Re: [Global] Trains in TV ads

[pcc@ocean.com.au (Brown Family)]

On Fri, 12 May 2000 04:58:55 GMT, "Dave Proctor"
<daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote:

>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.
>
Then a large display showing an add for a lady who is "busting to meet
you" near the school where your kids attend, wouldn't offend? Maybe
not. Then how about the add of a girl's bum with an upright middle
finger next to it that was displayed when the French resumed their
nuclear testing in the Pacific? Suppose that was next to your kid's
primary school? Talk about in-your-face advertising. What about
subtlety, does it not have it's place?

>> 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?
>
If it was the only method by which we could save lives, I'd agree with
you, but it isn't. The chances are that the people most at risk at
more likely to drive to work and the ones more easily influenced and
the least at risk are on their way to school by tram.

Les Brown
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose.