Extreme Running

1. This was a very interesting ad for a shoe company who cares so much about running. I think the people who made this ad went a little bit out of their way for a pair of sneakers or even running in general. They make up a lot of bs just to say 'running is better than jogging, so buy our shoes to help you run'. The one ad with the story of finding bodies is honestly a little creepy and doesn't appeal to me. It is suppose to encourage someone to run for their 'civic duty' but for me it's a little too creepy to even think of running in that sense. The entire ad on the website is a little extreme. They take logos to a whole new level. The running 'facts' were supposed to be a logos step, but they added too much stuffing, making completely overexaggerated. The wording of the whole ad was all just fluff.

2. I am a jogger (to them isn't a real runner) but I do run occasionally. I don't agree with the ad at all. It is so extreme and it brings running into an extreme level that they are telling 'history' about it. Although it does make some sense, somewhat, I still think the ad is too extreme.

3. The ad on the blog is all black and white except the shoes that pop out of the page. The advertisers obviously wanted the shoes to be highlighted but also brought out the words "Ever notice how it's always runners who find dead bodies?" These words aren't in any particular color or special font, but the words are bolded and bigger than the rest of the words. The question itself draws attention to a reader to continue reading the ad. Surprisingly the ad is true with the logos it does list, but it triggers the pathos element as well because it grabs the attention of the reader and either creeps him/her or just makes him/her think. The shoes are worn, very much and show that a runner is very serious.
On the website, it has similar elements such as the bolded questions/statements. The bolded words are a summary or a question of the page next to it to make the reader think. There are also small photos on the left side of the 'book' with the questions on it.

4. Jogging is discouraged, although it isn't directly said. The ad says to go ahead and jog because 'it's a free country'. They discourage and put jogging down compared to running. The ad says that running is not just a sport but a way of humans and if a human wasn't running, he/she wasn't living up to his/her full potential. The advertisers also try to promote 'the endagerment or running' and 'joggers are domesticated' and they are ultimately saying that running is the best thing a person should be doing. They also promote 'ethics' by doing one's civic duty.

5. This ad is intended for serious runners or at least those who think they are serious. It is for the professionals who run for nationals and the country itself. Izumi does alienate jogging all thoughout the ad. The advertisers completely divide the running population from the jogging population and make the running population completely inferior to the joggers. Izumi does this listing several facts about how joggers are 'domesticated' and 'joggers can't be runners.'


6. The single ad is appealing mostly to pathos because it scares me to even consider running again. I wouldn't want to find a dead body while I'm running and I don't see it as doing a 'civic duty'. The ad itself has a dark and dim feeling to it. The words are all capitalized and easily got my attention. Because the words were capitalized, it helped me pay more attention to what the ad was trying to say.

7. Although I don't like either ad, I would choose the Reebok ad because the Izumi ad would frighten more readers rather than have them run. The Reebok ad is disgusting to see, but I'd much rather have someone puking than a creepy story that will divert people away from running. The Reebok ad has a little more appeal to it because the saying 'I am what I am' brings a sense of independency to the reader while he/she reads the ad.