| From: | Neil Bothwick |
| Date: | 6 May 2000 at 17:37:18 |
| Subject: | Re: Goal (was Re: AA8) |
Conor Kerr said,
> Hi Neil,
>> While the charities are ethical, and their goal laudable, the ads are
>> often just the opposite. Because they are trying to help people instead
>> of make a profit, they can often get away with worse than a commercial
>> company.
> Define "worse" in this context.
Techniques that would bring complaints when used to a commercial end
are considered justified when used for a good cause. "The end justifies
the means".
I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong, just that an ethical cause
doesn't necessarily mean ethical advertising.
>> It's often a case of the agency asking "how much emotional blackmail
>> can we get away with?"
> I can see how you would think that but I don't think ANY of the ads overstep
> the boundaries.
Then you haven't seen some of the ones I've seen. I was at a Saatchi &
Saatchi presentation where a couple of the ads shown brought a sharp
intake of breath from an audience of hard-bitten advertising salesmen.
One of them portrayed a pet dog being shot in the head :-O
> Almost everyone I know, just because they can't see them, forgets that they
> are suffering. I'm not saying that everyone doesn't care/know, just that
> everyone forgets. I do quite a bit as well, but I try hard not to.
It's easy to do so, but good advertising helps. Several times I've seen
TV ads that have had me reaching for the phone and credit card.
Neil
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have a voice mail message waiting for you at iHello.com:
http://click.egroups.com/1/3555/3/_/468125/_/957631476/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote carefully and read all ADMIN:README mails