Is any publicity, good publicity?
A billboard campaign launched last week over 50 sites in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch that was commissioned by The Breast Cancer Research Trust and created by Saatchi and Saatchi has caused somewhat of a public uproar. Members of the public have complained to the New Zealand Cancer Society and The Advertising Standards Authority about the content of the billboard.
The ads are the first of a three-part campaign and the true message will be revealed next month states Breast Cancer Research Trustee and surgeon John Harman “It’s not quite what it seems. We don’t want people to be offended by it, but we do want people to be concerned.” – www.nzherald.co.nz
Is the reaction of the few and the following media focus actually the objective of the first billboard? For people to notice them and react? And so putting them into peoples minds, the following two billboards and messages as they are revealed will grab the attention and focus of more people and effectively spread the campaigns true message? Is this an effective method when dealing with public messages?
Or does a personal inflammatory message such as this create the opposite effect? Turning people blind to the further two billboards and overall underlying campaign message and bringing into question the organisation behind the campaign?
http://tvnz.co.nz/breakfast-news/breast-cancer-billboard-controversy-5-21-2810294
Leave a Reply
March 21
2012
June 29th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
“has caused somewhat of a public uproar”
This to me is brilliant advertising. It doesn’t matter if people get personally offended at this stage or not, the value lies in the fact people actually took notice and talk about it.
That alone will probably do much much more to spread information about the seriousness of breast cancer than any ‘donate to fight breast cancer’ message.
Well done.
June 30th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
The design decisions are interesting, imagine how it would have read in lower case or pink!