Re: [Global] Trains in TV ads

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

On Sat, 13 May 2000 12:30:35 GMT, "Dave Proctor"
<daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote:

>
>"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."
>
Yes and I'd agree if it did save lives, but, as I said, there is no
proof it does.

>> Some would call that "wowserism".
>
>Some wouuld call your objection to the original ad the same thing.
>
Ok, fair enough, but I'd call it bad taste and morally inappropriate.

>> 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.
>
The end does not always justify the means. For example, to remove
poverty you do not kill off poor people.

>> >> 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.
>
Is the ad on the tram promoting safer-sex or condoms? I haven't seen
the ad so I don't know. You may have a point if it was obviously
safer-sex. I may not agree with you but I'd at least understand your
POV.

>> >> 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.
>
That's not quite true since pictures convey a meaning without
verbalisation. Kids are more easily shocked by images than by words.
For example, children seeing their parents fighting are more visably
upset by it than if they were to read "The Taming of the Shrew".

>> 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.
>
No? What else is more important?

And - Children? Do you have any?

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