Just as an example: I see so many actors endorsing products which they have no expert knowledge in. (Appeal to Inappropriate Authority) Michael Jordan endorses hotdogs and underwear. Is this supposed to make me a better basketball player? Why do you suppose companies use actors to sell their products? I see many testimonials varying from fried chicken or workout equipment. Do you think this type of marketing logic is beneficial to companies? It would be different if he was endorsing a basketball or a pair of tennis shoes. This is almost as bad as paying $19.99 for something thinking it is a deal. I know it is a fallacy but why does it work?
**********************************************************************
10-03-03, 08:45 AM
Kwll
clare, it is because like many things in our world emotions frequently win out over logic. Many people have a desire to be popular and like their heroes. In that same vein, people also believe that being like these status symbols is popular amongst their peers as well and is part of conforming with social norms. So this is really an Appeal to Emotion fallacy and gets into a bit of ad populum fallacy as well, since the whole group thinks this is the way to go simply because so many believe that. After all, look at how news agencies report anymore, mostly for sensationalism, shock value, etc because "everyone" is talking about it.

People don't really look at the background of the spokesperson during these as either. The most important thing is to gain the viewers attention. The first thing in their mind when they see or hear an ad is do I like that person or not and it will either grab their attention or not. The message is a by product but the key is to associate the product with a good emotion. Such as the emoition the person feels when they see a hero of theirs. Primary purpose is then taken care of and the product is favorably associated. So, yes its effective, if it wasn't, these type ads would not be so popular.
**********************************************************************
10-03-03, 10:00 AM
clarebear
Oh ok. I guess there are a lot of fallacies in commercials. I have also seen the Appeal to Pity when actors want you to donate to save the children or the whales. Now that I think about it there are errors in reasoning everywhere. I mostly see it in politics. It would be interesting to see which commercials have the most errors in reasoning.

Surprisingly, I got an A in my Wayne State University Logic class. (We did mostly symbolic logic) Roll Eyes

You never would have guessed it would ya. Wink
**********************************************************************
10-03-03, 10:06 AM
Kwll
Clare, I suspected you had some logic training but not surprised at an A. I got an A in mine too a while back! Big Grin
**********************************************************************
10-04-03, 03:23 PM
stampeding turtles
Clare, I think the fallacy is effective because people are not primarily rational beings. The idea that human nature is primarily rational is to my mind one of the more humorous beliefs that has very little empirical data to support it. Everything in my experience so far is against that, and suggests that the primary force in human nature is the subconscious. The analogy being that it is driving the car towards the goals. The rational, logical, cerebral part of our brain simply helps to steer this car, in order to help give it some direction. But it is not the engine that powers it forward to begin with.
I think advertisers long ago found out that best way to manipulate people so that they will part with some of their money was to appeal to these unconscious drives, hopes,longings,and fears.
**********************************************************************
10-05-03, 12:35 PM
DorianGreyed
Nonetheless, when George Forman pitches his various cooking products, it is testimony by an expert authority.
**********************************************************************
10-06-03, 06:12 AM
Fourbrick
When I was young it was thought that the film actor Errol Flynn was particularly well endowed. Was this a Phallacy? Big Grin
**********************************************************************
10-06-03, 01:06 PM
clarebear
It would only be a fallacy if after you examined him, it turned out to be not true. Roll Eyes Wink
**********************************************************************
10-06-03, 04:14 PM
Ewood27
Girls who frequent picture-palaces
Have no use for psychoanalysis:
And though Dr Freud
Would be sorely annoyed
They stick to their old-fashioned fallacies.
**********************************************************************
10-07-03, 03:41 PM
Kwll
Dorian, in such a case as George Foreman, it would also not be a fallacy since he has the background outside of what he is well known for.
**********************************************************************
10-07-03, 05:26 PM
clarebear
Are you saying he is well rounded in that area? Wink
**********************************************************************
10-07-03, 09:59 PM
DorianGreyed
George has a lot of background. Also a lot of frontground. In fact, George covers a lot of ground in every direction.
**********************************************************************
10-13-03, 06:05 PM
cattywampus
I, too, got an A in Logic. My brother, an administrator at that college, was so astonished he nearly fainted. "That's the hardest class we offer," he said. However, I can't say it's done me that much good. I'm a patsy for any argument that starts with, "You are SO gorgeous, SO beautiful..." (Undistributed Middle, I think).

Catty

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,