this puzzles me
I know how much thought goes into these campaigns and so when I see this, with its obvious backlash potential it gets me wondering about how this got approved.
So then i start thinking about the negative publicity its generating and then I start thinking about the backlash about that with people defending it etc..and bingo there we have it.
A carefully crafted talking point, disguised as an error of judgement.
Never underestimate how clever advertising people can be.
(
BadBadman saw an incorrect comma placement on, Sat 2 Oct 2010, 11:55,
Reply)
no thats just not right....
there is no positive impact here....people were already talking about climate change...the debate was there...
this is mishandled and a pr disaster...
this is definately not deliberate...and even if it is...its still a major fucking mistake...
again....what positive impact has this campaign had?
EDIT: unless they are going the peta route.... which is making people hate them.
(, Sat 2 Oct 2010, 12:01, Reply)
there are some dreadfully clever ad people out there (and I've met and worked with a couple of them)
but they still have to sell their ideas to clients and "we'll make you look like a bunch of cunts but it'll start a debate" would be a very, very hard sell.
however there is a lot of work out there that sounded OK in a pitch but in execution turned into a big embarrassing turd.
Chances are this is the later.
(
rob, Sat 2 Oct 2010, 13:02,
Reply)