Argumentation of Celebrity Endorsed Advertising

 What Sue Jozui stated is logically concluded. Celebrity endorsed advertising can be insulting to the audience, but her opinion is self-centered. Jozui based others' opinions off of how she feels which is unethical. Though her opinion is agreeable she lacks any statistical/numerical values to prove her point. The use of celebrities is a company's tactic to increase the number of buyers. If a company wants to use a celebrity and said celebrity agrees to the notion then that's a personal choice. Promotion is a necessary economic benefactor and its commercial use doesn't directly harm the audience making the idea of boycotts seem arbitrary.

     Jozui's argument states "Am I going to buy the newest SUV because an attractive talk-show host gets paid to pretend he drives one? I don't think so" which is biased to herself. Jozui is using how she feels as a basis for how others feel, but her opinion doesn't reflect others without evidence. It's clear that Jozui's argument is based off of her emotions which could fluctuate on any given topic. Sure, a talk-show host gets paid to drive a car, is that a bad thing? Is he being forced to? Does he hate that company? Obviously not if he's promoting the car. It was out of his own free will to promote the car just like it is the audiences own free will do to pay attention to the advertisement.

     Jozui states "we should boycott this kind of advertising and legislate rules and guidelines for advertisers" which is far too vauge. The use of "we" is arbitrary for it fails to state whom those people are. They could vary from those who just want celebrity advertisements out-ruled to those who are looking for enormous changes in the entire marketing industry. this vaugeness calls for people to be more attentive to what she is writing. She lacks evidence to support her claim and fails to provide us with a quick yet more in depth view on her opinions.

     One more thing Jozui does is make a statement without supporting it, which is wrong. Jozui says "This kind of marketing is misleading and insults the intelligence of the audience." But how? In what way is this form of advertisement offending the audience? Jozui implies that people are being offended but fails to state by what exactly and also who is being insulted. Jozui's arguement has the proper structure for discussion, yet in itself fails to be discussed.

                This overly vague, unsupported, under developed argument leads to the question of whether Jozui is well-informed on the topic or if she is just formally stating her opinion. People can be insulted but how someone takes an indirect insult is obviously a personal decision. the companies do not strive to insult the audience on purpose, what would be the point of advertising if this was the case. Abraham Lincoln once said "You can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but never all of the people all of the time." In this lies the message that one can never fool everybody and celebrity endorsed advertisements fool no one, for it can not fool all of the people.