I won't make this a reader poll, because I know only six of you will respond, but on a professional level I am interested in your response to this new ad campaign from Amnesty. Do you think this is an effective way to get the message out? Are you personally offended by it?
Saturday, December 01, 2007
A question for you
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I'll start off by saying that I have been a member of Amnesty International for years, so there may be a bias in my answer.
I find the ad quite effective and am not offended at all. I think it is eye catching and will make people stop and read the ad. That's what an ad should do.
As for the content, I think the approach taken is quite innovative. It is a difficult topic to visualize for such a campaign. I think must people would probably have used the face of a young girl, however it would be difficult to put only face to such a widespread problem.
Using a stitched up rose in my view is a great idea. Until you have read the small text you may not know what it's about but you want to know. Once you have read the text, the image makes sense, but is not too disturbing or offensive.
I say well done to the creative staff who developed it, and to Amnesty for being brave enough to use something different.
I agree with Glen - it took me a second to figure out the ad - a second where I stopped, looked, thought about it, and read the fine print. Exactly what an ad wants you to do. It's not offensive at all - in fact, I think it's rather clever. Clever and effective - always good news in my books.
This is a topic that makes people so uncomfortable that it doesn't get the attention and proper outrage it deserves. The image is not offensive...hopefully, it will prove effective.
I love this campaign, and knew right away what the image meant, but then again I have a women's studies minor. (Georgia O'Keefe, anyone?)
Extremely effective.
I saw the rose, and the Amnesty symbol, and realized within a second what the image represented. (Georgia O'Keefe indeed, Cin.) I think the imagery is eye-catching and powerful, and not at all offensive. The image is, if anything, too pretty, but I think it will be effective in getting people to read the text.
I don't find the poster offensive.
Genital mutilation happens. Sad fact. And if it were male genitalia that were routinely being mutilated, you can bet that the image would be much more graphic.
Very-well-done.
I just saw a duo interpretation piece at a speech and debate tournament yesterday (I'm a coach) about a doomsday nut who approaches a low-level corporate woman. The corporate woman convinces the nut to change her tactics to calm and informative rather than intense and overbearing. When the nut uses the suggestion, the corporate woman better understands the message and becomes so outraged that the women switch positions. The nut picks up the corporate woman's lunch bag and hops on the bus to get a job and the corporate woman runs off to proclaim doom.
Now that we've seen this rational ad, we can all start running around proclaiming doom.
I think this is a brilliant campaign. You see horror and innocence all at once. What is offensive is that female genital mutilation is so prevalent - or that it even goes on at all.
My hat goes off to Amnesty International to deal with this sensitive issue so effectively.
Having once sat through an actual video of a mutilation as part of a fourth-year discussion class in university, which I can remember all too clearly many years later, I think that this ad is good step towards talking about a difficult subject.
As part of everyday life, I wouldn't want my parts referred to as a rose, or myself as a flower in anyway, but since putting a real vagina on the ad isn't going to happen, I think that this is an innovative solution to getting the word out.
Kudos to Amnesty International!
Post a Comment