Sully asks which of two ads is more offensive, linking to a criticism of a PETA ad and to a criticism of an anti-smoking ad. The latter calls the ad out as poor taste because it evokes 9/11. Looks to me like someone's offense-o-meter is a little too finely calibrated. The obvious evocation is smokestacks. Other smokestacks here for comparison.
Posted by binky at February 29, 2008 05:53 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Random ThoughtsMaybe you should read the copy along the bottom of the ad where it mentions, you know, "terrorism." Also, I'm not that offended by the image. I'm offended by the stupidity of the ad's concept.
Posted by: copyranter at February 29, 2008 09:32 PM | PERMALINKThe print was too small too read in the version I saw. That is stupid, sure, if more people are turned off by the message. On a statistical level, though, smoking kills far more people than terrorism. Did the copy compare the number of people who die every year from smoking to the number who die from terrorist attacks, and the amount governments spend on preventing each? To me that seems like a pretty effective comparison.
Posted by: binky at March 1, 2008 08:31 AM | PERMALINKSo, now the criticism of this is spreading. It's still a really effective comparison, but clearly the imagery is not striking a home run. Maybe this is a policy wonk vs emotional reaction thing.
Posted by: binky at March 3, 2008 06:33 PM | PERMALINK