Writer’s Memo
I choose to analyze the World Wildlife Fund because I was interested in learning more about the organization. I figured writing about something I was interested would be easier than picking a random website, but I was worried that I would end up with a “bad taste in my mouth” after trying to break down the website, looking for ways it could be discredited. However, that was not the case, and I think my analysis will be useful for an audience that is interested in learning more about WWF, and considering making a donation.
A Rhetorical Analysis of the World Wildlife Fund Official Website
“What’s in an elephant’s trunk? 40,000 muscles.” I certainly didn’t know that, and I bet you didn’t either. That little bit of animal trivia was the first thing that caught my eye when I visited the World Wildlife Fund’s website. It wasn’t the only thing either. WWF’s site has tons of vivid pictures, bold graphics, and attention grabbing headlines.
The reason I’m on wwf.org is English class. We’ve been asked to write a rhetorical analysis of an activism website, so I chose the World Wildlife Fund. I like animals, and I like the wwf.org website. It has more wildlife conservation and education articles than I know what to do with. This sheer amount of info is what’s gonna make me crazy when doing this rhetorical analysis, so I’ll have to work systematically in order to analyze all the appeals thrown at the site’s audience. I will start with analyzing the site’s design and organization. Next I will examine the site’s credibility, or Ethos, hopefully gaining an understanding of what legitimizes the WWF’s argument. Then I will look at what the site uses to make an appeal to the values of its audience, based on Pathos. Finally, I will examine how the WWF uses Logos, or reason, to prove the claims it is making.
Hopefully this will make reading through the site, and analyzing all of its facts easier for anyone interested in the World Wildlife Fund. The WWF site gives information to those interested in species conservation, wildlife news, climate changes, and human’s effects on the environment. However, the site’s main purpose is to make a plea for donations, in able to continue WWF’s conservation efforts. The audience can be anyone from a student doing a project on endangered animals to someone interested in actually donating to the World Wildlife Fund. As you can see, this makes the WWF site’s audience very broad, no matter how directed towards encouraging donations it may be. This makes my analysis useful to anyone interested in any facet of WWF.
The World Wildlife Fund began in September of 1961 with a group of European naturalists and scientists, as well as political and business leaders. The headquarters were located in Morges, Switzerland. Since then the World Wildlife Fund has spread to over 11,000 projects in 130 countries. The mission of WWF is simply “The conservation of nature”. The goal is that “By 2020 WWF will conserve 19 of the world’s most important natural places and significantly change global markets to protect the future of nature.” Because most of the revenue that goes toward the variety of projects that WWF undergoes comes from individual donors (44% total revenue from individual contributions as opposed to 13% from government grants), the WWF website is an important tool for reaching potential donators.
The World Wildlife Fund’s site has lots of professional appeal. The site has many different articles, graphics and pictures, yet still looks clean and organized. On the home page for the United States WWF there is a header for all the different sections of the site, from “Home” to “What We Do”, to “Act Now”. Every time you access a page in a new section, the header remains the same. This repetition increases usability and prevents the audience from getting lost within the site. Located above the header in the top left is the WWF Panda logo in black and white. Although it is small, it stands out and is also repeated through the site on every page. Another unchanging element of the WWF site is the globe graphic in the top left with an email sign up and the small “Donate, Adopt, Travel” header. This header and graphic are obviously the “moneymakers” of the website. Its functions all revolve around earning money in some way. The repetition serves in familiarizing the site’s viewers with the idea of giving to WWF.
Except for some major headlines and photos, almost all text and graphics are aligned to the left of the website page. The font used for these is simple and down to business, just like the World Wildlife Fund. It is plain, yet readable on all backgrounds. The font color is usually in black to contrast the white pages, but is sometimes orange or blue to go with the graphics. The main navigation header has capitalized font, while the headlines have bolded font.
The WWF site builders made good use of proximity. Methods of donating and supporting WWF are located next to each other on the home page. The features stories are grouped together towards the bottom of the page in a graphic spread that has an earthy tone to appeal to a nature-appreciating audience. Bullet points for articles of the same type are grouped together under a common descriptive title. However, there are so many articles that are bullet pointed that none of them grab my attention. I feel like this is ineffective and although it is not cluttered, there are simply too many articles listed. If I were searching for specific information I would much rather scroll to the very end of the page and look through the somewhat repetitive, yet, much simpler second list of bulleted links.
The colors used on the WWF site are generally earthy, muted shades of greens, blues, oranges, and browns. These less intense, natural colors match well with the websites purpose. They are nature oriented, just like the World Wildlife Fund. Some graphics used throughout the pages are rustic and outdoorsy looking as well. This type of appearance sets a mood for the audience, subtly reminding them why they are visiting the WWF site.
The second link on the navigation heading on the top of the WWF home page is “Who We Are”. When you click the link it takes you to a page dedicated to Ethos. A history of WWF is given, stating that the organization has been around since 1961, and has since then “Been achieving results from around the world”. The site creators put much of WWF’s credibility on its age, as well as the people who work within the organization. “Experts in conservation” reads one article headline, with a “Meet the WWF’s experts” link below it. When the link is clicked you can access the different employees of WWF, and read through their credentials. This connection says that because the employees of WWF are experts in their area, then the whole organization is an expert in conservation, a genetic fallacy. The World Wildlife Fund is not simply an expert just because its members are, but for other reasons.
The site creators use Ethos again with a headline titled “Accountability”. Underneath this headline are two graphics, one is for a “Four Star Charity Rating” from Charity Navigator, and the other is a “Meets BBB Wise Giving Alliance Standards for Charity Accountability”. This form of Ethos shows that World Wildlife Fund is recognized by outside sources with credibility.
The World Wildlife Fund bases many of its appeals to its audience on Pathos. On the home page one of the first things the audience sees is a slideshow of wildlife related pictures. Many of these are pictures of baby animals, with headlines like “As sea ice recedes, young walruses are at risk”. This slideshow serves to play at people’s emotions. Because the WWF site will most likely have people who enjoy animals as an audience, the site’s creators know that they will be able to get a compassionate reaction out of them through photos of elusive species going extinct, or images of suffering animals, such as an illegally poached tiger’s skin. Other quotes say “Pollution in the Mekong River is Killing Dolphins” with a photo of one of these dolphins swimming in a dirty looking river. This connects to the audience’s values because pollution is a human fault, meaning we are directly responsible for killing the dolphins. Better yet is “Every region of the United States is already experiencing climate change”, with a picture of road signs halfway under water. This quote hits close to home. For some members of the site’s audience it may not matter to them if some species of animals can go extinct, but it will matter if they are affected by the issues presented. Pathos is easily recognized all over the World Wildlife Fund’s site. It is stated in the “Who We Are” section that WWF is “An organization based on trust” . Trust is a human emotion. Audiences are receptive to it, which is why it is used as a Pathos appeal. The more the site grabs at our emotions, the more likely we are to support WWF.
The most abundant of appeals, however, is Logos. WWF’s site is full of information. There are many articles about endangered species and habitats that need conservation. These provide logical reasons for why it is a good idea to donate to WWF. Under the “Funding and Financial Overview” there are statistics for both program revenue and expenses. They show how the donated money is being spent, answering questions for potential donators. The quote under one of the graphs reads “82 percent of WWF’s spending is directed to worldwide conservation activities”. This way, the audience knows that if they were to donate money, it would most likely be used directly for conservation of wildlife programs.
After completing my analysis of the site I’ve realized that it is very accessible and well designed. Its ease of use adds to the appeals by Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. While going through WWF’s site I have seen that most of their claims have been backed up by hard evidence, except for one logical fallacy. Now that I have analyzed this site, I feel even more comfortable about donating to the World Wildlife Fund, when I expected to finish feeling somewhat disillusioned. Every point of its rhetorical appeals, combined with the site’s design, has shown that WWF is worth the audience’s time, and maybe even a donation or two.
Shouvlinhf's Blog 