Eating too much chocolate can cause acne. At least that’s what many people believe. Then why do advertisers keep advertising chocolate? In the Snickers satisfies commercial it opens with a football team having a time out. It displays Robin Williams as the coach and he starts speaking nonsense. When the assistant coach gives him a Snickers to satisfy his hunger he turns into the real coach. This commercial’s entire purpose is to sell Snickers. The commercial also showcases the rhetorical tool of a hyperbole. In this way it automatically makes commercial funny which introduces pathos. The commercial also includes ethos because Robin Williams is in it. Williams is a celebrity which will make someone want to go buy a Snickers. However, the commercial’s use of the either/or fallacy makes it weak. It introduces the fact that if a person doesn’t eat a Snickers when he or she is hungry then he won’t be able to satisfy his hunger. Besides, it is not proven that eating a Snickers bar can help satisfy a person’s hunger. Though the commercial uses pathos and ethos effectively, the exaggeration of the product and the either/or fallacy was ultimately its downfall. Since Williams is a pretty well known guy if a fan of his watches this …show more content…
Then in 1995 Snickers ran ads that featured people making a self-inflicted mistake then saying “not going anywhere for a while”? “Grab a Snickers!” In 2007 Snickers launched a campaign that featured Henry the VIII and a viking attending a Snickers feast. Presently Snickers has the “You’re not you when you’re hungry” campaign. The first one aired in 2010 displaying Betty White and Abe Vigoda playing football. It shows a group of guys playing football and White gets tackled because he/she isn’t playing right. One of the guys points out that he is playing like Betty White and his girlfriend hands him a Snickers and he turns back into