| From: | Conor Kerr |
| Date: | 6 May 2000 at 19:39:33 |
| Subject: | Re: Goal (was Re: AA8) |
Hi Neil,
> > 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".
Okay, just for the record I have a differing view of worse in this context
so there's no point us talking about that. :)
> I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong, just that an ethical cause
> doesn't necessarily mean ethical advertising.
It doesn't but so far, as I said, I haven't seen any ad for a charity that
croses the border between ethical and unenthical advertising.
> 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.
I probably haven't, no. We can only talk about what we have seen though so
I see no problem with us retaining our differing views. With that in mind
I'm not sure why I'm still replying like this but I still feel that I have
to write back when someone's written to me ;)
> One of them portrayed a pet dog being shot in the head :-O
I haven't seen it so I can't really comment, I could see it being fine or
not based on what it's actually like....
...I know, I know, that's a bit useless. :)
All the best Neil...
Conor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you like to save big on your phone bill -- and keep on saving
more each month? Join beMANY! Our huge buying group gives you Long Distance
rates which fall monthly, plus an extra $60 in FREE calls!
http://click.egroups.com/1/2567/3/_/468125/_/957639798/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote carefully and read all ADMIN:README mails