Zabel 1

Noah Zabel

Professor Henken

ENC 1102

14 March 2022

Visual Rhetoric in Advertisements

Introduction

Advertisements are a large part of businesses and have the capability of making or

breaking a company's success. Oftentimes these ads are implemented all throughout the media

and are inescapable. Many people make their purchases based on what product they see the most,

associating popularity with quality. The better the ad, the better the product. This concept seems

to be where companies pull more revenue and earn new customers. Research has explored some

of the rhetorical devices used in these ads, but often skip why these devices are successful. This

gap being filled would allow for an even better understanding of which qualities make ads

successful and how they persuade customers to purchase goods. would allow researchers to

expand the study of this . Companies would then be able to read these studies and create the most

persuasive and effective ads.

Advertisements are an important part of large companies and corporations. The world’s

digitalization has led advertisements with the most views to often become the most successful.

Some people have started to associate popularity with quality. However, there appears to be

more factors than popularity in the success of an ad. So, what exactly makes these ads more

successful and how do these factors accomplish this? How do advertisers use rhetorical figures to

persuade consumers to purchase their product? This paper will explore the rhetorical figures;
 Zabel 2

metaphors, juxtaposition, fusion, etc., and how these figures develop and enhance advertisements

which lead to the advertisement’s success.

Review of the Literature

I have compiled six scholarly sources relation to visual rhetoric in advertising and

rhetorical figures. These sources explain the types or rhetorical figures, their uses, and how they

appear in ads. I have separated my sources into two categories: (1) rhetorical figures and their

uses and (2) rhetorical figures role in advertisements and their persuasiveness. In the following

sections, I will include the most important pieces of information from the scholarly sources,

along with the gaps in research that I will be looking to fill.

Rhetorical Figures

Rhetorical figures are used in all types of communication. Rhetorical figure is defined as

“an artful deviation in the form taken by a statement” (McQuarrie and Mick, 424). This could

figure can be either visual or verbal and is often subjective to the consumer. Examples of these

figures include metaphors, juxtaposition, simile, replacement, and fusion. The figures listed are

the broadest of rhetorical figures and have specific subtypes. Examples of these subtypes would

be how metaphor could be classified as other specific names such as visual metaphor, hybrid

metaphor, and contextual metaphor. This classification would depend on the contents of the

metaphor, like the wording, amount of content, and style in which the figure is developed. Still,

all metaphor types will have the same basic purpose. The purpose of a metaphor to transfer or

substitute the meaning of a statement into another meaning of a new statement. This would

“create new ways of viewing old realities” (Boozer, Wyle, Grant, 60). The rest of the rhetorical

figures follow the same rule. Rhetoricians claim there is no possibility of a situation existing
 Zabel 3

where a specific figure can’t accomplish its purpose. Beyond the intended purpose of a rhetorical

figure, there is the side of the consumer. Depending on a variety of different factors, a figure may

be interpreted differently than intended. This is where advertisers take advantage of that variety

and use it to their advantage.

Rhetorical Figures in Advertising

Advertisers use rhetorical figures to assist in the persuasiveness of an ad. Persuasion

seems to often determine the likeliness of a customer purchasing a product. Advertisers have

developed new techniques to get customers to interpret their ads in the way that they want them

to. Research has shown that making indirect claims using rhetorical figures “render the customer

more receptive to multiple, distinct, positive, inferences about the advertised brand” (Indirect

Persuasion in Advertising, 7). By letting the customer make their own inferences, they will

create a more personal version of the intended claim instead of internalizing a direct claim. A

particular figure, metaphor, increases the persuasiveness of an ad because they “can elicit

cognitive elaboration” (Jeong, 61). This has allowed advertisers to create ads that will adapt to

each consumer. Peterson talks about implicatures and how metaphors are “inherently open-

ended” (68). While this research explains the role these figures have in the ads, they don’t

explore why the consumer decides to buy the product. I will investigate this side of the topic and

hopefully find more information for future researchers to use in this endeavor.

Researchers have explored the visual rhetoric used in advertisements and what devices

are used. They don’t touch on how the ads actually persuade viewers into buying the products.

Instead they give literary information on what each device is and the purpose for each device. All

of the papers skip out on the results of the ads. Advertisements that use metaphorical images
 Zabel 4

without verbal explanations may lead to greater persuasion compared to literal product images

with straightforward arguments (Jeong, 2008). Se-Hoon Jeong investigates how certain methods

work better than others and the reason they achieve this. Other authors don’t go into the rhetoric

so much as they stay with the metaphorical aspects of the ads. Verbal and visual metaphor

expressions, being of cognitively distinct codes, are themselves fundamentally distinct (Peterson,

2019). While useful, this doesn’t really explain why the metaphor can persuade someone to buy

something. Ads are about getting people to buy things, so analyzing the rhetoric is only half of

how it works. The other half would be the viewer’s reaction to the ad.

Method

The first method of research used will be content analysis. Various advertisements of

successful brands and businesses will be broken down to find the different rhetorical devices

figures and techniques used by the advertisers. Then, the devices figures and techniques will be

used to understand how and why the customers are persuaded to buy the product or service. The

findings in this method will be combined with the second method, surveys a focus group. The

surveys focus group will be conducted in person with unbiased parties. Images and videos from

companies used in the first method will be shown with questions after each ad. “How did the ad

make you feel about the product?” or “What images and/or phrases grabbed your attention the

most?” are some sample questions that will be used in the survey. The purpose of the surveys

are focus group is to compare the hypothetical research conducted based on objective standpoints

of the ads with the subjective answers given by various people with different opinions. This will

allow for a wider set of data to be used in the conclusions and further analysis. Overall, the
 Zabel 5

combination of the two methods will allow for the application of previous research and findings

from other papers in a new area of study.

Timeline

March 1314- Finish research proposal

March 15- Begin content analysis

March 17- Begin surveys

March 21- Finish content analysis

March 21- Complete surveys

March 22- Begin analysis of both methods

March 25- Conclude evidence, discuss findings

March 26- Begin drafting final paper

March 30- Complete draft

March 31- Revise and edit draft

April 2- Complete final draft

 Zabel 6

References

Works Cited

Bulmer, Sandy, and Margo Buchanan-Oliver. “Visual Rhetoric and Global Advertising

Imagery.” Journal of Marketing Communications, vol. 12, no.1, 2006, pp. 49-61.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13527260500289142.

Campelo, Adriana, Robert Aitken, Juergen Gnoth. “Visual Rhetoric and Ethics in Marketing of

Destinations.” Journal of Travel Research, vol. 50, no. 1, 2011, pp. 3-14.

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0047287510362777.

Jeong, Se-Hoon. “Visual Metaphor in Advertising: Is the Persuasive Effect Attributable to Visual

Argumentation or Metaphorical Rhetoric?” Journal of Marketing Communications, vol.

14, no. 1, 2008, pp. 59-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697010701717488.

Lagerwerf, Luuk, Charlotte MJ van Hooijdonk, and Ayalies Korenberg. “Processing Visual

Rhetoric in Advertisements: Interpretations Determined by Verbal Anchoring and Visual

Structure.” Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 44, no. 13, 2012, pp. 1836-1852.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.08.009.

Boozer, Robert W., et al. “Using Metaphor to Create More Effective Sales Messages.” Journal

of Services Marketing, vol. 4, no. 3, 1990, pp. 63-71.

https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000002520

Jeong, Se-Hoon. “Visual Metaphor in Advertising: Is the Persuasive Effect Attributable to Visual

Argumentation or Metaphorical Rhetoric?” Journal of Marketing Communications, vol.

14, no. 1, 2008, pp. 59-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697010701717488.

 Zabel 7

McQuarrie, Edward F. and Mick, David Glenn. “Figures of Rhetoric in Advertising Language.”

Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 22, no. 4, 1996, pp. 424-438.

https://doi.org/10.1086/209459

McQuarrie, Edward F. and Phillips, Barbara J. “Beyond Visual Metaphor: A New Typology of

Visual Rhetoric in Advertising.” Marketing Theory, vol. 4, no. 1-2, 2004, pp. 113-136.

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1470593104044089

---. “Indirect Persuasion in Advertising: How Consumers Process Metaphors Presented in

Pictures and Words.” Journal of Advertising, vol. 34, no. 2, 2005, pp. 7-20.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2005.10639188

Peterson, Matthew O. “Aspects of Visual Metaphor: An Operational Typology of Visual

Rhetoric for Research in Advertising.” International Journal of Advertising, vol. 38, no.

1, 2019, pp. 67–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2018.1447760.