ASA ban the latest Banardo's Ad

[Ash!]

The Advertising Standards Authority ban the latest Child Poverty ad from Barnado's. Full story here .........

Bit tragic that some people see it in bad taste.

 

[doh_boy]

Rough, but the pictures (I haven't seen them) seem to be a bit disturbing. Then again, what sort of person complains about a charity's advert?

 

[Embattle]

I can see why it would be considered bad taste, esp at this time of year.

 

[Furr]

Ive seen them , it can be a bit odd to open up a newspaper in the morning and see half the page with a new born baby and a needle stuck in its mouth. It wasnt really shocking though, more a "what the f**k" factor

 

[dysfunction]

Their adverts didnt make me want to give them any money tbh.

In fact I didnt even know who was advertising cos I would just flick past the advert as I dont like seeing pictures like that.

 

[maxi--]

Anyone read the Private Eye?

Made a good point of saying that a lot of the so-called 'good advertisers' these days set out to make the most offensive advert as possible, whether it actually merits being offensive or not. I happen to think the lastest Bernados ad is crap, not because its offensive, but its way way off the mark.

What i mean is, it's sending the wrong message...yeah it's shocking...but needlessly so, and wrongly so, too.

Also, these Ad companies charge and absolute fortune to the charity for the privalige of making a statement or impact, etc.

blame Saatchi.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by maxi--
Also, these Ad companies charge and absolute fortune to the charity for the privalige of making a statement or impact, etc.

blame Saatchi.

And so they should, a good advertising campaign can make a huge difference to the sales of a particular product.

 

[maxi--]

Originally posted by Tom
And so they should, a good advertising campaign can make a huge difference to the sales of a particular product.

This is obvious.

But the cost is taste, and truth gets muddled up with scaremongering. It shows complete lack of morals


edit/

 

[Brynn]

Just coz thats to do with your job Tom

 

[doh_boy]

I read private eye, top mag.

As for the point about adverts I think the boundry lies, as maxi-- said where there's no point. The begining of these campaigns were from the road safty campaigns where the graphic depiction was needed to drive the point home (no pun intended). The point of it was to affect the people who refused to accept that drink-driving/speeding was dangerous.

This campaign, the point is tenuous at best.

 

[dysfunction]

Exactly.

Now the anti smoking advert with smoke coming out of childrens mouths is justifiable...as its getting their point across clearly

 

[Gumbo]

I'm not a big fan of big charities generally, their admin costs are often quite obscene. If I give money to stuff, it's normally local, or single project types, like a particular hospice or whatever.

I'd google for some stats about naughty charities for which only a fraction of your quid actually goes to anything worthwhile, but I can't be arsed. Someone with more time and enthusiasm step up please.