ASPCA Commercial

I remember watching television a while ago and enjoying the comedic genius of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. When it cut to commercials, I watched a depressing commercial that tugged at my heartstrings. It was an ASPCA ad starring Sarah McLachlan and her famous song, “Angel.” This commercial had images of suffering animals that were victims of animal abuse to the tune of the song. In the end, McLachlan appears with a dog saying that with “just 60¢ a day, you can help rescue animals from their abusers, and provide medical, food, shelter, and love,” all with a simple call to the phone number on the screen. This made me cry when I saw it.

This commercial does a very good job at making people want to donate to the ASPCA. It’s oozing with emotional appeal. By showing the hurting and abused animals, the audience feels their sadness. Plus, Sarah McLachlan’s song just exponentially adds to the depression: “In the arms of the angel, fly away from here, from this dark, cold hotel room, and the endlessness that you fear.” With these lyrics and the slow solo piano, the viewer is further put into the mindset of dismay for the cats and dogs that are displayed. The audience suddenly feels an emotional attachment to the hurting animals.

This ad also incorporates the “bandwagon” factor by adding a celebrity: Sarah McLachlan herself. This leads the audience to think, “Oh, since a famous person is promoting it, it must be worth considering!” Plus, to show that she loves animals, she has a cute dog next to her. People love following celebrities. Whenever Oprah suggests a book, the book sells more. If Morgan Freeman starts talking about penguins, people start to become interested in penguins. The point is, for some reason, celebrity involvement greatly heightens the public’s interest in the subject. So it was a good idea to include McLachlan in the ad.

The next thing this commercial does is guilt trip (for lack of a better word) you into wanting to donate to the cause. To do this, McLachlan explains that it’s only 60¢ a day, which leaves the viewer feeling selfish and lazy because it doesn’t seem like it takes a lot of money and time, especially if it’s only one phone call. The ad tells you straight up that there is no logical reason for you not to call and save animals. Now, I don’t mean to sound cynical, because it is a good cause, but I find it sad that people need to feel guilty to do something good for the world. Charity commercials should not have to do this.

These tactics aren’t new. Organizations such as Unicef, Christian Children’s Fund (now called ChildFund), PETA, and others use commercials with the same strategies because they know what gets people to participate. If a single screen commercial with a monotone speaker were to be aired, people would think nothing of it. But if sad music, pain, and celebrities were to be included, then people would pay attention, thus making it effective.