Eccentric Flower talk:201001/Shock Value

Iain:

I do take issue with a couple of their ads. It does seem to me that maybe the freakiness of the ad should be judged by its target audience. (With the possible exception of the non-Quebecois Canadian ads.) For example, a really stunning number of Japanese ads couldn't play here, just because the reaction wouldn't be "Wow, I have to try that!" but "Are those people INSANE?"

The McDonald's ad is kind of funny -- though I don't think you could make it play in a 30-second spot very well. Not quite sure that the US branch would have the sense of humor to allow its ad people to imply that children who want to eat its products have been possessed by the devil, though. And I definitely don't get why anyone would have been scared by the Apoliva ad; baffled, maybe -- depending on what she's singing -- but scared? The New Mexico DOT ad is, I suppose, a tolerably decent way of doing such things, though I don't think it's different enough to get people to pay attention. And the pancreatic cancer ad is lunatic; that disease is usually discovered by accident, and I'm not sure there are even any real screening tests for it, so what on earth do they expect people to do? "I have a stomach ache ... clearly, it's pancreatic cancer!"

By the by, some research back in the day found that the "Just say no! to drugs!" ad campaign -- remember the girl with the skillet? -- was magnificently counterproductive. The campaign apparently increased drug use by making kids and teens aware that there were, in fact, drugs they should be saying no to at an earlier age than they might otherwise have noticed. (And all that said, the UK DOT anti-drug ad is absolutely hysterical, in both senses of the word. Apparently, drugs will make your eyes visible from miles away! Who knew?)

I am moderately surprised that Pfizer hasn't aired that #1 ad in the US. Given the current issues, you'd think it would be everywhere.

-- 18:11, 11 January 2010 (GMT)

Mrissa:

I can't explain #21 to you either.

-- 18:41, 11 January 2010 (GMT)

Joy:

Oh I really shouldn't have watched the PSAs with the dead kids. Really, I shouldn't. Gah!

I found the Apoliva woman kind of odd looking for a woman's beauty campaign. Her brow ridge and very deep set eyes are quite masculine and that might be what people were squicked by.

-- 20:28, 11 January 2010 (GMT)

Peebles:

I think the Pfizer ad is pointed at something a little different that what you and Iain are suggesting. It's not talking about generics, per se. Manufacturers of legal generics in this country (and I'd guess the UK as well) are held to the same manufacturing standards (aka GMP) as are Pfizer and the other large pharmaceutical companies that do their own R&D. Any generic that you'd get in a pharmacy here would be subject to the exactly the same analytical scrutiny as the brand-name drug. This ad is taking aim at overseas mail-order drugs. The argument (in the US, anyway) is that few other countries adhere to the same standards of GMP as domestic pharmaceutical manufacture.

I think the woman in #21 is pretty creepy. But then, I'm delicate.

-- 20:42, 11 January 2010 (GMT)

Iain:

I think the Pfizer ad is pointed at something a little different that what you and Iain are suggesting. It's not talking about generics, per se.

Oh, I got what they were talking about. That type of mail-order drug isn't legal here at all, to the extent that such a ban is enforceable. Doesn't mean that Pfizer couldn't, with some slight tinkering to the ad copy, make it work for an "OMG! People want to buy lower cost drugs from Canada which has the same standards as we do only we like to pretend it doesn't! Rat droppings and urine from Canada, people! FROM CANADA! Buy Amuricn drugs or you'll DIE!" type ad.

-- 21:30, 11 January 2010 (GMT)

Rhonda:

Am I the only one who saw ad #28 and thought that it was someone's fetish?

-- 22:01, 11 January 2010 (GMT)

Ursula:

I can see why people would be scared of the Apoliva ad. As Joy pointed out, the woman has an extremely androgynous look, she's not pretty in any conventional sense. (I'm not saying people have reason to be unsettled by that, but it's one reason why some folks would find the ad creepy.) She's also lit in a spooky way, with her washed-out skin and dark eye sockets giving her a very skull-like quality. Then she's singing this creepy little horror movie song in a little girl voice that doesn't seem to fit her face. And there's something about the way her hair blows in her face that made me think we were in for a CGI transformation of some kind, like her hair would obscure her and then she was going to get old or turn into a monster or whatever. I don't know if that was intentional or if anybody else got that feeling, but that's how it read to me. We've all seen a lot of pretty girl ads, and this one overturns the conventions in a way that sort of makes it play like an ad for a horror movie.

-- 11:38, 12 January 2010 (GMT)

Danima:

Totally off-topic, but you need an "ask Columbina to write about this" drop-box somewhere on this site, now that you've told us you don't read email.

Here's my current one: "The Spectacle of Competition," in which sports (amateur vs. professional vs. performance) and sex are approached along angles familiar to Eccentric Flower readers, but too timidly and neatly. I think. I brace myself for an education.

-- 22:40, 13 January 2010 (GMT)

Columbina:

I never said I didn't read email. I said I didn't read email FAST. Actually, I'm doing better now that I've changed email computers. I check about once every two days now.

I already ranted about sports elsewhere today and maybe I'll convert that into an entry when I'm not writing code nonstop for my entire waking daytime.

-- 23:53, 13 January 2010 (GMT)

Bunny42:

This may or may not be on topic, but were you aware of that your frustration had a name? Very cool.

-- 16:03, 14 January 2010 (GMT)