Re: [Global] Trains in TV ads

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

"Brown Family" <pcc@ocean.com.au> wrote in message
391d4682.6827880@news.ocean.com.au">news:391d4682.6827880@news.ocean.com.au...
> 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?

Yes, if you read my post, you will see that. "I am in favour of messages
being blunt and "in your face" if that is what it will take to save lives."

> Some would call that "wowserism".

Some wouuld call your objection to the original ad the same thing.

> 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.

I would prefer to look at the end results. If it achieves something
worthwhile, I say go for it.

> >> 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.

Again, as I said in another post (not sure if it is the one you are replying
to, it hurts too much to go and look, you ever tried to type with your
writing arm in plaster?) if it was an ad for a condom manufacturer, I would
agree with you. If it was an ad promoting safer sex, I think it is entirely
appropriate.

> >> 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?

Because you need to understand something to be offended by it. If I swear at
you in Japanese, would you be offended? Of course not (unless you know
Japanese) since you have no idea what I am saying.

> Do you have studies to
> prove it? Why bother with TV and film classification if it will not
> offend?

Because offensiveness is not the only thing that the censors weigh up.

Dave