Peer Response 4/30

For my last peer response, I will be reviewing Jessica's post on her analysis of a celebrity endorsement done by Kim and Khloe Kardashian and their endorsement of QuickTrim. Jessica then goes on to describe the product with clear and reasonable skepticism as the lemonade drink seems to be a miracle solution. A video is then shown of Kim Kardashian where she mainly explains how she maintains her body by exercising and eating well, very little is said about the drink. Jessica then goes on to say that a doctor reviewed the product and said it has a lot of caffeine which can be overdosed on when taken with too much coffee and, when taken over long periods of time, can can be toxic to the body due to some of the herbs used. The doctor also said that the weight lost will be mostly water weight because the beverage is a diuretic, so it will come back soon after one stops taking the product. Jessica sums up her post by saying the Kardashian sisters and QuickTrim are a smart team as they effectively target their audience. She also posts and article which agrees with Jessica, but not for the same reasons.

I think her post is overall convincing, especially when she lists the negative effects of the drink, and clear. I also agree with her point saying the Kardashian sister are an effective form of celebrity endorsement because they target the right audience, but the endorsement isn't a "good" endorsement as the product sounds terrible.

Comparing Two Online Articles

For my final blog post of LSC COM 100 I will be comparing two online articles on the death penalty. The first article found here is in favor of the death penalty and starts by stating the fact that in a sample of 1,000 murderers, there were roughly 1,895 victims. They then continue by sharing a few stories of murders to help sway people to fight for the death penalty. In one of these accounts, a man, who had served ten years in prison for murdering his brother, a man entered his neighbor's house killing a thirteen-year-old girl and a man who had helped get him out of prison. This article continues to list many stories to try and appeal to the emotions of its readers.

Another article found here sits on the other side of the fence. They begin this article by stating that in 1972 the supreme court declared that the death penalty constitutes as cruel and unusual punishment. It then goes on to say that four years after this decision was made, 400 people were put to death. The article then goes on to say that the supreme court then moved in the opposite direction in 1976 and decided the death penalty was constitutional, and then the article proceeded to list arguments against the death penalty. These arguments include cruel and unusual punishment, it's immoral, and so on. This article seems to be more factual based while the other tries mainly to appeal to emotion.

I found the first article to be more convincing as it listed very convincing and sad stories while the second article seemed to take an almost nonhuman approach. These articles haven't changed my opinion, which I will not share for personal reasons, on this topic simply because I have heard most of these arguments before. I do not have any argument which I wish to add as these articles are fairly in depth, and again I do not wish to share my personal feelings on this topic.

Peer Response April 19

In Pat Brady's blog post that I will be responding to, he also did the analysis of a celebrity endorsement. He discussed the puppet ad by Kobe in which he advertises a new pair of basketball shoes. Pat stated that he felt Kobe was a good celebrity to endorse basketball shoes because he is a basketball player and must wear them, and I completely agree with his view on this. He then moved on to talk about how some feel the celebrities are paid too much just for their name on a product, but Pat didn't seem to think this was true. The two links on his blog post were of the actual commercial the post is discussing, and another link which was supposed be on endorsements, but the link was broken.

I agree with his comment that Kobe and LeBron are good celebrities to have endorse a basketball shoe because they are basketball players, and I found his argument for this to be very clear and convincing. I do, however, disagree with his point that, because he would like to get the money for doing basically nothing, that celebrities aren't overpaid for their endorsements.

Analysis of a Celebrity Endorsement

For this blog post I will be focusing on the analysis of a celebrity endorsement, more specifically the Charles Barkley endorsement for Taco Bell. In the two commercials that Barkley does for Taco Bell, the second one is shown below, he is advertising the Five Buck Box. He does a rap about this product which consists of a gordita crunch, crunchy taco, burrito supreme, cinnamon twists, and a drink for $5.

I don't think that Charles Barkley, a former basketball player, is an appropriate choice for this commercial as he doesn't have any expertise for this topic, and he can't rap. Apparently the commercial was successful for Barkley, because he was paid for doing the commercial, but I am unsure how successful it was for Taco Bell. This campaign started before the super bowl and has ended now, and I think it was successful because it was pretty bizarre, and I still remember it now, as it is the topic of this blog post.

This article contains the commercial and a short summary and opinion on the this commercial. The article seemed to agree with my opinion that, because of this commercial's strange nature, it will be a successful ad.