'Save water, drink beer' - the basic prototypical argumentative pattern in Dutch alcohol commercials

(1)

‘Save water, drink beer’

The basic prototypical argumentative pattern in

Dutch alcohol commercials

Marieke Grasboer 10351698

Thesis Discourse & Argumentation Studies June 2018

Supervisor: A.F. Snoeck Henkemans Second reader: B.J. Garssen

(2)

1

1. Introduction

In the Netherlands, advertisers are bound by many restrictions regarding the promotion of alcoholic beverages. The Dutch law and the self-regulatory system of the alcohol industry leaves the advertisers little room for putting forward arguments for the standpoint ‘buy

alcoholic beverage X’. In order to convince the public of buying the advertised product, while at the same time respecting the Dutch law and restrictions, advertisers will have to manoeuvre strategically.

Previous studies on argumentative patterns for products that are heavily regulated have mainly focused on medicine advertisements (Snoeck Henkemans, 2017; Wierda & Visser, 2012). In addition, the research to date has tended to concentrate on advertisements that originate from the United States, Canada and Great-Britain. This study wishes to contribute to the research on prototypical argumentative patterns for products that are heavily regulated by answering the following question: What is the basic prototypical argumentative pattern in

Dutch alcohol commercials?

The research question will be answered by conducting a literature study as well as a number of case studies. The Dutch alcohol commercial will be analysed from a pragma-dialectical point of view by using insights of van Eemeren (2016) and Snoeck Henkemans (2017) on prototypical argumentative patterns. In addition, the characterization of the activity type of medicine advertisements by Wierda & Visser (2012) will be used as guidance. In addition to the literature study, a number of case studies will be conducted to examine to what extent the argumentative pattern can be identified in the commercials. Furthermore, the case studies will also show how the advertisers of Dutch alcohol commercials manoeuvred

strategically to make the strongest case within the strict institutional constraints of the activity type of the Dutch alcohol commercial.

This research has been organized in the following way. In chapter 2, the theoretical framework of the research is laid out. In this chapter, the Dutch alcohol commercial will be characterized as an argumentative activity type. On the basis of this characterization, the basic prototypical argumentative pattern for Dutch alcohol commercials will be identified in chapter 3. In chapter 4, a number of case studies will be conducted. In this chapter, it is examined to what extent the basic prototypical argumentative pattern can be found in Dutch alcohol commercials. In addition, the way in which the advertisers manoeuvre strategically will be discussed here. Lastly, in chapter 5, a summary of the research aims and goals as well as suggestions for further research can be found.

(4)

3

2. Theoretical framework

In order to identify a prototypical argumentative pattern, one must first distinguish the characteristics of the communicative activity type. More specifically, the institutional goal of the activity type and the regulations that limit the argumentative means must be distinguished. On the basis of these characteristics, a prediction can be made about what argumentative pattern can be expected to occur (van Eemeren, 2016). Such an expected argumentative pattern is called a prototypical argumentative pattern. In this chapter, it will first be explained what a communicative activity type is and how an activity type can be characterized. After this, the Dutch alcohol commercial will be characterized as a communicative activity type.

2.1 Communicative activity types

The theoretical core of the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation is the ideal model of a critical discussion, developed by van Eemeren and Grootendorst (2004). The ideal model of a critical discussion serves as a helpful tool ‘in order to clarify what is involved in viewing argumentative discourse as aimed at resolving a difference of opinion on the merits’ (van Eemeren, 2016, p. 3). In the ideal model of a critical discussion four discussion stages are distinguished: the confrontation stage, the opening stage, the argumentation stage and the concluding stage. Besides these four discussion stages, the ideal model also specifies the standards of reasonableness by depicting these as 10 rules for a critical discussion. Any violation of one of these rules hinders the process of resolving a difference of opinion on the merits and is therefore fallacious (van Eemeren, 2016; van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004). Since the ideal model forms the foundation for further pragma-dialectical research, it is also referred to as ‘the pragma-dialectical standard theory’ (van Eemeren, 2016, p. 3).

Although the pragma-dialectical standard theory serves as a sufficient methodology in analysing argumentative discourse, the connection of the ideal model with argumentative reality is limited. Van Eemeren and Houtlosser have overcome this problem by extending the standard theory to the so-called ‘extended pragma-dialectical theory’, by adding to it the concept of ‘strategic manoeuvring’ (van Eemeren, 2016). In their aim to appear reasonable, arguers generally follow the 10 rules for a critical discussion when putting forward an

argument. The commitment to these standards of reasonableness is also known as the arguer’s ‘dialectical goal’ (van Eemeren, 2010). However, according to the extended

pragma-dialectical theory the arguer not only tries to maintain his reasonableness but he also aims for the effectiveness of his arguments. This aiming for effectiveness is referred to as the arguer’s ‘rhetorical goal’ (van Eemeren, 2010). In order to convince the audience of their standpoints

(5)

4 (and thus fulfilling the rhetorical goal), while at the same time remaining reasonable (and thus fulfilling the dialectical goal) arguers will have to manoeuvre strategically (van Eemeren, 2010). In case the rhetorical aim for effectiveness overrules the dialectical goal of

reasonableness, the strategic manoeuvring ‘derails’ and is seen as fallacious (van Eemeren, 2010).

‘Strategic manoeuvring does not take part in an idealized critical discussion but in the multi-varied communicative practices that have developed in argumentative reality’ (van Eemeren, 2016, p. 9). Because of this connection with argumentative reality, when analysing a party’s strategic manoeuvring it is important to take into account the context in which it is put forward. According to van Eemeren (2016), this can be done by analysing the

characteristics of the ‘communicative activity type’ in which the argumentation is presented. A communicative activity type is a communicative practice that is institutionalized

and conventionalized to a certain degree (van Eemeren, 2016). Each communicative activity type is established in a certain communicative domain and belongs to one or more genres of communicative activity (van Eemeren, 2010). An example of a communicative domain is the domain of commercial communication. A genre of communicative activity in the domain of commercial communication can be, for instance, promotion (van Eemeren, 2010). It is not the case that a communicative activity type can only belong to one genre. So-called ‘hybrid’ communicative activity types (van Eemeren, 2016, p. 9) can be classified among several genres. Such a hybrid activity type is, for example, a direct-to-consumer advertisement for prescription drugs. This activity type belongs to the genre of promotion as well as the genre of consultation (Wierda & Visser, 2012). Determining the communicative domain and genre of the activity type at issue is a first step in distinguishing a communicative activity type.

The second step in identifying a communicative activity type is determining its

institutional point and level of conventionalization. The institutional point of a communicative activity type can be described as its rationale or goal; ‘this is what the argumentative

exchange is all about in this instance’ (Wierda & Visser, 2012, p. 83). One way to identify the institutional point is by looking at the genre to which the activity type belongs, because this genre partly determines the goal of the activity type. The institutional point of an activity type belonging to the genre of promotion is (at least) ‘promoting’. Hybrid activity types can also serve more than one institutional point. The way in which activity types are conventionalized in order to serve their institutional goal differs. This level of conventionalization can be highly formalised, a bit looser or even informal (van Eemeren, 2016). The three levels of

(6)

5 conventionalization can be linked to, respectively, communicative activity types in the legal domain, the political domain and the interpersonal domain (van Eemeren, 2016, p. 9).

A last and comprehensive step in characterizing a communicative activity type is identifying the following four focal points of the activity type: the initial situation, the starting points (material and procedural), the argumentative means and criticisms, and the outcome of the exchange (van Eemeren, 2016). These four aspects are, respectively, the counterparts of the four stages of a critical discussion: the confrontation stage, the opening stage, the argumentation stage and the concluding stage (van Eemeren, 2016). The combination of the argumentative characteristics reflected in these four focal points is unique for every activity type (van Eemeren, 2016; van Eemeren, 2010).

In the initial situation (confrontation stage) of a communicative activity type there are three argumentative characteristics that can be distinguished. First, the standpoint at issue is identified. This standpoint can, for example, be ‘buy product X’. After the standpoint has been identified, it is examined whether this standpoint runs up against doubt or contradiction (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004). If the other party only raises doubt regarding the standpoint, the difference of opinion can be described as ‘non-mixed’. In case the opposing party not only raises doubt but also puts forward a contradicting standpoint, the difference of opinion can be identified as ‘mixed’ (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004). The last focal point to be distinguished regarding the initial situation is in what way the decision of the opposing party to accept or not accept the standpoint is made clear. When, for example, the standpoint at issue is ‘buy product X’, the fact that the intended audience buys or refrains from buying the advertised product might indicate the decision.

The next focal point that needs to be distinguished are the starting points of the

activity type (opening stage). According to van Eemeren & Grootendorst, these starting points ‘correspond to those parts of the discourse in which the interlocutors manifest themselves as parties and determine whether there is a basis for a meaningful exchange’ (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004, p. 61). Two argumentative characteristics regarding the starting points of an activity type can be deduced from this statement. Firstly, it must be determined which party will fulfil the role of protagonist and which party will take on the role of the antagonist in the discussion (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004). Secondly, the parties will have to ‘determine a basis for a meaningful exchange’. This can be done by distinguishing the

material as well as procedural starting points of the activity type. Material starting points often remain implicit and are therefore hard to identify. They are generally concerned with values and views of which it is presupposed that both parties share them. For example, the advertiser

(7)

6 of a cough-drop will presuppose that all members of the intended audience share the material starting point ‘having a sore throat’ (Wierda & Visser, 2012, p. 86). Another example of a material starting point for an advertisement is the fact that there are practical limitations to the size and form of the advertisement (Wierda & Visser, 2012, p. 86). In the case of a

commercial, a material starting point could be the fact that there is a limited amount of time to persuade the consumer. In contrast to material starting points, the procedural starting points of an activity type are usually easier to identify, since these are often stated explicitly in the form of regulations and laws (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004). An example of a procedural starting point in the case of an alcohol commercial is the fact that it is forbidden to state or even suggest that consuming alcohol leads to social success (RVA, 2014).

The argumentative means and criticisms (argumentation stage) are the third focal point to analyse when characterizing a communicative activity type. In the case of a non-mixed difference of opinion, the protagonist is the only party putting forward argumentation. In the case of a mixed difference of opinion, the antagonist will also present arguments (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004). Furthermore, regarding this focal point it must also be examined in what way the argumentation that can be put forward is possibly limited by certain regulations or laws. In English over-the-counter-medicine advertisements, for example, it is not allowed to put forward an argument from expert opinion (Snoeck

Henkemans, 2017b). On the other hand, there are also cases in which the regulations do not forbid certain argumentation to be put forward, but in fact prescribe that it is obligatory to present certain information or arguments. This is the case in, for example, Dutch over-the-counter medicine advertisements, in which it is obligatory to include at least the name of the product, the single active ingredient, the therapeutic indications and contra-indications and an invitation to read the leaflet (CPG, 2015). Lastly, it is important to distinguish in what way the argumentation is presented, since argumentation does not necessarily have to be put forward in word or speech; it can also be presented by using film, music or images (Tseronis, 2017).

The last focal point regarding the characterization of a communicative activity type is the possible outcome of the exchange (concluding stage). It is examined what the possible result can be of an attempt to resolve a difference of opinion (van Eemeren, 2004). Firstly, it must be analysed whether the outcome of the exchange remains implicit or if the result is explicitly stated (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004). In addition, it is important to analyse whether there is an actual resolution of the disagreement or if it is only settled (van Eemeren & Garssen, 2010). In case of an implicit resolution, it must be identified what factors indicate a certain outcome. For example, in the case of an advertisement, a consumer actually

(8)

7 purchasing the advertised product might indicate an implicit resolution (Wierda & Visser, 2012). The last question that needs to be answered regarding the possible outcome of the exchange is whether there is a possible return to the initial situation (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004). In the case of a commercial, for example, it is possible to return to the initial situation by watching the commercial again. However, in the case of a plenary debate in European Parliament (van Eemeren & Garssen, 2010) returning to the initial situation is not possible.

2.2 The Dutch alcohol commercial as a communicative activity type

By taking into account all argumentative aspects mentioned above, the activity type of a Dutch alcohol commercial can be characterized. However, since this activity type is not discussed in literature so far, we will characterize the activity type of a Dutch alcohol commercial by using the characterization of the activity type of direct-to-consumer- advertisements for prescription drugs by Wierda & Visser (2012) as a starting point. The reason for using this activity type as guidance is the fact that, just as is the case with a Dutch alcohol commercial, the argumentation that can be put forward in both these advertisements is heavily regulated. In addition, both activity types belong to the same genre and have similar initial situations.

The activity type of a (Dutch) alcohol commercial belongs to the communicative domain of commercial communication and falls under the genre of promotion (van Eemeren, 2010, p. 143). The institutional point of an alcohol commercial can be described as

‘promotion’. The aim of the advertiser is to persuade the audience to buy alcoholic beverage X. Since the advertiser of a Dutch alcohol commercial is bound to legal restrictions regarding the argumentation that can be put forward (RVA, 2014; Nederlandse Reclame Code, 2017)1, it can be stated that the level of conventionalization of this activity type is highly formalised.

The initial situation of a Dutch alcohol commercial can be described as follows: an advertiser, commissioned by a certain brand from the alcohol industry, advancing a standpoint in an implicit discussion and addressing an implicit audience2. Since the advertiser is the only party putting forward a standpoint, the commercial takes on a monological form (Wierda &

1_{The independent advertising code commission (RCC) decides whether a commercial violates any of the rules}

stated in the advertising code (RVA). In case of violation of the rules, RCC is entitled to impose fines on advertisers.

2_{This initial situation is similar to that of a direct-to-consumer advertisement for prescription drugs, as described}

(9)

8 Visser, 2012). Although possible criticism by the intended audience is anticipated, no

standpoints or arguments from the antagonist are presented. Therefore, the discussion in an alcohol commercial can be described as a non-mixed difference of opinion. The standpoint can be reconstructed as follows: ‘If you are over 18, you should buy alcoholic beverage X’. The decision to actually buy this product is up to the implicit audience. The specific condition ‘if you are over 18’ is comparable to the specification Wierda & Visser (2012) identify in their standpoint: ‘ask your doctor for the advertised drug, if it is suitable given your medical condition’. Mentioning these specific requirements (being over 18 or having a certain medical condition) has to do with the fact that in both cases the advertised products are heavily

regulated (RVA, 2014; CPG, 2015). In the Netherlands, it is only legally permitted to buy or consume alcohol in a public place when a person is over 18 years of age (Drank- en

Horecawet, 2017). In addition, for advertisers it is prohibited to specifically aim their

commercials at people who are under the age of 18 (RVA, 2014). Consequently, the intended audience for Dutch alcohol commercials must thus officially be adults. It is, however,

important to note that it is not by definition the case that the audience that is reached by the advertiser consists entirely of adults. It is likely that minors are also part of the implicit audience although this is not officially the advertiser’s intention.

The next step in characterizing the activity type of a Dutch alcohol commercial is by describing its procedural and material starting points. A first procedural starting point is the fact that the advertiser (commissioned by alcohol brand X) carries out the role of the protagonist, while the role of the implicit antagonist is fulfilled by the reached audience. Furthermore, other procedural starting points of Dutch alcohol commercials are partly shaped by the explicit codified rules documented in the Dutch Advertising Code for Alcoholic Beverages (RVA, 2014) and the Dutch Advertising Codes (Nederlandse Reclame Code, 2017). Although these laws and regulations partly limit the advertiser’s argumentative means as well as the scope of the possible audience, they simultaneously help the advertiser to establish some starting points by addressing a specific audience. As mentioned above, the intended audience for a Dutch alcohol commercial is legally required to be over 18 years of age (RVA, 2014). As a consequence, alcohol commercials in the Netherlands may only air during specific timeslots. In addition, Dutch alcohol commercials are only allowed to be shown on specific channels for which it has been established that less than 25% of the viewers is younger than 18 years of age (RVA, 2014). Consequently, these regulations actually help the advertiser to address a specific audience. Although it is still uncertain whether the viewers

(10)

9 share other specific values, it can almost certainly be stated that the advertisers will reach viewers who meet the requirement of being older than 18 years of age.

Just as is the case with the activity type characterized by Wierda & Visser (2012), the material starting points of a Dutch alcohol commercial are hard to establish. However, a Dutch alcohol commercial also has to deal with the practical constraints of limited time (Wierda & Visser). There is only a limited amount of time during which the audience is willing to pay attention to the commercial. In addition, the fact that there is a plenitude of other commercials plays a role. Since the audience is confronted with many other

commercials than just the alcohol commercial, the commercial has to stand out in order to grab the audience’s attention in the first place.

The argumentative means of the advertiser of a Dutch alcohol commercial are significantly limited by the Dutch regulations (RVA, 2014; Nederlandse Reclame Code, 2017). With regard to pragmatic argumentation, for example, it is not allowed to state that there is a causal connection between consuming alcoholic beverage X and sexual success. Furthermore, when an advertiser, for example, states why one should buy alcoholic beverage X instead of alcohol brand Y, it is important to keep in mind that a comparison between two products must compare ‘relevant, verifiable and representative features of both products that belong to the same product group’ (De Nederlandse Reclame Code, 2017). All limitations with regard to the advertiser’s argumentative means will be discussed more extensively in chapter 3.

Whichever type of argumentation the advertiser eventually chooses to present in his commercial, it may be expected that the argumentation will not by definition only be put forward in actual word or speech, but may also be presented through the use of film and music. A Dutch alcohol commercial can be characterized as a multimodal activity type (Tseronis, 2017, p. 335), which means that arguments can also be put forward in a non-verbal way. Furthermore, according to Hoeken et al. (2009), illustrations can play an argumentative role in texts. Pictures can, for example, help support the desirableness of carrying out action X (Hoeken et al., 2009). We expect pictures, film and music to play a similar argumentative role in the Dutch alcohol commercial.

Lastly, the possible outcome of the exchange in a Dutch alcohol commercial needs to be defined. Since there is only one party putting forward a standpoint (the advertiser), the discussion takes on a monological form. Consequently, the outcome of the difference of opinion remains implicit and no explicitly agreed resolution can be identified. As mentioned earlier, in the case of an implicit resolution it must be established whether there are factors

(11)

10 that might indicate a certain outcome. A consumer actually buying the advertised alcoholic beverage X is such an indicator. This action may lead us to expect that the consumer has accepted the advertiser’s standpoint. Conversely, a member of audience not buying the advertised product might indicate that the consumer does not accept or still doubts the standpoint. It is important to note that these indicators only suggest that a certain outcome of the exchange is the case; the outcome of the exchange cannot be determined completely accurately on the basis of these actions (or non-actions). It could, for example, be the case that the standpoint was indeed accepted by the antagonist, but the antagonist is under the age of 18 and is thus not legally allowed to consume and purchase the advertised product. In addition, it is also possible that a customer did not watch the commercial but is planning on buying the advertiser product anyway. This means that the argumentation presented in the alcohol commercial did not motivate his or her action to buy the advertised product. A last

characteristic of the activity type of a Dutch alcohol commercial is the fact that returning to the initial situation is possible by watching the commercial again.

In table 1, the communicative activity type of a Dutch alcohol commercial is

presented. In the next chapter, this characterization of the Dutch alcohol commercial will be used to identify a basic prototypical argumentative pattern for this activity type.

(12)

11

Genre Initial situation Material and

procedural starting points Argumentative means and criticisms Possible outcome of the exchange Dutch alcohol commercial Promotion. Non-mixed disagreement between advertiser and consumer on whether to buy the advertised product or not. Consumer purchasing or not purchasing advertised product might indicate decision. Advertiser fulfils role of protagonist; consumer implicitly fulfils role of antagonist. Limited amount of time to persuade possible consumer. In addition, commercial must stand out to grab audience’s attention.

Explicit codified rules regulating the advertiser’s argumentative means (RVA, 2014; Dutch Advertising Codes; Drank-en Horecawet). Argumentation for standpoint ‘if you are over 18, you should buy alcoholic beverage X’ put forward in a monological commercial.

The argumentative means are limited by Dutch regulations. Not allowed to put forward causal argumentation on the issue of success. Argumentation in which products are compared must present relevant, verifiable and representative features of both products. Argumentation not necessarily put forward in word or speech, but also through the use of film and music.

Consumer purchasing or not purchasing advertised product might indicate implicit resolution. Possible return to initial situation by watching the commercial again.

(13)

12

3. Prototypical argumentative patterns: theoretical outlook

In this chapter, it is first examined what types of argumentation one may expect to find in Dutch alcohol commercials by taking the institutional point and the institutional constraints of the activity type into account. Next, a basic prototypical argumentative pattern for a Dutch alcohol commercial as well as some possible extensions of this pattern will be identified.

3.1 Expected types of argumentation

As has been explained in the previous chapter, the institutional point of a Dutch alcohol commercial is ‘promotion’. The advertiser tries to persuade the intended audience into purchasing and eventually consuming the advertised product. But for what reasons exactly should the customer buy and consume this product? In other words: what type of

argumentation may we expect the advertiser to put forward in support of the standpoint ‘if you are over 18, you should buy alcoholic beverage X’? In this section, argumentation we may expect to find at a main level as well as at a sublevel is discussed.

Firstly, by taking only the institutional point of the activity type into account, we may expect pragmatic argumentation to be presented as a main argument in the Dutch alcohol commercial. By putting forward the standpoint ‘if you are over 18, you should buy alcoholic beverage X’, the advertiser tries to persuade the audience into carrying out a certain action; he tries to influence the audience’s behaviour. Such standpoints are known as prescriptive

standpoints (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1992) According to van Eemeren & Grootendorst (1992, p. 159), prescriptive standpoints are often supported by pointing out possible

(un)desirable effects of (not) carrying out this certain action. This type of reasoning is known as pragmatic argumentation (van Eemeren et al., 1997) and is a notable subtype of causal argumentation. The argument scheme for pragmatic argumentation is as follows:

(van Eemeren, 2016, p.17)

1. Action X should (not) be carried out

Because 1.1 Action X will lead to positive/negative result Y

And (1.1’) (Actions of type X that lead to positive/negative

(14)

13 By taking the institutional point ‘promotion’ into account, it is thus presumable that an

advertiser would, for example, present the following pragmatic argumentation:

As can be seen from this argumentative structure, the main standpoint (1) ‘if you are over 18, you should buy alcoholic beverage X’ is supported by the implicit argument (1.1) ‘you should consume alcoholic beverage X’ and the implicit bridging premise (1.1’) ‘in order to consume alcoholic beverage X, you first have to buy it’. After this, a pragmatic argument is presented in which a positive result of consuming the alcoholic beverage is presented. This means that the pragmatic argument 1.1.1 ‘consuming alcoholic beverage X will boost your self-esteem’ is not put forward in support of the main standpoint (1) but is actually presented in defence of the sub standpoint (1.1). It is stated that a boosted self-esteem is an effect of consuming the alcoholic beverage and not of buying the alcoholic beverage.

Since the point of purchasing a consumption is to actually consume it, we expect the implicit argument (1.1) ‘you should consume alcoholic beverage X’ as well as the implicit bridging premise (1.1’) ‘in order to consume alcoholic beverage X, you first have to buy it’ to always be presented in support of the main standpoint in a Dutch alcohol commercial3_. Therefore, in the following analyses we will mainly focus on the argumentation that is put forward at the level of premise 1.1.1 and further. When speaking of ‘the main argument’ in further analyses, this will refer to premise 1.1.1 and not to premise (1.1). In this example, the main argument in support of the standpoint ‘when you are over 18, you should buy alcoholic beverage X’ is thus ‘consuming alcoholic beverage X will boost your self-esteem’.

3_{The example by van Eemeren et al. about making unexpressed premises explicit (2002, p. 78) shows a similar}

prescriptive standpoint (‘you should buy Wonder skin lotion’) that is defended by a similar implicit argument (‘you should use Wonder skin lotion’) and bridging premise (‘in order to use Wonder skin lotion you first have to buy it’).

(1) (If you are over 18, you should buy alcoholic beverage X) (1.1) (You should consume alcoholic beverage X)

(1.1’) (In order to consume alcoholic beverage X, you first have to buy it) 1.1.1 Consuming alcoholic beverage X will boost your self-esteem

(1.1.1’) (If consuming alcoholic beverage X leads to boosting your self-esteem, you should consume alcoholic beverage X)

(15)

14 When evaluating pragmatic argumentation, the following critical questions are

relevant:

(van Eemeren, 2016, p. 17)

To anticipate possible criticism, one might expect the advertiser to, for example, present arguments that show that consuming this drink boosts your esteem, that a boosted self-esteem is in fact a positive result and that consuming the advertised drink does not have any major negative side-effects. In that case, the following argumentation could be presented:

Although presenting pragmatic argumentation in a Dutch alcohol commercial seems probable in light of the institutional point of the activity type, in the Netherlands it is legally forbidden to state that drinking alcohol leads to success in any form (RVA, 2014). According to the RVA (2014), it is not allowed to state or even suggest that consuming alcohol leads to sexual or social success. In addition, it is forbidden to suggest that the consumption of alcohol solves social conflicts, reduces anxiety, improves physical and mental performance, has beneficial effects on health, or influences sport performance and performance at work in a positive way.

Do actions of type X lead to results of type Y? Is result Y really positive / negative?

Does action X not have any major negative / positive side-effects?

(1.1’) (In order to consume alcoholic beverage X, you first have to buy it) 1.1.1a Consuming alcoholic beverage X will boost your self-esteem

(1.1.1a’) (If consuming alcoholic beverage X leads to boosting your self-esteem, you should consume alcoholic beverage X)

1.1.1a.1 Research Q shows that consuming alcoholic beverage X boosts your self-esteem 1.1.1b Consuming alcoholic beverage X will not give you a headache

1.1.1b.1 Alcoholic beverage X does not contain sulfite

(1.1.1b.1’) (If alcoholic beverage X does not contain sulfite, then consuming alcoholic beverage X will not give you a headache)

(16)

15 By taking the institutional point as well as the institutional constraints of the activity type into account, it can thus be stated that pragmatic argumentation will most likely not be presented as the main argument in the Dutch alcohol commercial.

A second type of argumentation we may expect to be presented in the Dutch alcohol commercial is causal argumentation. However, we expect causal argumentation to be

presented at a sublevel of the argumentation, and thus not as the main argument4. With regard to causal argumentation, the argument scheme is as follows:

(van Eemeren et al., 2002, p. 101)

As can be seen from the argument scheme, causal argumentation does not evaluate the possible outcome ‘Y’; it is not stated whether this possible outcome is a positive or negative result. This objectivity can also be found in the critical question that is relevant for causal argumentation:

By taking the institutional point of the Dutch alcohol commercial into account, it can be stated that it is unlikely for an advertiser to present a causal argument as a main argument in which no positive effect of buying the product (or vice versa) is presented. It is questionable why someone would consider purchasing the advertised alcoholic beverage X when this action does not lead to any positive results (or vice versa) for them. In addition, since the standpoint ‘if you are over 18, you should buy alcoholic beverage X’ consists of a recommended action, it can be characterized as a prescriptive standpoint. As discussed above, these types of standpoints are often supported by pragmatic argumentation (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1992). Causal argumentation, however, is often used to support a descriptive standpoint (van

4_{By sublevel we thus mean premise 1.1.1.1}

Y is true of X

Because Z is true of X

And Z leads to Y

(17)

16 Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1992, p. 160). Therefore, a causal argument as the main argument in a Dutch alcohol commercial is unlikely to be presented.

However, at a sublevel of the argumentation we may expect to find causal

argumentation. This argumentation can, for example, point out a causal connection between the taste and the ingredients of the product. In that case, the causal argumentation could be as follows:

As can be seen from the argumentative structure, the symptomatic main argument ‘alcoholic beverage X tastes like chocolate’ is supported by the causal argument ‘alcoholic beverage X contains chocolate sprinkles’. It is important to note that with regard to the ingredients of alcoholic beverages, the Dutch law imposes some constraints on the argumentation the advertisers can put forward. Firstly, it is prohibited to imply that the characteristic ‘alcoholic beverage X contains an alcoholic percentage of Y’ is a positive characteristic (RVA, 2014). Secondly, it is not allowed to state that an alcoholic beverage tastes ‘fresh’ or ‘fruity’, since this may suggest that the advertised product is in fact a soda drink or lemonade and does not contain any alcohol (RVA, 2014).

A third type of argumentation we may expect to be presented in the Dutch alcohol commercial is symptomatic argumentation. This type of argumentation may be presented at the main level as well as at a sublevel of the argumentative structure. For symptomatic argumentation, the argument scheme is as follows:

(1.1’) (In order to consume alcoholic beverage X, you first have to buy it) 1.1.1 Alcoholic beverage X tastes like chocolate

(1.1.1’) (If alcoholic beverage X tastes like chocolate, you should consume alcoholic beverage X) 1.1.1.1 Alcoholic beverage X contains chocolate sprinkles

(18)

17

(van Eemeren et al., 2002, p. 97)

The prohibition on putting forward certain forms of causal argumentation in Dutch alcohol commercials strengthens the expectation that advertisers will present symptomatic

argumentation. Since it is legally forbidden to state that consuming alcohol leads to any positive effects on consumers, we may expect advertisers to argue that the alcoholic beverage itself has certain positive characteristics. These positive characteristics may for example express the quality of the product (X stands for perfection) but may also express certain positive feelings with regard to the advertised product (X stands for fun). In these cases, the symptomatic argumentation in the Dutch alcohol commercial is as follows:

In the first case, the main argument as well as the sub-argumentation can be characterized as symptomatic. In the second case, only the main argument can be characterized as

symptomatic argumentation. As mentioned earlier, it is important to bear in mind the Y is true of X

Because Z is true of X

And Z is symptomatic of Y

(1.1’) (In order to consume alcoholic beverage X, you first have to buy it) 1.1.1 Alcoholic beverage X is fun

(1.1.1’) (It is symptomatic of fun products that you should buy them) 1.1.1.1 Alcoholic beverage X is consumed at festivals

(1.1.1.1’) (Being consumed at festivals is symptomatic of being fun) (1) (If you are over 18, you should buy alcoholic beverage X) (1.1) (You should consume alcoholic beverage X)

(1.1’) (In order to consume alcoholic beverage X, you first have to buy it) 1.1.1 Alcoholic beverage X stands for perfection

(1.1.1’) (It is symptomatic of perfect products that you should buy them) 1.1.1.1 Alcoholic beverage X is handmade by certified brewers

(19)

18 alcoholic percentage of the product may not be presented as a positive characteristic. In addition, it is prohibited to state that the alcoholic beverage tastes ‘fresh’ or ‘fruity’ (RVA, 2014).

When evaluating symptomatic argumentation, the following critical questions are relevant:

According to van Eemeren & Snoeck Henkemans (2016, p. 85) the two critical questions regarding symptomatic argumentation are not relevant for all the various forms in which symptomatic argumentation may be presented. In the ‘alcoholic beverage X is fun’ example, the second critical question seems irrelevant. In this case, it is beside the point of the

advertiser to show that a certain beverage that is fun should not be purchased. Since the second question can be characterized as irrelevant to the standpoint at issue, it is expected that this question will not be answered in the Dutch alcohol commercial.

Although the first question seems relevant in this case, this is also a complex question to argue for. This is due to the fact that symptomatic argumentation is often used to support evaluative propositions (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1992, p. 160). In the case of

symptomatic argumentation, the presented arguments thus often express a view or an

assessment with regard to facts or events (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1992, p. 159). This is also true for the argumentation presented in Dutch alcohol commercials, in which, for

example, it may be argued that a certain beverage is ‘cool’ or ‘fun’. With regard to the first critical question, it seems complicated for the advertiser to show that there are certain non-fun products that should be purchased anyway. It is questionable who is to decide what the exact definition of ‘fun’ is and how this could be measured. Furthermore, it is questionable why one would present another (alcohol) brand in one’s own commercial when a comparison between the two products can only be made by appealing to feelings instead of facts. Therefore, it is

Aren’t there also other non-Y’s that have the characteristic Z?

Aren’t there also non-fun products that you should, however, buy?

Aren’t there also other Y’s that do not have the characteristic Z?

(20)

19 expected that also this critical question regarding symptomatic argumentation will not be answered in the Dutch alcohol commercial.

Another way in which we may expect symptomatic argumentation to be presented in the Dutch alcohol commercial is by referring to a certain authority, such as a famous person or an institute. This type of argumentation is known as authority argumentation and is a subtype of symptomatic argumentation (van Eemeren et al., 2002). In authority

argumentation, the fact that a certain statement is presented by an expert, an institution or a famous person is considered to be a sign of the acceptability of the standpoint at issue (Wierda, 2015). The argument scheme for authority argumentation is as follows:

(Wierda, 2015, p. 52)

According to Erdogan (1999), there are several advantages of letting a famous person

promote your product. The presence of a certain authority in your commercial helps generate attention, makes it easier to introduce a new product or brand and represents the international allure of the brand (Erdogan, 1999).Seeing a famous person you admire consume beverage X might thus help to convince you to also purchase the advertised product. The following argumentation may, for example, be presented:

X is acceptable

Because X is an opinion in field F held by authority A

And Being an opinion in field F held by

authority A indicates acceptability

(1.1’) (In order to consume alcoholic beverage X, you first have to buy it) 1.1.1 Will Smith says you should buy alcoholic beverage X

(1.1.1’) (If Will Smith says you should buy alcoholic beverage X, you should buy alcoholic beverage X)

(21)

20 We may also expect a certain authority to be shown whilst consuming the advertised alcoholic beverage, but not explicitly stating ‘you should buy this product’. In that case, the

argumentation may still be characterized as symptomatic, but not as authority argumentation (van Eemeren et al., 2002, p. 78). An example of such argumentation is as follows:

When presenting authority argumentation, the advertisers need to keep in mind that it is not allowed to present teen idols as a means of authority argumentation (RVA, 2014). This is due to the fact that it is legally forbidden to aim alcohol advertising at people that are younger than 18 years of age (RVA, 2014). Apart from this minor constraint, it seems probable that this type of symptomatic argumentation is presented in Dutch alcohol commercials.

With regard to authority argumentation, the relevant critical questions are as follows:

(Wierda, 2015, p. 63)

It is expected that the answers to these critical questions will not be put forward in Dutch alcohol commercials. Although it might be relevant to question certain opinions and

Is X really an opinion in field F held by authority A?

Is ‘buy alcoholic beverage X’ really an opinion (in Hollywood) held by Will Smith?

Does being an opinion in field F held by authority A indeed indicate acceptability?

Does the fact that Will Smith says ‘buy alcoholic beverage X’ indicate acceptability of this standpoint?

(1.1’) (In order to consume alcoholic beverage X, you first have to buy it) 1.1.1 Angelina Jolie consumes alcoholic beverage X

(1.1.1’) (If Angelina Jolie consumes alcoholic beverage X, you should consume alcoholic beverage X)

(22)

21 authorities in the field of, for example, direct-to-consumer medical advertisements5 (Wierda, 2015), this seems irrelevant in the field of Dutch alcohol commercials. Purchasing or

refraining from purchasing an alcoholic beverage will not immediately affect major factors such as one’s health, whereas the purchasing of a certain medicine might actually (positively or negatively) influence one’s well-being. Since the recommended action ‘buy alcoholic beverage X’ that is presented in a Dutch alcohol commercial does not have any major consequences for the consumer, we expect the authorities that are presented in the Dutch alcohol commercial to not be critically questioned.

The last main type of argumentation identified by van Eemeren et al. (2002) is argumentation based on a relation of analogy. In this type of argumentation, a resemblance between something referred to in the standpoint and something cited in the argumentation is pointed out. On the grounds of this similarity, the standpoint should be accepted (van Eemeren et al., 2002) The argument scheme for analogy argumentation is as follows:

(van Eemeren et al., 2002, p.99)

The institutional constraints with regard to this type of argumentation state that the argumentation based on a relation of analogy must compare verifiable, representative and relevant features of both products that belong to the same product group (De Nederlandse Reclame Code, 2017).

By taking the institutional point of the Dutch alcohol commercial into account, it seems unlikely for an advertiser to present analogy argumentation in which a comparison is made between his own product and a competing product. In that case, the analogy

argumentation could be as follows:

5_{‘Is the statement that using drug X has desirable consequence C really an opinion in the field “medical products}

that E has positive experiences with” held by endorser E?’ (Wierda, 2015, p. 74)

Y is true of X

Because Y is true of Z

(23)

22 It seems unlikely that an advertiser would present a competing brand or product in his own commercial. However, it might the case that a supermarket or a wholesale presents this type of argumentation in order to promote a new brand or product. In that case, the supermarket may argue that the taste of alcoholic beverage X is comparable to that of alcoholic beverage Q (and therefore has a great taste), but that X is cheaper (and therefore you should buy it). However, this study does not focus on commercials that are distributed by supermarkets or wholesales.

A way in which it is more likely for analogy argumentation to be presented in the Dutch alcohol commercial is when the advertiser makes a comparison between two of his own products. For example, a wine brand has developed a non-alcoholic type of wine (X-non) that tastes exactly the same as their alcoholic version (X). In that case, the advertiser could choose to present argumentation which states that wine type X-non is comparable to wine type X:

(1.1’) (In order to consume alcoholic beverage X, you first have to buy it) 1.1.1 If you are over 18, you should consume alcoholic beverage Z (1.1.1’) (Alcoholic beverage Z is comparable to alcoholic beverage X)

(1) (If you are over 18, you should buy alcoholic beverage X-non) (1.1) (You should consume alcoholic beverage X-non)

(1.1’) (In order to consume alcoholic beverage X-non, you first have to buy it) 1.1.1 If you are over 18, you should consume alcoholic beverage X

(1.1.1’) (Alcoholic beverage X-non is comparable to alcoholic beverage X) 1.1.1.1 Alcoholic beverage X tastes great

(1.1.1.1’) (If alcoholic beverage X tastes great, then alcoholic beverage X-non tastes great)

(24)

23 Regarding analogy argumentation, the most important critical question to ask is:

(van Eemeren et al., 2002, p. 99).

The institutional constraints regarding analogy argumentation in a Dutch alcohol commercial automatically ensure that the critical question ‘are there any significant differences between Z and X?’ is already answered. Because the argumentation must compare verifiable,

representative and relevant features of both products that belong to the same product group (De Nederlandse Reclame Code, 2017), the consumer can be sure that in fact two comparable products are presented.

In conclusion, by taking into account the institutional point as well as the institutional constraints it has been predicted which type(s) of argumentation are likely to be presented in a Dutch alcohol commercial at a main level as well as at a sublevel. Firstly, it can be expected that pragmatic argumentation will not be presented as the main argument in the Dutch alcohol commercial. This is due to the fact that it is legally forbidden to state or imply that the

consumption of alcoholic beverages leads to success in any form (RVA, 2014). Secondly, it is likely for causal argumentation to be presented at a sublevel of the argumentative structure. Thirdly, we may expect symptomatic argumentation to occur in Dutch alcohol commercials at a main level as well as at a sublevel of the argumentation. The only minor constraint

regarding this type of argumentation is the fact that it is prohibited to present teen idols as a means of authority argumentation (RVA, 2014). Lastly, it is unlikely that advertisers will put forward analogy argumentation in which a competing brand or product is presented.

However, analogy argumentation in which an advertiser compares two of his own products may be presented. In that case, the advertiser needs to keep in mind that this analogy must compare relevant features of both products (De Nederlandse Reclame Code, 2017).

3.2 Prototypical argumentative patterns in Dutch alcohol commercials

By using the findings of the previous chapters as a starting point, we will now try to identify a basic prototypical argumentative pattern for the activity type of a Dutch alcohol commercial. In addition, we will try to identify possible extensions of this basic pattern. A first useful step in identifying a basic prototypical argumentative pattern is checking whether it is legally

(25)

24 required to include certain features of the advertised product in the commercial itself. When certain information must always be included in an advertisement or commercial, it could be the case that this legal requirement is used as the main argument. This is, for example, true for the activity type of an over-the-counter-medicine advertisement, in which the legal

requirement to include the therapeutic indication of the product is fulfilled by using a pragmatic argument as the main argument (Snoeck Henkemans, 2017b).

According to the Dutch regulations regarding alcohol commercials, the only feature that must always be included in an alcohol commercial is a so-called ‘educative slogan’ (RVA, 2014) in which it is expressed that consuming alcohol is legally allowed only for people that are over 18 years of age. However, this legal requirement is already included in the standpoint of the Dutch alcohol commercial: ‘if you are over 18, you should buy alcoholic beverage X’. Apart from the fact that the educative slogan is already part of the standpoint, the information that is expressed in this slogan may be characterized as non-persuasive. No positive effects of consuming the advertised product or positive features of the product itself are expressed in it. Therefore, we may expect that this obligatory educative slogan is not presented in any further argumentation in support of the standpoint ‘if you are over 18, you should buy alcoholic beverage X’.

Two other types of argumentation we may expect will not be presented as the main argument in a Dutch alcohol commercial are causal argumentation and pragmatic

argumentation in which a certain positive effect is ascribed to the consumption of alcohol. As the previous section has shown, it is legally forbidden to state or even imply that consuming alcohol leads to success in any form (RVA, 2014). However, we may expect causal

argumentation to be presented at a sublevel of argumentation. It could, for example, be stated that certain ingredients or a certain way of brewing leads to the great taste of the product.

We may also expect analogy argumentation not to be presented as the main argument in a Dutch alcohol commercial. As discussed earlier, it seems unlikely for an advertiser to present analogy argumentation in which a competing product is presented. In addition, in the case that an advertiser presents analogy argumentation in which a comparison is made between two of the brand’s own products, this argumentation will be presented at a sublevel of argumentation and not on as the main argument. Therefore, we may conclude that analogy argumentation belongs to a possible extension of the basic prototypical pattern of a Dutch alcohol commercial.

Because of the legal constraints regarding causal and pragmatic argumentation, it is probable that the argumentation presented in a Dutch alcohol commercial expresses desirable

(26)

25 features of the advertised product itself instead of presenting possible desirable outcomes of consuming the advertised product. Advertisers can, for example, argue that their product is cool, that it stands for perfection or that it has a great taste. In this case, the main argument is: ‘alcoholic beverage X has certain desirable characteristics’. Therefore, the basic prototypical argumentative pattern is as follows:

The main argument in this pattern is a symptomatic argument. It can, for example, be stated that it is symptomatic of ‘fun’, ‘perfect’ or ‘cool’ products that they should be purchased. The symptomatic argument ‘alcoholic beverage X has certain desirable characteristics’ can be further supported by presenting the following prototypical arguments6:

6_{The article by Snoeck Henkemans (2017a) is used as a guidance in characterizing these possible extensions.}

(1.1’) (In order to consume alcoholic beverage X, you first have to buy it) 1.1.1 Alcoholic beverage X has certain desirable characteristics

(1.1.1’) (If alcoholic beverage X has certain desirable characteristics, you should buy alcoholic beverage X)

(27)

26 As can be seen from the figure, the first possible extension of the basic prototypical pattern is a form of authority argumentation7, whereas the second possible extension is a fallacious variant of this type of argumentation (populist fallacy). These possible extensions can, for example, be presented when the advertiser wants to argue that his product is ‘cool’ because it is consumed by a celebrity or because it is consumed by a great number of people.

The third and fourth possible extensions refer to the ingredients or the flavour of the product. The advertiser may, for example, argue that his product ‘has a sweet taste because it contains certain ingredients’. Furthermore, he may argue for the product’s rich taste by stating that the advertised product tastes like a similar product, such as chocolate. As discussed

7_{When a certain authority is only shown whilst consuming the advertised product (and not explicitly stating that}

one should buy the product), this must be characterized as symptomatic argumentation.

1. Alcoholic beverage X is consumed by authority A

(it is not allowed to present teen idols as authorities)

2. Alcoholic beverage X is consumed by many people

(fallacious variant of ‘argument from authority’)

3. Alcoholic beverage X contains the following ingredients: ⁱ1, ⁱ2, ⁱ3

(the percentage of alcohol may not be presented as a desirable characteristic)

4. Alcoholic beverage X tastes like [flavour]

(description of flavour may not suggest that the beverage does not contain any alcohol)

5. Alcoholic beverage X tastes like [similar product]

(analogy must compare verifiable, representative and relevant features of both products that belong to the same product group)

6. Alcoholic beverage X has been consumed and / or produced for a long time

(appeal to tradition)

7. Alcoholic beverage X is produced in a certain way

(causal argument which states that this certain way of production leads to the desirable characteristics of alcoholic beverage X)

(28)

27 earlier, the choice of words may not imply that the alcoholic beverage does not taste like alcohol at all (RVA, 2014).

The fifth possible extension also addresses the flavour or taste of the product, but in this case the advertiser refers to a similar product in order to persuade the audience. If

alcoholic product Q is very popular because of its taste, the advertiser may argue that his own product ‘tastes great because it tastes like alcoholic beverage Q’. As discussed earlier, analogy argumentation in Dutch alcohol commercials must meet the requirements as imposed by the Dutch regulations (De Nederlandse Reclame Code, 2017).

The sixth possible extension of the prototypical argumentative pattern consists of a so-called ‘appeal to tradition’ (Snoeck Henkemans, 2017a). The advertiser might consider presenting this argument to show the audience that the product has been used for a long time, and that many people have already been using the advertised product (Snoeck Henkemans, 2017a). This type of argument may for example be presented in support of the main symptomatic argument ‘consuming alcoholic beverage X is part of the Dutch culture’.

The seventh and last possible extension refers to the way in which the advertised product is produced. An advertiser may, for example, argue that his product contains the desirable characteristic ‘stands for craftsmanship’ because of the fact that the product is produced and brewed by certified brewers only.

In the following chapter, a number of case studies will be conducted to examine to what extent this prototypical basic argumentative pattern as well as the possible extensions are presented in Dutch alcohol commercials.

(29)

28

4. Prototypical argumentative patterns: a case study

In this chapter it will be investigated to what extent the prototypical argumentative pattern and the possible extensions of this pattern that have been identified in chapter 3 are actually presented in Dutch alcohol commercials. In addition, it will be investigated how the

advertisers of these commercials have pushed the limits of the institutional constraints in an attempt to make the strongest possible case. In order to do so, four commercials will be analysed on the basis of their argumentative structure.

4.1 Methodology

This case study will focus on commercials by, respectively, Hertog Jan, Licor 43, Heineken and Swinckels. We have chosen to analyse these specific brands in order to develop a relatively full picture of argumentative patterns in Dutch alcohol commercials. Many alcoholic beverages that are sold in the Netherlands belong to international coordinative organisations and breweries, such as Anheuser- Busch InBev8 and Heineken9. We have chosen to analyse commercials by four different brands that do not belong to the same coordinative organisation10. By doing so, we try to reduce the possible risk of analysing commercials that are all produced from the same corporate point of view, or commercials that are all created by the same marketing company. These factors might possibly influence the argumentation that is put forward in the commercials.

Three out of the four commercials in this case study are beer commercials, only one commercial promotes another type of alcoholic beverages. The reason for this is the fact that in the Netherlands, almost no commercials for wine, ciders or liquors are aired. In addition, there are almost no originally Dutch commercials for these types of alcoholic beverages. This often leads to significantly short commercials which include no words at all (apart from the brand’s name). This makes it difficult to analyse the commercials argumentatively. Since the Licor 43 commercial did, however, include enough material to analyse argumentatively, we have chosen to analyse this commercial as well. Furthermore, it is important to state that this case study will not focus on commercials developed by supermarkets or wholesales.

8_{Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV (abbreviated as AB InBev) is a Belgian transnational beverage and brewing}

company.

9_{Heineken International owns over 165 breweries and produces 250 beers and ciders.}

10_{Hertog Jan belongs to ABinbev, Licor 43 is owned by Diegor Zamora SA, Heineken belongs to Heineken, and}

(30)

29 Since this case study will focus on commercials, the argumentative discourse that will be analysed is not only put forward in written or spoken word, but can be characterized as multimodal (Tseronis, 2017). Multimodal argumentation refers to the fact that arguments can also be put forward in a non-verbal way, for example by using visuals and music (Tseronis, 2017, p. 335). According to Tseronis, the pragma-dialectical approach to the study of argumentation (which is the approach applied in this study) provides ‘… concrete analytical concepts that offer a fertile ground for the study of visual and multimodal argumentation’ (Tseronis, 2017, p. 337).

When analysing a multimodal piece of discourse, it is the task of the analyst to identify the relevant multimodal elements of the discourse and to consider what their role is in the argumentative structure. A multimodal element can, for example, provide clues for the relationship between premises or may play a role in the framing of the difference of opinion (Tseronis, 2017, p. 341). To identify the role of a multimodal element accurately, it is important to analyse the elements individually as well as in combination with each other (Tseronis, 2017, p. 340). Furthermore, when reconstructing the argumentation that is put forward in the commercials, it is important to keep in mind that arguments presented in other modes than the verbal are not by definition implicit arguments (Tseronis, 2017, p. 342).

Although every argumentative move made by the advertisers of Dutch alcohol commercials can be characterized as a strategic manoeuvre11, this case study will only focus on those argumentative moves that push the limits of what is allowed according to the Dutch regulations regarding alcohol commercials. Just as is the case in over-the-counter medicine advertisements, the guidelines for Dutch alcohol commercials are designed to protect the audience from misleading advertising (Snoeck Henkemans, 2017b, p. 102). The guidelines are thus designed in order to prevent ‘ways of promoting … in which the advertiser’s aim to be effective overrules their aim to maintain reasonableness’ (Snoeck Henkemans, 2017b, p. 102). According to Snoeck Henkemans (2017b, p. 102) advertisers are likely to apply the strategy of ‘the second-best option’ in order to make the strongest case possible while still remaining reasonable. This strategy refers to advertisers looking for the closest alternative to the kind of argumentative move they initially wanted to put forward, since this move is ruled out by the regulations (Snoeck Henkemans, 2017a, p. 102). This case study will not discuss how each individual argumentative move relates to audience demand, topical potential and

11_{Every argumentative move is the result of making a selection from the available topical potential, the}

(31)

30 presentational devices. Instead, it will be researched if and how the advertisers of the Dutch alcohol commercials have pushed the limits of the institutional constraints while trying to make a strong case.

4.2 Case study

In all four commercials, the standpoint that has been put forward is the same: ‘if you are over 18, you should buy alcoholic beverage X’. In all four cases, this standpoint is put forward implicitly. Furthermore, the type of difference of opinion in all commercials can be characterized as non-mixed, since there is only one party putting forward a standpoint.

The first commercial we will discuss is by beer brand Hertog Jan and originates from 2012. For this commercial, the story line is as follows:

Commercial 1, Hertog Jan

(1) Song ‘perfect’ by Fairground Attraction playing

during whole commercial

(2) Video shot of the Hertog Jan Brewery in Arcen (3) Shot of brewer Gerard placing the doormat exactly

right in front of the entrance

(4) Shot of brewer Han closely inspecting the barley and

picking out the grains that aren’t good

(5) Shot of brewer Roland cleaning a spot on the beer

vessel by hand

(6) Bartender Dick placing the beer coaster exactly right

on the bar. At the same time, three male customers

are watching him as he taps a glass of Hertog Jan beer

(7) Slow-motion shot of the beer being tapped (8) Bartender Dick hands over the beer to one of the

customers. The customer takes a sip and looks satisfied at Dick. Dick smiles back

(9) Video shot of a bottle of Hertog Jan beer as well as

Hertog Jan beer in a glass

(10) Shot of all other types of Hertog Jan in bottles and

glasses

(11) Visual and spoken text: ‘Hertog Jan. Out of love for

(32)

31 The argumentative structure for the Hertog-Jan commercial is as follows:

The main argument12 in this commercial is a symptomatic argument. As can be seen from the argumentative structure, the reason why one should buy Hertog Jan is the fact that it stands for perfection. The underlying reasoning is as follows: ‘it is symptomatic of products that stand for perfection that they should be purchased’. In this case, the brand of Hertog Jan standing for perfection can be characterized as the product’s desirable characteristic. The main argument that is presented in this commercial is similar to the main argument identified as the basic prototypical pattern for a Dutch alcohol commercial. The basic prototypical argumentative pattern is thus presented in the Hertog Jan commercial.

In defence of the main argument ‘Hertog Jan’s employees stand for perfection’, several coordinative arguments are presented in which it is explained that certain actions carried out by the Hertog Jan employees lead to or are symptomatic of striving for perfection. The two symptomatic arguments (situating the doormat exactly right; cleaning a spot on the beer vessel by hand) are not similar to one of the possible extensions of the basic pattern for the Dutch alcohol commercial identified in the previous chapter. However, the causal

12_{As discussed earlier in section 3.1, ‘the main argument’ refers to premise 1.1.1}

(1) (If you are over 18, you should buy Hertog Jan)

(1.1) (If you are over 18, you should consume Hertog Jan)

(1.1’) (In order to consume Hertog Jan you first have to buy Hertog Jan) 1.1.1 (The brand of Hertog Jan stands for perfection)

(1.1.1’) (If the brand of Hertog Jan stands for perfection, you should buy Hertog Jan)

1.1.1.1 The employees of Hertog Jan stand for perfection

(1.1.1.1’) (If the employees stand for perfection, the brand stands for perfection)

1.1.1.1a Hertog Jan brewed Gerard situates the doormat exactly right in front of the entrance (1.1.1.1a’) (Situating the doormat exactly right in front of the entrance is symptomatic for perfection) 1.1.1.1b Hertog Jan brewer Han closely inspects the barley by hand

(1.1.1.1b’) (Closely inspecting the barley by hand leads to perfection) 1.1.1.1c Hertog Jan brewer Roland cleans a spot on the beer vessel by hand (1.1.1.1c’) (Cleaning a spot on the beer vessel by hand is symptomatic of perfection) 1.1.1d Bartender Dick places the Hertog Jan beer coaster exactly right on the bar (1.1d’) (Placing the beer coaster exactly right on the bar is symptomatic of perfection)

(33)

32 argument that is presented (1.1.1.1b’) can in fact be identified as one of the expected possible extensions. It is stated that ‘inspecting the barley by hand’ leads to the product’s perfection. It is thus a causal argument which states that this certain way of production leads to the

desirable characteristic ‘perfection’. This possible extension of the basic pattern has been identified in the previous chapter.

The symptomatic as well as the causal argumentation that is presented in the Hertog Jan commercial does not push the limits of the Dutch regulations regarding alcohol

promotion. The argumentation that is put forward in the commercial does in no way try to suggest that there is a causal relation between the consumption of Hertog Jan beer and, for example, a perfect life for the consumer. The argument that Hertog Jan stands for perfection is mainly put forward in order to convince possible costumers about the quality of the product. Therefore, it can be concluded that the argumentation put forward in this commercial is in line with the regulations.

The second commercial we will analyse is by Licor 43. For this commercial, the story line is as follows:

Commercial 2, Licor 43

(1) Spanish music playing during whole

commercial

(2) Shot of a Spanish woman performing a

flamenco dance, she has a ‘cape’ of Licor 43 moving along with her

(3) Shot of a glass of Licor 43, moving in the same

direction of the dancer

(4) These two shots are shown alternately (5) Shot of a bottle of Licor 43 with the visual text

‘Español Puro’

(6) Visual and spoken text ‘Spanish in every way.

The liqueur with 43 secret ingredients’ [Door en door Spaans. De likeur met 43 geheime ingredienten].

The argumentative structure for the Licor 43 commercial is as follows:

(1) (If you are over 18, you should buy Licor 43) (1.1) (You should consume Licor 43)

(1.1’) (In order to consume Licor 43 you first have to buy Licor 43)

1.1.1a Licor 43 is Spanish in every way

(1.1.1a’) (If Licor 43 is Spanish in every way, you should buy Licor 43)

1.1.1b Licor 43 has 43 secret ingredients

'Save water, drink beer' - the basic prototypical argumentative pattern in Dutch alcohol commercials