1. Emily Holland

2. There are no silver spoons for children born into poverty. Baby Amy is two minutes old. Poverty has already mapped out her future. Poverty is waiting to destroy Amy’s hope and joy and is likely to lead her to a future of alcoholism. We can’t end poverty but we can provide the practical skills that Amy and thousands of others in the UK need to stop it predominating their lives. Don’t let poverty destroy a future.

3.  This ad was part of a series of ads by Barnardo’s, a large British charity which aims to help children in poverty and other difficult situations. It was created in winter of 2003 and was banned before the end of the year for its shocking images, which many thought to be excessively distressing.

4.  What is your initial reaction?  Identify  Ethos  Logos  Pathos  What is the purpose and tone?  Should the ad have been banned? Why or why not?

5.  My initial reaction to this advertisement was shock at seeing a newborn baby being fed a poisonous substance. I was also distressed due to the implication that thousands of babies have no hope for their futures.

6.  This advertisement was created by a children’s charity who would see the extent and dangers of child poverty and therefore aim to combat it.

7.  This ad is aimed at people in the UK who are able to donate money to Barnardo’s in order to fight child poverty.

8.  The use of a newborn baby is an effective technique in and of itself because babies nearly always create a strong emotional appeal in the viewer. The inclusion of a poisonous alcohol emphasizes the horrible future the ad implies for the baby Detail

9.  Also, the bright purple color of the liquid and the bright orange warning labels draw attention and are the first things seen by the viewer. This emphasis on the poison also serves to create an emotional appeal. Detail (cont.)

10.  The ad emphasizes the title “There are no silver spoons for children born into poverty,” with the words “silver spoon” and “poverty” particularly stressed. This conveys the importance of the fact impoverished children are ill-fated from the moment they are born. Aesthetics

11.  The juxtaposition of children “born with a silver spoon in their mouth” and children who are born into poverty serves to emphasize the injustice of the baby’s situation and create a sympathetic response. Juxtaposition

12.  The logical appeal in this ad is that thousands of babies are born into poverty in the UK and many are driven to alcoholism because they don’t have the resources necessary to build a stable future.

13.  The ethical appeal in this ad is that most people will feel morally obligated to help the children born into poverty because this ad emphasizes the unfair hand they’ve been dealt. Also, Barnardo’s is one of the largest children’s charity in the UK, which establishes character.

14.  The emotional appeal in this ad is the most effective appeal – so effective that it was what drove the ad to be banned. The ad portrays a newborn baby being fed a poisonous alcoholic substance and proceeds to denounce her hope for the future. This obviously creates a strong distressing reaction in the viewers of this ad.

15.  The purpose of this ad is to encourage people to donate the Barnardo’s to provide assistance to children born into poverty. The tone is concerned and sympathetic toward children in poverty and urgent in encouraging people to donate to the charity.

16.  Although it is obvious why this ad was seen as offensive, I personally believe that it makes a strong statement about a problem in our society and should not have been banned. Blocking the advertisement is the same as ignoring the issue that it presents.

17. Barnardo’s “Silver Spoon” Campaign

18. Barnardo’s “Giving Children Back Their Future” Campaign

19. “Barnardo’s: There are no silver spoons for children born into poverty.” Ad Punch. Dr. Prem, 11 Jun. 2007. Web. 9 Dec. 2012 Carrie, Anne Marie. Barnardo’s. Anne Marie Carrie, 2012. Web. 10 Dec. 2012. Scott, Chris. “Barnardo’s ‘silver spoon’ ads are finally banned by ASA.” Brand Republic. Brand Republic, 10 Dec. 2003. Web. 12 Dec. 2012