egafd.com

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

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..."

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

Mart

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

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

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

Mart

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..............

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

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.