As part of my advertising management unit, I will be visiting ad agency, Grey Group, next week.
Not having heard of them before, I checked out their online portfolio and was intrigued to discover that the controversial “drug-driving” ad commissioned by TAC was their creation.
You know, the one where a guy is smoking a joint outside a cafe, parks in the middle of the road, and is mowed down by a passing vehicle as he exits his car?
If you are unfamiliar with it, here it is:
Pretty confronting, ay?
I’m a regular participator in an online forum where this particular ad caused a bit of a stir. Some of the arguments, admittedly levelled by those who have a history of marijuana use, included:
- It appears that the car which collected our “stoner” was speeding excessively. “Who was supposed to be stoned? The guy who stepped out of his car and got collected, or the idiot who hit him?”
- The examples consisted of common driving mistakes – such as waiting longer than necessary at a stop sign and driving over the kerb – which are performed by regular drivers all the time, including sober ones. The link between the use of the drug and the accident itself is tenuous and perhaps even unrealistic.
- The ad is relying on a stereotype to deliver its message.
Do you think that the ad had substance and was more than simply a shock campaign to scare off would be users?
I think I might just put some of these arguments forth and see how the agency execs respond.
Well, this is one of those ads that advertising agencies make for the people who commission them, not for the general public.
It is a shock tactic ad, designed to push us out of our comfort zone, but it’s also about as effective as an ashtray on a motorcycle. The reason being is we push the message into the area of our brain associated with shock and trauma, not the area associated with smoking drugs.
Still, I am sure the people at TAC loved it, and thus the agency gets a pat on the back, get paid, and everyone is happy. Including the TV stations, who are also happy to pick up the money to air the ad.
Welcome to the industry, where the person who the ad is intended for, is generally the last person actually considered in the making of the ad.
By: Dr.D on August 26, 2009
at 7:35 pm
I’m sure you are right but you would think that an organisation like TAC, who spend so much money each year on advertising, would know what is and is not effective.
Still, I wonder who this ad is even for. If it’s targeted at current drug-drivers, they are certainly way off the mark. From the forum reaction it’s quite clear that they think the ad is nothing more than a shock campaign and far from reality.
If it’s targeted at potential drug-drivers then as you said, you’d have to question whether by dramatising it to such an extent the message gets lost.
By: Gabriel on August 26, 2009
at 9:20 pm
The woman that presented to us is the ad exec on the TAC account.
I asked her whether is was difficult connecting marijuana use to deaths on the road and she started talking about how they source a lot research material. In hindsight, I should have said demonstrated, not connected.
I also asked whether she thought the message could get lost in amongst the shock value and she said that there’s a difficult balancing act between appealing to the audiences emotions and adding shock value and they are still working on the best way of delivering the message.
In any case, she admitted that the public reaction to the ad has been negative and that it is in the process of being banned which is why it has been pulled from the air. She said that it would have cost a lot to produce (something like a few hundred K’s).
Rest assured the TAC would not be impressed. They rolled the dice and they lost.
By: Gabriel on August 31, 2009
at 8:14 pm