Aaron Winn
English 1010
Stacie Weatbrook
Rhetorical Analysis of Remember When Public Spaces Didnt Carry Brand
names?
The article Remember When Public Spaces Didnt Carry Brand
Names? was written by Eric Liu who is an author, journalist, and lectures at
the University of Washington. He was born in Poughkeepsie, New York in
1968 to parents that emigrated from Taiwan and studied at both Yale
University and Harvard Law School. He is a regular columnist for
TheAtlantic.com and CNN.com. He has co-authored two political novels and
served as a Whitehouse speech writer for President Clinton. This article was
published in USA Today on March 25th, 1999. The intended audience is the
American public and politicians across America. The reason to write this
article is to capture the attention of America and bring to their attention the
changing nature of public landmarks and to show them the picture being
presented by the changes being made to these iconic landmarks. Liu states
that Public spaces matter. They matter because they are emblems, and
physical embodiments of a communitys spirt and soul.
In Lius article Remember When Public Spaces Didnt Carry Brand
Names? he brings about many personal emotions, memories and
attachments to these iconic landmarks and public spaces. He uses one of the
most iconic land marks of the Yankee stadium which has been around for 76
years to evoke those emotions of being American and that these changes are
the relentless branding of public spaces.
Around the time this article was being written the Yankees baseball
stadium was in the process of having its naming rights sold and the stadium
name being changed. Liu states in the article Chances are the park will still
be called Yankee Stadium. Other stadiums across the country had already
had their names changed from long time and well-known names to those of
multimillion dollar companies. Such as that of the Candlestick Park in San
Francisco now changed to 3Com Park. But that is not where the branding
stops. It continues into public schools, buses, and landmarks with fast food,
soda, and branded clothing advertisements.
Remember When Public Spaces Didnt Carry Brand Names? is a
persuasive article that uses the emotional pathos argument well. Logos as
an argument is well documented with examples of actual uses of branding
nationally identified natural features and landmarks as well as iconic
landmarks such as Yankee Stadium.
Liu effectively uses logos and a variety of factual examples in his
article such as that of the Buses in Boston and other cities dont just carry
ad placards anymore; some of them have been turned into rolling
billboards. He also mentions the English land mark the cliffs of Dover that
now serve as the backdrop for a laser projected Adidas ad. Or the school in
Texas that Dr. Pepper spent 3.45 million in part to plaster its logo on the high
school roof to attract the attention of passengers flying in and out of Dallas.
He uses pathos to get the attention of readers throughout many parts
of the article. He states Whats the big deal? America is commercialized-get
over it! To most people the commercialization of these public spaces takes
away from the greatness, the nostalgia, and prideful feeling they evoke. So
when a shared public space becomes just another marketing opportunity
something precious is undermines: the idea that we are equal as citizens
even though we may be unequal as consumers. We then have a feeling that
if we do not have these brands being advertised we are the lesser in the
community. We question whether we belong in public, whether we are truly
members. We forget that there are other means, besides badges of
corporate affiliation, to communicate with one another. Liu effectively
capitalizes on the American ideals of freedom and equality of it citizens to
appeal to our sense of outrage when he makes the argument that branding
makes someone feel of less importance because they dont wear Nike or
Adidas.
He goes on to bring out a vision in each readers mind about what life is
going to be with all of the changes coming about in advertisement and
changes in public spaces. He also mentions in 1996 an April fools joke that
Taco Bell had purchased the Liberty Bell and was in the process of changing
the name of the bell to Taco Liberty Bell which provoked a storm of angry
calls. This again goes back to his use of pathos to evoke more emotion, the
attachment and history behind the Liberty Bell. He proves that there is a line
that has been drawn by some that can be crossed by the branding of public
and historic landmarks. He says the physical embodiment, of a communitys
spirit and soul. A public space belongs to all who share in the life of a
community. And it belongs to them in common, regardless of their
differences in social station or political clout. By using this wording it makes
you feel that these public spaces are what gives the community a sense of
pride and belonging.
Overall Liu is affective in using Logos and Pathos into getting his
question that is When will we draw a line and say that some places should be
off limits to corporate branding of spaces that are used for learning, for
historic landmarks whether it be Yankee Stadium to Central Park, to Mt.
Rushmore? When is going to be enough for corporate America to stop the
branding of public spaces? It may never be enough.
