I was really surprised at how derogative the ad was. It  brutally criticized the joggers and made them seem useless. It painted a picture of how better and more important runners are in how it stated that the they are always the ones that find the dead bodies and how much they contribute to society. The discrimination of this ad stood out to me the most. It greatly looked down on joggers and aggressively down sized them. The fact that it would criticize one group of people just to promote a product greatly shocked me. 

I personally not being a runner considered this ad to be degrading. I think that the company should have took into consideration how non-runners may be offended by their ad and not buy the product. 

I found the text of the "We are not joggers" campaign to be some what disturbing. I do not see how you could take the evolution of the human body and turn it into we are meant to run. There are a lot of people in this world who use the advantages of being the most evolved species for other uses than simply running. I feel that the creators of this ad took certain subjects from the humans' historical past and greatly twisted it to fit the cause of running. The statement "if you weren't already a runner you would have never have been born" is just simply ridiculous. All of the sayings included in the presentation are very biased. I will give the campaign credit for its layout. It is interesting and eye grabbing. 

The values of being a real runner is significantly promoted in this ad. Real runners do not need music to pass the time. They truly enjoy the whole experience. It promotes determination and competition  in the fact that joggers may feel more determined  and motivated to out do the runners. It also promotes the values of citizenship. Runners may feel a greater sense of unity and  strive more to run down those less popular routes just so they can be on the lookout for anything that seems to be abnormal. 

I do see marketing advantages in dividing the runners from the joggers in the sense that the ad was so harsh towards joggers that it could encourage more of them to take up running, which would  lead to them buying the company's shoes. The company was tactful in the way that they used the the sense of division to promote joggers to move forward to running. 

In the first ad, I feel that the campaign was largely based on ethos. The company was trying to play on runners feeling of pride for being the better version of a "jogger." However, the company was also trying to play off of a joggers' emotion of feeling inadequate. If either of these emotions were promoted by this ad, it would cause both the runner and the jogger to want to purchase the merchandise. I think that the second ad was based more on logos. I think this because it is persuading consumers to be smart about not pushing themselves, which by showing the runner throwing up is logical. I think that this ad would have a larger audience that it would appeal to than the other. 

In considering which ad to appear in a magazine, i would choose the second Reebok ad. It is a simple ad that clearly gets the point across in not so many words. The Pearl Izumi's ad is too long, and I think readers would lose interest or be apt to not read it at all if they just considered the length. The Reebok ad is more effective in that it only has to make one statement. The picture does a great job at getting the point across. It is a great attention grabber. I also feel that this ad is less offensive, which in itself would be more productive for the company.