Re: [Global] Trains in TV ads

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

On Sat, 13 May 2000 11:50:49 GMT, "Dave Proctor"
<daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote:

>"Brown Family" <pcc@ocean.com.au> wrote in message
>391d3370.1945081@news.ocean.com.au">news:391d3370.1945081@news.ocean.com.au...
>> 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?
>
>Of course it would - how is that saving lives (which is the qualification I
>put in my post).
>
You mean to say that not all "in-your-face" advertising is acceptable?
Some would call that "wowserism". The problem you can have in society
is where one person decides what is o.k. and what is not and expect it
to acceptable to everyone else.

>> 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?
>
>Again, where is the "saving lives" component?
>
Because not all "in-your-face" advertising is meant to save lives. In
any case, some would argue that by such advertsing you could somehow
convince the French not to test. May it was successful, maybe it had
no effect. I tend to think the latter just as I do about in-your-face
condom ads on trams.

>> 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?
>
>Not when messages are not getting through. If it saves lives, I say lets do
>it. As I mentioned in a previos post, those who are too young to understand
>it won't be offended by it. Those who are old enough to understand it
>probably need to get the message anyway.
>>
How do you know thay won't be offended by it? Do you have studies to
prove it? Why bother with TV and film classification if it will not
offend?

>> >> 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.
>
>By driving, they will still see the tram (if not, they wouldn't have been in
>the trams catchment anyway, so would have missed it anyway).
>
As I said before, if it was the only method that it will save lives,
I'd agree with you. But everyone knows it's not. I'm sure that who
ever is advertising condoms is not doing it as a communal service but
rather a means of promoting their product to the greatest number
people for the least cost.

Do you have children, Dave?

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