Genre Analysis

When discussing a Genre, there are many definitions and stigmas that come to mind. For myself, as well as most others, we assume that it means a specific category, or rather, multiple distinct categories. That is not entirely true. Genre can be more accurately defined as allowing students and researchers to recognize how lived textuality plays a role in the lived experience of a group (Bawarshi, Devitt, Reiff 542). In other words, it means: a dynamic text category that results from repeated necessity. That being said, I will be analyzing the discourse community that encompasses the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), with a focus on the overviews of three species that the company works to actively save and protect: the Tiger, the Elephant, and the Giant Panda. I choose to define genre in this way because I feel that it best illustrates the community I am working with and their need to have overviews of each species. WWF actively tries to preserve endangered and at-risk species. They have experience in discussing the basic facts and information about a species, and therefore it was a necessity that they publish a website that would allow them to further their cause. The World Wildlife Funds mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on Earth. Our vision is to build a future in which people live in harmony with nature.1 Each overview of the Tiger, elephant, and Giant Panda all address the mission statement, and answer its concerns. In order to do this, they use similar appeals, highlight similar issues, have the same basic structure, and cite many similar sources.

http://worldwildlife.org/about

The World Wildlife Funds website address the concerns of their company by creating easily accessible overviews of species they are actively trying to protect. One way in which they do this is by using the appeals of ethos, pathos, and logos. They do this in order to establish their credibility whilst still appealing to the readers emotional standpoint. By doing so, they make it more likely for the readers to become active in their community and possibly for them to even donate to the Fund.

In order to establish credibility, each overview cites facts and figures on the left. Each is made abundantly clear by giving each fact its own space, similar to using a photo. Species also have a mark in the facts section that highlights whether or not it is endangered. The only species I am analyzing that does not have the endangered symbol is the elephant, it is also the one with the fewest facts and the least information. This tells me that WWF is probably working more towards saving the Tigers and Giant Pandas because they are in more need. The panda and the Tiger are also the two most funded species, this is abundantly clear when the view looks at the Species page and sees that the Tiger and Giant Panda links have photos that are the largest and at the top of the page. The Tiger and Giant Panda are the most often donated to, with the elephant still being in the top five species, which tells me that all of the Overview pages more than likely get a lot of viewers to them. This is one reason in which the WWF website chooses to use the same basic format for each Overview, the information comes in high demand because they are asking for money and people generally like to do research before they donate.

Another key detail in each Overview is the structure. The structure of each is relatively similar. Each has small, easy to read paragraphs, a map on the upper right, key facts on the right, photos of the species, a section entitled Why They Matter, the threats that face these animals,

how WWF is trying to protect the species, and any news that may involve that species. In the Tiger Overview, there are more photos to each different sub-species of tiger. The tigers also have more facts and recent news about them which is further indication that it is one of the most popular species. The elephant again has less information. The Panda overview has a section dedicated to describing why it is the WWF logo and where the idea originated. This is to inform the reader of the history of WWF and establish ethos. It also has quite a few photos and news headlines. Another key structural choice of each Overview is that the Threats section is always put in black with white text. This is to give the reader a somber and serious feeling when reading. It helps to reflect how serious the situation is and why it is necessary to help these animals. One of the most effective pieces of the Overview are the visuals. The saying a pictures worth a thousand words is immensely true in this situation. From the moment a species link is clicked on, the viewer is presented with a photo the spans the width of their computer screen. The photo is adorable and grabs the readers attention. It makes you fall in love, and then you are presented with a variety of facts that tell you how many people are trying to hurt the animal, why theyre doing it, how theyre doing it, where theyre doing it, and so on. Conveniently, the adopt a panda/ tiger/ elephant button travels down as you scroll so that when you are so inclined, you can click it to donate to WWF. They have also put in an entire section of photos that depict the species in their natural habitat, doing cute things, and making the reader say aww about a million times. On top of the guilt-trip invoking pictures, the tiger Overview has a video. It is often featured on WWF commercials, and it does the job. The video shows tigers being poached, and highlights the facts that viewers have just read. The overall effect of all of these photos and the video is to make the reader feel guilty about not helping. They generally do the trick.

A final characteristic of each Overview is its credibility. The question that many people think of as they go through each is how do I know these facts are credible and not just made up to help WWF get money? WWF responds with a list of experts that they gathered their facts from, publications of various book from those experts, press releases, and celebrity support. In the Tiger overview, there is a headline that reads Leonardo DiCaprio Donates $3 Million to Save Tigers in Nepal. This headline tells the reader not only that Leonardo DiCaprio cares enough to donate quite a bit of money, but also that because he trusts WWF, they should too. This is further proved by the news sections for the Panda and Elephant as well as the array of experts and publications listed below them. The credibility of these facts is put at the bottom of the webpage so that it does not distract the reader from the reason they are there: the animal. For the people that do want to verify the facts are credible, the listing is placed for them, but does not take away from the species.

Overall, I believe that the outcome of the Overview pages is as effective as World Wildlife Fund wanted them to be. Each inspires readers to want to help, whether it be by donating, spreading the word, or volunteering. The repeated rhetorical device: the need to publish a statement on species of animals that would be accessible to all ages and inspire people to donate and help, was achieved. The Overview also helped to affirm World Wildlife Funds mission statement. The webpage is allowing people from all over the world to access credible information on a species, and each donation gets WWF closer to its goal of reducing the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on Earth and achieving their vision to build a future in which people live in harmony with nature.2

http://worldwildlife.org/about

Work Cited

"About Us." WorldWildlife.org. World Wildlife Fund, 2014. Web. 13 Feb. 2014. <http://worldwildlife.org/about>. "Elephant." WorldWildlife.org. World Wildlife Fund, 2014. Web. 12 Feb. 2014. <http://worldwildlife.org/species/elephant>. "Giant Panda." WorldWildlife.org. World Wildlife Fund, 2014. Web. 12 Feb. 2014. <http://worldwildlife.org/species/giant-panda>. "Tiger." WorldWildlife.org. World Wildlife Fund, 2014. Web. 12 Feb. 2014. <http://worldwildlife.org/species/tiger>