This is an essay I wrote for my English class. We were asked to analyze the argument, evalutate the argumentative strategies and identify the use of ethos, pathos and logos. I found it quite interesting how virtues such as philantropy and ecology are misused for marketing purposes, that’s why I wanted to share this with you.
This advertisement is a short video clip to promote Tim Hortons coffee. The target audience is the altruistic North American coffee drinker who cares about sustainable, social development. The clip is embedded in the “Community & Goodwill” section of the company’s website. The main claim is that people should buy Tim Hortons coffee because it improves the living standard of South and Central American coffee farmers, especially in Guatemala. Figures and testimonies are used to support the claim; they are supposed to be credible because the people who speak have the authority to do so. Furthermore the argument is supported by strong, appealing pictures which speak for themselves. The use of pathos, ethos and logos is balanced although the pathos is prevalent because it’s essentially used with pictures and people respond better to images than to oral information.
I don’t buy it because to me it’s pretty obvious that they are tooting their own horn to make the company look philanthropic. From a public relations point of view the advertisement is very effective because it is well balanced and tends to creates strong emotions. Nonetheless people should keep in mind that it is a billion dollar company that is trying to use the “think green” attitude to sell their products.
The CEO of Tim Hortons explains that they are selling a lot of coffee so they want to give something back to the communities who produce the coffee. In practice this means providing the local population with know-how, education, health care and materials. One farmer says that his dream is to become a successful businessman and that Tim Hortons helps him to achieve his goal. Furthermore a social worker explains that specialist doctors and the treatments are really expensive and that thanks to Tim Hortons people get the care they need. They also explain that government provided education doesn’t go beyond 6th grade and that Tim Hortons enabled students to take their studies further by providing the material. Each claim is supported by a sequence of images proving the effect of the measures taken by Tim Hortons. The authority of the CEO and the testimonies of the farmer are used as support.
The strategy is to make a claim and support it by giving facts and using images as proof of the positive effects Tim Hortons’ partnerships present. This works pretty well as long as the audience isn’t too critical. One of the main fallacies is that pathos is used as a substitute for real facts. The facts provided aren’t given in a context and the only evidence we have is the word of the CEO, this might be a wrong appeal to authority. Also the testimonies might be faked because the people just might say what they are told to say because it’s part of the deal. We are told that over one million people in Central and South America rely on coffee farming to provide for their families. Four years after the start of partnerships Tim Hortons has improved 2000 lives. How did they actually improve the lives and is this really a lot? We are told that at the end of the day they have a bigger income. How much is a bigger income and is it a fair income compared to the retail price of Tim Hortons coffee? According to their annual report, Tim Hortons turnover in 2008 exceeded $ 2 billion and the net income was $ 285 million. How much of this actually flows into partnerships? The problem is that the figures are neither transparent nor judged by an independent institution.
The advertisement uses a lot of pathos. For example they talk about people’s dreams, show babies with big dark eyes, smiling children… There are even some “spontaneous” close ups on a sign on which a farmer is writing “Biodiversidad” (biodiversity), a Tim Hortons baseball cap and a “Love” sticker on scales. This makes a lot of suggestions to the audience without being too obvious. This clearly appeals to the audience’s sense of empathy and makes them want to be part of the “good cause”. Ethos is used to give the claim credibility, the CEO seems like a nice guy, he is the highest representative of Tim Hortons, so by induction Tim Hortons is a “nice” company which deserves to be supported. The local social workers and farmers live there so their testimonies are legitimate. Finally logos is used by interspersing some figures which give the campaign a professional, scientific touch.
At first sight the clip is pretty convincing because the appealing images are well-balanced with facts and testimonies, but once you take a second more critical look at it, the façade starts to crackle. It looks like these partnerships really are pacts with the devil. Tim Hortons does not do it out of pure philanthropy. By educating the farmers they ensure they get the quality they need, and since they provide the population with healthcare and education they can get exclusive contracts and dictate the price. They promise to turn coffee farmers into successful businessmen; is that really what they want or are they just using false promises to motivate the farmers? The trademarked “Making a true difference” indicates that they are just using the partnerships to polish up their public image. I’m not saying that what they are doing is evil, it just might be more beneficial to the coffee producers if we bought coffee from independent organizations, e.g. the Fair Trade label, rather than supporting Tim Hortons and its partnerships.
