I could go either way. On the one hand, I think it’s a pretty good ad – compelling and not soon forgotten. On the other hand, it is a bit graphic. I think the real issue is the setting of the ad – billboard, visible by everyone, as opposed to magazine ad, tailored to a certain demographic. Come to think of it, you were probably right to complain, if only for that reason.
I am reminded of the story about the kid that was kept inside protected for his first 21 years. He came out on his 21st Birthday and died from shock.
Just because 50,000 Frenchmen do it does not make it right.
So this can go either way.
You have your rights and should use them.
You need to try to change the laws because ‘common sense’ will never be followed when money, a cause, or fanaticisms are involved.
If I really felt my children should not see something that was legal to be in public, it is MY responsibility to take another route.
All laws should not be to protect the minority from the majority. Needs to be the other way round about 50% of the time IMO.
Well, sure it’s a guess. I didn’t contact the agency. However, if enough people complained, I think they’d pull the ad, regardless of whether or not they think it’s in good taste. They’re not out to offend. They want to communicate. It’s still there, so it sure looks like most people aren’t complaining.
By the way, I have no problem with writing a letter. It’s the OP’s right to do so. I was not offended by the ad. He is. That’s what makes the world go 'round.
I realize that second-hand smoke is not exactly the subject of the billboards, but doesn’t the very idea of an anti-smoking billboard seem self-contradictory? I mean, here they are complaining about a voluntary environmental pollutants, and using one of the most crass and objectionable forms of visual pollution to get their point across.
I think Big Tobacco wins this round.
No. Showing children in pain is not an advertising technique that should ever be used.
I remember this extremely horrible radio campaign that had some woman berating her child for not knocking down a bee’s nest or something (I think it was a PSA about something - not smoking?). Anyway, the kid was wailing in fear, Mom was berating the kid to get the bees, and by the end of the spot the kid was getting stung.
I was calling the radio station asking them what the fuck they think they were doing, using child abuse as a means to push an agenda? The shell-shocked lady at the other end mentioned that the number of calls that came in that day numbered in the hundreds and now all she was doing was tallying up the protest calls.
It’s hard to put a slow agonizing death from cancer on a billboard.
I don’t know about not ever, but not like this. If you’re going to do it and be effective, show a low birth weight preemie on a vent (that’s from an Australian campaign, I think) or a weeping ear infection or some sort of condition that’s actually *caused *by parental smoking.
I get metaphors, but I just think this one is stupid and offensive.
I agree that the image is disturbing. While I don’t find it offensive per se, I do think it is unnecessary. I think shock and graphic images have their place, for example, I would not have a problem with a campaign showing actual effects of smoking, like others have said. There are better ways to get people’s attention. I doubt your child is going to see a cigarette when he is 16 and say to himself, wow, I won’t smoke because I remember that horrible hook face I saw when I was little! The image itself has nothing to do with smoking.
I don’t think you are overreacting. I know there are worse images on the news, but to me, context is everything. Showing a graphic image on the news because it is what really happened in the world that day is different than showing a graphic image just to shock people. And even on the news, particularly graphic images are usually preceded with a warning.
But I admit I don’t like how far advertising is going in general. I have no problem with people seeing what they wish to see, I just wish in cases like this when people are just walking or driving around, and have no real ability to choose not to see the ad, that companies would be a little more thoughtful about what they put up. So I think writing is a good idea.
Followup: The ASA wrote to me, mostly just acknowledging my complaint, but implicit in the text of the letter is the fact that lots of other people have also complained.
There is a related TV advert which I saw last night - it involves a man working in an office suddenly getting hooked in the mouth and being dragged at length, kicking and panicking, out of the building, where it changes to a shot of him smoking. It’s quite a disturbing sequence, but it was on at 11pm or something, so I don’t really have a problem with it.
Resurrecting this thread to post the conclusion (hope that’s OK).
I was one of 774 people who complained about this advertisement campaign. The complaint was upheld on more or less the same grounds I complained - that it was untargeted and that it was gratuitously disturbing.
However, the action ‘We told them not to do it again’ seems… well… a little impotent.
And not nearly as catchy.
Your kids are weenies. Almost to tears? Wow, what would they do if they saw somebody skin their knee in the playground? No offence, but I’m sure they’re going to see alot more sickening and shocking things in person during their young lives.
Better a weenie than a hardened (can’t use the word I want in this forum). Isn’t it ok for little kids to be little kids? And care about stuff? Geez.
Well, crap! What am I doing wrong as a parent?
Had my kids seen that at that age they’d be like: “Whoa! cool! check it out!!”
:smack:
You’re right; it’s been nagging me since I posted it. It was unwarranted. My apologies. I would have expected 8-10 year-olds to see it, say “Ewww!”, and move on. I was insensitive at best.
Yes, but have they quit smoking? 
Personally, I have a hard time seeing anything done with your children’s best interest in mind being wrong. They are lucky to have a caring parent.
It’s hard to say if you’re right to object.
I agree the image is disturbing and kids probably shouldn’t see it unless they want to.
On the other hand, the week of September 11 2001, more than twice as many Americans died from cigarette smoking as from terrorism. There are no more threatening issues in the USA than smoking. The way we somehow set this aside through some kind of practical mutual agreement is more disturbing than the billboard. Outside the USA, smoking cessation and awareness is even worse.
I don’t feel like any of my instincts about how to behave help me handle this one properly. I’m cast adrift…
egads, that is disgusting!
then again, I can rarely watch the evening news. I must have a lower gore tolerance than most.
I wonder if the OP ever wrote the Advertising Standards Agency when tobacco ads are/were (depending on country?) displayed on billboards.