9 replies to this topic

[KimAndSophie]

I just came across this Queensland Transport commercial on YouTube. I will leave my comments to myself for now, but I was wondering what other people think of these types of commercials?

[juls]

That's bloody awful!!!
As if it isn't hard enough to try and change people's views of how they see a sci already, without moronic adds like that.
They could've showed how life with a sci is hard without having to do the bladder/sexual function thing...

[wheeliebear75]

It's graphic.........but that was it's intention. I'm on the fence; on one hand it would be nice if they would show us being parents and having a love life or playing some wheelchair rugby..............they don't make people think about putting on a seatbelt. Yeah the sexual, urinary, and bowel problems can be embarrassing and all..........but that is one of the biggest groups of obstacles SCIs have.....let's face it the reality is that many of us have lost our partners because they couldn't deal with the new way of things. I don't think portraying SCI life as being a rugby game fallowed by a night on the town with out having to park blocks away from the club would have many buckling up for safety.

[Izziwhizzi]

juls, on Nov 26 2007, 07:58 AM, said:

That's bloody awful!!!
As if it isn't hard enough to try and change people's views of how they see a sci already, without moronic adds like that.
They could've showed how life with a sci is hard without having to do the bladder/sexual function thing...

What a bad way for me to start my day watching that. How strange, I wonder who on earth thought that was going to be a good theme or the theme to go on?

And the poor sci people who live in that area trying to live an equal happy life in the community - all their neighbours feeling they have an insight into what they can now only see as a non peeing, non pooing or non sexual life. I mean I would feel that I try to be an equal with people but would hate it if all the people whom I'm on my kids pta with were bombarded with that and then could only think - Oh yes, your the one who has to pee into a bag.

Yes sci is crap, stop as many rta's as possible, but without this discrimination please.

Imagine the outcry that gay blokes would have if they ran an advert saying:

Imagine life without feeling a ladies breast, coming inside a woman, only kissing stubbly faces - well this could happen to you if you remain gay!!

I showed it to my AB hubby, and he didn't feel it was too bad. Maybe I'm being over sensitive.

I xx

[Andrew Meddings]

i do see some merits in the add but is opposite to message i promote. no one who has met me would see me as being disabled

[kewlcatkez]

Well, the add will certainly shock. The thing is that research has shown that 'shock' tactics don't work, ie they don't change behaviour. The anti drink driving ad which was on tv here a while back saw a group of young lads drinking and then eyeing up a young woman who got slammed into the bar and had head lacerations etc etc..It was shocking but apparently, it is not working and is why the current alcohol awareness ads here in the UK are showing a woman making a fool of herself when blotto'd and then what a fab night she had when drinking sensibly....lol The BBC had a Prof of Social Behaviour or something like that on who stated that evidence shows that although shock tactics do "shock" they do not "stop". ( I made that cliche' lol).

Personally I find it unhelpful...I mean if evidence showed that shock tactics worked well it would be easier to swallow...

The "Creature Discomforts" are trying to forge understanding and break down discrimination and I feel that the 'seatbelt' ad above is causing a lot of misunderstanding and contributing to the 'stigma' of wheelchairs...like we are all fragile and useless.... Yes the ad does point out some of the cold facts, but it is half the picture.

K

[Lucydog]

I dont really have an issue with shock tactics. Sometimes they do work, take the AIDS campaign in the late 80s. We were all convinced we were going to get it if we didnt take precautions, it did work and it did get the message across. It was scary and memorable. no other campaign has been so sucessful. So even if it makes a few people think about their speed or seatbelts thats fine by me, as we all think we are invincible. I would like to have heard the sound on them.

If you take a look at their other films on Youtube, you will notice that Queensland like the scary, shocking message. I dont think they were particularly singling out SCI, its just one possible outcome. I dont think there is anything wrong with showing a bit of bleakness. After all we are all supposed to be so positive and inspirational all the time and living our lives like Mark Zupan, but its not like that is it? How many of us have cried bitterly and wished to turn the clock back, how many of us felt as if our lives were over and we would never do anything again? How many of us still do?

I dont think its overly negative, but I dont think there are that many positives when you are in rehab, recovering or just trying to gain some normality in life. there is nothing wrong with sayings its awful because it was, sometimes it still is, and no one would choose our lives. Frankly everyone thinks its awful not walking, but Im usually quick to point out that IMHO its the least of my problems!!!!

Edited by Lucydog, 26 November 2007 - 08:03 PM.

[kewlcatkez]

I agree in part, that shock tactics have their place etc.. like I said it IS the blunt truth but I still maintain its just half the story. Frankly I'm with what Izziwhizzi said earlier in the thread, I personally don;t want people who *I* am on the PTA with thinking they somehow know my life and will have a negative connotation attached to their image of me. I see how shock can be used but I worry that it compounds the ignorance people have already. Most of us have examples of this I am sure. I suppose it is b/c I am very private in some ways and maybe its because it hurts me to think of some of the aspects?? Not sure. I do know that right here in my area Mark Zupan is not known and people tend to have a negative attitude towards disabled people. Sure there is nothing wrong with telling it how it is, but Ads like the Queensland one truly do not work drastically.

Perhaps we are all desensitised by all we see on the TV etc? The AIDS ads were mentioned and although there is some truth to the theory that they were successful, I would like to ask successful in which groups?

There is a school of thought which states that Shocking ads do not work on their targeted audience. Yes the AIDS ads worked but I (I am 32 )was a child and children may be easier to impress upon/scare? However the promiscuous hetrosexuals STILL think that AIDS is a "gay" or "druggie" disease...So did that ad really work??

Back to the Queensland ad, It may help prevent a percentage of accidents caused by the individuals not wearing seatbelts ( the aim) but Maybe the majority will still have an "invincable" outlook and not wear one. I just feel that there are better ways to approach this, more than one way to skin a chicken or boil an egg! They are welcome to shock but isn't there a line??

Ok maybe I should start writing a blog or something..lol...

[Lucydog]

kewlcatkez, on Nov 26 2007, 11:31 PM, said:

I agree in part, that shock tactics have their place etc.. like I said it IS the blunt truth but I still maintain its just half the story. Frankly I'm with what Izziwhizzi said earlier in the thread, I personally don;t want people who *I* am on the PTA with thinking they somehow know my life and will have a negative connotation attached to their image of me. I see how shock can be used but I worry that it compounds the ignorance people have already. Most of us have examples of this I am sure. I suppose it is b/c I am very private in some ways and maybe its because it hurts me to think of some of the aspects?? Not sure. I do know that right here in my area Mark Zupan is not known and people tend to have a negative attitude towards disabled people. Sure there is nothing wrong with telling it how it is, but Ads like the Queensland one truly do not work drastically.

Perhaps we are all desensitised by all we see on the TV etc? The AIDS ads were mentioned and although there is some truth to the theory that they were successful, I would like to ask successful in which groups?

There is a school of thought which states that Shocking ads do not work on their targeted audience. Yes the AIDS ads worked but I (I am 32 )was a child and children may be easier to impress upon/scare? However the promiscuous hetrosexuals STILL think that AIDS is a "gay" or "druggie" disease...So did that ad really work??

Back to the Queensland ad, It may help prevent a percentage of accidents caused by the individuals not wearing seatbelts ( the aim) but Maybe the majority will still have an "invincable" outlook and not wear one. I just feel that there are better ways to approach this, more than one way to skin a chicken or boil an egg! They are welcome to shock but isn't there a line??

Ok maybe I should start writing a blog or something..lol...

Im sorry, we must agree to disagree. The reason the AIDS ads worked is because they targetted a young enough audience to make an impact. In the 60s when the drink driving laws came in, it wasnt older drivers who obeyed the law it was the younger ones who started to take notice. Older people always think its not aimed at them. how many times do you hear older drivers say how good a driver they are?
The ads will take a generation or even 2 to work. But you need to start somewhere. Softly softly doesnt work, people need to have things forced into their brains. Why do you think we now put stark warnings and pictures on cigarette packets these days? Because it does work. Whenever we have a hard hitting dont drink and drive campaign at christmas, these have been proven to work. Over the last few years christmas drink driving has increased because the campaigns have been low key affairs. At the end of the day Queensland are doing something right be it their ads or other campaings because statistically their road casualties are decreasing year on year. Ive just read all the files on their website. See I have absoloutly nothing better to do!!!
As for peeing, I couldnt care one bit about what people think, but thats just me personally.

[kewlcatkez]

Lucydog, on Nov 26 2007, 11:52 PM, said:

kewlcatkez, on Nov 26 2007, 11:31 PM, said:

I agree in part, that shock tactics have their place etc.. like I said it IS the blunt truth but I still maintain its just half the story. Frankly I'm with what Izziwhizzi said earlier in the thread, I personally don;t want people who *I* am on the PTA with thinking they somehow know my life and will have a negative connotation attached to their image of me. I see how shock can be used but I worry that it compounds the ignorance people have already. Most of us have examples of this I am sure. I suppose it is b/c I am very private in some ways and maybe its because it hurts me to think of some of the aspects?? Not sure. I do know that right here in my area Mark Zupan is not known and people tend to have a negative attitude towards disabled people. Sure there is nothing wrong with telling it how it is, but Ads like the Queensland one truly do not work drastically.

Perhaps we are all desensitised by all we see on the TV etc? The AIDS ads were mentioned and although there is some truth to the theory that they were successful, I would like to ask successful in which groups?

There is a school of thought which states that Shocking ads do not work on their targeted audience. Yes the AIDS ads worked but I (I am 32 )was a child and children may be easier to impress upon/scare? However the promiscuous hetrosexuals STILL think that AIDS is a "gay" or "druggie" disease...So did that ad really work??

Back to the Queensland ad, It may help prevent a percentage of accidents caused by the individuals not wearing seatbelts ( the aim) but Maybe the majority will still have an "invincable" outlook and not wear one. I just feel that there are better ways to approach this, more than one way to skin a chicken or boil an egg! They are welcome to shock but isn't there a line??

Ok maybe I should start writing a blog or something..lol...

Im sorry, we must agree to disagree. The reason the AIDS ads worked is because they targetted a young enough audience to make an impact. In the 60s when the drink driving laws came in, it wasnt older drivers who obeyed the law it was the younger ones who started to take notice. Older people always think its not aimed at them. how many times do you hear older drivers say how good a driver they are?
The ads will take a generation or even 2 to work. But you need to start somewhere. Softly softly doesnt work, people need to have things forced into their brains. Why do you think we now put stark warnings and pictures on cigarette packets these days? Because it does work. Whenever we have a hard hitting dont drink and drive campaign at christmas, these have been proven to work. Over the last few years christmas drink driving has increased because the campaigns have been low key affairs. At the end of the day Queensland are doing something right be it their ads or other campaings because statistically their road casualties are decreasing year on year. Ive just read all the files on their website. See I have absoloutly nothing better to do!!!
As for peeing, I couldnt care one bit about what people think, but thats just me personally.

Yes we will

I see what you are saying, but with something like AIDS they wanted to get the teens etc as the worry at the time ( if you look back into it) was that the human race was going to be irradicated..so that there would be no children to grow up and for a second generational thing to happen.

Yes I am well aware of the advantages of targeting children. Primary or secondary socialization is very affective in that group. However, my point is that the targets in these shock ads are mostly not hit but that they may have an effect on another subgroup. Granted that is better than nothing, but in the case of The Queensland ads, it may not have an effect to make people belt up..Its aim. Instead something may be lost from the message in all the shock.

With regards to cigarette packets and even warnings on alcohol bottles etc. The scientific and Socieoeconomic studying communities are divided as to whether or not they work. Most say that they do not and can be illustrated by the RISE in teenage ( girls) especially smoking.

At the end of the day its which stats do you believe and which opinion you have.

Perhaps my own past colour my perception and vision of this ad and its possible implications to the disable community? All I know is that as an RN, many of the people I worked with before I became fully fledged into the disabled fold had a very pitying and negative view of disabled people and I know that many of them still feel and act that way and these are Medically and Nursing trained. They probably life by the medical model true but many are in "empowering" careers, ones which are supposed to facilitate our whatever. Thats what people are like. I don't want to give them ammunition..Those are blunt facts of another kind. If those trained individuals view us like that, then we have little hope in the community where some think that we are mentally challenged if we are in a chair ( no offense to those who are, but its a huge misconception).

As for peeing etc. Well personally I like as few people to know the ins and outs ( excuse the pun ) of my life as possible. IS that wrong and creating ignorance? I don't know but I do know that when people DO know those facts they do think and act differently with you. I refer back to the above about the RNs/drs etc..who were colleagues and friends.. I am no longer their equal in their eyes if we take their past form.. So nope, I don't wish to give them more details...


I too watched all the ads on youtube in that section, so I too need a hobby!

K