Analysis Paper

Analysis

The meaning of the ad is to warn people that second hand smoke can kill. In the ad, it looks like a bag which is represented as second hand smoke, suffocating the child. Most people tend to think that smokers are the only ones who suffer from medical issues. In fact, the inhalation of second hand smoke is just as dangerous as smoking a cigarette which non-smokers are much exposed to today. Some people may not see smoking as a serious health issue, but smoking can lead to cancer, which eventually leads to death. Next, If you look closely at the picture you will notice a caption that says, “Smoking isn’t just suicide. It’s murder.” This ad is conveying to the public that smoking not only harms the person doing it but it also harms others. Also at the bottom of the ad you will notice that it is being sponsored by the Chilean Corporation against Cancer. Also, they try to create such a strong image with a strong message to encourage others to stop smoking Moreover, the intended audience in this ad is smokers. Specifically, CONAC, the sponsor of this ad, wants to reach out to smokers who have children like parents or grandparents or those who are around children on a regular basis. For that reason, second-hand smoke is being compared to suffocation. It can cloud up the lungs which shortens breathing and is a slower, more dangerous form of suffocation. Undoubtedly, the child’s facial expression makes it clear to what the creator is trying to convey. He looks like he is crying because he is being suffocated. Typically, when we see a child that is helpless we want to do everything possible to prevent them from being harmed. If there was someone older being portrayed in this advertisement, it would still be impactful but not as impactful as using a child. As uncommon as it is, children don’t smoke, so the only way they could be harmed by smoke is if they were exposed to second hand smoke. No one ever wants to see a child hurt or be the cause of his or her pain. It just makes you stop and think because some smokers may forget that smoking can harm other non-smokers. In the same way, the audience would be engaged in this ad because children in advertisement are usually represented as innocent and pure so using a child in this serious form would definitely stir some emotion in the audience. Some of the emotions it evoke are sympathy, guilt, sadness, and anger. As a tool to stir emotion, the creator makes the child’s facial expression a focal point of the ad. As you can see, there is nothing in the foreground or background to take away from the child’s crying face. The focus is on the child’s painful facial expression and the cloud of smoke around his face. In the picture, the cloud of smoke framing the child’s face is shaped like a plastic bag. Everything below the child’s neck is omitted. On account of that, you can’t tell what kind of clothes or shoes he is wearing, therefore you can’t make a judgment on his social class or any other factors. However, the audience can assume that children are the only ones who are in danger of second hand smoke when in fact everyone is. All you can see is the suffering in his face. The logical appeal in this ad is that it is not healthy to inhale smoke. It is much more dangerous for young children and this ad captures that very well. It symbolizes how children inhaling second hand smoke is basically just like suffocating them. What the ad is saying is that children are more exposed to second hand smoke in comparison to everyone else. In conclusion, the cigarette ad above was created to warn smokers who expose children to second hand smoke that the exposure can fatally harm them. Granted, this analysis was written to support that second hand smoke, for children, is like a suffocating agent used to murder, as shown in the ad. However, looking past the dramatized picture of the child’s face, the answer of whether or not children are in danger of secondhand smoke true is yes but not the only ones exposed to it. Why is it that the ad is solely focused on children? Is it because children are the faces of innocence? Why not show that second hand smoke is exposed to many people of different ages?