Re: [Global] Trains in TV ads

["Dave Proctor" <daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au>]

(Followups redirected out of aus.rail)

"yuk" <yuk@off.com> wrote in message
news:CNOS4.9551$X4.19525@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> Oh right, so because you're in favour of  "in your face" advertising means
I
> have to accept some bloody great
> franger being jammed in my 3 year olds face. Bzzzt sorry, my vote goes
with
> the Brown Family
> on this one. It's like all the no hopers "exchanging" their needles which
> they then discard uncapped near
> my kids school. You take a bunch who are already at risk and then to
reduce
> the risk to them you start spreading
> that risk to a bunch of kids who were at no risk at all until all these
> "exchanged" needles started coming over the school
> fence.

Exchanged needles I agree with you on. If they hand one in, they get one
back, if they hand five in, they get five back, if that hand none in, they
get none back.

But people have to realise that it is a changed world we live in, and even
my sister is teaching her son (aged 8) about some of the dangers in the
community (used condoms, used syringes, etc). Children who are too young to
understand what a condom is used for won't understand it when they see the
tram going past, and those who are old enough to understand are probably the
age group that should be targetted with the message of safer sex. Having a
tram as a moving billboard with a condom displayed on the side *could* be a
powerful way of promoting life-saving messages (provided that that is what
it was doing, rather than promoting a particular brand of condom).

Dave

> Dave Proctor <daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:jcMS4.257$L73.642220@news0.optus.net.au...
> > "Brown Family" <pcc@ocean.com.au> wrote in message
> > 391b75ea.14237152@news.ocean.com.au">news:391b75ea.14237152@news.ocean.com.au...
> > > On Thu, 11 May 2000 14:01:20 GMT, "Dave Proctor"
> > > <daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > >"Brown Family" <pcc@ocean.com.au> wrote in message
> > > >391aaea6.47585887@news.ocean.com.au">news:391aaea6.47585887@news.ocean.com.au...
> > > >> On Wed, 10 May 2000 18:37:41 +1000, Roderick Smith
> > > >> <rodsmith@werple.net.au> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >Lots & lots.
> > > >> >This is a regular reporting section in RNV.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Did anyone get a photo of the full-length condom ad on the
exterior
> of
> > a
> > > >> >Melbourne articulated tram before Citizens for Welfare of Moral
> > Decency
> > > >> >made PTC remove it?
> > > >> >
> > > >> I don't exactly relish the idea of putting a condom on a tram
either.
> > > >> I think there's better places to stick one (!) than on the side of
a
> > > >> B2 rolling past a primary school. Society's morals, or lack
thereof,
> > > >> don't need this sort of shit.
> > > >
> > > >So you would rather that they died from diseases that were
preventable
> by
> > > >the condom, rather than them getting the message to use them?
> > > >
> > > That's a stupid and idiotic statement to make, Dave. I expected better
> > > from you than that.
> > >
> > > I'm not against condoms, far from it. I'm against senseless and
> > > insensitive advertising.
> >
> > I am in favour of messages being blunt and "in your face" if that is
what
> it
> > will take to save lives. The grim reaper campaign was a good example of
> > this.
> >
> > > You do realise there is a difference, don't you?
> >
> > Of course. I don't believe that the condom on the tram was senseless or
> > insensitive. It might have been tasteless and crude, but that may have
> been
> > what it took to stick in peoples minds - did anyone actually bother to
ask
> > if the campaign was working before a bunch of moralistic jerks had it
> taken
> > down?
> >
> > > Les Brown
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > "If at first you don't succeed, then take up a hobby other than
> skydiving."
> >
> >
>
>