. Current neighbors are worried about pollution from waste-to-energy plants being bad for their health. Stephanie Hemphill, of Minnesota Public Radio raises questions about weather “burning waste—even to produce electricity—is not the best thing to do with it”.
In the heart of Minneapolis sits newly constructed Twins ballpark. Hennepin county waste-to-energy plant is just northwest of the Twin’s ballpark. For twenty plus years HERC has been burning one thousand tons of garbage a day and producing electricity and steam heat for Xcel Energy and surrounding buildings. Inside HERC’s plant is a forty-foot canyon, where garbage trucks and bobcats push a mixture of wet and dry trash into a gravity pit. Giant claws feed all the trash into a huge furnace. Two thirds of the waste is paper, cardboard, and other combustible material.
This article presents great arguments, but only one side of the story is being told. The headline of this story is weather Minneapolis waste- to-energy plant should be approved to burn ten to twenty percent more trash. Hemphill provides a bias that displays a negative outlook on garbage burning. An example she uses is “…In 1999, the plant put out almost nine times its limit for hydrogen chloride, a corrosive gas”. With this quote, Hemphill is reaching her audience by appealing to their ethos. Values and beliefs are used to help followers relate this situation to their immediate lives. She takes factual evidence and supports them with opinions of her own, not credible sources.
Also, another interesting theme, is about the HERC plants producing smog. Hemphill states “The plant emits 500 tons a year of nitrogen oxides, or NOX. These are precursors to smog, which is harmful to children, the elderly, and people with lung and heart conditions”. Once again, Hemphill is reaching her audience by appealing towards their values and beliefs and basic knowledge of gases. Burning trash does contribute to air pollution, but there are other external factors that contribute to air pollution. Other external factors are cars, trucks, buses, and humans. Living and breathing humans contribute to greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases are in the atmosphere that absorb and emit radiation and cause global warning and climate change. Carbon dioxide is released into the air by human’s breathing. Carbon dioxide is also released by motor vehicles that used daily. If we are complaining about power plants emitting gases into the air, we need to focus on developing alternative methods for driving. Air quality value can be measured on a scale of 0-300. This scale rates air pollution by color and number with each category indicating safe or harmful air emittions. Studies indicate as of March 16, 2010, Minnesota air quality value is 54/ Green/ Moderate. Which means air quality is safe.
Burning trash may not be the best way to improve the earth. Further research is needed in order to understand what harmful side effects burning trash may cause. Burning trash is an alternative for producing energy, but in order to reduce greenhouse gases more recycling, reducing and re-using is the most efficient route.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/07/16/herc_burner/
Friday, March 5, 2010
Welcome
Hello, everyone and welcome to my blog "Global Conflicts". "Global Conflicts" is a blog where we can discuss numerous environamental issues, including "Going Green", or genetically modified foods. Thanks for visting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)