-What was affective about this appeal
-What was not so affective
-Overall what do you think is better a speech spoken orally or on a tv or radio Appeal follow up:
(if it is tv – then say personally I think that)In general charity appeals that are spoken orally, like the one i just read out are better because they are more inviting and encouraging to the audience; whereas other more visual ones are harsher with the audience. also people tend to take in more when a person is actually speaking to them face to face as it isn’t as manufactured as the visual appeals. It is straight to the point and even more truthful also the audience can actually feel the emotion coming from the appeal instead of just staring at a TV. General intro:
There is no denying that charity appeals, oral or on the television are effective. But really, how effective are they? Do they have an effect on us? Or are we just immune to them? Well, in my personal opinion, I think that Charity appeals do have an effect on us. When we see a charity appeal on television we feel upset or distraught by the images shown and the content. They get the message across very clearly. The general message in a charity appeal is “People in the western world are very well off, then there are the extremely poor people in poor countries who do not have water or cannot even feed their children” A message like this makes the reader feel guilty and will make them pick that phone up and donate money to these countries. An image of a disastrous earthquake will make the viewer feel upset, however sometimes an image of a man with a tear streaming down his sombre face.
Although there are many obvious pros to charity appeals there are some negatives that are...