Is it just me or do all http://www.adcouncil.org campaigns have some underlying tinge of corporate influence? It spreads a lot farther than just them since its just one front of many. How is a public service advertisement that inadvertently endorses a product not endorsing the product. I really do not think they are in fact public service campaigns so much as that which appears at glance to fall under the guise of public service, when in fact they are almost always just regular corporate ads under the mask of being for your good. I’m not speaking out against them outright but there are several examples of there being a lot more than just the public service part of the announcement. If they were really out to do public service they would have to do a lot more information and a lot fewer products, many types of public service ads generally seem to protect corporate interests, so its highly questionable how much of a public service they actually are. I think that is pretty cheap that something that’s suppose to be doing a public service can in fact have the opposite from their supposed intended effect from that and no one seems to notice. You know what, I would give examples except that would inadvertently advertise products that already got enough free advertising encapsulated inside something that was suppose to be for public service only. This is not even an example but right from their homepage at the time of writing this, in an ice age cartoon “you don’t have to be perfect to be a perfect parent”, tell me, smart people, what message is that sending to parents as to what type of example to set for their kids? Tell me that doesn’t lead to kids being less responsible with their decisions and that somehow doesn’t benefit corporations by keeping kids stupid. If you click it, its bout adoption, wow it makes perfect sense, but that’s completely besides the point, the message is an endorsement of parents setting an example imperfection which enforces corporate susceptibility. This example is tiny and not even really actionable, it just goes to show the investment in keeping people stupid by enforcing an attitude that’s tolerant of stupidity because that’s what keeps their disgusting machine churning. Take the fire prevention bear for example and tell me what its actually marketing? It’s not rocket science, its a way to use cartoons to market what they are not suppose to market with cartoons, in order to appeal to kids. Most of this stuff is inherently dangerous not at all because of what it is, and even the names do not matter, but how its done that makes it clear what they are actually marketing as distinct from the service message they are suppose to be marketing. I’m doing my best to not help them inadvertently, but that alone is probably not enough to change things. Something that’s suppose to be not for profit? Perhaps its just a lack of oversight in what advertising gets their approval and the true enemy lies elsewhere however its very likely the enemy is spread out throughout everywhere. “Affecting Positive Social Change” if so, positive for whom? Its unlikely they mean to benefit only you, and if its some other larger entity that benefits as well it could very well be at your loss, not gain. Well at least this still holds true http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PropagandaHitlerTojo.jpg (Hitlers secret weapon: forest fires)

Share |
  Support VidzBigger... Donate! $3 $5 $10 $50 $1000 ... Bigger