The Ad That Only Batters Women When You Aren’t Looking
Via Gizmodo — a bus stop ad that can tell when you aren’t looking at it. When you are looking, you see what appears to be a happy couple. When you look away, the picture is of the guy apparently beating up the woman. Very, very powerful and one of the cleverest meetings of compelling content and technology I can remember. Take a look:
Click on the image to get a larger version. It’s a powerful ad, isn’t it? And be sure to go over to Gizmodo to see more on the detail of this technology.
What’s the point? Does the battering message get sent if no one sees it? It is yet another pointless liberal waste of money. At least it is donated money. Too bad that money is spent on advertising numbers to shelters and attorneys..
Republican David misses the point of new media. Is anyone surprised?
Not at all surprised.
OMG RD!!! If only I battered…… Hint, people sitting across the seat on the bustop will see it, comment, notice, make it work and on and on.
I only wish they started the campaign with kids, or the elderly, or disabled.
Republican David and his ilk, only play the opposite card when visiting Delaware Liberal. If it wasn’t obvious to everyone already, it should be now.
“It happens when no one is watching” is the point, David. In this case, the unsuspecting person in the view of the camera isn’t watching, but as Joanne points out, others in the vicinity, but out of camera’s angle may be. The play on the line is, while you weren’t watching, this spouse just got battered.
It is yet another pointless liberal waste of money.
Quite possibly one of the most insensitive lines I have ever read from you, when put in context of the subject of the post. Of course, it doesn’t seem you “got” the idea of the ad to begin with, and I know you would never condone the violence, so I give you the benefit of the doubt this go-around.
It got us all to think and talk about the subject of domestic violence – which is what social advertising is meant to do. It also plugs Amnesty International, which will not be donated to unless people hear about them and think about why someone should donate to them. And I must be losing my touch, because I’ve run out of words to describe how breathtakingly stupid you are, David.
Curses! Republican David saw right through our attempts to hyp-mo-tize him with technology! Foiled again!
Powerful.
I don’t think it is powerful. It is wrong headed. It is wasting money that could really help people. Instead it is too cute by half. People can’t see the point that the ad is suppose to advance. That is just stupid post modern art. It is not advancing the cause.
Go back to the drawing board and come up with a real ad that may actually reach people.
Smitty, considering that I said that I wish the money would be spent helping to inform women instead, it is obvious that I don’t condone violence. It is the fact that I take this issue seriously that really annoys me when it comes to this ad. It feels like someone was too into themselves to really communicate to the public.
Different people see things differently. It would never get a dime from me. I guess I have to work too hard for my money to spend it on the hope that someone may pass by at the right time.
You’re obviously in the minority here.
It takes money to raise money. If this ad brings in twice the money it cost to run, then allows Amnesty International to use twice as much as they could have. Duh.
Everyone but the person closest to the ad can see it. And that person probably saw it as he was approching. You really overestimate the sophistication of the technology here (because you are stupid).
Everyone’s a critic.
Right, if it only reaches 9/10 people (judging by the comments here), it’s a total failure.
Should Amnesty International take David’s advice? Hint: His advice in 2004 was “Vote for Bush!”
It’s not only women that need to be informed about domestic abuse, it’s everyone’s problem. I think the ad is quite powerful and clever.
OK, David, here goes. There is nobility in confronting domestic violence one-on-one. I would never argue that point, and if that’s how you would want to address it, then more power to you. Problem is, for every singular act you are addressing, how many are concurrently taking place? While an ad won’t itself physically intervene in any domestic violence, it certainly has massive potential to get the word out to make people look out for it, a scale much larger than what a single person can do.
Look at what this ad has done already: we are talking about it! While the technology is neat-o, we are also talking about the very point it is conveying. I am disappointed you have such a spirited disagreement based on the money it likely cost, but don’t overlook that the message is getting out. I have to ask, though, with your liberal-use of the word ‘liberal,’ is the fact that this is done by Amnesty International giving you some of the issues you are citing?
I have a prediction on this. Because of the technology of the ad, this thing is going to go viral, if it hasn’t already. That alone will get the subject topic of domestic violence the awareness it sorely needs.
“Judging by the people here”…. The people here represent the 21% of people with judgment poor enough to be liberal loons. No offense.
I hope that you are right, Smitty.
U. I., on that we all agree. It is everyone’s problem. Of course all domestic violence is not committed by men either though men are the majority of the problem. It goes back to the fact that we need to have a preventive mental health system. We need to teach relationship skills.
“It goes back to the fact that we need to have a preventive mental health system. We need to teach relationship skills.”
So much for keeping government out of people’s lives.