Every year certain ad campaigns come under fire for pushing the boundaries for what society finds offensive. Famously, the government’s anti-smoking campaign in 2007 was banned for it’s use of shocking images of people with a fishing hook in their mouth. At the time I was working for a design agency in Leeds and I remember the office being in complete outrage at any advert being banned. The fishing hook was designed to be shocking in order to have an effect on smokers and encourage them to quit smoking. That people were offended by it is a real shame, since it could have been a really effective way of helping people to quit.
It was to my great surprise yesterday, then, that I discovered a horrific advert that is truely shocking. It is the kind of ad that gets suggested in a brain storming session and everyone quickly moves on, knowing that it is a great idea, but also that it is incredibly offensive and insensitive. Here is a link to the video:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/sep/04/ddb-brasil-wwf-twin-towers-ad
It is an old debate when advertising crosses the boundary between shocking/effective and shocking/offensive. I think this advert may just have shown where that line lies.
I’d rather people complained about genuinely shocking advertising that moaning about a racist meerkat any day!
Sometimes the only way of delivering message is to shock – look at some of the recent drink-drive ads. Maybe the latest drug-driving ad should’ve followed suit…
But the meerkat is sooo cute!
I agree that shocking advertising works in the case of drink-drive and drugs, but do you not think that the WWF ad takes this a little too far?
I don’t find the WWF ad that shocking. It simply highlights the fact that the Western world is often too wrapped-up in it’s own importance to notice tragedies overseas of a much higher magnitude.
Well-done WWF for having the balls to run an ad like this. Is it shock-tactics or ‘honesty-tactics’?
That advert tells the truth in a clear and concise manner. I see nothing offensive about it.
It’s interesting that hardly anyone I’ve spoken to finds it offensive. Possibly it just created a strong reaction in me.
I like as well how Richard regards them as ‘having the balls’ to run it.
I can’t see an American audience having the same attitude towards it.
If they’d done the same ad but instead of plains aiming for Manhattan with bombers headed for Vietnam, would you still find it offensive? (And would the Americans?)
I’d still find that pretty offensive, we need an American in this argument! I’d be really interested to know more about their view points on 911 associated topics.