This document outlines the rhetorical situation of an analysis essay about a World Wildlife Fund advertisement. The purpose is to prove the advertisement's effectiveness by discussing how it uses ethos and pathos, and how the lack of evidence is both effective and ineffective. The intended audience includes WWF supporters, parents of young children who may be targeted, and those who value animal life. The author's stance is supportive of WWF and aims to help readers understand the ad's message. The genre is an essay using personal opinion, experience, and evidence to analyze the ad. It also provides context about how WWF has changed its marketing strategies over the past 11 years.

1. Rhetorical Situations
Purpose: My purpose for writing this ad analysis is to prove its effectiveness. I discuss how
ethos and pathos makes the World Wildlife Fund advertisement successful. I include the how the
lack of evidence in the ad is also effective and ineffective. Most of all my purpose is to spread
word of the World Wildlife Fund.
Audience:The audience whom would take most interest in my essay would be supporters and
donators of the World Wildlife Fund. Parents or the viewers with young children might take an
interest due to whom the advertisement targets. Another possible audience are those who cherish
animal life just as much a human life. The ad analysis is for the eyes of anyone who has heart.
Stance:My stance in this essay is supporting the World Wildlife Fund. I also try to help the
reader understand what the advertisement is trying to say.
Genre:The ad analysis is in the form of an essay. It includes my personal opinion, personal
experience, and convincing evidence. Not only does the essay have convincing evidence, but it
also has objective evidence as well.
Media/Design:I included the advertisement with MLA format. The font for the essay is times
new roman size 12. Printed
The article I found is about the World Wildlife Fund reconstructing their marketing
operations. The article is from eleven years ago and it has affected my perception of the ad that
I’ve analyzed by the company. In the article the World Wildlife Fund is changing around their
marketing business. The company targets specific organisms to hope for a boost in donations and
support. Now it is eleven years later and they have fifty five years of conservation and are
gaining followers ever day thanks to their advertisements. I think they made a wise choice of
changing their marketing. Now their advertisements capture the attention of the public and
persuade them to support and donate to the World Wildlife Fund. Then a thought popped into
mind. If they hadn’t changed their marketing style would I have written an ad analysis based on
one of their advertisements? Would I have known about them at all? Funny how things like that
work out.