Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Case Study_Secondhand Smoking

No description

Kaitlynn Helm

on 14 June 2014

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Case Study_Secondhand Smoking

Second-Hand Smoking
Austin's anti-smoking campaign advertisement
Executive Summary
Audience Perspective
43% of nonsmoking adults and children are exposed to secondhand smoke.
2006 Surgeon General's Report—The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke
4,300 nonsmokers die each year in Texas from exposure to secondhand smoke.
Austin/Travis County Health & Human Services; US Surgeon General’s Report
Asthma symptoms are more common and more severe in children exposed to secondhand smoke.
2006 Surgeon General's Report
Federal Laws: The Federal Government has enacted several laws protecting nonsmokers from secondhand smoke. Federal laws require that all domestic airline flights, as well as all scheduled flights between the United States and foreign destinations, be smokefree. An Executive Order, in effect since 1998, provides that all buildings owned, rented, or leased by the executive branch of the Federal Government must be smokefree, except for designated smoking areas that are enclosed and separately ventilated. Also, under federal law, smoking is not allowed in enclosed areas of agencies receiving federal funding that primarily serve youth, such as schools.
Gray scale
Not cheerful
"Gray" outlook on present and future
Ethical aspect-if you work at a bar=> secondhand smoke=> cancer
Focuses audience on her expression, to cause empathy
White words/Black background
Mainly black=>negative, bad
Eight sponsors (1/5)
builds message's credibility
motivates users (Affective ID)--herding effect
Lists some cancer causing chemicals
"at least"
list worst ones? most commonly known?
Our first impression was that among the many anti-smoking ads that we came across this one stood out because of how drastically ineffective its visual rhetoric was in comparison. The aspects below are the ones we felt most important to touch upon--our goal being to analyze its short-comings, prove that it's ethically neutral overall and ineffective.
lacks pathos
image not as strong as message
too cautious with ethical boundaries
not specific enough audience
easy to dismiss
ineffective in its purpose; video confirms our conclusion
Part of local add campaign, but addresses the general smoking population that smoke publicly and nonsmokers effected by second hand smoke
Supported by local and national organizations
Full transcript