Chinese MP3 maker Uses 911 Ruin's in AD.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I find it ethically neutral...but ethical<>tasteful, and if anyone chose to avoid the product, and other products from the same manufacturer, because of the ad, I'd certainly see where they were coming from.
 
I'd like to see where this is orginally, to me it looks like a poor excuse(see FAKE) at an "advertisment" I mean the layout is kinda weird... aside from the whole WTC thing.... oh and "I belive" this is not an actual advertisment....
 
Considering all of the other things 9/11 has been used to sell, this is pretty low on my list of things to get bent out of shape about.
 
As far as the advertisement... I don't get it. It does absolutely nothing for me.

As far as the images from 9-11... I wonder if they got permission to use copyrighted images for that ad. Maybe they should be more worried about lawsuits.

Jason
 
Ramjet1979 said:
As far as the images from 9-11... I wonder if they got permission to use copyrighted images for that ad. Maybe they should be more worried about lawsuits.

Jason
Click to expand...

In China? Seriously?

And it seems like the point they are making is pretty clear: Music brings up in disasterous times.

Are you saying you don't "belive?" :)
 
Mark Harris said:
In China? Seriously?

And it seems like the point they are making is pretty clear: Music brings up in disasterous times.

Are you saying you don't "belive?" :)
Click to expand...

:) you may have a point about it being china. I didn't think about that.

I don't "belive" that whatever the add is trying to say... it is successful in portraying its intended message.

Slap some imagery with emotion up, and tie it to music... Fine. The point is obvious. Still they were about as successful at making me "see" any kind of message, or feel any kind of emotional attachment to that add as they were with their spelling. :)

A much more effective use of imagery would have been a picture suggestive of some of the folks who stood around and sang in the aftermath. The soothing effect that had on those at that particular locale who were working it, or looking for their loved ones. If one is going to use that particular occasion to promote an mp3 player. If one thinks that will help their sales. :)

Thanks,
Jason
 
Isaac_Brody said:
Sounds like a cultural disconnect.
Click to expand...
Strip out the WTC site and replace it with an image of downtown Nanking, circa January 1938, and I bet the connection would suddenly become clear...would Chinese consumers be tickled to see someone marketing electronic tchotchkes using pictures of *their* national agony?
 
Commercials for these: http://www.nationalcollectorsmint.com/product2.jsp?path=-1|1699&id=4689 come on the 24 hour news networks all the time.

A commemorative coin? That is just someone out to make a buck off 9/11. The product does nothing to offer healing like can be argued of the 9/11 movies that have come out. I have no clue how the guys who decided to sell this sleep at night.

But whatever; better things to invest my emotions and time in then some trivial snakes out to turn a buck.

Cheers
 
Intresting arguements here, Im currently in a sociology class, and i find stuff like this really intresting to see what people think :-D
 
Well technically one could argue that within the context of the model of "freedom of Speech" one woul certainly be allowed to make such an advertisment,

Of course I personally think that if you say/do/act that causes offence ON purpose or when you realise that it causes offence then it is only right that you stop doing it. What kind of society wants to live in a world where we just insult each other?

But then again I do not belive in the model of freedom, I believe that it is a false ideology. Instead I believe in Flexism[1]

[1] “There is no such thing as Freedom of speech, however what does exist is the flexibility of speech, that is speech within certain moral, ethical, and legal bounds” –Anhar, 18th January 2002
 
People's freedom of expression should go right up to the line demarcating slander/libel/fraud/incitement to violence, and not over it.

Advertisers shouldn't be legally barred from offensive/distasteful advertising, but hopefully consumers offended by their practices will express that distaste by avoiding their products.

There is zero "right" to be protected from offensive expression, in a free society. People's precious feeeeelings do not deserve protection by the law. There is virtually no statement that someone, somewhere will not find reason to label 'offensive,' and the onus is not on the rest of us to tiptoe around what someone else may not appreciate hearing.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top