Ad agency DDB Brasil is facing outrage over an ad it created that used imagery evoking 9/11 to make a point about the tsunami and conservation for client World Wildlife Fund (this story is a touch confusing, so I recommend watching the ad posted at the end).
A print ad ran once in obscurity, and the agency initially claimed it hadn't created a video that was working its way around the Web. But when the blogosphere lit up, everything came out.
What is the role of sensitivity in advertising? Give me an example of a time a shocking ad might be used to positive effect. Do you think this ad should have been created and run? What cross-cultural issues are at play, given that the 9/11 attacks were against the U.S. but this agency is international?
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Sensitivity and advertising
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This advertisement should not have been created. Shocking advertisements can be successful, however using the World Trade Center being hit is not the way to do it.
This advertisement is belittling the tragedy that happened in 2001. It tries to make a point that the American tragedy ONLY killed a certain amount of people and the tsunami killed 100 times more. Both are awful events, but it doesn't mean that DDB Brasil should be down playing one over the other.
Shocking advertisements have been used in the past and can make an impact without being offensive.For example, in the 1964 election, Lyndon B. Johnson ran the "Daisy Girl" advertisement. The advertisement shows a little girl counting daisy petals and then a bomb explodes. This ad was able to make a statement without showing a specific city being bombed.
Advertisers should be sensitive in certain situations, and this ad crossed the line.
Post a Comment