moblog uk

spinboy's moblog

by spinboy

user profile | dashboard | imagewall

« older newer »

My Moblog that is getting slightly larger as I wander about Glasgow.

Creative Commons Attribution License

Search this moblog

Recent visitors


(viewed 1312 times)
Bookmark and Share
4th Sep 2005, 16:14   | tags:,,

bronxelf says:

can someone explain to me what's so different about this other than the skin colour of the subject?

To me, both are saying the same thing: When NOLA floods, of course the thing to do is save the Archers. Either way? It's really fucking offensive. Seriously.

4th Sep 2005, 17:30

spinboy says:

I agree, there is no difference. From the two adverts it seems like it's two guys making use of free Archers.

There is no differnece between these adverts and some of the latest Stella adverts where a preist carrying some bottles falls into the water and all the other priests are worried about the Stella, not him.

4th Sep 2005, 17:33

Steve says:

I think that they are bad adverts, but I don't think the people at archers were trying to be offensive.

4th Sep 2005, 18:40

bronxelf says:

How many offensive advertisements are offensive deliberately?

4th Sep 2005, 19:22

Rich says:

Oh for fucks sake belf, you honestly think they planned this advert after seeing New Orleans? This is extreme oversensitivity on your part. It's just another spin on the age-old boozy pirate fantasy certain kinds of booze have always used to advertise themselves with.

You'll be sueing them for extreme emotional distress next.

4th Sep 2005, 19:33

bronxelf says:

I didnt say that, read what I wrote not what you want to believe I wrote.

I asked "how many advertisements are intentionally offensive".

Go back and read it again-- try "reading for comprehension" this time.

EDIT: and if youre referring to my first post, thats in reference to the other post on this same topic, which was ENTITLED "the official sponsors of hurricane katrina", thereby putting an immedaite spin on the image for purposes of that discussion.

I dont give a shit either way-- I dont get the ads here, remember? This is just an academic discussion.

4th Sep 2005, 19:34

Rich says:

Right, yeah, someone else's caption that had nothing to do with the original advert? Way to work up a head of steam over nothing.

4th Sep 2005, 19:38

bronxelf says:

That was what the DISCUSSION was about, Rich. Try reading the original post. We were talking about the way that advertisement read in light of recent events.

Way to jump down someone's throat over something you couldnt be bothered to be involved with in the first place.

Who the fuck peed in your post toasties? No one was being bitchy here-- just talkig about the ad, as part of an ongoing discussion.

4th Sep 2005, 19:40

Rich says:

Yeah, I'm only pointing out that your initial reaction to it is fairly obviously wrong. You think they whipped this campaign up in response to what's happening? Because that's how it appeared in the other thread I read yesterday.

But then I have seen the rest of the campaign in context, I didn't get the chance to point out that Capitolg's worries about racial stereotyping were incorrect because there was another poster with a white guy doing the same thing. But luckily someone else has done it for me.

Bet the agencies' got a few pictures of a chinese lass in a wheelchair holding a box of archers on a sandbank tucked away somewhere.

4th Sep 2005, 19:48

bronxelf says:

But youre NOT reading my first reactions to the post, This is what Im telling you and you (were) ignoring. My FIRST reaction to the post *wasnt to this post*. This is a continuation of a series.

What my response is to the way the caption was phrased,. It's about *how the ad looks in light of recent events*. It is not to say rhat this company whipped up this ad in the past week. I doubt any company would be that stupid at this point. But looking at these ads in *that light* with *that caption*, that's what you see. And if those ads were *here* right now, people would be really offended.

You're misunderstanding me, period. And there's totally no need to jump down my throat about it, either.

4th Sep 2005, 19:54

bronxelf says:

That's what I was asking you a while ago, what differences do you see between the two pictures? Because I wasn't understanding that. :)

If, in the first picture, there had been buildings in the background would that change the context sufficiently for you to see them as similar images? Or is the skin colour of the person in the picture enough for you to view it in another context?

I think this is insteresting, how people view advertising.

4th Sep 2005, 20:52

spinboy says:

But there is still water. I think it is the same scene and such as in the first picture, just a different visual perspective on the scene.

The people involved are likely just used to appeal to the largest demographic possible. I'm sure out there somewhere, there are some girlie posters too.

5th Sep 2005, 09:22

kostika says:

As an image, I don't think the second works as well. The buildings detract from the escape/pirate type image that its trying to convey. As an image i think the first one was alot better and it got its feeling across better.

5th Sep 2005, 09:28

spinboy says:

They both say, "Archers is so good I would rescue it from a flood".

That even if it is a flood, it could be just two rascals making off with some booty from a sunken boat.

They real point is the advert was made for someone to project an image onto and in light of recent events, a rather extreme story was put on top of it. There is nothing in reality controversial about this advert.

Benetton's mid 90's advertising however...

5th Sep 2005, 09:34

seaneeboy says:

> How many offensive advertisements are offensive deliberately?

Oooh, I know this! Loads of them - the press converage you can get from getting your ad campagn banned can be worth LOADS more in column inches than you can afford in poster sites :D

See Benneton, various Bra adverts, loads of Charities...

5th Sep 2005, 09:43

spinboy says:

Indeed, the Benneton Jesus Dying of Aids poster had nothing to do with selling clothes but all to do with getting the brand known.

Then again, I thought Benneton a rather good F1 team with some rather successful merch, so it wasn't that good.

5th Sep 2005, 09:49

kostika says:

I'm talking about stand alone images. Something about the buildings in the background detract from it for me. Maybe its jsut the civilisation being so close.

Sean is right. There's no such thing as bad publicity.

5th Sep 2005, 09:52

seaneeboy says:

I know, but you'd be amazed at how much charities are paranoid about it :)

5th Sep 2005, 09:55

afrodave says:

on a lighter note (but on a similar theme), check out the aussie way of beer salvage

5th Sep 2005, 15:34

taniwha says:

I don't think it's a flood at all. This is our top-of-mind spin on it. The image combines the old with the new. The old style characters with the connoatations of quality built on tradition and experience (i.e. they were smuggling this stuff in teh old days). The buildings convey that this is a modern urban drink too. The images also capitalise on the way that alcohol has associations with mischief making or rebellion - thus the pirate-like characters, good looking lovable rogues making off with their smuggled grog. They are going to great lengths to nick the stuff - it has got to be good!

(I tell you, read one book on semiotics and you are screwed for just sitting back and enjoying TV)

5th Sep 2005, 17:05

chris says:

I think taniwha's nailed it. :-)

5th Sep 2005, 23:15

Add a comment

(P) what's this?

Track updates to this post with rssthis rss feed