In a world where we are constantly bombarded with countless media messages, in which there are more non-profit charity organisations than ever before competing for donations for a million good causes from human rights, to animal rights, to environmental issues, to health promotion, to... designers of non-profit campaigns are having to get more innovative in their design approach in order to grab the attention of the public. This is leading to the use of new techniques within graphic design in which the viewer is physically involved in the campaign, and in which the visuals step out of the two dimensional space of print and becomes a three-dimensional experience. The representations still convey the same messages, and attempt to move us through guilt, pity and awareness, but do so in a clever way by using design 'gimmicks'. This has the effect of both making the campaign cool, while 'bringing home' the message in a new and striking way.
Here are a few examples, most of which use life sized children as a visual strategy: (many more can be seen on osocio)
This UNICEF campaign was displayed in Amsterdam a few years ago. When you peeped inside the box you got a message saying "Look into the world of UNICEF" and a link to the website.
These ads created by the Swiss department of Amnesty International use new techniques to place human rights violations within the comfort zone of the viewer's world, making them hard to ignore. The whole series can be seenhere.
Here the same idea used by World Vision in the Netherlands:
Over the last year or two I have started noticing a new trend in advertising. The second half of the 20th century is well known for the battles of civil rights/women's rights/gay rights/worker's rights/... movements fighting for equality. This has lead to a common agreement in the public sphere (as well as in legislation) that openly discriminating because of race, gender, sexuality is not acceptable. Many would argue that this climate of political correctness is only superficial, and that discrimination continues to thrive under the surface of media and advertising representations, in a more subtle (and perhaps more dangerous) hidden manner. However, recently it seems that a shift has taken place in some advertising circles, and that being edgy and innovative, also means taking risks by daring to be openly 'politically incorrect'. If you look at all these ads together, there is a sense of 'they have had long enough to get over their hang ups, why not use them'
The first time this idea struck me was in London, 2006, where this Playstation campaign was displayed all over the tube stations and trains ›
I first took this simply as advertisers trying to tonuge-in-cheek cash in on the British culture of 'new laddism'. A phenomenon which started in the early 90s with magazines such as Loaded, FHM, and later in America Maxim, where men were told to be proud of watching football, drooling over pinups, and getting pissed with their mates. Seen by some researchers as a 'smokescreen for males who cannot take the rise of feminism' laddism is still very present in British society especially.
However, in the Netherlands, where I was living, laddism was not something I had noticed as a cultural trend. Which is why the 2006 Bavaria campaign seemed to mark a new era in advertising, where the Dutch, more than 10 year after the emergence of the hyped British lad, decided the time for 'political correctness' as a given was over, and the 'metrosexual' male was out.
According to some it was time for the 'übersexual'. Men who are 'all about ruggedness, confidence, masculinity and having an unselfish passion for causes and principles'. Though the creator of the term 'metrosexual', writer Mark Simpson, argues this is not so, and that the new trend was a PR stunt (Metrosexual war breaks out in Holland). Knowing the work of Kesselskramer, the designers of the ads, who usually do clever and trend setting work, I would have agreed with Mark Simpson that this was a one off, had it not been for other campaigns jumping on the same bandwagon.
For example this one in London the same year ›
In my opinion the campaigns are mainly tapping in to a change in attitude. However, they are of course also contributing to a celebration of this change, and thereby fueling it. Some years ago, I am pretty sure these campaigns would not have been allowed in the public space. So should women be worried about this return to 'masculine values'? Or should we say 'Fair enough, we have had the right to celebrate our femininity, they should be able to celebrate being men'?
Another trend in political incorrectness has to do with race. More specifically advertisements aimed at the white majority, with somewhat dubious racial representations. Again it feels like the same attitude is allowing these campaigns, which would most likely not have been seen some years ago, to emerge now.
Take for instance this one in Amsterdam, 2006 › The text says 'Palm - purebred beer' or 'Palm - pure breed beer' or 'Palm - pure race beer', as all these meaning can be derived from the 'puur rasbier' in the Dutch language. So if we look at the image of the blond horse and take the first 'purebred' meaning, the ad is innocent enough. However, as soon as we choose one of the other interpretations, it gets more tricky, and could be seen as quite a racist statement.
In Sydney this year this billboard struck me as quite racially problematic as well. It plays with stereotypes, and is supposed to be funny. You could even see it as opposite racism, because it ridicules the white fat boring couple, and glorifies the black beautiful superstar couple. Nevertheless, in a country where there are hardly any people of African decent, and where the aboriginals have been treated horrendously throughout history, and still today on average live 17 years less than white Australians, the question remains who are we laughing at? The product advertised is an online recruitment agency. The pun being that if you join, you will go from being average white dull unhealthy middle class to super sexy athletic black hip hop star. The problem with this being the obvious and age old stereotype of the hypersexual (male and female) lazy negro, who's only skills are athletic or musical, and who lives a life of decadence and excess if given the chance, particularly in the present represented by the image of the gangsta rapper lifestyle. The text on the billboard claims jokingly 'It could revolutionise who you are', playing on the global popularity of the African American hip hop star. But the fact that this is all an exaggerated joke, with the extra jest of '*results may vary', contributes further to the 'we' as the normal citizen, and the 'them' as the exaggerated exotic stereotype. We know what the poster claims can never be true, so the preposterousness of the suggestion is what makes it funny.
In another Australian advertisement for Cadbury chocolate something similar is happening. Though here it is not a joke in the same sense. A white Australian family (blue-eyed/blonde) have turned brown, supposedly from eating chocolate. The text reads 'Wouldn't it be nice to share the happiness!'. And they all look happily at the TV showing a slab of chocolate. At the bottom the slogan 'Pure Cadburyness'.
Again the representation is about white people turning into black people. Though the brown skin in the ad is maybe not meant to refer to people of other ethnic background, but simply to the colour of chocolate, it is pretty hard to ignore the association of Caucasians with brown skin as changing race. Again this change is seen as something positive. 'Wouldn't it be nice to share the happiness!', meaning eating chocolate will make us brown and happy. It seems this ad is going back in time to an age of golliwog dolls, where stereotyped Negroes would advertise things such as coffee, pancakes, rice, and chocolate. Or when chocolate covered marshmallows were still called 'Negro kisses' in Northern Europe (something Germany and Scandinavia changed a long time ago, but the Dutch only changed recently). Another historical stereotype is that of blacks seen as childlike, naive, irresponsible, and therefore not fully developed human beings. Known from the Sambo and Coon caricatures. There is a definite childlike naivety about the happiness of the brown characters of Pure Cadburyness.
It would be interesting to investigate what changes in society have led to this shift in advertising, if I am correct that is, and there is a new tendency for representations in public space to be less sensitive to political correctness, and instead use the tongue-in cheek political incorrectness as a tool. Is it damaging or should we lighten up? Is the commercial world just tapping into a changed climate in the public opinion, or is it creating it?
Recently Australia joined a long list of other countries in showing graphic images of possible side effects of smoking on cigarette packs. As a non-smoker this just means staring, while trying to eat my breakfast, at a very unappetising photo of a rotten foot on a pack left lying around by flatmates.
Smokers and ex-smokers I've spoken to seem to think that the tactics don't work. A friend told me that they often just buy a cigarette case, to hide the package. Her opinion was that unless people are learning something they do not know from a campaign, it will have no effect. Smokers already know that they can die from puffing away, and therefore ignore the images. This question made me curious Are there any smokers out there who have stopped because of this? Are there any statistics? When it comes down to it public health campaigns will always be a case of government authorities (or NGOs) strongly advising us how we should behave for the better good of society. No matter how right they are (I would love a world without smoke and car accidents) there will often be something in us as individuals which wants to rebel against this authoritarian voice. Therefore, though we need to be informed, being scared or disgusted might more readily awaken this something that makes us want to rebel. But perhaps we need to distinguish between ads aimed at addictive behaviour, and ones aimed at changing risk behaviour. The behaviours which cause harm to ourselves, or the ones which possible cause harm to others.
We also know the scare campaign from other health issues such as drink driving/speeding, and HIV/AIDS.
For example the Grim Reaper campaign from the late 1980's in Australia, scared a whole generation of kids into thinking doomsday was near, and sex would kill them.
One thing that can be said is that the campaigns stick in our minds. We remember them if they shock us. However, remembering and changing attitude are two different things. It would be interesting to find out whether people driving 40 miles an hour down an inhabited road will see a child, remember the commercial shown below, and then reduce the speed. Perhaps people who are already aware of driving safely will, while others who have complete faith in their driving skills will be impossible to reach, even with the most horrific imagery.
Here is a video with people on the street telling which campaigns made an impact on them. Below is one of the campaigns they frequently mention. BrandRepublic
Examples of other typical and hard hitting speeding commercials ›
This recent Australian anti-speeding ad shows that there are other ways, for example humour. A friend of mine already used the little finger, when she was having an argument with an arrogant driver overtaking her on her bicycle. There was no smart comeback from his side!
There are many people who argue that the public needs a wakeup call, and that scaring them into awareness is the only way. Others believe scare tactics have the wrong effect, and just turn away the people they are aimed at reaching. As the following New York Times article points out, the important thing is to find a balance, direct the campaign at the right audience, and most importantly give a clear, simple answer to what people can do to avoid the situation depicted in the ad. Fear, Itself; The Right Dose of Scare Tactics
••• this space is created to discuss visual trends that influence society / public spaces / local & global debates ••• opinions / comments / thoughts are very welcome •••
