This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
For the Blade climbing shoe
Is it just me or is the advert a really out of order. When I first saw it (it shows a girl using a climbing shoe to graphically slice open her leg, with a very prounounced wound, presumbably to back up the 'Blade' connection) I was really quite shocked.
My daughter thought it was disgusting, and also in very bad taste. She couldn't understand why a company would want to use an image of self harm to promote a product - and I agree with her.
I'm quite surprised that Climber accepted to run the advert, as I'm sure that it wouldn't pass the ASA's regulations which state that you shouldn't use shocking images to attract attention.
Its really quite offensive and can be seen by anyone of any age.
I just think its wrong:0
Is it just me or is the advert a really out of order. When I first saw it (it shows a girl using a climbing shoe to graphically slice open her leg, with a very prounounced wound, presumbably to back up the 'Blade' connection) I was really quite shocked.
My daughter thought it was disgusting, and also in very bad taste. She couldn't understand why a company would want to use an image of self harm to promote a product - and I agree with her.
I'm quite surprised that Climber accepted to run the advert, as I'm sure that it wouldn't pass the ASA's regulations which state that you shouldn't use shocking images to attract attention.
Its really quite offensive and can be seen by anyone of any age.
I just think its wrong:0
In reply to 'Hilda':
Oddly, I saw that advert and the idea of self-harm never even occurred to me. The major thought I had was that I don't want my rockshoes to be sharp! I saw the cutting imagery as more of a pun than a message. It is a bizarre advert though.
And it must be working as we both noticed it.
Oddly, I saw that advert and the idea of self-harm never even occurred to me. The major thought I had was that I don't want my rockshoes to be sharp! I saw the cutting imagery as more of a pun than a message. It is a bizarre advert though.
And it must be working as we both noticed it.
In reply to 'Hilda':
Spotted that too and had the same reaction as you. Then woundered what did it tell me abou the new shoes or the brand, and i couldn't think of any infomation imparted by the whole spread. So therefore what's the point other than for me to associate their brand with tasteless adds?
Spotted that too and had the same reaction as you. Then woundered what did it tell me abou the new shoes or the brand, and i couldn't think of any infomation imparted by the whole spread. So therefore what's the point other than for me to associate their brand with tasteless adds?
In reply to zorro:
Its offensive. Simple.
> (In reply to 'Hilda')
>
> Its an advert?
>
> Grow some balls will you?
>
> Its an advert?
>
> Grow some balls will you?
Its offensive. Simple.
In reply to 'Hilda':
I feel that the imagery is perhaps a little strong (it also appeared in Climb magazine), they've been slowly upping the strength of the pictures starting with one guy cutting his fingers, next it was someone in the act of apparently stabbing themselves (really bad day out?) and the final one described.
Apart from the obvious connection with the name I'm not sure how the advert is supposed to draw interest, I agree that it's a misjudged set of images to represent the product but can only assume that it has been cleared for use by the ASA?
I feel that the imagery is perhaps a little strong (it also appeared in Climb magazine), they've been slowly upping the strength of the pictures starting with one guy cutting his fingers, next it was someone in the act of apparently stabbing themselves (really bad day out?) and the final one described.
Apart from the obvious connection with the name I'm not sure how the advert is supposed to draw interest, I agree that it's a misjudged set of images to represent the product but can only assume that it has been cleared for use by the ASA?
In reply to simon geering:
I noticed the ad (in Climb; presumably it's the same one) but just couldn't make out what the image was supposed to be. It's certainly odd but looks more like a muddy smear (it's in sepia monotone) than an incision and certainly isn't a graphic representation of a wound.
I guess the lack of obvious response from the model combined with the ambiguous imagery just didn't work for me, I was just confused.
I noticed the ad (in Climb; presumably it's the same one) but just couldn't make out what the image was supposed to be. It's certainly odd but looks more like a muddy smear (it's in sepia monotone) than an incision and certainly isn't a graphic representation of a wound.
I guess the lack of obvious response from the model combined with the ambiguous imagery just didn't work for me, I was just confused.
In reply to Kid Spatula:
Ooooh. Is that the best insult you can come up with? You really should try harder
Ooooh. Is that the best insult you can come up with? You really should try harder
In reply to 'Hilda':
I haven't seen the ad but I see where you're coming from - I've seen a few questionable print adverts recently, now that I think about it.
I haven't seen the ad but I see where you're coming from - I've seen a few questionable print adverts recently, now that I think about it.
In reply to 'Hilda':
Standards have really nose dived since the halcyon days of Javlin jacket adverts.
Standards have really nose dived since the halcyon days of Javlin jacket adverts.
In reply to 'Hilda':
I've seen the ad and didn't think it was disgusting. It is hardly a graphic image of a wound, just a bit of blood... Everyone has blood in them, whats the big deal?
I've seen the ad and didn't think it was disgusting. It is hardly a graphic image of a wound, just a bit of blood... Everyone has blood in them, whats the big deal?
In reply to Tyler:
They can see much worse gore walking by a butchers shop or indeed on TV...
> (In reply to 'Hilda')
>
> Won't some please think of the children?
>
> Won't some please think of the children?
They can see much worse gore walking by a butchers shop or indeed on TV...
In reply to 'Hilda':
surely it would be fairer to say "i find it offensive"?
> (In reply to zorro)
> [...]
>
>
>
> Its offensive. Simple.
> [...]
>
>
>
> Its offensive. Simple.
surely it would be fairer to say "i find it offensive"?
In reply to Dom Whillans:
I tend to find in these case of feigned outrage of something petty it's usual for people to say "I'm not offended by it myself but what about xyz who may be watching/reading/standing by"
> surely it would be fairer to say "i find it offensive"?
I tend to find in these case of feigned outrage of something petty it's usual for people to say "I'm not offended by it myself but what about xyz who may be watching/reading/standing by"
In reply to Tyler:
Haven't seen the picture, but couldn't you accept that for some one who has either self harmed or has had a family member who has self harmed, then an advert that shows someone cutting themselves would seem pretty dumb?
Some people use the word "rape" in a jokey way, like a bad loss in a football match. Might not bother most, but it grates rather if you have a friend who has been a victim of that crime.
> I tend to find in these case of feigned outrage
Haven't seen the picture, but couldn't you accept that for some one who has either self harmed or has had a family member who has self harmed, then an advert that shows someone cutting themselves would seem pretty dumb?
Some people use the word "rape" in a jokey way, like a bad loss in a football match. Might not bother most, but it grates rather if you have a friend who has been a victim of that crime.
In reply to GrahamD:
oh dear - I'm going to have to go and lie down....
> (In reply to 'Hilda')
>
> Standards have really nose dived since the halcyon days of Javlin jacket adverts.
>
> Standards have really nose dived since the halcyon days of Javlin jacket adverts.
oh dear - I'm going to have to go and lie down....
In reply to Bulls Crack: Or the S7 get in her pants add..
I once had a mag with Isabelle in a towel..
I once had a mag with Isabelle in a towel..
In reply to TobyA:
Although im not too fussed about the ad, and indeed the people who get irritated over such things do annoy me, but you do make an excellent point.
Either way, I have far more important things for my mind to get pissed over without having to worry about an ad. If you dont like ad, dont buy the shoe. If you despise the ad, dont buy from the brand at all. Aside from too much time on your hands, I really don't understand why people get in such hissy fits over things like this, its the reason we live in such a nanny state as it is.
Although im not too fussed about the ad, and indeed the people who get irritated over such things do annoy me, but you do make an excellent point.
Either way, I have far more important things for my mind to get pissed over without having to worry about an ad. If you dont like ad, dont buy the shoe. If you despise the ad, dont buy from the brand at all. Aside from too much time on your hands, I really don't understand why people get in such hissy fits over things like this, its the reason we live in such a nanny state as it is.
More to the point, is it a woman or a man in the advert. We can't decide?
In reply to TobyA:
True enough. For someone who has a history for self injury, and is perhaps struggling with the urges to go back there, seeing an image like that could well be the tipping point.
having said that, for those who have suffered child abuse, rape, self harm, triggers to regress and and bring up all the issues again, are an everywhere everyday occurence. In my voluntary work with support groups for survivors we often talk about how to make a session 'safe' from triggers that will spin people into flashbacks and trauma memories... and have come to the conclusion that we can't do this, as they are too many and varied and individual. It is far better to give people the tools and skills to re-ground themselves after such triggers and move on.
I still don't like the sound of the image though, and won't be buying the shoes... why would I store something sharp in with my climbing gear?
> Haven't seen the picture, but couldn't you accept that for some one who has either self harmed or has had a family member who has self harmed, then an advert that shows someone cutting themselves would seem pretty dumb?
True enough. For someone who has a history for self injury, and is perhaps struggling with the urges to go back there, seeing an image like that could well be the tipping point.
having said that, for those who have suffered child abuse, rape, self harm, triggers to regress and and bring up all the issues again, are an everywhere everyday occurence. In my voluntary work with support groups for survivors we often talk about how to make a session 'safe' from triggers that will spin people into flashbacks and trauma memories... and have come to the conclusion that we can't do this, as they are too many and varied and individual. It is far better to give people the tools and skills to re-ground themselves after such triggers and move on.
I still don't like the sound of the image though, and won't be buying the shoes... why would I store something sharp in with my climbing gear?
In reply to muppetfilter:
Do you have a copy <cough> for research purposes?
> I once had a mag with Isabelle in a towel..
Do you have a copy <cough> for research purposes?
In reply to 'Hilda':
What's offensive to you might not offend other people though. Simple.
> (In reply to zorro)
> [...]
>
>
>
> Its offensive. Simple.
> [...]
>
>
>
> Its offensive. Simple.
What's offensive to you might not offend other people though. Simple.
In reply to 'Hilda':
Oh and if it really bothers you then make a complaint to the Advertising Standards Agency.
I'll save you all of two seconds, here's the URL....
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/
Oh and if it really bothers you then make a complaint to the Advertising Standards Agency.
I'll save you all of two seconds, here's the URL....
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/
In reply to 'Hilda':
Its quite a nice reference convaying a pun on blade together with associations of "high tech", "Strength", "endurance" and "power" on the part of the climber along with a concept of self-repair more than self harm.
> For the Blade climbing shoe
>
> Is it just me or is the advert a really out of order. When I first saw it (it shows a girl using a climbing shoe to graphically slice open her leg, with a very prounounced wound, presumbably to back up the 'Blade' connection) I was really quite shocked.
>
> My daughter thought it was disgusting, and also in very bad taste. She couldn't understand why a company would want to use an image of self harm to promote a product - and I agree with her.
>
Its a popular Kinomagraphic entertainment show m'lud....>
> Is it just me or is the advert a really out of order. When I first saw it (it shows a girl using a climbing shoe to graphically slice open her leg, with a very prounounced wound, presumbably to back up the 'Blade' connection) I was really quite shocked.
>
> My daughter thought it was disgusting, and also in very bad taste. She couldn't understand why a company would want to use an image of self harm to promote a product - and I agree with her.
>
Its quite a nice reference convaying a pun on blade together with associations of "high tech", "Strength", "endurance" and "power" on the part of the climber along with a concept of self-repair more than self harm.
In reply to slacky:
I think 'Hilda' has a reason to be upset by the advert. I have not seen it, but totally agree with TobyA's comment above. The idea of showing 'self harm' as it has been described, may not bother those who have never done it, or been affected by it. But those who have, or have been effected by it may take offense - and thats bad advertising.
Anyway, this discussion has reminded me to get this months issue.
I think 'Hilda' has a reason to be upset by the advert. I have not seen it, but totally agree with TobyA's comment above. The idea of showing 'self harm' as it has been described, may not bother those who have never done it, or been affected by it. But those who have, or have been effected by it may take offense - and thats bad advertising.
Anyway, this discussion has reminded me to get this months issue.
In reply to 'Hilda':
Saw their similar 'male' version in Grimper, the French mag. (guy sticking the shoe into his abs. I didn't find it offensive, but there again, I didn't find it a "good" advert. To me, it just came across as a bit hoaky.
Saw their similar 'male' version in Grimper, the French mag. (guy sticking the shoe into his abs. I didn't find it offensive, but there again, I didn't find it a "good" advert. To me, it just came across as a bit hoaky.
In reply to muppetfilter:
You kept it in a towel? Way too much information.
> I once had a mag with Isabelle in a towel..
You kept it in a towel? Way too much information.
In reply to Mckenzie:
"You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all the people all the time" - Some person who's name I can't remember.
Start accounting for each and every possible eventuality and you'll end up living in a nanny state!
Oh wait, hang on a minute.
Canvassing other's opinion of said advert is all well and good to pass a few minutes of time, but if its really offending you complaining about it here is not going to achieve anything, hence the above link to the ASA.
> (In reply to slacky)
>
> I think 'Hilda' has a reason to be upset by the advert. I have not seen it, but totally agree with TobyA's comment above. The idea of showing 'self harm' as it has been described, may not bother those who have never done it, or been affected by it. But those who have, or have been effected by it may take offense - and thats bad advertising.
>
> Anyway, this discussion has reminded me to get this months issue.
>
> I think 'Hilda' has a reason to be upset by the advert. I have not seen it, but totally agree with TobyA's comment above. The idea of showing 'self harm' as it has been described, may not bother those who have never done it, or been affected by it. But those who have, or have been effected by it may take offense - and thats bad advertising.
>
> Anyway, this discussion has reminded me to get this months issue.
"You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all the people all the time" - Some person who's name I can't remember.
Start accounting for each and every possible eventuality and you'll end up living in a nanny state!
Oh wait, hang on a minute.
Canvassing other's opinion of said advert is all well and good to pass a few minutes of time, but if its really offending you complaining about it here is not going to achieve anything, hence the above link to the ASA.
In reply to muppetfilter:
i still have mags with andverts showing her in a swimsuit (bright green I think) bouldering. No idea what they were advertising but the pic was available as a poster
To the OP, just because you think the ad is offensive doesn't mean it is.
> (In reply to Bulls Crack) Or the S7 get in her pants add..
>
> I once had a mag with Isabelle in a towel..
>
> I once had a mag with Isabelle in a towel..
i still have mags with andverts showing her in a swimsuit (bright green I think) bouldering. No idea what they were advertising but the pic was available as a poster
To the OP, just because you think the ad is offensive doesn't mean it is.
In reply to graeme jackson:
It is interesting that, with the exception of the OP, just about everyone who expressed a clear opinion critical of the advert also confessed to not having seen it.
It is interesting that, with the exception of the OP, just about everyone who expressed a clear opinion critical of the advert also confessed to not having seen it.
In reply to Mckenzie:
Is there a large market for self harming climbers buying rock boots ?
> (In reply to slacky)
>
> I think 'Hilda' has a reason to be upset by the advert. I have not seen it, but totally agree with TobyA's comment above. The idea of showing 'self harm' as it has been described, may not bother those who have never done it, or been affected by it. But those who have, or have been effected by it may take offense - and thats bad advertising.
>
> Anyway, this discussion has reminded me to get this months issue.
>
> I think 'Hilda' has a reason to be upset by the advert. I have not seen it, but totally agree with TobyA's comment above. The idea of showing 'self harm' as it has been described, may not bother those who have never done it, or been affected by it. But those who have, or have been effected by it may take offense - and thats bad advertising.
>
> Anyway, this discussion has reminded me to get this months issue.
Is there a large market for self harming climbers buying rock boots ?
In reply to Dave Garnett:
So, get it scanned so we can all have a look.
> (In reply to graeme jackson)
>
> It is interesting that, with the exception of the OP, just about everyone who expressed a clear opinion critical of the advert also confessed to not having seen it.
>
> It is interesting that, with the exception of the OP, just about everyone who expressed a clear opinion critical of the advert also confessed to not having seen it.
So, get it scanned so we can all have a look.
In reply to Dave Garnett:
I've seen it in previous issues of Climb or Climber (the one with someone sliceing fingers. Didn't like it at all. Actually it put me right off. The ad in recent issues is even dumber.It kid of looks like self harming and makes no sense to me in climbing context.
I don't find it offensive, just plainly dumb and a bit diguisting althrough I can easly uderstand that if someone has a history of self haming, being abused etc than they can find it offending, yes.
I've seen it in previous issues of Climb or Climber (the one with someone sliceing fingers. Didn't like it at all. Actually it put me right off. The ad in recent issues is even dumber.It kid of looks like self harming and makes no sense to me in climbing context.
I don't find it offensive, just plainly dumb and a bit diguisting althrough I can easly uderstand that if someone has a history of self haming, being abused etc than they can find it offending, yes.
In reply to TobyA:
I'm not going to defend the advert gainst accusations of being dumb, I've not seen it so can't really comment (oh, hold on....) but I have seen another of the series and just though "eh? What's that about?". Whatever garbled message the ad is try to get out I think it's safe to assume that the advert is not about self harming per se (at least not in the way we are all taking it mean i.e. the illness/condition) so, really, what is there to be 'offended' about? No one likes to be reminded of unhappy times but does that mean people should get offended by mentions of cancer on TV soaps because some one's relative has died from it? Should ex-alchoholics take offence at larger adverts on TV? I can see why someone may feel negative towards a depiction of self harm but to be offeneded by it strikes me as transference of blame or guilt or else a reflection of societies need to take offence on behalf of others of nearly anything that could be interpreted as offensive, no matter how loosely.
The idea that this could lead to a former self-harmer self-harming again, strikes me as rubbish. Self-harming isn't something that is triggered by being reminded of it, if someon is slef harming there are much bigger issues to address than unrelated depictions of it in the media.
> Haven't seen the picture, but couldn't you accept that for some one who has either self harmed or has had a family member who has self harmed, then an advert that shows someone cutting themselves would seem pretty dumb?
I'm not going to defend the advert gainst accusations of being dumb, I've not seen it so can't really comment (oh, hold on....) but I have seen another of the series and just though "eh? What's that about?". Whatever garbled message the ad is try to get out I think it's safe to assume that the advert is not about self harming per se (at least not in the way we are all taking it mean i.e. the illness/condition) so, really, what is there to be 'offended' about? No one likes to be reminded of unhappy times but does that mean people should get offended by mentions of cancer on TV soaps because some one's relative has died from it? Should ex-alchoholics take offence at larger adverts on TV? I can see why someone may feel negative towards a depiction of self harm but to be offeneded by it strikes me as transference of blame or guilt or else a reflection of societies need to take offence on behalf of others of nearly anything that could be interpreted as offensive, no matter how loosely.
The idea that this could lead to a former self-harmer self-harming again, strikes me as rubbish. Self-harming isn't something that is triggered by being reminded of it, if someon is slef harming there are much bigger issues to address than unrelated depictions of it in the media.
In reply to Mckenzie:
Offense at what exactly? Having actually seen the advert (or at least one in the same series) I still fail to see what there is to get offended at, regardless of whether or not you have self harmed in the past.
The advert does not suggest that self harm is a good idea, in fact it in no way endorses self harm (presumably the opposite if most peoples response is that they are disgusted by the image...). Neither does it poke fun or stereotype people who do self harm, it passes no comment whatsoever on the practice or those who do it.
This is hardly surprising given as it's sole purpose is to *sell rock shoes*. It quite obviously isn't some sort of social comment piece or some medical advice.
So what exactly are you getting offended at, that they've inadvertently reminded you of something? I can't think of a single advert, film, book, song that doesn't have the capacity to remind *someone* of something they don't like.
> But those who have, or have been effected by it may take offense - and thats bad advertising.
Offense at what exactly? Having actually seen the advert (or at least one in the same series) I still fail to see what there is to get offended at, regardless of whether or not you have self harmed in the past.
The advert does not suggest that self harm is a good idea, in fact it in no way endorses self harm (presumably the opposite if most peoples response is that they are disgusted by the image...). Neither does it poke fun or stereotype people who do self harm, it passes no comment whatsoever on the practice or those who do it.
This is hardly surprising given as it's sole purpose is to *sell rock shoes*. It quite obviously isn't some sort of social comment piece or some medical advice.
So what exactly are you getting offended at, that they've inadvertently reminded you of something? I can't think of a single advert, film, book, song that doesn't have the capacity to remind *someone* of something they don't like.
In reply to 'Hilda':
On the up side, a self harmer could see the damage the shoe can do. Buy a pair and save themselfs from getting cut!
On the up side, a self harmer could see the damage the shoe can do. Buy a pair and save themselfs from getting cut!
In reply to 'Hilda':
With all this heated discussion about said advert, why has no-one scanned a copy of it or something, so we can see what all the fuss is about?
With all this heated discussion about said advert, why has no-one scanned a copy of it or something, so we can see what all the fuss is about?
In reply to ginger_lord:
Funny - I've looked through the Boreal catalog today before afternoon. Immiedietaly recognized the Blade shoe, remembered the advert and thought I'd never try it or wear it Not sure if that's what Boreal is aiming for...
Funny - I've looked through the Boreal catalog today before afternoon. Immiedietaly recognized the Blade shoe, remembered the advert and thought I'd never try it or wear it Not sure if that's what Boreal is aiming for...
In reply to cipciripcip:
Slightly off topic but this months climber (or climb, can't remember now!) runs a feature about sorting and assessing your gear ready for this seasion. the author comes to the subject of helmets. The author is an advotcate of the wearing of them and goes into detail of why they should be worn. Photographs within the feature and even on that same page show climbers not wearing helmets!
Not wanting to get into should or shouldn't wear them but you'd have thought the author would have wanted photographs relevant to what he was writing about? Maybe he didn't have a hand in photo selection for the feature which then shows the editorial team just bung in photos without reading the content perhaps?
Maybe its nothing but thats how I saw it.
Agree with the OP BTW.
Slightly off topic but this months climber (or climb, can't remember now!) runs a feature about sorting and assessing your gear ready for this seasion. the author comes to the subject of helmets. The author is an advotcate of the wearing of them and goes into detail of why they should be worn. Photographs within the feature and even on that same page show climbers not wearing helmets!
Not wanting to get into should or shouldn't wear them but you'd have thought the author would have wanted photographs relevant to what he was writing about? Maybe he didn't have a hand in photo selection for the feature which then shows the editorial team just bung in photos without reading the content perhaps?
Maybe its nothing but thats how I saw it.
Agree with the OP BTW.
In reply to 'Hilda':
Having only seen the male version, I agree, it was shocking. My abbs would crush all objects known to man without even tensing. Gym sculpted wimps, they need to get on a steep board with features for feet.
Having only seen the male version, I agree, it was shocking. My abbs would crush all objects known to man without even tensing. Gym sculpted wimps, they need to get on a steep board with features for feet.
In reply to 'Hilda': Oh God I so agree.I feel the fault of this lies squarely at the foot of climbing walls and asylum seekers.
In reply to 'Hilda': ive seen it, it is horrible, i dont really care.
In reply to 'Hilda':
I saw this ad in the Spanish "Desnivel" magazine and i thought it was brilliant.
Its in no way promoting self harm and definitly not offensive.
Its pretty simple really, if you dont like it... dont look at it.
I saw this ad in the Spanish "Desnivel" magazine and i thought it was brilliant.
Its in no way promoting self harm and definitly not offensive.
Its pretty simple really, if you dont like it... dont look at it.
In reply to slacky:
Honest Abe. Although it may have been "fool" originally, not "please".
I found the advert offensive because it is shit.
> "You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all the people all the time" - Some person who's name I can't remember.
Honest Abe. Although it may have been "fool" originally, not "please".
I found the advert offensive because it is shit.
In reply to speekingleesh:
Well you must have an appalling memory, my condolences. There are thousands upon millions of adverts (in fact most) that dont offend.
Oh, and i never said i was offended. I was stating that showing an image of 'self harm' as it has been described might not be as tasteful to some as it is to others. Myself; i have no problem with the idea of the image (i still have not seen it) and the creates of the advert clearly felt the same. But its the job of whomever creates an advert to make it tasteful and unoffensive, and so to make an advert which is distressing to some people is obviously a pretty poor advert.
Can you imagine watching an advert for coka cola where there is a man desperate for a can, and during the advert you watch the man steal money, rob shops and go through withdrawal symptoms from being deprived of his drink? Well... i can imagine it wouldn't go down too well with the general public.
And another point is that an advert involving 2 men kissing was removed from television due to parents complaining about having their children exposed to homosexuality... and how is that bad? Its not... if anything its educational.
Well you must have an appalling memory, my condolences. There are thousands upon millions of adverts (in fact most) that dont offend.
Oh, and i never said i was offended. I was stating that showing an image of 'self harm' as it has been described might not be as tasteful to some as it is to others. Myself; i have no problem with the idea of the image (i still have not seen it) and the creates of the advert clearly felt the same. But its the job of whomever creates an advert to make it tasteful and unoffensive, and so to make an advert which is distressing to some people is obviously a pretty poor advert.
Can you imagine watching an advert for coka cola where there is a man desperate for a can, and during the advert you watch the man steal money, rob shops and go through withdrawal symptoms from being deprived of his drink? Well... i can imagine it wouldn't go down too well with the general public.
And another point is that an advert involving 2 men kissing was removed from television due to parents complaining about having their children exposed to homosexuality... and how is that bad? Its not... if anything its educational.
In reply to Mckenzie:
No it's not.
Sounds like quite a good advert. They could follow it up with something like 'Coke. The new crack.'. Shit, I should be in advertising.
> (In reply to speekingleesh)
> But its the job of whomever creates an advert to make it tasteful and unoffensive
> But its the job of whomever creates an advert to make it tasteful and unoffensive
No it's not.
> Can you imagine watching an advert for coka cola where there is a man desperate for a can, and during the advert you watch the man steal money, rob shops and go through withdrawal symptoms from being deprived of his drink?
Sounds like quite a good advert. They could follow it up with something like 'Coke. The new crack.'. Shit, I should be in advertising.
In reply to 'Hilda':
Disgusted of wherever. It really isn't that shocking.
What I'd like to know is why she's slicing her leg with the heel of the shoe - are they implying it's got a really sharp heel - what's the point of that?
Disgusted of wherever. It really isn't that shocking.
What I'd like to know is why she's slicing her leg with the heel of the shoe - are they implying it's got a really sharp heel - what's the point of that?
In reply to Misha:
They should devote some time to developing some sticky rubber rather than a sharp heel.
I will not even look at Boreal shoes until they manage this whatever ads they come up with.
They should devote some time to developing some sticky rubber rather than a sharp heel.
I will not even look at Boreal shoes until they manage this whatever ads they come up with.
In reply to Misha: no pun intended
the idea of the advert is that this beginner shoe will in fact make new foot holes, making E8 E-sayy! (that was purposefully misplet -.-)
the idea of the advert is that this beginner shoe will in fact make new foot holes, making E8 E-sayy! (that was purposefully misplet -.-)
I quite liked the first in the series with a slight incision to a finger or hand, can't remember exactly. The latest one is just silly.
By the way, how many typos are there in the caption to the photo on the first few pages of the same Climber issue of someone climbing in the Ecrins? It must win the prize for the most mis-spelt caption ever!
By the way, how many typos are there in the caption to the photo on the first few pages of the same Climber issue of someone climbing in the Ecrins? It must win the prize for the most mis-spelt caption ever!
In reply to 'Hilda': I saw the advertisement and personally found the imagery to be rather unpleasant. It didn't offend me, per se; in fact, I found it quite amusing. This is yet another in a long succession of outdoor equipment advertisements that are total and utter garbage. Although not sure this ad is as bad as the tw*t hanging from the blackboard in the Sportiva ads, and possibly nowhere near as appalling as the Red Chilli ads featuring the leggy school teacher and the naughty rock climber. What the f*ck is that about? What the f*ck is any of it about? These are symptomatic of a lot of European advertising that trys so desperately hard to be different but emerges sadly as a pile of pretentious toss. They'd be better off just wheeling out a nice photograph of one of their sponsored athletes in a nice new pair of rockshoes on a route somewhere with a bit of branding. Works perfectly well for the US companies.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...