Volume 1 (1999/2000)
Issue
1 (March 1999)
Issue
2 (Nov. 1999)
Issue 3 (Dec. 1999)
Issue 4 (Feb. 2000)
Issue 5 (March 2000)
Issue 6 (April 2000)
Issue
7 (May 2000)
Volume 2 (2000/2001)
Issue 1 (Sept. 2000)
Issue 2 (Oct. 2000)
Issue 3 (Jan. 2001)
Issue 4 (March 2001)
Issue 5 (April 2001)
Issue 6 (May 2001)
Volume 3 (2001)
Issue 1 (Sept. 2001)
Issue 2 (Nov. 2001)
Categories
Sport: 1
2 3
Lifestyles: 1 2
3
Commentary: 1 2
3
Review: 1 2
3
Writing: 1 2
3
Event: 1 2
3
How far is too far?
Nuala Walsh
St Mary's High School, Midleton
Nuala Walsh questions the ethics of certain advertising methods.
How far is too far? is the question on everyone's lips as Barnardo's
prepares to release its most sensational publicity campaign yet. This
organization, which offers help and support to abused children, has included
a series of disturbing pictures in its campaign. They show horrific images
such as, a young prostitute lying buried under a pile of rubbish in a
squalid carpark, beaten to death by her pimp. The text above the picture
reads: "Jane Kent. Died. Age 3 years." It goes on to explain
how her life 'ended' after suffering terrible neglect as a child, "19
years later, after being lured into prostitution, she was beaten so badly
by her pimp she died for real." Another shows a young man dangling
from a noose in an abandoned garage with a ragged, dirty sheet thrown
over the window to block out the light - "John Monk. Died. Age 4
years." The caption explains how John was repeatedly raped by his
grandfather from the age of four and "a large part of him subsequently
died. 22 years later he died for real. What a waste."
These ads are very graphic and disturbing and many people may ask whether
Barnardo's can really prevent child abuse by showing the deaths of troubled,
young people. In addition, they may perhaps bring back painful memories
to those who have overcome their abuse or whose loved ones were abused.
Others however, agree with the path the organization is taking to highlight
abuse and to try and prevent it. Perhaps society does need to be shocked
before it will take action.
Certainly, the element of shock is used frequently in ads and is often
very successful. It hits people right between the eyes when they least
expect it. For example, examine the many car safety ads that are being
aired at the moment. They all start off with familiar, pleasing music
but this is inevitably drowned out by the sound of screeching brakes,
screams and the cruel crunch as the car folds, leaving in its wake a painful,
bloody scene. Although they are shocking they often have a positive effect
on the public by showing them, in great detail, the consequences of careless
behaviour.
A few years ago the clothes label, Benetton, released a new ad campaign
with the intention of shocking the public into remembering their brand.
The pictures showed a baby coming out of its mother's womb, a man dying
from aids among others. There was a public outcry that these billboard
posters be banned but, while these ads had nothing to do with clothes,
Benetton succeeded in getting brand recognition. They calculated that
these ads would cause controversy and the name 'Benetton' would not be
forgotten. For the spin-doctors, any publicity is good publicity.
Who decides when advertising has crossed that oh-so-thin line between the shocking and the brutal, the government or the companies behind these ads or the public? Soon, someone will have to make the decision as to how far is too far?