Complete Guide for Determining the Ethos of Online Mascots

The Complete Report: A Guide for Determining the Ethos of Online Brand Mascots

Table of Contents:

I.	Introduction
II.	Methods of Rhetorical Analysis
III.	Ethos and the Online Environment
IV.	The Online Brand Mascot Phenomenon
V.	Evaluating the Ethos of Online Brand Mascots
VI.	A Web Site Analysis
VII.	A Checklist and Conclusion
VIII.	Appendix
IX.	References

I. Introduction:

Over the years, we have become accustomed to hearing messages delivered in our media by cute, fuzzy, reliable, and sometimes downright adorable animated characters. From the Jolly Green Giant to the Energizer Bunny, these fictional characters, known as brand mascots, have been entrusted to represent their companies and organizations in the most credible and likable way possible. Appearing in television and print advertisements, billboards, press releases, and corporate logos, these fixtures of commerce and information have, in many cases, become household names.

It is by no surprise, therefore, that these brand mascots have begun a migration the newest popular medium, the Internet. With the vast graphical capabilities of the world wide web, and the concurrent blast of commercialization of the medium in the past few years, the army of friendly, helpful cartoon characters has found a new base of mobilization. Around many links and corners now await a knowledgeable corps of characters who lead the charge for information, identity, and, perhaps most importantly, credibility.

In addition to the traditional corporate use of these mascots, the web's relative ease in allowing the publication of graphics has introduced the opportunity for every entrepreneur, teenager, pet owner, tour guide, grandma, and concerned citizen to add yet another cartoon character to the growing army. In short, these mascots are beginning to appear in great numbers on the web. Ranging from a direct personification of a webmaster to a completely fictional dancing rodent, web surfers are now engaging with, and making judgments about, these characters on their own computer screens.

Companies have already invested millions of dollars on research and development involving the rhetorical effectiveness of brand mascots in traditional media, yet the same cannot be said about all of their uses on the Internet. Because such a vast number of websites are jumping on the "character bandwagon," a new application of these mascots to available research on ethos, or source credibility, is necessary. I speak from my own knowledge of web design (spanning five years) as well as a base of research in the disciplines of speech and technical communication.

In this report, I provide an analysis and guide which should be useful for both rhetorician and non-rhetoricians alike, explaining traditional academic terms in a language easily understood by the mass of webmasters and web surfers who could most practically benefit from it. I begin with a brief discussion of my research method. Then, the report itself consists of four major parts: an introduction to the concept of ethos, an overview of the brand mascot phenomenon, a correlating evaluation of the ethos of brand mascots, and finally a checklist that will assist in the effective creation of a credible mascot for a web site, or the judgment of an existing mascot.

II. Methods of Rhetorical Analysis:

The information contained in this report was constructed utilizing the methods of direct observation, informal interviews, and the collection of reports conducted by traditional media. To start this endeavor, I established two means of finding examples of brand mascots in use online. First, with the help of colleagues, students, and friends, I compiled a list of characters used as brand mascots over the past few decades in the more traditional media, including a long tally of characters that have appeared in television commercials. With this list in hand, I surveyed the online storefronts and corporate headquarters of the companies using these mascots to determine whether or not the most well-known cartoon entities have journeyed to the virtual world.

Second, I launched a broad web surfing expedition. Without any clear and simple means of immediately locating such sites, I browsed over 2500 web sites spanning all sorts of industries and specialties in order to acquire a base knowledge about the general trends in the use of these characters. Utilizing the "Yahoo!" search engine, I examined most of the sites after choosing several unrelated categories and visiting every functioning site in those categories. Some common sense also led the charge in the search for sites at "Yahoo!" With their growing numbers and popularity, I searched every "Ask an Expert" site in the listings, as well as sites whose names included "Mister ____ ," "Doctor ____ ," and other indications of personification. After all of these sites were visited, I set out in search of more general "advice" sites, which would be ripe for study given their need for credibility. These advice sites included expertise from all walks of life, such as travel agents, doctors and nurses, tour guides, fitness trainers, master chefs, and counterculture gurus.

Along with the lengthy task of simply finding these mascots in action, I investigated how the characters were used when I discovered them. Making note of overall design aspects of the web sites, I also conducted a search to uncover any textual explanations participating websites provide publicly regarding their mascots. The design and use of the mascots were immediately evaluated for their rhetorical features, and although all five of the neo-Aristotelian canons of rhetoric were used in a summary analysis, the character's credibility, or ethos, was the focus. Interviews with the creators (i.e. webmasters) of the mascots were compiled from news articles after my attempts to contact them directly went unanswered.

The mascots discussed and seen in this report are publicly accessible, published material, and since they are used here for the purpose of criticism, their appearance is protected by the fair use provisions of copyright. In these regards, though still a legal issue under negotiation, the characters published online are legally considered in the same way as the text that accompanies them, and should be available to the same extent for use by researchers and scholars alike.

III. Ethos and the Online Environment:

Introduced in the early Greek rhetoric of Aristotle and Plato, the discussion of ethos has endured longer than many others in the disciplines of speech communication and rhetoric. Aristotle's system of invention includes three modes of appeal: ethos, pathos, and logos. For the purposes of this report, we will set aside the appeals of emotion and logic represented by the latter two and focus on ethos (an emphasis on ethos, however, does not eliminate the possible need for the study of pathos and logos on this subject in the future). As defined by classical rhetoric, ethos is the credibility and character of a speaker. For Aristotle (1991), speakers with exceptional ethos would "assume" the appropriate character traits for a specific argument and audience. As the concept evolved, ethos would be redefined as a sense of "a man of good character and courtesy" by Quintilian (Meador, 1983) and a belief by Cicero (1990) that "wisdom must be accompanied by eloquence."

Since then, controversies have erupted over the dimensionality of source credibility construct, with Aristotle's three elements of ethos (intelligence, character, and goodwill) under particular scrutiny. McCroskey and Teven (1999) argue that most empirical studies of the decades prior to the 1970s approached the construct of ethos from an incomplete perspective. In their view, while intelligence and character have been the focus of such studies and discussion, the element of goodwill has been unfairly dismissed. One notable exception, Hovland, Janis, and Kelley (1953), referred to source credibility as expertness, trustworthiness, and intent towards receiver. With almost every turn of the debate, the terminology used to describe intelligence and character has been different. Whether the third dimension of ethos is called goodwill, caring, or intention, this report will apply it, as well as the intelligence and character, to online brand mascots.

No matter the terminology, no rhetor or theorist has successfully denounced the basic importance of ethos. Cooper stated in 1932 that Aristotle believed that ethos was the speaker's most potent means of persuasion. In 1953, Hovland et. al reaffirmed Aristotle's strong argument that ethos is a central aspect of persuasive effectiveness. Today, I teach the concept of ethos to my college level public speaking course on only the second day of class meetings, and the term is featured prominently in the first chapter of the textbook I use (Zarefsky, 1999). Surprisingly, the basic components of ethos have remained consistent from the time of Aristotle to this day. As a result, in contemporary rhetoric, the definition of ethos is much the same, with an emphasis on achieving credibility through character and tone. For the purposes of this report, the concept of ethos will remain rooted in the values and character of the speaker, or in this case, the online mascot.

While classical rhetoric focused on the ethos of a specific, tangible speaker, the sender of rhetorical messages has recently become a chameleon with the invention of modern media technologies. Traditionally, rhetorical critics evaluate texts in part by identifying "the author's experience, education, values, and purpose" (Warnick, 1998). But when a critic attempts to determine the credibility of an online source in particular, new problems arise.

The focus of ethos no longer illuminates strictly the individual speaker standing behind a podium. The speakers of the today's online community sit in wired caves, sometimes clothed in only their underwear, using Adobe Photoshop (a popular graphics editing program) and cryptic computer language codes to convey their character to the receivers of the message: the web surfing public. Not only is the speaker him or herself now invisible to the audience, but we, as the audience, cannot even be certain that the speaker is limited to a single person. Such constructs of character have led, in extremes, to the "big brother" feelings of paranoia towards "faceless corporate America." After all, how can we trust that which we not only cannot see, but also that for which we cannot determine a number of speakers?

When discussing source credibility in the venue of online media, the concept of ethos expands beyond its reference to the character of an age, era, society, or culture (Reynolds, 1993). The relationship between ethos and two other elements must be considered. First, a person's character must act within the reasonable norms of a society's ethics in order to achieve a positive response. The mores of the audience must be given thought by the publisher of online content, which is difficult to do because of the Internet's global and anonymous nature. Establishing a positive ethos through ethics alone is a daunting task for a medium in which not only is the audience anonymous, but the speaker as well.

A second important aspect of modern ethos is community. Gurak (1999) states that a careful etymology of the Greek word translates ethos into "a habitual meeting place." With such a translation in mind, ethos has been considered as "as social act and a product of a community's character" (Reynolds, 1993) or "an image of people gathering together in a public place, sharing experiences and ideas" (Halloran, 1982). When web site creators place brand mascots on their sites, they are attempting to establish a sense of community within that site, so the character of the mascot is indeed a crucial element of that site's ethos.

The arrival of the online mascot suggests a need to introduce and briefly discuss the fifth canon of classical rhetoric, delivery. Whereas ethos falls under the very first canon of invention, delivery, after arrangement, style, and (the arguably defunct and/or forgotten canon of) memory, is the final method of conveying that ethos to the audience. Traditionally, delivery involves the facial expressions, vocal inflection, gestures, posture, and other body language of the speaker.

Kaufer & Carley argued in 1994 that the canon of delivery is absent from much of communication online. For the most part, they are correct; with Internet technologies as they are at the turn of the century, live video conferencing (which would introduce delivery as a major component of online communication) is still years away from the average consumer. However, online mascots and their personifications are one of the closest things we have to a visual delivery online and should not be summarily discounted. Ethos and delivery remain intertwined when studying these mascots since the animated characters' visual delivery are inherently related to the character judgments made about them and the sites on which they reside.

In the age of electronic information, therefore, the importance of the relationship between ethos and delivery persists, but in a different light. The electronic medium "compels us to reconsider the classical concept of delivery" (Bolter, 1993) and leads us towards the same conclusion simultaneously considered by Gurak (1996). With delivery already leaning away from the person-to-person method of speech because of radio, telephones, and television, it is now synonymous with the medium of the message's distribution. Welch (1990) agrees that that electronic communication has increased the "urgency" of reconsidering delivery and ethos because of the nature of the Internet as a medium.

The environment of cyberspace requires new ways of thinking about source credibility. The use of the medium to incorporate brand mascots into the graphical presentation of web sites reintroduces delivery as a close relative of ethos, and a necessary component of online credibility evaluations.

Because of the medium's inherent nature, of course, troubled waters exist. Messages from speakers in online media are asynchronous, fragmented, incorporeal, and antispacial. The source of a message is free floating, nowhere in particular but everywhere at once, and they interact through agents and characters. Presence is inferred from disembodied cues and references, and the lack of synchronous interaction restricts the non-verbal cues (through delivery) that we rely on so heavily to determine the ethos of the sender in real life.

When applying these concerns to the mascots we see online, however, it is important to recognize how comfortable people are becoming with this limited medium. As Turkle (1995) writes, computers were mere tools for calculation in the 1980s. Now, we substitute representations of real life for the real thing, and we are becoming increasingly comfortable with that notion. If the simulation of real life on the computer works for our psyche, then it is all the reality we need to be comfortable with that medium. Is it conceivably possible that the visitors to a web site might be too trusting of the mascots they see? Perhaps so.

There is really no way to ensure that the webmasters of any site are always acting in the best interest of their audience. Nor is it always possible to verify the real life identity of web site creators. Not only can the delivery of a message be questioned with ease, but the invention, arrangement, and style of that message --no matter how brilliant they may be-- could have been composed by an infinite number of people, or even the 13-year-old boy next door. In most cases, there is just no way to know (Warnick, 1998). Even upon a query of the site's owners and managers, a nebulous committee of individuals will likely comprise the "speaker." In the end, taking a stab at online ethos can be a precarious task, even when the evidence upon which that decision will be made can be downloaded onto your hard drive.

IV. The Online Brand Mascot Phenomenon:

An online brand mascot is an electronic form of an advertising or motivational technique that has already existed for many decades. A "mascot" is a character the can be seen at the ballpark, children's events, or, most likely, on television and in print advertisements. A "brand mascot" is a character which represents a company of some sorts. The Jolly Green Giant and Energizer Bunny are easily recognizable brand mascots from two eras of television.

In most cases, brand mascots are used to motivate the public into cheering for a professional sports team or purchasing products ranging from fried chicken to unleaded gasoline. While print advertisements and billboards remain a frequent home to brand mascots, television advertisements provide some of the most memorable examples of this phenomenon. Today, television viewers can witness the continued presence of the Colonel of Kentucky Fried Chicken, the colorful talking cars of Chevron, and the Pillsbury Dough Boy.

There should be a clear distinction made between spokesmen and a mascot. Whereas the KFC Colonel has emerged as a popular brand mascot in fast food advertising, Dave Thomas (the founder) of Wendy's appears in live form as a spokesman. Thus, brand mascots are either a fictional character, whether it be a Disney mouse or the Seattle Mariner's moose, or an animated representation of a real person, which is the case with Colonel Sanders.

Online brand mascots, therefore, are much like those described above, yet they have journeyed to the medium of the Internet. While not all of the mascots online are descendants of ones that we have seen in previous media, many of our long-time favorites have indeed made that journey. From the most famous retail chains to the smallest family stores, sites of all makes and sizes are employing brand mascots to assist them. As part of a survey conducted in November, 1999, I visited over 2500 sites linked from the Yahoo! search engine and chronicled 30 of the most interesting mascots I found. Available as a web appendix to this report is the list of examples ordered by the "genre of industry" and accompanied by a basic analysis meant to raise questions and concerns about the use of online brand mascots. The list is by no means complete, of course, and in the months that have past since these preliminary findings were identified, some of the characters might have changed their form.

To summarize the results of that web surfing expedition, mascots are still a rare event. There were many categories in Yahoo! (the vast majority, I must add) which did not include a single listing of a site that features a cartoon character. This absence alone might say much about some industries, but remains a mystery in those other genres of sites that could possibly benefit from the use of a character. For instance, the types of sites that promote one-on-one care or assistance were completely lacking. In the subcategories of "Health," there wasn't a single use of a character on sites related to: Chiropractors, Health Clubs, Personal Trainers, or Long Term Nursing. Characters are also absent from the sites in the "Real Estate" (General and Agencies), "Law" (Lawyer Locators, Expert Witnesses, and Forensics), and "Antiques" (Dealers, Locators, and Teddy Bears) categories. These were genres of sites that I browsed specifically because they all require a certain amount of credibility to operate successfully. Also included with these characterless sites are all twenty-one of the world's major airlines.

Even so, the few mascots that already populate the web are making big headlines. To gauge the success of online mascots, all one has to do is read the overwhelmingly positive articles recently written about them in the press. Although it is difficult to obtain information that directly relates the use of an established mascot with an increase of a site's fiscal success, mascot owners are nevertheless publicly touting their pride over their character creations.

In an interview with PC/Computing Magazine (2000), AskJeeves.com pioneer Ted Briscoe claims that the goal of the mascot Jeeves was to create a memorable character who embodied what the company was all about. "He's the online concierge. He's accessible to everyone. It's not costing us a lot of money, but it's a creative way to rise above the clutter" says Briscoe. Jeeves is currently visited by 2.5 million unique visitors a month, actors dressed as Jeeves appeared at Internet industry conferences, and Jeeves became the first Internet character to fly as a balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, seen by some 60 million TV viewers. In a case study as part of the same issue, Jane Weaver believes that the trick to Jeeves' success is "an ambitious mix of traditional and guerrilla marketing" that could make him "a global star."

Commenting further on the first online mascot to appear in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, Tim Ray, director of publicity for Macy's East, said floats cannot be purchased by just anyone with the necessary cash. "Jeeves is a great fit," he said, "because it meshes nicely with the parade's emphasis on kids and its 'educational angle.'" Jeeves follows a long and distinguished line of characters to ride down Broadway, but obtaining a hot air balloon could, according to Thomas J. DeLoughry of Internet World ((1999), elevate Jeeves to the "high-status position of Superman or Bullwinkle." Adding that Jeeves might have a chance of obtaining a balloon someday, Ray comments that "a balloon has to be a character that has real recognizability and classicness." At this rate, Jeeves could very well be majestically floating in a few years.

Another site with an eye on the younger web audience is Alfy.com. As written by Kipp Cheng of Brandweek (1999), Alfy "offers learning games for very young children and arcade games and personalized e-mail for older kids." The site's mascot, an anthropomorphic dog-like character named Alfy, is sound enabled. Robyn Kerner, vice president of marketing at Alfy.com, believes that Alfy will soon become a recognizable icon for mini-Web surfers to explore the Internet. "Psychologists have told us that kids are really into the process of searching. They like clicking through and learning how to get to places. When you have all that textual information, it's just not a fun process for kids: it becomes very clinical." said Kerner. With the help of Alfy the dog, the site targets children as young as three years old.

The popular online pet store Pets.com "has burned $21 million on marketing and advertising in the past year trying to create a unique identity," as stated in a March, 2000, Business Week article. The Pets.com brand mascot is a sock puppet that vaguely resembles a white dog with black patches. It did what Jeeves the butler could not achieve so quickly; the sock puppet was featured in Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade as a 36-foot-high balloon last year. The mascot also reared its head in a Super Bowl advertisement that cost Pets.com more than $2 million. Yet, according to a survey by e-commerce consultant Gomez Advisors Inc., of 550 people logging on to the Pets.com site, some 30% of those who had seen the ad thought it belonged to another pet site. In any case, the sock puppet is yet another low cost mascot in the spotlight.

The co-creation of writer-comedian Lynn Harris and cartoonist-designer Christopher Kalb, Breakup Girl (at www.breakupgirl.com) has received so many accolades regarding their cartoon creation that they have posted an entire page devoted to their press response. One response from the Seattle Times reads, "[Breakup Girl] is a chance to heal fresh wounds or revisit old ones, and laugh through the tears. Bring it on home, Breakup Girl. You feel my pain." The New York Times adds that "Breakup Girl has become a star on the Net." With positive comments printed by almost every major periodical in the United States, Breakup Girl perfectly exemplifies the best of brand mascots at work.

In the article "Secrets of the New Brand Builders" which appeared in a 1998 issue of Fortune, Patricia Nakache states that one of the most important brand-building tricks is "to capture the irreverence and freewheeling spirit of the Web and of [the company's] own workers." As part of the 1996 Internet World trade show, Nakache continues, the Java marketing staff published an entire comic book for software developers that featured Duke, the Java mascot that looks part penguin, part tooth, battling to "keep the Internet safe for everyone." Java marketing director George Paolini observed, "If anything, Sun as a corporate culture errs on the side of humor." Sun believes that gives it a public relations leg up over Microsoft.

Countless other articles praise the use of mascots as they begin to saturate the web. At any rate, one thing is for certain: the craze of using brand mascots to enhance a site's identity and credibility is far from over.

V. Evaluating the Ethos of Online Brand Mascots:

Determining the credibility of online mascots can be a tricky endeavor. From both the perspectives of a webmaster and a web surfer, several key problems arise when attempting to collect empirical data (through, for instance, a survey) about a mascot. For the mascot's creators, a site's creation process and eventual intercultural reach are two reasons for this unpredictability. For the average web surfer, a lack of access to a large sampling of opinions from other visitors is also problematic.

The job of creating a mascot for a web site is, in almost every case, a process undertaken by a marketing design committee within an organization. This group of creative minds sets out to accomplish essentially the same end product of this report: the determination of a perfect mascot. This process, however, often leads to numerous difficulties. In online publishing, the larger web sites that utilize these mascots take great pride in momentous grand openings. A drawback of opening with such a "bang" is an immediate and total commitment to the mascot which appears that first week on the new site. By relying on the mascot to provide an immediate identification tool for visitors, the site owners are tethered to that character from the first day on. While minor adjustments can be made to the mascot, a total switch of character could confuse and alienate potential repeat visitors. So in the end, it is, in many cases, a one shot deal. Taking empirical data through surveys once the character is already established could prove useless with an entire site's identity already anchored to that mascot.

Secondly, another problem in evaluation exists --especially in light of the first situation mentioned above. Sites utilize password-protected "beta" releases of their content and layout to 'friends and family' prior to a full launch. While this option allows for some feedback from an audience regarding a soon-to-be-born mascot, there is by no means a method of achieving responses from a diverse, global audience. Therefore, what may be a very popular mascot to the employees and friends of a budding site could very easily prove to be a bust with audiences from areas with different demographics and social mores.

Combining both of the evaluation problems above could cause enormous, though not unsurmountable, risks for mascot creators. But what of the average web surfer? How can he or she make accurate judgments about the effectiveness of an online mascot seen on a corporate site? By learning how the webmasters are deciding upon their characters, one can indeed make a thorough evaluation.

Attempting to get in touch with the webmasters of large sites, however, is a daunting task, and the average visitor could face difficulties in receiving any response from them at all. Even as a researcher with the promise of sharing the results of my findings, I did not receive a personalized response from the creators of any of the sites which I studied in detail for this report. As the webmaster of a site that receives tens of thousands of visitors a day, I also recognize the necessity of shunning questions such as "Why the black background?" or "How come your layout features this kind of design?" simply because of time restraints. In most cases, the best information to be found appears in the press, perhaps when the site owners figure they can put in a positive plug for their cause while revealing some of their sites' inner-workings.

The anonymity and volume of the web also makes it difficult to simply seek out and survey the other visitors of any given site. A person could conceivably find a message board at the site (though there is usually not one present at commerce sites) and query the other visitors in that forum. Unfortunately, this sampling will be small and unreliable. And, to make matters worse, a protective moderator could delete an inquiring thread instead of risking a debate that might include negative commentary about the beloved mascot of the site.

Thus, online mascots are tricky business for both web site creators and average surfers alike. The model presented below, however, could provide a helpful key to lead a rhetorical analysis of a mascot in a meaningful direction for all parties involved.

As stated in my overview of the history of ethos, the cyberspace environment requires new ways of thinking about source credibility. It is possible that the father of ethos, Aristotle, would be dumbfounded by the vanishing identities of author and audience in the online environment. Indeed, it is important to recognize that Aristotle conceived of his conceptual framework for ethos in an environment vastly different than that of the web, but to completely abandon the roots of ethos could be a hasty mistake. An opportunity to apply Aristotle's most basic elements of ethos (intelligence, character, and goodwill) presents itself when also studying the more traditional aspects of visual delivery that online mascots reintroduce into the construct of online credibility.

It would be nearly impossible to evaluate the intelligence, character, and goodwill of a mascot without recognizing the visual cues present in that mascot's image, behavior, and accompanying text. By creating a framework of study through an analysis of design, layout, and structural aspects of the mascot, I have created a method by which web surfers, webmasters, rhetoricians, and scholars can begin to make judgments about the credibility of these mascots. After explaining this proposed method in more depth, I will use the model to analyze four popular and very different online mascots.

The elements of ethos, intelligence, character, and goodwill, are abstract ideas, and yet the visual delivery cues from mascots provide concrete evidence with which to rate them. In the process of elaborating on these three elements, I will detail specific aspects of visual presentation that will assist in building a concrete foundation for such a system of evaluation.

1) The first element of ethos is intelligence, and can include judgments based on competence, qualification, expertness, and authoritativeness. An intelligent brand mascot is one that the visitor believes could assist in providing at least some helpful information on a number of queries. In these regards, the character will not be effective if there is simply no meaningful text included on the pages it oversees. To assist in boosting the mascot's perceived knowledge on the site's subject matter, some sites employ false pictures of doctoral plaques and place them on "about our mascot" pages that do little more than qualify the character. Other sites choose names inherent to a competent profession, such as "Doctor ____" or "Professor ____ ."

The character must be integrated with the layout of the web site, or otherwise it will appear to be out of place and unwise. Whether this is done through the use of server-side includes (a method of automated web page construction that allows the same HTML code to be used, for instance, to create a consistent header and footer on every one of that site's pages) or complex editing on every single page, the mascot should look right at home in the site's environment. The font used in surrounding graphics or image maps can extend the character's appearance, too. A "Sandlot" font would not function as well as a "Times New Roman" font on a site which features a "Doctor ____" mascot who is supposedly the expert on the self-diagnosis of an adult visitor's medical condition. The color scheme is equally important. It might be wise to clothe a mascot in the same colors of the site's design. Otherwise, a clash would exist online that we, in real life, try to avoid every morning when choosing our attire for the day.

The most knowledgeable of mascots projects a very positive image on the site's textual content. Sometimes, the visitor will see a mascot holding a pile of encyclopedias or wearing a professorial set of spectacles. If a mascot is looking upwards in deep thought, with a hand raised to its chin, then it might appear to be the thoughtful, pontificating type. The most intelligent mascots will even recognize what current holidays are being observed, and make an appropriate change in attire or activity to reflect the commonly accepted traits of each holiday. During the Christmas holidays of 1999, for instance, a few of the mascots I was surveying for my preliminary report were wearing Santa hats.

A certain level of authority can important to a mascot as well. With so few apparent individual leaders to follow on the medium, the best of mascots are those who can (or appear to be able to) take charge and lead the way if a visitor to a site can't find the needed information or gets lost. A strong posture, respectable outfit, and pointed finger would assist that character in gaining the confidence of the visitor. Likewise, if a mascot was at the wheel of a cartoon vehicle while holding a bottle of beer, an opposite judgment about the mascot could result, and might reflect heavily on the site's textual content. The Jeeves character at AskJeeves.com, for example, thrives on the confidence it gains from its authoritative graphical manners.

2) The second element of ethos is character. Perhaps the most immeasurable aspect of ethos, dealing with such areas as trustworthiness, honesty, morality, and likability, a source's character includes everything from ethics to cuteness. Some sites become completely engaged in this element of credibility because of their particular audience's demographics. Whereas an adult searching for information might hold "intelligence" as a greater indicator of ethos, an eight-year-old having a fun afternoon surfing the web might be better served by a mascot of better "character."

A mascot should look as though it can be relied upon by the web visitor. A slight change in facial expression or color code can have a big impact on a mascot's trustworthiness. A mascot cloaked in black with red eyes might not be the most trusted host, unless the visitor is seeking the refuge of a "dark knight" site devoted to a cape crusader or other punisher of evil. An interesting case of problematic character arises at watchdr.com, where a "Watch Doctor" with crazy black hair, a maniacal grin, and questionable choice of body decoration is frightfully staring off to one side of the browser. Some visitors might not trust this character to provide for them the time of day, much less trust them with the long distance repair of a valuable watch.

Not to be quickly discarded about the Watch Doctor is the direction in which he faces on his site's home page. Generally, in interviews on television, recall that the interviewee faces the direction on camera to which there is more available space (i.e. if the interviewee is facing left, then that person's head will occupy the right side of the screen in order to show more of his or her line of sight). Such directorial aspects of delivery on television are a basic rule of positioning, and that idea is no less valid for mascots on web sites. A visitor will better trust the judgment of a mascot which faces the material it accompanies. If the mascot doesn't appear to be facing (or presenting) the textual content of the site, then the visitor might assume that the mascot doesn't really care about that content.

The honesty of a character is more difficult to measure online, but it can be detrimental when a mascot claims that it can help the visitor while the text on the screen says "your search yielded no results." If an annoying advertisement pops up in a new window after the visitor accepts the recommendation of a mascot, then the site could suffer the wrath of that user's back button. Likewise, if mascots advocate a certain action or behavior modification by the visitor, which sometimes occurs as a visual representation of text that is part of the mascot's image, then the message being stated by the character is vital. A mascot with a saying of "Tell me your troubles and let's work through this" will certainly elicit a different response from the visitor than a mascot which says "Go forth and kill!" In general, to be safe, the creator of a mascot should use that character's slogan or attitude to advocate positive thinking or behavior.

The global reach of the Internet, though, makes the morality of a mascot's character difficult to measure (how can we be sure that "Go forth and kill!" isn't a positive statement of pride and honor in another culture?). It is a tricky concept when dealing with a mascot that has to act in accordance to the societal mores of every nation on the globe. While obeying every ethical law of the United States, for instance, the color, attire, or mere existence of a mascot might be highly offensive in a nation of Africa or the Middle East. While no easy solution exists for this problem, sites which feature their content in multiple languages should consider altering their mascots in each different language section to conform to the cultural norms of the countries which speak those languages.

The likability of a mascot not only applies to children's mascots, but truthfully any mascot in any venue. Is the character cute, fuzzy, and bubbly on a children's site? Is the character menacing, courageous, and cool on a site devoted to the action-packed, violent video games that attract teenage boys? Or does the kind woman on the serious self-help site appear to have comforting motherly qualities? Much can be said about the web site as a whole by determining what kind of crowd would find the mascot to be likable. Always an enjoyable icon, the Breakup Girl (of breakupgirl.com) fights for the cause of the lovelorn by not only providing an environment in which people can discuss their broken hearts, but her robust, cool character bursts out of the browser's background and flies directly to the visitor's rescue.

3) The third element of ethos is goodwill. While easy to understand its importance, the enactment of goodwill on any site is difficult to do, and no less so with a mascot. Moreso than the other two elements, a display of goodwill cannot be achieved with the character alone because it deals with the mascot's intentions, perceived caring, and responsiveness to various situations. Often, different incarnations of the character and a strong textual correlation with that mascot are necessary to ensure the visitor that the mascot is acting in the his or her best interests.

Intentions are always a vital aspect of any message, but how can a visitor truly determine what a mascot --or the parent site-- is really thinking? It is entirely possible that a site is attempting to manipulate the visitor into clicking on a certain link, downloading a program, or viewing an advertisement. By clearly stating the purpose of the mascot on the site, however, webmasters can avoid this pitfall. Some explanations of purpose are reduced to slogans, but other sites ensure that visitors are comfortable with their mascots by providing them with pages upon pages of text explaining the purpose of the mascot. In the case of the talking Chevron Cars (at chevroncars.com), a character called "Wally the Warning Squirrel" appears on the screen with a full page of legal jargon if a visitor clicks on one of the cute, digital-claymation cars that Chevron uses as its mascots. If a site aimed at children confuses me --an adult-- with the sudden interspersion of this legally apt squirrel, then I can only imagine how it might confuse a child. It raises questions immediately about why the author(s) chose (or were forced) to saturate the site with legal warnings from a squirrel.

If the mascots seems to take a genuine interest in caring about the visitor's feelings, then that visitor is more likely to spend time returning to that site. The mascot, therefore, must act in ways that make visitors feel accepted and valid. Mascots that care about the visitor exhibit the same traits of speakers who care about their real-life audiences; they, for instance, are those that look directly at the web surfer, smile, and perhaps even extend a hand. If the visitor believes that the mascot exists just to take up space, or perhaps simply as a decoration, then its effectiveness diminishes. Decorative mascots are often those that either clash with the other design elements of the page or simply not "clickable." Surprisingly, even some of the very best mascots on the web do not utilize the hypertext feature of clickability. If a site features an "about our mascot" page, then it would be a good idea for the visitor to be transported to that page upon clicking on the mascot itself.

With Java scripting technologies advancing at light speed by the year 2000, basic developments in mascot interactivity are nearby. The best mascots know when to speak up and/or save the visitor from his or her troubles. If the visitor is having problems, and the mascot appears to be reaching out to help (and even, in some cases, say the right thing!), then the visitor further identifies with the mascot and site. The creators of Simon at the comparison shopping site MySimon.com have attempted to create an interactive character which shops the web so that "you don't have to do the work."

Although it might not seem logical in the beginning, it is important for a character to respond to a visitor's request that the mascot vanish from the screen. Many web surfers who work at a company, school, or other location with a computer that has Internet access will likely admit to at least occasionally browsing the web while on working time. If that visitor frequents a recreational web site which features a bold mascot that can be seen from across an office, it might be wise to offer the surfer an option to hide the character while he or she browses the content of the site. Not only does Breakup Girl offer the visitor a "read-at-work" version of her advice column, but when the mascot hides, so do the adventurous fonts and sexually charged language choices in the page's image maps and headers.

With so much anonymity and mass of traffic on the web, visitors might also applaud a character that acknowledges them personally. Though I have not seen it done explicitly on any site with a mascot, e-commerce sites (such as Amazon.com for instance), use cookies to welcome a repeat, registered visitor by name. If cookies could be employed to assist a mascot in recognizing the personal preferences of individual users, then that character can appear to be even more attentive to visitor's exacting needs.

A mascot which is adaptable, however, is one that goes beyond simple name recognition and will change its appearance or demeanor on different parts of a site that are aimed at entirely different groups of people. A perception of attentiveness can be achieved by including the mascot on not only the home page of the site, but the secondary and tertiary level pages so it appears as though the mascot is going along with the visitor on his or her journey. Jeeves is once again a noteworthy example, featuring a large wardrobe which changes vastly when the visitor to his site explores the "kids" section of that site.

VI. A Web Site Analysis:

For experienced graphic artists, these factors may seem too obvious for discussion, but they are still highly relevant for non-artists, webmasters, and scholars. With so many specific graphical factors influencing a mascot's ethos, even the most veteran designers might overlook some of the relevant details described in this report. So to demonstrate how an analysis of existing mascots can be achieved from the previous discussion of ethos, I will analyze four well known mascots. Detailing the graphical, layout, and textual aspects of these mascots, I constructed a method of evaluating the perceptions of the mascots' intelligence, character, and goodwill.

I chose these four because they represent a cross section of the different types of mascots, as well as varying levels of rhetorical effectiveness. Both Jeeves and Breakup Girl offer some of the best integration of text and graphics for an online mascot, while the Chevron Cars and the KFC Colonel have some design flaws which hinder their ethos. The first two are native to the web, while the latter two have appeared previously in traditional media. The Chevron Cars are an example of mascots in non-human form. The genres of their parent web sites are very different, including a search engine, social help site, fast food chain, and gasoline giant. Finally, all four mascots belong to sites that receive a high amount of traffic and exposure.

Ask Jeeves, "http://www.askjeeves.com/"

Jeeves

Intelligence: The symbol of the butler endures over time, enhanced by the popular series of Batman films of 1989 to 1997 (in which Alfred the butler provides all the tools, information, and costumes for the caped crusader), and has reappeared in Batman-style communication advertisements in 2000. With butlers known by definition to be problem solvers, Jeeves' competence is immediately established. His cool, omniscient facial expression and posture invites the visitor to test his expertise. While no credentials are provided in depth for Jeeves, his name recognition through advertising and masterful graphical appearance elevates his authority as a person who can find exactly what it is you're looking for.

Character: Just as the butler's image as a problem-solver remains intact, so does the impression that butlers can be a father figure to those they serve. Historically speaking, the butler (as an occupation) has a rich tradition, and this tradition represents an older, more ethical and honest generation. After all, Jeeves, as a butler, is your employee and gives you an honest answer when need be. Although the image of the butler here is derived from Western European tradition, the concept of the servant is consistent in almost any culture, making Jeeves' gesture of servitude an easily acceptable cross-culture icon. Jeeves' superior likability stems from his willingness to dress appropriately for the kids; on the kids section of the site, Jeeves changes from the austere coat and vest into an adventuresome outdoorsman with a pith helmet, of all things.

Goodwill: The site is a commercial endeavor, so in the end, Jeeves is still a promotional tool. And yet, the average visitor might not think of him as such. In the end, however, the visitor can use Jeeves to find exactly what he or she is looking for without being pressured to purchase anything. One of the most important aspects of the Jeeves character is the sense of empathy and understanding because he learns from your questions. People can read what other visitors are asking him, so the visitor can sense that he knows what you might be thinking. Then again, let it be known that he might reveal your questions to other people! Jeeves is also a responsive character, appearing on every single page of the site. Also take note of the fact that he always is facing the center of the page, connecting the visitor with the bulk of content being provided. You'll never catch him daydreaming.

Jeeves is one of the very best examples of how a mascot can be used to gain a web site the notoriety and return use that it seeks. The mascot is bright, likable, and responsive.

Kentucky Fried Chicken, "http://www.kfc.com/"

Colonel

Intelligence: KFC, as the company is now named, is eternally associated with Colonel Harland Sanders. The Colonel is one of the rare cases in which a company has used a real person (and in this case, the founder) as the template for a cartoon mascot. The television advertisements from KFC in the 1990s have already established the hip, dancing, animated Colonel as a fried chicken guru... so much so that it's unlikely that the majority of the web audience will remember the man himself from before his death in the 1980s. It is because of the tradition of Colonel Sanders that the majority of competence is assigned. If a person with no prior knowledge of that tradition saw the animated Colonel, however, that visitor might think the Colonel is a fool. Wearing a sheepish grin and often dancing while carrying a bucket of chicken, the icon does not inspire confidence among those who have not tried a sample of the restaurant's food.

Character: Especially in the case of Colonel Sanders, it is important to remember the seriousness of the site's product or service. In nearly every animated form of the Colonel, the man is a downright silly cartoon. If KFC was offering home mortgages or cancer treatment advice, then this character's behavior would pose a problem. With something as casual as fast food, though, there is really nothing to lose with a hip, dancing old man. While the animated Colonel doesn't have a moral code, the original Colonel did, and without the assistance of the new mascot, KFC provides historical and community related information. In the end, the mere enthusiasm of the Colonel (who, in most of the current graphics on the site, is in the act of exclaiming something to the visitors) makes him a likable guy.

Goodwill: The Colonel runs into some problems when considering his willingness to understand or respond to the visitors of the site. One of the curious aspects of the KFC site is the constant shift between the image of the new animated Colonel and the faded image of Sanders himself. This juxtaposition doesn't seem to have much logical reason behind it, and there's no telling why the webmasters are only partially using their new mascot. The site itself has virtual tours of "the Sanders Cafe" but the single image of the mascot seen on the main index page of the site remains frozen in expression wherever the visitor goes. In short, he's just a token mascot that never moves.

Whereas the Colonel himself is well supported on the KFC site, the Colonel Sanders mascot's ethos is below average. With only some more responsiveness, and some of the enthusiasm he exhibits in the television ads, he could be a very successful online mascot. If he walked the visitors through the "recipe" and "ordering" sections, he could be finger-lickin' good.

Chevron, "http://www.chevroncars.com/"

Chevron Cars

Intelligence: As popular icons on television in the late 1990s, the talking, digital-claymation cars of the Chevron gasoline company provide for very entertaining advertisements. With each car featuring a unique personality and wonderful expressiveness, the cars tell us about what it's like to be... cars. Online, however, the cars are no place to be found on the corporate site, www.chevron.com. A sleek and intelligently conservative style features not one car. Instead, visitors can choose to be funneled to an entirely distinct site devoted to only the talking cars. To what end remains to be determined... The same cars that sell the company on television are targeted for only children online. As an adult, I have a difficult time understanding the purpose of the cars, and why they should, after all, be the experts on what it's like to be a car. To a child, however, I can imagine they'd be quite convincing. The textual descriptions of each car are, to Chevron's credit, enjoyable and clever. In the end, it seems like this site is an online day care center for the kids to click around at while the parents visit the corporate site.

Character: The most curious aspect of the site for children might be "Wally the Warning Squirrel." This squirrel maintains a dialog with parents about the fact that commercial material is advertised on subsequent pages of the site when a visitor clicks on several portions of the site. Confusing for possibly two reasons, the site takes on the flashy, cute, and innocent appearance of a children's area while pushing commercial products, and the warnings from the squirrel probably make no sense to a child visiting the site. In fact, they made no sense to me, at the start. Upon further investigation, it appears as though Chevron is covering their legal rear by placing such warnings all over the site. How can we trust a site, though, that uses one animated character to warn us about the activities of the other animated characters on the site? It takes a lot of reading of the privacy statement and other pages to understand the site's purpose, and that is reading that kids will most certainly shun. Nevertheless, once past such questions, the cars themselves remain very likable.

Goodwill: What the Chevron cars lose in character is compensated by their apparent goodwill towards the audience of the site once that audience works its way past the legal warnings. Visitors can choose between the dozens of cars and use that car as a guide to the suburban setting of the site. Each car can be seen moving in video action, or simply heard in audio. Empathy and understanding are a low priority, but if you think of it in the perspective of a child playing with a toy, it's not expected that they respond to the child's feelings. The cars mean well, unless, perhaps, you have a credit card.

The overall ethos of the Chevron Cars is inflated only because of its extremely creative likability and responsiveness factors. Questions about the overarching competence, intent, and morality surrounding them raise some concerns. Many of the best aspects of the cars might not even be accessible to web surfers whose computers cannot download their interactive features.

Breakup Girl, "http://www.breakupgirl.com/"

Intelligence: One of the hottest new mascots online is Breakup Girl, a savvy and strong superhero who tackles ailing love lives. The creator of a female writer-comedian and a male comic artist, Breakup Girl has become such an incredible phenomenon that she has just experienced her first large book release. And the very fact that Breakup Girl can now be found at Barnes and Nobles proves that an online mascot, if popular enough, can expand to the printed page. That is, if the content is equally impressive. Breakup Girl's perceived intelligence is not established by the character, but by the consistently strong textual content of the site. The superhero's emphasis is on providing the character and goodwill elements. Still, with the character interlocked with textual content in the form of exclusive comics, the images and text are sometimes one. It is possible, however, that some women might take offense to her undeniably attractive and voluptuous form.

Character: Persona is everything for Breakup Girl. By busting out of the screen and heading right for the visitor with fists clenched, she leaves no doubt about her strength and determination. Her gender alone, as well as that of her creator, is important. This site is targeted toward young women, as witnessed in its lengthy advice, and Breakup Girl's honesty and trustworthiness are paralleled by only her enthusiasm. Her advice is not radical, though straightforward. As a bombshell blonde in red, donning a cape and baseball cap, Breakup Girl is a likable gal.

Goodwill: Breakup Girl to the rescue! With the inclusion of lengthy textual content to explain Breakup Girl's history and purpose, there's nothing vague about the webmasters' intentions. As a social support site, achieving a sense of goodwill is extremely important, and Breakup Girl is constantly soliciting feedback and input from her viewers. She is also exceptionally responsive, with a different graphic of her on almost every secondary page on the site. And, then, there's the "Read-at-Work Version" of the site that features the same content, but hides Breakup Girl for future browsing. She definitely has your best interests in mind.

On the whole, Breakup Girl ranks with Jeeves near the top of the credibility scale for online mascots. Her brilliant integration into the site's design and content make her the model by which other characters should be conceived. When an online character is so effective that she starts showing up on the covers of print resources, then you can be sure that the ethos is high.

VIII. Appendix:

For the results of the broad survey of online mascots conducted in 1999, see the following URL: http://www.filmtracks.com/mascots/appendix.html

IX. References:

Aristotle. 1991. On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. Translated by George A. Kennedy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bolter, Jay David. 1993. "Hypertext and the Rhetorical Canons." In Rhetorical Memory and Delivery. edited by J. F. Reynolds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cheng, Kipp. 1999. "Alfy.com Reaches Kids, Wordlessly." Brandweek. June 7, 1999 v40 i23: 44.
Cicero. 1990. Of Oratory. Translated by E.W. Sutton and H. Rackham. Boston, MA: Bedford Books of St. Martin's Press: Book I, Section II.
Cooper, L. 1932. The Rhetoric of Aristotle. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
DeLoughry, Thomas J. 1999. "What's the Price of a Float? Ask Jeeves Isn't Answering." Internet World. Oct 15, 1999 v5 i31: 20.
Gurak, Laura J. 1996. "The Multifaceted and Novel Nature of Using Cybertexts as Research Data." In Computer Networking and Scholarship in the 21st Century University, edited by T. M. Harrison and T. D. Stephen. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Gurak, Laura J. 1999. "The Promise and the Peril of Social Action in Cyberspace." In Communities in Cyberspace, edited by M. A. Smith and P. Kollock. London: Routledge.
Halloran, S. Michael. 1982. "Aristotle's Concept of Ethos, or if not His Somebody Else's." Rhetoric Review 1(1): 58-63.
Hovland, C.I., Janis, I.L., and Kelley, H.H. 1953. Communication and Persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Kaufer, David S., and Carley, Kathleen. 1994. "Some Concepts and Axioms about Communication: Proximate and at a Distance." Written Communication 11(1): 8-42.
McCroskey, James C., and Teven, Jason J. 1999. Goodwill: A Reexamination of the Construct and its Measurement. Speech Monographs, 66, 90-102.
Meador, Prentice A. Jr. 1983. "Quintilian and the 'Institutio oratoria'." In A Synoptic History of Classical Rhetoric, edited by J.J. Murphy. New York: Random House.
Nakache, Patricia. 1998. "Secrets of the New Brand Builders." Fortune. June 22, 1998 v137 n12: 167(3).
Reynolds, Nedra. 1993. "'Ethos' as Location: New Sites for Understanding Discursive Authority." Rhetoric Review. 11(2): 325-338.
Snyder, John. 2000. "For Online Pet Stores, It's Dog-Eat-Dog." Business Week. March 6, 2000 i3671: 78.
Turkle, Sherry. 1995. Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster: 24.
Warnick, Barbara. 1998. "Rhetorical Criticism of Public Discourse on the Internet: Theoretical Implications." Rhetoric Society Quarterly 28(4): 73-84.
Weaver, Jane. 2000. "Case Study: The Butler Did It." PC/Computing. Jan 2000: 93.
Welch, Kathleen E. 1990. "Electrifying Classical Rhetoric: Ancient Media, Modern Technology, and Contemporary Composition." Journal of Advanced Composition 10(1): 22-38.
Zarefsky, David. 1999. Public Speaking: Strategies for Success. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon: 13.

Back to the Report Overview

Site created 11/27/99, last updated 5/14/00. All textual content published under the supervision of the Department of Speech Communication at The University of Washington, Seattle, and hosted by Filmtracks Publications of Missoula, Montana. All artwork is protected by the Copyright © 2000, of the site(s) it represents. Its appearance on this report is for informational, non-profit use, and may not be redistributed without their expressed written consent. Direct all questions or comments about these pages to Christian Clemmensen.