The language of advertising

At this review of both attached advertisements, I´m going to compare them and present
some of their general characteristics.
The first ad is about a mobile phone. It wants to express how modern and better It is to
have a touchscreen instead of common buttons. There is a hand which seems to be
moving easily and fast all over the screen.
The second add wants to make people see what paper consumption causes to the woods.
They use the slogan ¨We hope this ad never appears in print¨ as a way to let us see that
they are really concerned about the problem they want to solve not using printed ads.
They use the picture of a devastated wood to make people feel bad about the result of
cutting trees to make paper
The main difference is that the first ad is going to be used for selling something and the
second one for raise awareness about a specific situation.
I think the first ad is more effective because it is popular and many people want an
Iphone, so if a new iphone is released this ad is going to be the way for much people to
hear about the new phone. In other way, I think the other ad is less effective because I
can be concerned about the damage of using too much paper but I don’t use it a lot.
Paper is generally excessively used by big companies, and there are less companies who
will stop using paper than people who are going to buy the new Iphone.
In the Iphone ad we can appreciate that the image is preceded by a text which says
¨touching is believing¨. I think this message is relevant for the ad because it says
indirectly that touchscreens are a great evolution of technologies and a simple way to
become a modern human, It´s also written in English, so a big part of world´s
population is going to understand it. But I think that the image is more important cause
there could be people who don’t speak English and it is easy to understand that the
finger moving easily along the touchscreen expresses the functional design of the device
and the modern photo expresses modernity even if we cant understand the slogan. So I
think it´s universally understandable.
In the anti-paper ad, we can see a destroyed forest, which transmits pain, but if it
weren’t preceded by the slogan we wouldn’t understand the meaning of the photo. So I
think that in this case the slogan is more important than the photo. I also think that in
fact we could understand the advertisement even if it had no photo.