1.The Furkids and ASPCA commercials both aim to appeal to viewers' emotions in order to persuade them to take action. The Furkids commercial primarily uses humor and cuteness to engage the audience. This appeal is effective because it grabs the viewers' attention and creates a positive association with the brand. The use of humor also helps to create a memorable and enjoyable experience for the audience.

On the other hand, the ASPCA commercial takes a more serious and emotional approach. It uses images of neglected and abused animals, accompanied by a somber soundtrack and a voiceover that highlights the suffering of these animals. This appeal is effective because it evokes strong emotions of sadness and empathy in the viewers. By showing the harsh reality of animal cruelty, the commercial aims to motivate viewers to take action and support the organization.

Both appeals are effective in their own ways. The Furkids commercial appeals to viewers' desire for entertainment and enjoyment, while the ASPCA commercial appeals to their sense of compassion and empathy. The effectiveness of these appeals depends on the individual viewer and their personal preferences.

Personally, I find the ASPCA commercial more persuasive. The emotional appeal used in the commercial is powerful and evokes a strong response. The images of suffering animals and the heartbreaking stories shared in the voiceover create a sense of urgency and a desire to help. While the Furkids commercial is entertaining and enjoyable, it does not have the same level of emotional impact. Ultimately, the ASPCA commercial effectively communicates the seriousness of the issue and compels viewers to take action.

 2. The ASPCA commercials are well known, I have seen the AD on and off since I could ever remember.  Adding depressing music, photos and videos made me feel guilty. (Pathos)  As the viewer I myself felt the need to take part in their organization.  The ASPCA uses the shelter animals as a Visual Rhetoric, showing what pain the animals are going through.  I however the Furkids video had my vote.  I liked the somewhat 'cheesy' aspect to it.  It had more of a mom and pop vibe.  After reading the comments under the video, i found out that the guy made the video himself from top to bottom (even playing the guitar).  I personally find the smaller elements and ques to be more invoking. (Ethos)

     Both AD's were effective because of my strong soft spot for animals.  The ASCPA had a very strong undertone of depression, almost like if I were to not help.  The animals were doomed one again making the viewer feel guilty.  The highlight was the pictures of the animals.  I didn't like how they were offering T-Shirts to people who donated.  That extra money could have been used to help in other ways. 

     Of the two, Furkids had the much more upbeat video.  Showing happy and well looked after animals that need a new home.  The guy leading the video was playing with the cats himself.  Also as a business they didn't look to be asking for handouts.  That's why i found Furkids to be effective.

     The choice between the two commercials comes down to personal preferences and values.  Someone may respond more to the emotional, guilt-inducing approach of the ASPCA, while others may like the positive tone of Furkids.  Both organizations aim to achieve the same goal, which is to help animals in need.