Brandon Asencio
Freshman Composition
3/4/15
Summary & Response Essay
In his account Kid Kustomers, journalist, writer, and correspondent Eric Schlosser
asserts that children have become victims of consistent, planned, and targeted
advertising by addressing companies’ marketing strategies, consumer research,
and organizational responses toward youth-directed ads. By supplying the reader
with information about industry publications, studies, investigations, and
quoting accredited marketers, such as Youth Market Alert, the CME Kidcom Ad
Traction Study II, and James U. McNeal, Schlosser builds and supports his
claims about aggressive youth advertising. He allows his evidence to speak for
itself, writing without becoming subjective but establishing his stance against
the commercializing influence. Schlosser appears to write in hopes of
familiarizing readers with the influence marketed companies take advantage of
in children; educating readers may allow parents and children alike to become
wary of targeting ad campaigns and, perhaps, take a stance against it. Using
statistical and scientific evidence, he urges his readers realize what truly
occurs in broadcasting and how it affects present and future society. Considering
Schlosser’s formal, informative tone, he seems to write for a general, yet
professional audience.
Schlosser, in essence, “hits the
nail right on the head”; his concise address of aggressive youth advertising
highlights important aspects of the issue without redundancy or unnecessary
details. I immediately found myself interested in the issue; he portrays it as
a pressing concern, using words such as “targeting”, “pursue”, and revealing
the idea of “cradle-to grave” advertising strategies. Additionally, I enjoyed
the amount of evidence Schlosser provided; for every point or claim he made, he
gave the reader an outside source, accredited expertise on the subject that
supported it. Notably, he weaves his argument into his examples, allowing the
folly or quotes of others to subtly express his views; I noted his argument
only after finishing his article, specifically, and humorously, when he
provided a website’s claim of Ronald McDonald being “the ultimate authority in
everything” (Schlosser) and in his choice of quoting the Federal Trade Commission’s
head: “They [children] cannot protect
themselves against adults who exploit their present-mindedness” (Schlosser). He
reveals much more than simple, common knowledge and, instead, utilizes various
types of credible evidence to show how advertisers plan and strategize, implying
that they only focus on consumerism and, indirectly, greed. Though his
presentation convinced me to agree with his view, providing a counterargument for
advertisers, and perhaps expanding on whether the negative influence comes from
the advertisers themselves or the act of advertising to children, may have
strengthened his stance. Depicting marketers in a different way, such as
workers who simply create and/or sell their products to support their families,
may have directed me to focus more on the harm of youth-targeted propaganda rather
than evoke vexation against general forms of advertising. Looking past these
suggested improvements, he still did an excellent job indirectly revealing his
view, rather than outright stating it, and providing examples to persuade his
readers.
Previously, I held a relatively indifferent,
but a bit negative, attitude towards general advertising; Schlosser’s
exposition, however, of the aggressiveness companies have and the measures they
take, especially within his examples of “surrogate salesman” and forms in which
a child “nags”, overwhelmed me after reading it and now brings about feelings
of indignation. Speaking generally and professionally, he places his writing
voice in a larger pool of knowledge, implying that his issue encompasses
numerous psychological, economic, and historical aspects and carries great
importance in society. I believe his article discusses specific, important
knowledge that all consumers, parents, and children should acquire.
Works
Cited
Schlosser,
Eric. Kid Kustomers.
Your summary is extremely concise, pointed, and well written. It probably could have been extended to draw in some of the specific arguments presented by Schlosser to make an overall more effective summary.
ReplyDeleteThe response was also very well written. One suggestion would be to remove yourself as much as possible from the response: i.e. refrain from identifying yourself to the reader. As an example, it's possible to read Schlosser's article as a response to the data he has collected, yet he does not directly address the emotions or reactions he had to the data. He presents it in such a manner that the reader is drawn into having similar reactions. Or, from another angle: there is no need to point out that it's your belief, nor your reaction, because it's your paper. It is, therefore, necessarily your reaction/belief/thoughts/etc.
Again, excellent writing. I look forward to reading more of your papers.
Usually, in summarizing articles or books, I tend to take a chronological approach in an attempt to accurately convey the information as simply and succintly as possible. The assignment, however, and the rhetorical precis allowed me to professionally express the ideas in the article, focusing more on how Schlosser conveyed his information rather than listing his topics and examples. Additionally, I found my response included references to specific details that give my readers more of what Schlosser says, eliminating the need to expand on the precis summary. Rereading it, I do believe I could have responded more objectively, as John suggested, which would've greatly improved my writing.
ReplyDelete