You horrible little cockroach...

[The Last Word]

Well - have you seen it?

It's a repellent image, for sure, but not as repellent as the thinking behind it. Having studied advertising methds at lengh some years back, i think what we have here is a classic example of nasty point B providing insiduous support for the nicer point A.

Point A is that children are born into sq

But it doesn't work. at all. Firstly because it touches on body-horror - the body being something fearful and vile, ergo: the child is fearful and vile, and not something you'd want hand over money to. Secondly, and most disturbingly, they have used a grown child and not a newborn (which would've made more sense albeit with equal visual unpleasantness). We assume the grown child has already had a life (of sorts) and thus brings with it circumstance and happenstance, so the image could be dealing with the child at

[The Last Word]

Whoops, my mistake - hit post way too early. I've only just actually seen it, but I've been told about it all day. Delete if poss. Should've read:

Well?

It's a repellent image, for sure, but not as repellent as the thinking behind it. Having studied advertising methods at lengh some years back, I think what we have here is a classic example of nasty point B providing insiduous support for the nicer point A.

Point A is face-up. Cockroach/life of squalor, as opposed to the born with silver spoon in mouth/good life metaphor. A charity call. Easy, innit?

Not quite. Apart from the body-horror of it that spoils your concern (the body as something disgusting and fearful - not something you'd want to be charitable towards), it's when point B rears its ugly head through the nature of the image that concerns. It's a violatory image - that cockroach has no right to be there - certainly not entering/exiting an orrifice. And when we think of a child/infant being physically violated, what do we think of?

It's abuse, isn't it. What they are insinuating here is that a child born into poverty/squalor is more likely - or even more than likely, considering the fatalism of the metaphor - to be abused than one that isn't. Sorry, but that's just not on - and you can bet the agency behind this calculated rouse damn well know it.

--
"Let's do it..."

[mart]

Sorry, perhaps because I'm in NZ, I don't know what the feck you are talking about.

Mart

[Pervert]

I'm in the UK and I haven't a clue either.

[Pervert]

Cheers, Magoo. Haven't spotted that campaign yet.

[mart]

I think these take some beating.
Just a snack for Lizard though.

Mart

[jj]

Nice-looking girl, too. Bit like that E Euro lass, Meri.........
And while we're on things entomological (YES, we were: don't argue), the choice of cockroaches is interesting in the light of their being the ultimate survivors- 300-odd million years so far, and one of the few species tipped to survive a planet-wide nuclear holocaust (their chitin exoskeleton appears to be highly resistant to hard radiation, which possibly partially explains their evolutionary conservatism- no random mutations caused by natural irradiation).

And of course, they can even survive Hospital- and Chinese restaurant- kitchens, two of the most hostile environments known to man..............

[mart]

It was also said they were found down coal mines (remember them) and got there by falling down the shafts and surviving the fall.

Mart

[jj]

Apparently common toads used to be quite common down pits, for much the same reason- although it's harder to see how they survived, even with the ability to go without food for months.
I guess the cockroach's mass to volume ratio means that air-resistance would significantly break a long fall- not the case for Mr Toad...........who probably got there by a combination of digging, falling a bit, and bad navigation.