http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_275911.html
Controversial? Hell ya!!
Extreme? Definitely!!
At the same time, I find the artistic nature fascinating. The WWF denounced and turned the ad down, for obvious reasons.
Printable View
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_275911.html
Controversial? Hell ya!!
Extreme? Definitely!!
At the same time, I find the artistic nature fascinating. The WWF denounced and turned the ad down, for obvious reasons.
What are your thoughts about this, I'm trying to work out why you posted it.
Someone fakes an ad and attempts to pin it to an internationally renown organization.
Therefore....
According to GristFrom DDBQuote:
However, it seems that the ad was nevertheless entered for a 2009 industry award for public service from New York-based The One Club. Word in the Twittersphere was that it actually won a One Show merit award, but when Grist contacted The One Club to get the real story, One Club President Kevin Swanepoel responded with a resounding “heck-no-how-did-we-get-mixed-up-in-this?” More precisely, he said that though the ad had been entered into the contest, it was withdrawn by DDB Brazil. He said ads that are not actually published or approved by the client (such as this “spec ad”) are not eligible for awards.
Quote:
“The ‘Tsunami’ ad for World Wildlife Fund Brazil was created at DDB Brazil in December 2008. DDB Brazil apologizes to anyone who was offended or affected by the ad. It should never have been made and it does not portray the philosophy of the agency.”
This ad is stupid. Its message makes absolutely no sense, since it's essentially implying a link between humanity's respect for the planet and the occurance of tsunamis. Other than its, "you ought to recycle more unless you want people to die in tsunamis" message, I don't know what kind of point the crafters of this ad are trying to make.
It may have had some substance if its punchline was different. It could have tried to make people think about how we in the West care more about 3,000 people dying in New York than we do about 280,000 dying in a third world nation, or something along those lines. Not that I'd entirely agree with that message either, but it would at least get people to think about a real sociological issue instead of some climatic fear mongering that lacks any real content.
My reading of it is that it wasn't faked, per se, but it was a mock-up ad that got rejected. The agency was commissioned to produce copy, and they did, but that one was - quite correctly - rejected. But now what? WWF is apparently "aggressively pursuing action to have it removed from websites where it is being currently featured"; but that's not going to get rid of it. Ultimately, though, this image and video should die a nice quiet death of obscurity, forgotten as they ought to be. Move along, nothing to see here...Quote:
Originally posted by Malacasta
What are your thoughts about this, I'm trying to work out why you posted it.
Someone fakes an ad and attempts to pin it to an internationally renown organization.
Therefore....
That's how I interpreted the ad. To me it was saying people are so preoccupied with the threat of terrorism, they forget that nature is capable of far, far more destruction, and that should be a greater concern than that of terrorist attacks.Quote:
It could have tried to make people think about how we in the West care more about 3,000 people dying in New York than we do about 280,000 dying in a third world nation, or something along those lines.
I posted this story to create conversation about it. I myself don't want to brush it under the carpet and forget about it, as one poster suggested.
I think it's a false comparison because terrorism is preventable whereas acts of nature typically are not. That is why I think the 3,000 on 9/11 have had more attention than the 200,000 tsunami victims - the 9/11 deaths were engineered. If 200,000 people in Indonesia had died in a terrorist attack rather than a tsunami, I think it would have generated orders of magnitude more press than 9/11.Quote:
Originally posted by kestra
That's how I interpreted the ad. To me it was saying people are so preoccupied with the threat of terrorism, they forget that nature is capable of far, far more destruction, and that should be a greater concern than that of terrorist attacks.
The WWF would probably disagree with your 2nd point regarding acts of nature. Part of their message is saying humanity's affect on the world plays a role in natural disasters. While it isn't as tangible as perhaps say the roots of terrorism, it still exists, and it's what scientists and conservationists have been warning us about for some time now.Quote:
I think it's a false comparison because terrorism is preventable whereas acts of nature typically are not.
Absolute bosh. Show me how man's actions can cause or prevent a tsunami before you talk like this.Quote:
Originally posted by kestra
The WWF would probably disagree with your 2nd point regarding acts of nature. Part of their message is saying humanity's affect on the world plays a role in natural disasters. While it isn't as tangible as perhaps say the roots of terrorism, it still exists, and it's what scientists and conservationists have been warning us about for some time now.
Kestra, can you provide any links explaining how earthquakes and tsunamis arising from tectonic plate shifts can be influenced by human action?
Dishonest inferences like the one this ad makes have all sorts of horrible impacts such as:
- Associating the WWF with a tasteless insult against 9/11 and bad science.
- Increasing the believer base in pseudo science.
- Discrediting people who believe that humans have some impact on climate.