The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
We've all seen the public service TV ads that go much further than most ads could get away with - people getting physically crippled in car accidents (or pub table accidents), nasty fatty goo squeezed from arteries and all the others on the theme - violence and gore with abandon, in the name of saving lives.
Today I saw a new one:
Guy hits on a pretty girl in a pub, she's feeling it, suddenly he pulls away, makes his excuses and leaves.
Cut to the girl with a cigarette and the message - "If you smoke, you stink".
When it was graphic violence and gore, I was surprised how far they were going, but it seemed acceptable given the message.
As soon as it gets personal, I find myself starting to reconsider.
We're not giving people a hard-hitting message that forces them to accept the dangers of smoking to their own health and others'.
We're not providing compelling life-saving information about in a hard-hitting format.
This is all about making people feel social shame. Making them feel socially rejected, objects of disgust, people so unpleasant everyone else will try to avoid them.
This just seems like victimisation.
If people aren't harming other through passive smoking, and they realise the health issues, they have the right to smoke if they want to. Civil liberties, as the law in this country has defined them.
Ram the health message down peoples' throats, in an emotive 'sit up and listen' way designed to make sure it hits home. It forces them to understand the consequences to their health.
But cheap personal shots designed to chasitse and humiliate smokers? Isn't that just below the belt.
We're not talking about education or information any more. We're talking about trying to manipulate, through shame and fear, people into compliance with how certain individuals have decided we should live our lives.
Those people can go to hell.
But wait!
Isn't that what pretty much *any* TV ad is all about - trying to coerce and manipulate someone into compliance to buy a specific product or service?
Yes. But can they go so far as to shame and ostracise the non-compliant - to do so in such a direct, explicit and personal way?
I don't think they'd get away with it.
But isn't this one justified on the grounds that it's for peoples' health?
It may be distinct from the previous public service ads by its commmercial use of manipulation, but it's the same as normal commercial ads. Only taken much further.
And isn't going much further justified by all the lives it'll save?
Or are we back to trying to powerfully shame and manipulate people out of engaging in one of their civil liberties?
We don't have the 'right' to stop them damaging their health like this if they choose to do so.
But if it's normal for commercials to try to manipulate people out of engaging in their civil liberties, say the liberty not to buy product X, then is this ad so different?
What do you make of it all?
[I'm a non-smoker]
Today I saw a new one:
Guy hits on a pretty girl in a pub, she's feeling it, suddenly he pulls away, makes his excuses and leaves.
Cut to the girl with a cigarette and the message - "If you smoke, you stink".
When it was graphic violence and gore, I was surprised how far they were going, but it seemed acceptable given the message.
As soon as it gets personal, I find myself starting to reconsider.
We're not giving people a hard-hitting message that forces them to accept the dangers of smoking to their own health and others'.
We're not providing compelling life-saving information about in a hard-hitting format.
This is all about making people feel social shame. Making them feel socially rejected, objects of disgust, people so unpleasant everyone else will try to avoid them.
This just seems like victimisation.
If people aren't harming other through passive smoking, and they realise the health issues, they have the right to smoke if they want to. Civil liberties, as the law in this country has defined them.
Ram the health message down peoples' throats, in an emotive 'sit up and listen' way designed to make sure it hits home. It forces them to understand the consequences to their health.
But cheap personal shots designed to chasitse and humiliate smokers? Isn't that just below the belt.
We're not talking about education or information any more. We're talking about trying to manipulate, through shame and fear, people into compliance with how certain individuals have decided we should live our lives.
Those people can go to hell.
But wait!
Isn't that what pretty much *any* TV ad is all about - trying to coerce and manipulate someone into compliance to buy a specific product or service?
Yes. But can they go so far as to shame and ostracise the non-compliant - to do so in such a direct, explicit and personal way?
I don't think they'd get away with it.
But isn't this one justified on the grounds that it's for peoples' health?
It may be distinct from the previous public service ads by its commmercial use of manipulation, but it's the same as normal commercial ads. Only taken much further.
And isn't going much further justified by all the lives it'll save?
Or are we back to trying to powerfully shame and manipulate people out of engaging in one of their civil liberties?
We don't have the 'right' to stop them damaging their health like this if they choose to do so.
But if it's normal for commercials to try to manipulate people out of engaging in their civil liberties, say the liberty not to buy product X, then is this ad so different?
What do you make of it all?
[I'm a non-smoker]
Page:
We've all seen the public service TV ads that go much further than most ads could get away with - people getting physically crippled in car accidents (or pub table accidents), nasty fatty goo squeezed from arteries and all the others on the theme - violence and gore with abandon, in the name of saving lives.
Today I saw a new one:
Guy hits on a pretty girl in a pub, she's feeling it, suddenly he pulls away, makes his excuses and leaves.
Cut to the girl with a cigarette and the message - "If you smoke, you stink".
When it was graphic violence and gore, I was surprised how far they were going, but it seemed acceptable given the message.
As soon as it gets personal, I find myself starting to reconsider.
We're not giving people a hard-hitting message that forces them to accept the dangers of smoking to their own health and others'.
We're not providing compelling life-saving information about in a hard-hitting format.
This is all about making people feel social shame. Making them feel socially rejected, objects of disgust, people so unpleasant everyone else will try to avoid them.
This just seems like victimisation.
If people aren't harming other through passive smoking, and they realise the health issues, they have the right to smoke if they want to. Civil liberties, as the law in this country has defined them.
Ram the health message down peoples' throats, in an emotive 'sit up and listen' way designed to make sure it hits home. It forces them to understand the consequences to their health.
But cheap personal shots designed to chasitse and humiliate smokers? Isn't that just below the belt.
We're not talking about education or information any more. We're talking about trying to manipulate, through shame and fear, people into compliance with how certain individuals have decided we should live our lives.
Those people can go to hell.
But wait!
Isn't that what pretty much *any* TV ad is all about - trying to coerce and manipulate someone into compliance to buy a specific product or service?
Yes. But can they go so far as to shame and ostracise the non-compliant - to do so in such a direct, explicit and personal way?
I don't think they'd get away with it.
But isn't this one justified on the grounds that it's for peoples' health?
It may be distinct from the previous public service ads by its commmercial use of manipulation, but it's the same as normal commercial ads. Only taken much further.
And isn't going much further justified by all the lives it'll save?
Or are we back to trying to powerfully shame and manipulate people out of engaging in one of their civil liberties?
We don't have the 'right' to stop them damaging their health like this if they choose to do so.
But if it's normal for commercials to try to manipulate people out of engaging in their civil liberties, say the liberty not to buy product X, then is this ad so different?
What do you make of it all?
[I'm a non-smoker]
Today I saw a new one:
Guy hits on a pretty girl in a pub, she's feeling it, suddenly he pulls away, makes his excuses and leaves.
Cut to the girl with a cigarette and the message - "If you smoke, you stink".
When it was graphic violence and gore, I was surprised how far they were going, but it seemed acceptable given the message.
As soon as it gets personal, I find myself starting to reconsider.
We're not giving people a hard-hitting message that forces them to accept the dangers of smoking to their own health and others'.
We're not providing compelling life-saving information about in a hard-hitting format.
This is all about making people feel social shame. Making them feel socially rejected, objects of disgust, people so unpleasant everyone else will try to avoid them.
This just seems like victimisation.
If people aren't harming other through passive smoking, and they realise the health issues, they have the right to smoke if they want to. Civil liberties, as the law in this country has defined them.
Ram the health message down peoples' throats, in an emotive 'sit up and listen' way designed to make sure it hits home. It forces them to understand the consequences to their health.
But cheap personal shots designed to chasitse and humiliate smokers? Isn't that just below the belt.
We're not talking about education or information any more. We're talking about trying to manipulate, through shame and fear, people into compliance with how certain individuals have decided we should live our lives.
Those people can go to hell.
But wait!
Isn't that what pretty much *any* TV ad is all about - trying to coerce and manipulate someone into compliance to buy a specific product or service?
Yes. But can they go so far as to shame and ostracise the non-compliant - to do so in such a direct, explicit and personal way?
I don't think they'd get away with it.
But isn't this one justified on the grounds that it's for peoples' health?
It may be distinct from the previous public service ads by its commmercial use of manipulation, but it's the same as normal commercial ads. Only taken much further.
And isn't going much further justified by all the lives it'll save?
Or are we back to trying to powerfully shame and manipulate people out of engaging in one of their civil liberties?
We don't have the 'right' to stop them damaging their health like this if they choose to do so.
But if it's normal for commercials to try to manipulate people out of engaging in their civil liberties, say the liberty not to buy product X, then is this ad so different?
What do you make of it all?
[I'm a non-smoker]
It does seem like a bit of a cheapshot at first glance, but if that's what it takes to stop people smoking then I'm all for it. Clearly the traditional method of trying to warn people about the health risks isn't doing much good, so targeting the social side of it is another option.
Personally, I don't care. That chick would get it, whether she smelled like fags or not.
Personally, I don't care. That chick would get it, whether she smelled like fags or not.
I don't care whether it's a cheap shot or not. I hate it when people in my school start talking to me and all I can think about is their rancid breath.
Thing is, people will still smoke, whatever.
I've personally never understood smoking. If you don't start then you're not going to worry about how good it feels, and everyone who has tried to quit says the same thing about how it only feels good while you smoke, then you need another one otherwise you just come down from it. So what's the point?
If it had some beneficial health issues, like a small amount of alcohol does, then I'd see a reason for it. Perhaps it's not getting people to stop smoking that we should be looking at, but what they are smoking. I'm sure there must be a more healthy alternative that isn't as harmful but still has the desired effect. After all, about 90% of the content of a cigarrette is artificial crap anyway.
I've personally never understood smoking. If you don't start then you're not going to worry about how good it feels, and everyone who has tried to quit says the same thing about how it only feels good while you smoke, then you need another one otherwise you just come down from it. So what's the point?
If it had some beneficial health issues, like a small amount of alcohol does, then I'd see a reason for it. Perhaps it's not getting people to stop smoking that we should be looking at, but what they are smoking. I'm sure there must be a more healthy alternative that isn't as harmful but still has the desired effect. After all, about 90% of the content of a cigarrette is artificial crap anyway.
I think people take more notice of things that say they're not appealing to other people and are a social outcast in some aspect of their lives.
You can ram these images of diseased lungs and arteries down their throats and people will just think "so what, it's my body I can do what I like" where as if they see messages and adverts that say that people don't like an aspect of them they're more likely to change that aspect for the better as one of the basic human needs is to be wanted.
I think really though these adverts are only telling them what they already know but seeing it "for real" from the other side will stir something in them to make them more likely to quit.
I'm a non smoker and don't have a problem with smokers as when I'm in a pub etc I go in the non smoking area if there is one, the thing that really bugs me is if there isn't a non smoking area and someone comes and sits right next to you and starts smoking when he / she could have gone and sat way away from you and smoked instead.
You can ram these images of diseased lungs and arteries down their throats and people will just think "so what, it's my body I can do what I like" where as if they see messages and adverts that say that people don't like an aspect of them they're more likely to change that aspect for the better as one of the basic human needs is to be wanted.
I think really though these adverts are only telling them what they already know but seeing it "for real" from the other side will stir something in them to make them more likely to quit.
I'm a non smoker and don't have a problem with smokers as when I'm in a pub etc I go in the non smoking area if there is one, the thing that really bugs me is if there isn't a non smoking area and someone comes and sits right next to you and starts smoking when he / she could have gone and sat way away from you and smoked instead.
Smedlos wrote:
> I'm a non smoker and don't have a problem with smokers as when
> I'm in a pub etc I go in the non smoking area if there is one,
> the thing that really bugs me is if there isn't a non smoking
> area and someone comes and sits right next to you and starts
> smoking when he / she could have gone and sat way away from you
> and smoked instead.
Just start singing or humming badly. They can't complain that its anti-social.
> I'm a non smoker and don't have a problem with smokers as when
> I'm in a pub etc I go in the non smoking area if there is one,
> the thing that really bugs me is if there isn't a non smoking
> area and someone comes and sits right next to you and starts
> smoking when he / she could have gone and sat way away from you
> and smoked instead.
Just start singing or humming badly. They can't complain that its anti-social.
pb wrote:
> Just start singing or humming badly. They can't complain that
> its anti-social.
I prefer farting to make the place smell better :D
> Just start singing or humming badly. They can't complain that
> its anti-social.
I prefer farting to make the place smell better :D
I've not seen this advert yet. It seems a little mean, although okay I guess it's true. I hate it when my brother comes in my room when he's been smoking as it's really strong and sometimes still there even after he's gone.
I'm a non smoker too, I don't mind people who smoke as long as they don't do it near me. I really don't like being stuck behind a smoker when I'm walking through town.
I'm sure there are other ways to discourage people from smoking, I don't suppose they've asked former smokers what might help. My cousin and his girlfriend smoke but they always talk about how bad it is. It's weird to hear them say one thing and yet carry on smoking anyway.
I'm a non smoker too, I don't mind people who smoke as long as they don't do it near me. I really don't like being stuck behind a smoker when I'm walking through town.
I'm sure there are other ways to discourage people from smoking, I don't suppose they've asked former smokers what might help. My cousin and his girlfriend smoke but they always talk about how bad it is. It's weird to hear them say one thing and yet carry on smoking anyway.
The thing that bugs me is when people say that smokers are the bain of the NHS and that they take up it's resources and shouldn't be treated.
Smokers put way more money into the NHS through taxes than they take out!
Smokers put way more money into the NHS through taxes than they take out!
I think they also pay for these adverts trying to get them to stop smoking.
As I mentioned I don't smoke but my parents did and my 2 brothers still do. I'm a good boy you see :)
As I mentioned I don't smoke but my parents did and my 2 brothers still do. I'm a good boy you see :)
Page: