I built this website. From scratch. Including the servers.
Complaint:
Objection to an advertisement, in Campaign magazine, for tickets to an advertising awards ceremony. The advertisement showed a photo of an unbuttoned dress shirt with stains on the front and captions describing them. A lipstick stain at the bottom of the shirt was captioned "ZOE. CREATIVE SECRETARY". The complainant objected that the suggestion of oral sex was offensive and demeaned women, especially those who worked in advertising.
"The advertisers said they had not intended to cause offence to women in general or to those in advertising; they said the advertisement was intended to encourage people to attend their awards night." (so they could get their blowjobs?") "The publishers said their audience was sophisticated, professional and limited to those working in the media and advertising." (not any girls then, right?)
apparantly.
LA Times reports (if the free registration bugs you, use BugMeNot) - but here is a large quote so you don't have to:
After a low-level MTV employee asked for changes in an ad for the hit documentary "Super Size Me," the film's distributors tried to parlay the dust-up into a Michael Moore-type publicity blitz....
"Every time [McDonald's] said something to attack the movie
"Little Leaguers deserve to see their heroes slide into bases, not ads," wrote Nethercutt, who is running for U.S. Senate.
"It's gotten beyond grotesque," Nader said. "The fans have to revolt here. Otherwise, they'll be looking at advertisements between advertisements."
Yeah we wrote about it in february, can't wait to see how it turns out.
And copywhore, I guess thats why they entered it only into the art direction category, hahaha. Unfortunatly for iPods iCandy the other stuff was miles better.
Wait.. So they got the photo version from either Coco Del Mer or the artist shown above - and the Video version from Beautiful agony that Imanaddy linked? .......or?
While we are on the subject, did y'all see adages article CONSUMERS LARGELY UNMOVED BY PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ADS?
92% Say Ads Have Not Altered Their Voting Preferences
A full 88% of national respondents said the ads have not changed their opinion about key issues in the race, although domestic issues such as employment and the economy have been more affected than issues such as the Iraq war, education or abortion.
To no one's surprise, two out of three respondents -- regardless of state or party -- view political ads for the presidential race overall as too negative. And that could work against the candidates, as one-third of respondents said a candidate's negative ads -- rather than sway them to vote for that candidate -- may actually influence them to avoid voting for them.
Oddly, while ads from the Bush campaign have mostly attacked Mr. Kerry, who has been running mainly biographical spots, poll respondents saw the challenger's ads as more negative than Mr. Bush's. A full 61% of those surveyed said Mr. Kerry's ads were more negative in the national sample vs. 54% for Mr. Bush.
The reason may be that Democratic groups such as Media Fund and MoveOn.org have been running anti-Bush attack ads and the comments about the negative Kerry ads apparently reflect those ads rather than those from the campaign itself.
gosh, the "I am Kerry/Bush and I approved this message"-thing isn't clear enough or what?
There are currently 0 users online.
Adland® is a commercial-laden heaven and hell for advertising addicts around the world.
This advertising publication was founded in 1996, built on beer and bravery, Adland® now boasts the largest super bowl commercials collection in the world.
Adland® survives on your donations alone. You can help us out by buying us a Ko-Fi. Adland® works best in Brave browser