ASCA vehemently defends child abuse ads
A statement from ASCA following the criticism of their ‘Wedding’ spot on The Gruen Transfer last night….
The TV component of an integrated campaign launched by the national charity, ASCA (Adults Surviving Child Abuse) across TV, radio, print and online media was reviewed on last night’s edition of the ABC TV’s The Gruen Transfer.
The campaign, launched in early February, highlights the long-term impacts of child abuse and the needs of adult survivors, issues which according to ASCA have long been taboo.
The Gruen Transfer’s website advises ‘it is a show about advertising, how it works, and how it works on us’ and ‘it decodes and defuses the commercial messages that swirl through our lives, with the help of a panel of ad industry experts.’
Dr. Cathy Kezelman, ASCA Chair said: “Whilst everyone is entitled totheir opinion the extensive consultations and research ASCA undertook prior to launching the campaign as well as the vast majority ofresponses over the two months since the campaign was launched are atodds with many of the view expressed by The Gruen Transfer’s panel. Itis precisely the welfare of the more than 2 million adults survivingchild abuse, many in silence and shame that drove us to design thiscampaign. ASCA’s campaign is confronting and we make no apologies forthat. This is a topic that no one has wanted to talk or think about, a’nasty’ topic which readily clears rooms. Many would rather pretendthat abuse doesn’t happen and if it does, not in our society, homes orfamilies. The bottom line is that being abused is shocking and livingday in day out with the impact of that abuse, in a community whichwould rather pretend everything is okay is devastatingly shocking.Since the campaign started many survivors, some in their 60’s and 70’sare speaking out and seeking help. ASCA has given them a voice and theopportunity to be heard. The first call to our 1300 line after thecampaign launched was from a 77 year old lady who had never told a soulabout her ‘dark secret’… until now. This advertising campaign isbreaking through the conspiracy of silence and the shame and stigmawhich have long prevented survivors from getting the help they need.”
The campaign makes use of irony to expose a myth to which many inAustralian society subscribe and that myth is that it is easy to getover child abuse. The ad is far from humorous; child abuse is nolaughing matter but up till now the Australian community has expectedsurvivors to shrug their abuse, to just get over it. Many in thecommunity are applauding this ad; one survivor wrote to ASCA saying, “Ilove the jocular theme because it reflects a big part of society whojust expect people to ‘laugh it off’ or ‘deal with it’ at an adult age.It also points out the ‘elephant in the room’ that we’re too afraid tolook at.” Another survivor stated, “If people are ‘put off’ or’offended’ by these ads then they should try and think about how offputting and offensive it is to be abused and then left out in the coldto deal with the trauma alone. Life can be hard enough without havingto deal with something so constant and consuming every day of yourlife.”
Dr. Kezelman continues, “With more than 2 million Australian adultssurviving child abuse, this is a massive social and health issue whichhas been crying out for community and government attention for a longtime. This advertising campaign has already sparked the healthy debateour community needs to generate acceptance and understanding of thissubstantial social issue, a shift in attitudes such as we have seen inrecent years to other significant social and health issues like HIVAids and depression. The conversation on The Gruen Transfer isstimulating further debate; however for us the underlying issue -meeting survivors’ needs is the litmus test. One survivor sent us thefollowing response to the campaign: “I want to thank ASCA for tacklingan issue which has for too long been swept under the rug. I believethat in highlighting the fact there is help out there for adultsurvivors of abuse and that they need and deserve it that it will notonly improve society as a whole, but it will save lives.” This campaignis not about advertising but the quality of people’s lives, and forsome the possibility of having a life. Since the campaign began callsto our 1300 line and visits to our website have surged; we have beeninundated by new members and cannot keep up with the demand for oursurvivor workshops. We are stretched to the limit in providing thosesurvivors coming forward with the right help and support and areanxiously waiting funding from the Rudd government to provide relief.Childhood abuse has profound effects not just on individuals but on thesocial, health and economic wellbeing of the Australian community aswell. The cost of ongoing inaction is crippling.”
Despite the scale of the problem and its well documented impacts ASCAreceives no ongoing government funding. Visit ASCA at www.asca.org.au
VIEW THE ‘WEDDING’ SPOT
Agency: Whybin\TBWA, Sydney
ECD: Garry Horner
CD: Matt Kemsley
Copywriter: Steve Dodds
Art Director: Dave Lidster
Agency Producer: Sean Ascroft
Director: Tony Sherwood
Producer: Pip Shuttleworth
Production Company: tonysherwood.com
105 Comments
Good. You now all know about ASCA. Job done.
Did not see the Gruen Transfer so can’t comment about the conversation.
However, congratulations to Whybins for a campaign that works and for doing good. I am sure Dr. Kezelman and the victims appreciate it. Whilst the ad may cause concern for some it is working. Well done and keep it up.
To the detractors: fuck off.
Hear , hear 8.13……the panel may hypothosise about it not working……but now we know it is. Thanks for clearing that up Dr Kezelman.
Kind of ironic that Todd thinks an Englishman who works for an American multinational should go on telly wearing the symbol of the Aboriginal Nation. Pretence of being a lefty is amusing until the point where it becomes insulting.
Hey Rich – first of all they are not called victims they are survivors. I am married to a child absue survivor who watched the Gruen Transfer last night. I did not mention this ad to him as I new it would create more trauma. Last night I felt completely ashamed to be in the ad industy. As I expected this ad was completely soul destroying for him, he was angry, hurt and terrorised.
Is this the effect the creators wanted to imbue?
My Mother is victim of child abuse and an active member of the ASCA and pardon me Dr. Cathy Kezelman but what you are saying is bullsh*t.
She and her fellow ASCA members are deeply disturbed by this misguided and creatively self serving campaign.
This campaign is disturbing
Dan Gregory summed it up best.
There is no justice for the victims of child abuse in this ad,
so what is the point of it?????
Awards??
Geez surely not.
I might be in the minority here and ad people that watch Gruen probably are, but Todd Sampson is really pissing me off.
The show is supposed to be about how the agency came up with what they did, NOT “I could have done it better”. Maybe Andrew D needs to remind Sampson of that – it’s getting really fucking annoying.
I think if that show is up for another season, then el chango the panel!
Oh and BTW I’m with Rich – it’s a very good campaign…..
…..Yes Todd there are other strategies and other ways in to answer the brief that we all know you are clever enough to have thought of, but frankly we don’t give a shit…
7:29,
I didn’t see the conversation on Gruen, but your overly-simplistic view is a little worrying.
Everyone knows Charles Manson now too, but that’s not saying it’s right.
I watched the Gruen Transfer last night, and saw this ad a couple of months ago.
and like many others, strongly agree with the panel’s comments. In my opinion the idea is great, built on a solid insight, and obvious good intentions. However I agree the execution is lacking depth, contrast, punch, and sincerity. It simply feels wrong, and and therefore dilutes the message it’s meant to convey.
An extra 1 million Australians now know that 2 million of them were victims of child abuse.
Congrats TBWA on a campaign that break the rules but delivered the result..
It has not sparked healthy debate about the issue of child abuse at all. It has sparked debate about how terrible the advertising is. This does not get people talking about the issues, it makes you want to ignore the issue even more since it is communicating in such an insensitive, and uncomfortable way. The ad makes you want to switch off, to both the commercial and the issue. Its done more damage than good.
Well done to Dr Cathy and the team. The work may be controversial, but there’s plenty of wallpaper advertising out there. I hear the calls to the 1300 number have been boosted, so job done.
I look forward to more campaigns like this. I’m about to pitch one to replace that Kekovich stuff for lamb:
“Cunt Bollocks Balls Arsehole Fuck Knob-jockey. Buy lamb on Australia Day.”
Surely consumers will realise that the importance of people eating lamb on Australia Day is worth sitting through a little bit of uncomfortable offensiveness. And as long as cunt fuck bollocks lamb arsehole is in the forefront of people’s mind’s then we’ve done our job.
That’s pretty much your argument, isn’t it?
Don’t look down, there’s a hand up your jacksie.
You pack of fuzzy muppets.
I don’t see them putting Todd’s sacred cow, otherwise known as Earth Hour, up for slaughter on the altar of Gruen.
No, 7:29. You’ve got it all wrong. Our job is to make a difference. Not raise awareness. What’s the point of raising awareness if it doesn’t change the problem. It’s just another wanker agency trying to do award winning work and get their name out there. Plan and simple.
Guen has at most one series left imo – It’s getting a bit boring.
However Russell does offer good, insightful and un-emotional insights into our industry. Smart fella running a good biz.
A despicable ad for a despicable crime. How does the agency sleep at night?
Award winning work? Thats the tragic thing, it will not get anywhere near an award and hasnt delivered for the client either. A complete embarrassment.
I have two friends who were abused as children by family members. I haven’t asked them (in fact, I wouldn’t ask them) but I would imagine that they would see that commercial and feel nothing but devestation and humiliation. In both cases, their extended families were at the very least negligent in denying the abuse was taking place, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary. And who goes to weddings? Your extended family. Talk about triggering bad memores. Perhaps ASCA’s phones did ring more. Perhaps getting phones ringing was the aim of the brief, or one of the CEO’s KPIs. But that’s not the same as stopping child abuse happening. Which surely should be the point of the ad.
This press release with thousands of words pretending to be a readable paragraph, typifies the kind of thinking that must have gone on behind the ad. That is, a lot of material that is hard to read, misses the point and fails completely on the ‘compassion scale’. Oh yes and most likely produced by a paid PR consultant.
Awareness makes a difference you moron! I dare you, please, create an advertising campaign that stops child abuse once and for all. I dare you, come on, go on. Then post it here and see how it goes. It’s infuriating how moronic some of us can be.
10:39, you’re a cockface. It’s not about stopping child abuse, it’s about making an ad that relates to the issue and aims to tackle the problem. It’s having the decency to not upset and degrade child abuse victims. Fucking pull your head in. Ads like this give advertising a bad name. It’s just another award grabbing wank.
10:39 – Clearly your parents never taught you the difference between good attention and bad attention. That’s the issue here. Kudos for acknowledging yourself as a moron though.
‘How to kill a baby’. That was just the headline, of an ad run on women’s magazines Australia wide 25 years ago. Then came the hard hitting copy. Unpleasant? Yes. Impactful? Undoubtedly. Every person worth their salt on this illustrious blog will know what I’m talking about, what was it for and who wrote it. There you go. My 50 cents. read between the lines.
As a survivor of child abuse I find the ad reprehensible. It’s tactless, sordid and makes me feel uncomfortable and dirty. Not what the creators set out to achieve I’m sure. Cathy and her team can throw all the spin they want but at the end of the day it’s how the communication leaves us feeling.
How to kill a baby.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3148/2690620329_e46d53bddf_o.jpg
You can’t make a difference without raising awareness.
Fact is, I bet none of you who are so fired up over this ad and didn’t know an abuse survivor personally EVER thought about or considered the implications of child abuse in your spare time.
Yet here we are – job done. Nice one Whybins.
I reckon it might have worked better if the people at the wedding didn’t laugh.
So the client loves the ad.
People are calling the ASCA.
So it’s effective.
It’s definitely creative. It moves you and stimulates discussion.
What where you thinking Doddsy?
I’ve been a big fan of Steve Dodds work from the early stages
Form his old work Cubano work through to today with stuff like SMH and now this….
It keeps remaining strong, keep up the good work.
Amazing how many people have strong opinions on this in the ad-world, yet nobody is willing to put their name to their opinion. Are we too scared that somebody will call us out (personally) on our bullshit (on both sides of the argument)?
Also, according to godwin’s law, within the next few comments, somebody should end up referencing hitler or the nazis… oh wait… =P
ASCA don’t know shit about ads. When the work is really good, the client generally hates it.
12.16PM
Mum, I told you to stay off the blog.
utterly disturbing
Interesting debate going on here everyone.
Those adds provoke such a strong response. Positive and negative and that response is so similar to the way society in general deals with hearing about abuse. It’s like the language used always shifts to another argument. Incredibly difficult topic.
Adds will always have some negative responses. But for most people I know who have seen them [ neither Advertising professionals or child abuse survivors ] the adds were memorable, and made them think about abuse as a personal issue for often the first time.
Hopefully the first add in a whole run of new advertisements which can explore this issue from many perspectives.
great job, and yes, they’re award winning already…..with more to come
ps. that ASCA add by Leo Burnett is exactly the type of add which turns people away from the TV……. those smiling children adds have been dropped by most organizations….they look completely anonymous..
Too many whiners out there. It’s a campaign about incest and – guess what? It makes you feel uncomfortable. Bad luck. The subject matter is discomforting. Like Dr Kezelman says, it clears the room.
Kudos to the creative team for tackling this issue head-on, and confronting people with their hypocrisy on this issue. We can all talk a good game about how terrible child sexual abuse is – just read this comment page! – but as Kezelman says there’s no funding for services for adult survivors, and that’s what counts.
I’m sure we’d feel more comfortable with another mother hen campaign about child welfare, because then we could all go back to ignoring the issue. I think this approach has managed to cut through and get people talking, just like it was supposed to.
I too have been a Doddsy fan for a while. There’s ads and there’s the ads he is writing at the moment.
Followed his rise closely. Stay true.
11.22
I reckon it might have worked better if the people at the wedding didn’t laugh too.
This campaign is disturbingly insensitive and cruel
12.16 Here again,
Keep up the top work big fella! Funny response! But I’d expect that…
The point is nobody on this blog is disgusted about child abuse.
They are disgusted about the ad.
These ads do shit. And contrary to ASCA’s chest beating, people did complain, loudly, and directly to ASCA.
You are falling in to the trap of the abused becoming the abusers, ASCA.
Doddsy, Doddsy, who would have thought that when you dreamt this stuff up sitting in ‘The Cricketers’ , VB in hand, that it would have created such an furore ? Apart from you of course. Great work.
1:46 pm.
Firstly it’s ad, not add.
Secondly, your opinion isn’t all inclusive.
Thirdly, I believe the Leo’s ad delivers a similar message in a far more simple and possibly memorable way.
@ 3.33.
Nail on the head. It’s like when a musician makes a hit song. You just know that when they were in the studio they could feel a buzz about their song and knew what it would do and it’s impact.
*Tips hat to Doddsy*
@3.39
Create empathy for abused children? Easy brief.
Create empathy for abused adults? Not so easy.
We’re supposed to get over it and told to stop your whinging.
Which is why the Leo’s spot is only ok at best. They had to resort to using children to create the emotional pull. It looks like an ad to prevent child abuse and that is not ASCA’s remit.
I watched the show last night and I think Todd and Russell have an ongoing and healthly disrespect for eachother. Personally I’m abit of a Todd fan – keep up the passion and the spirit. But back to the ASCA ad, I found it disturbingly bad on so many levels – creatively, directionally and the lack of message it leaves us. Not amusing, not impactful just a sad attempt at attempting to address a serious issue.
1.46pm. What planet are you on. It’s booooring & bland.
3:39 says
“I believe the Leo’s ad delivers a similar message in a far more simple and possibly memorable way.”
What do you mean – “possibly memorable”? Who remembers Leo’s advert? Who even knew it was playing at the time?
Nobody on this page had ever heard of ASCA until Whybins developed this campaign. But I’ll bet the 1 million people that saw the advert on the Gruen Transfer last night will remember.
When you are dealing with an unknown (like a community group no-one knows, focused on an issue no-one wants to talk about) you’ve got one chance to make an impression. And that’s what Whybins has done in spectacular style.
And my understanding is that they did it all pro bono. They should be congratulated for their community partnership work. In contrast to Burnett’s attempt, it seems to me that they’ve made a real difference with this ad.
To the detractors and with absolute respect to those affected by this pitiful, pitiful crime, surely the target market for the ad is NOT the survivors. But rather it’s the whole community and those wiered-out souls, who for some twisted reason have thought about doing this (or god forbid done it) – is it not?
If that’s the case then I think it does a good job reminding the entire community about the despicable and horrific nature of such acts.
After watching the episode in question I wonder why the criticism about the ASCA ad not telling me what to do next. No one watches the Cadbury Gorilla spot and says now what? Except for suits.
It is what it is.
Anyway, it does tell me last time I checked youtube.
This is effective advertising. Now I know about ASCA – yippee if I see someone from ASCA asking me for money I know now to kick’em in the shins. oh is that my call to action?
I can’t believe that Whybins thinks they have done their job because its created a debate on here. This is an advertising blogging site, we’re commenting on the ad, we’re not debating the issue of child abuse. Everyone I know outside the industry who I’ve asked whether they have seen the ad changes the subject hence not creating debate or raising awareness of the issue of child abuse. People more so than before want to ignore it because you’ve treated it in such an insensitive way. We’re blogging about the spot because it is so very bad.
5:46, compare the ASCA spot to the Cadbury Gorilla spot?! Clearly thats where you went wrong Whybins….
5:46 — the Cadbury’s Gorilla spot is designed to entertain, if thats what you were trying to do with the ASCA ad that’s your issue.
How many of the positive comments come from Whybins?
Because every ‘public’ blog, including the Sydney Morning Herald are tearing the ad down in flames and saying it’s insulting.
Blowing up 90 Australians in Indonesia created a lot of discussion. Didn’t do much to solve terrorism.
Fuck me I’d love to be able to wander around with my head so far up my own arsehole that I can’t even listen to what other people are saying and take heed rather than offense.
I wish our Agency had done it.
Well all is said and done it’s a great spot. Personally i like anything tries hard to break through the clutter. My girlfriend said she didn’t like it,,,,but then strangely enough i later found her looking at the ASCA website.
1. All blogs by definition are public
2. We shoot down in flames
3.The Bali bombing was an act of terrorism, not an attempt to stop terrorism
4.Offence is the noun.
Lovely son.
The only positive comments come from Whybins. Just get off here – your justifications are pitiful.
Sorry. Offense is acceptable. My mistake. 1 to 3 are still relevant.
Lovely son.
Controversial YES, Impacting YES, Do i remember what it’s for YES YES YES YES.
Job Done. Move on.
I like chicken. What are we talking about?
Their ad reminds of the dark segment in Natural Born Killers (‘I love Majory’- its on youtube) It uses canned laughter to juxtapose a very dark exploration of child abuse. It worked in this context as it was taking the piss out of the wholesome values of ‘american family tv’. Therefore, the only way that this ad would have worked was if it was ‘spoofing’ boring wedding speeches – that no-one really listens to. As a call to action for survivors of child abuse or as wake up call to the perpetrators…are you mad?
That didn’t happen at all did it John?
I’d love to know how ASCA handle abuse victims if this is their ad.
The ad is a trigger. A very traumatic trigger. Triggered memories can last for weeks, months, even years. So the (adult) abuse victim sees this ad and has an episode. Maybe turns back to drink / drugs. Maybe calls ASCA. I doubt it.
After they’ve called ASCA, do they trigger further memories? Will they dredge up, make light of and abuse other parts of me?
That said, NOBODY I know or have spoken to outside of advertising, who know I work in advertising, have EVER brought this ad up, while they constantly ask me about other ads. The so called ‘offense’ has been PR from the agency and it’s brought a negative backlash.
Nobody likes these ads, sorry rockstars.
8.27. I like the ad. I don’t work at the Agency that produced it. I’m not criticising you for your opinion, kindly respect mine.
Hi Hamish.
11.04am The advertising norm of showing children being abused, lying in drug dens is a larger trigger. This IS ASCA’s ad and if you are genuinely concerned how ASCA ‘handles’ it’s abuse victims as you put it, look on their very thorough website. Oh dear, but that might trigger something as well. No, 11.04am, you’re absolutely right. Let’s just not mention anything.
> I’d love to know how ASCA handle abuse victims if this is their ad.
As a director of ASCA, I’m well placed to answer this question.
> So the (adult) abuse victim sees this ad and has an episode. Maybe turns back to drink / drugs. Maybe calls ASCA. I doubt it.
We call this “over-fragilising” abuse survivors. This means treating abuse survivors as fragile, vulnerable and unable to care for themselves.
What we know, through our work, is that adult survivors with the kinds of post-traumatic symptoms you describe employ a range of strategies in order to manage those symptoms – and the challenges they face in day-to-day living dwarf an unexpected 30 second advertisement about child abuse.
Sadly, some survivors experience any reference to child abuse as triggering and upsetting. But what is a greater threat to their wellbeing – a 30 second advert? Or a community in which they remain silent, marginalised and unable to access specialist care, as is the case at the moment?
For all the vocal outrage over child abuse, the fact is that Australia does not fund care and support services for survivors. That’s what the advert leverages off: It highlights the contradiction between the community’s conviction that child abuse is harmful, and the widespread failure to provide survivors with the care that they need.
> After they’ve called ASCA, do they trigger further memories? Will they dredge up, make light of and abuse other parts of me?
Our 1300 line is staffed by counsellors with specialist training in relation to adult survivors of child abuse.
> Nobody likes these ads, sorry rockstars.
The flood of compliments and support that we’ve recieved over the last few days suggests otherwise.
What constitutes a flood Mikey?
What constitutes a wanker, 4.46?
Thanks for your feedback Michael, sadly you’ll have noticed that there are alot of mindless people on this blog who aren’t really interested in listening to any sort of reason…..unless of course, it is of the spleen venting kind.
This ad is NOT aimed at stopping child abuse or raising awareness about child abuse. There are other agencies that do that.
the ad is about ADULTS who have survived child abuse.
The point of the ad is that we are not yet sufficiently evolved as a society to – acknowledge that adults need support getting over abuse… and they need to feel that its ok to talk about it.
The ad may be too clever for its own good – particularly if people think it’s meant to be funny, and miss the point that it is meant to be ironic.
However, the fact remains that most people …. lets be really honest here … DON’T know that there are 2 million plus adult survivors DONT think about adults needing support and would rather the whole topic went away.
This ad is NOT designed to make people feel comfortable, warm and soft. Society is in denial on this topic – so we NEED to feel VERY UNCOMFORTABLE.
We went through the same cycle with mental health issues … with homosexuality and HIV and even with child abuse (in the sense of trying to prevent child abuse which I repeat, is not the purpose of this ad.) When the topic of child abuse was first opened up years ago it was DEEPLY disturbing and caused a riot. Now we are more accepting of the conversation and that has allowed proactive change in society to help support that cause.
Whether we like it or not, this is the next layer of that conversation.
I know Cathy, and I know her unbelievable commitment – at enormous personal cost – to this cause. I also know she writes her own letters, and can only be accused of being TOO caring, TOO passionate and TOO self sacrificing when it comes to this topic. It’s a thankless task.
Dear 4.46PM,
As noted on one of the many other threads, I’m not hugely fussed by the negative comments about our campaign that have popped up here. Nor do I feel hugely complimented by the positive ones.
Whilst anonymity cloaks the identity of the poster, it also renders his or her opinion meaningless.
However, your snide response to Michael from ASCA’s post goes a bit too far.
His full name is Michael Salter. You can find his details here:
http://asca.org.au/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=4
I’ve not met the gentleman, but I hazard a guess that he knows far more about the effects of childhood abuse on adults than I do. And as a result of working on this account I know depressingly more than I used to.
I’ll hazard another guess that he knows exponentially more than you do.
The research he mentions in the ‘over-fragilising’ paragraph formed the basis for our strategy and our execution. His point on whether it is better to risk survivors being upset by a 30 second ad and then motivated to seek help, or for them to continue to spend their life ignored, marginalised and at risk is the nub of it.
We, obviously, chose the former.
As to what constitutes ‘flooding’, here are the results. More details can be found at asca.org.au.
Calls to the 1300 number increased 400% when the campaign launched and have stabilized at 200% higher. They go up when the ads run. They don’t run enough because some stations balk at the content.
New membership went up by the same 400% and is also running at 200% higher.
Web visits went up 500%, and ASCA searches went up 700%.
Donations have not increased by as much, and, since ASCA (criminally) has no Government funding, we hope to change that.
There have been 60,000 views of the viral and ad on YouTube with an average 4 star rating.
These results were prior to the Gruen story, which was viewed by 1.2 million people. Anecdotally, I am told those figures have sky-rocketed. So big thanks to the Gruen Transfer.
I wish they’d included the seven other executions that focus on physical and emotional abuse, but sexual abuse was always going to be the headline grabber.
I’m happy to respond to any other questions you have. Provided of course they are asked with your name attached.
This work is childish and embarrassing. If I were Whybins I would make it go away as quickly as possible before my clients realize just how bad our thinking is, from planning all the way to finished ad.
Sorry all, beers have taken over and I can’t help myself…
9.13
Learn how to read. Use that knowledge to read this thread and the ASCA website.
Hasn’t helped? Then you need to learn how to write.
Start with simple sentences. Get your pronouns right. Check your tenses. Compound phrases can trip up anyone.
Once that is mastered, proceed to constructing an argument. Above all, avoid subjective statements and boasts about what you would do. We don’t know who you are, why should we care what you would do?
Then take a deep breath.
Now you are ready to press ‘Submit’.
9.13pm. I afraid to say it, but it’s advertising that works, that gets clients talking. Wonder what your agency has done to get clients talking? mmm.
Hello to Dubai,how’s the job goiing? In the land of the blind……..
Man, you grammar nerds kill me. It’s a blog, not a printed ad. Yes, you are correct. A couple of pronouns were misplaced and I even got a tense wrong. I’m going to go cry myself to sleep now. I still think these ads are horribly offensive and I truly don’t believe any PR is good PR. Sorry. Just an opinion.
Oh, and sorry for being anonymous but there are some seriously mental people on here. Don’t want a brick thrown through my window. I purposely made sure that last sentence wasn’t a sentence just for fun. Are you okay?
Been done. Sigmund Freud. See his early Titanium winning work on Psychosexual development and Repression.
I love that you guys think this campaign finally makes people aware of the fact that child abuse affects people in their adult life. We’re aware. Very aware. And we have been for a long time. The rest of us treat it with sensitivity, care and therapy, not a ‘controversial’ campaign that does nothing but upset the very people who have been abused.
Mr. Dodds, please stop berating people for not liking the work and accusing them of not reading the press releases. We read them and we’re not stupid. We just see through it. It’s PR from the people who created the work and the organization who are defending it. We get it. We just don’t like it. Okay?
If only it was this easy to get over random abuse. For more than 98% percent of people who comment on a campaign from Whybin TBWA, it isn’t. We can’t change their past, we can change their future. To find out more, visit http://www.bandt.com.au/news/D8/0C05F0D8.asp
And Michael, I’ll give you a few tips later son.
Guys from ASCA,
Without offending you, I think your angle is a little off.
Regardless of the fact I personally find the ad distasteful, that I think it makes a cheap gag and trivialises what happened to me during the 17 years of my childhood, plus the searing self doubt, trauma and helplessness I’ve personally suffered since, that is not the point.
Your brief, or the agencies brief was to deliver a clever, brilliant piece of advertising designed to generate discussion about child abuse.
And that’s where it went wrong. It’s an ad designed to offend or shock order to generate discussion. Yet what you aren’t seeing is it only generates discussion about the ad, not the issue that is important to 2 million Australians and their families.
And this is backed up by the fact that every single press release I’ve seen from you guys has been about defending the ad – wasted PR that could have been better spent on generating awareness about the real issues relating to adults who have suffered abuse.
I’ll use an example that would have gotten you loads more publicity. What if you pushed it a lot further. Don’t just make a joke about it, actually abuse a child to generate discussion.
Maybe even do it on national TV.
That would be great wouldn’t it? Imagine the PR you’d get? Everyone in Australia… no, the world would know about it! Everyone would be talking about the issue! And if a flood of people complained about it, you could use the old line ‘We just had to push it harder. Nothing was getting talked about.’
I somehow feel, nobody on your side of the fence, with every piece of research or statistics in your hands, is quite getting it. Once all the hot air dies down, and it will, peoples attitudes towards both survivors and abuse will not have changed one bit.
However you may find peoples attitudes towards your organisation may change.
Rich, 8:13.
Fuck off is an abusive expression.
Why do you like this ad so much?
I’m not the only one that seems to be following Dodds career closely. This bloke is like a good wine getting better with age. Big agencies and creative hotshops would be advised to take notice.
7.25pm. You are entitled to your opinion… But guess what I don’t agree.
Don’t listen to them Whybins. Remember, it only matters what your groupies think.
I don’t get why intelligent people think this ad was designed as a “gag” or a piece of humour. That’s just ludicrous.
The ad is not funny – and that’s the point.
Clearly that point was lost, and that may well be the failing of the advertisement.
But to assume an intention on the part of ASCA or the creatives to make a joke out of child abuse is just plain daft. This is an organisation that has helped thousands or people, and is seeking the ability to help up to 2 million more.
Sure, we can disagree with their approach – but it simply doesn’t add up to assume some kind of sinister intention. Silly, and knee jerk.
4.32am, ‘actually abusing a child on national TV to generate discussion’ is a truly appalling suggestion to make regardless of intent.
7.25pm We didn’t set out to create a campaign that would be liked. We did set about creating an awareness piece that would be polarising.
A nice charity ad about adults suffering in silence? Yes, I’m sure channel 9 would have continued to play it three or four more times. And we wouldn’t be having this discussion. The 7.30 report wouldn’t have covered it, Radio National not fussed, the Sydney Morning Herald not interested or The Gruen Transfer would be back to talking about frozen meals (thanks Todd by the way).
Hi Julie,
Thanks for your feedback.
When a charity campaign shows an image of a famished child, or a homeless man, they are obviously not endorsing famine or homelessness. It goes without saying that, by showing a scene in which the seriousness of child abuse is belittled, ASCA is not belittling child abuse.
Instead, we are calling attention to the ongoing trivialisation of the needs of adult survivors of child abuse in Australia. The scene depicted in the advertisement is an enactment of the denial and minimisation experienced by adult survivors of child abuse in their day-to-day life – not only personally, in the context of an abusive family, but in their engagement with the broader community and health and welfare services.
It is a misnomer to suggest that the debate on an advertising blog or TV program over the delivery of the creative brief is indicative of the debates going on elsewhere. The campaign has provided us with unprecedented opportunities to detail, in radio and print, the needs of adult survivors, and the failure of the government to respond meaningfully to their chronic levels of distress and suicidality. Subsequently, our agency has been overwhelmed with contact from adult survivors of child abuse, many of whom are reaching out for help for the first time.
So I have to disagree with you that the campaign has only generated controversy over the campaign. The campaign is just the start of an ongoing conversation between ASCA and the Australian community about the needs of adult survivors of child abuse. We are very proud that Whybins confronted the pointy end of this issue rather then churn out the kind of “doom and gloom” treatment that affirms the community’s misconceptions and enables them to continue with “business as usual”.
This campaign has successfully disrupted the conspiracy of silence over incest and the lifelong impact of child abuse and we stand behind it 100%. Whilst controversial and shocking, it has already made a positive impact on the lives of adult survivors and we are committed to building on the momentum provided by the campaign to the benefit of the 2 million Australians whose lives have been affected by abuse and neglect.
I hope that you visit our website to get a sense of the full scope of our activities (www.asca.org.au) as we continue to roll out a comprehensive program of research, education and advocacy on behalf of survivors around the country.
Warmly,
Michael
Dear Michael,
ASCA was initially set up to bring together those who had recovered memories of child abuse/trauma after not having such memories for years/decades. This was at a time when recovered memories were being questioned as it was discovered false memories could be created in misguided therapy, from reading misguided books like ‘The courage to heal’ and so on. It was a kind of support group for those who had such ‘memories’ and weren’t supported. Blinkered true believers – someof them at least.
Perhaps this blinkered element is still present at ASCA. Perhaps such possible beliefs distort understanding of the way those who have actually suffered abuse may view this ad.
A question worth asking. Warmly.
re 2.58 comment from Michael – “The flood of compliments and support that we’ve recieved over the last few days suggests otherwise.”
Define flood. Are these suporters new to ASCa or from within/self supporting?
re Steve Dodd’s comment
“Calls to the 1300 number increased 400% when the campaign launched and have stabilized at 200% higher. They go up when the ads run. They don’t run enough because some stations balk at the content.New membership went up by the same 400% and is also running at 200% higher.Web visits went up 500%, and ASCA searches went up 700%.”
Okay, now give us the actual numbers which may not be so impressive…
How do you know if views of the ad aren’t because it was so bad and got people talking for the wrong reasons?
I’m not against supporting those who have genuinely suffered abuse. However i don’t want any of my tax dollars going to true believer groups who have a personal agenda regarding beliefs in things like recovered memories, satanic abuse etc.
p.s. The fact that ASCA “vehemently” support their ad in the face of so much criticism from the general community shows the blinkered and true believer thinking obviously present – me think she doth protest too much.
I have never been more ashamed to be in the advertising industry, and more so, a child sex abuse survivor (I feel so strongly that this is in fact the first time I’ve ever referred to myself at one).
I couldn’t agree more with Todd. This ad serves no purpose other than to humiliate victims of child abuse and help recount destructive memories. Its grotesque in every sense. As Todd said, all the ASCA has done is ridiculed me “in front of millions of people on national television”. I hate the ASCA for that.
Despite Dr Kezelmar’s attempt at justifying it I’m still baffled as who the target market was for this advertising campaign (and let’s be frank… it is in fact advertising). Dr Kezelmar states that the objective was to encourage survivors to come forward and approach the ASCA.
Dr Kezelmar, let me ask you what the cost has been of the “many survivors” speaking out? What percentage of the 2 million adult victims that you’ve referenced have come forward versus those victims that have in fact been alienated further? As the Chair of ASCA surely your priority is to protect the victims that feel (as you say) “shame and stigma”. So what I’d like to know is how much one negative response is worth to you versus the positives that you’ve mentioned? Let’s call this an exercise in ROI.
I’ve spent the best part of 23 years trying NOT to deal with what happened to me as a child. The ASCA has thrown it into my face in my most safe and sacred environment… my home, my living room and on random evenings when I may have been enjoying a few hours of one idle day where magically, I might not have been thinking about it. I resent you for that.
I am further insulted you Dr Kezelmar , have likened the ASCA’s attempt at shifting attitudes of child abuse in Australia with those of HIV/Aids and depression. Suffering from a disease is a vast cry from coping with the fact that as a small child, a grown up robbed me of EVERYTHING when they decided to enter my bedroom that night (I’m not saying it’s any less painful, just different!).
Unlike the grim reaper advertisements used to promote AIDS awareness or the TAC advertisements used to promote road safety, I did not choose to be a sex abuse victim and therefore, there was absolutely no need for you to adopt these shock tactics to get me to talk to you (let alone reference them in your offensive justification). Why would you want to shock me further? Haven’t I been shocked enough? How dare you.
Let me make this clear for you Dr Kezelmar, as both a Board Director for a reputable international advertising agency and a child sex abuse survivor, this ad does not encourage me to “speak out”. It reminds me of why I chose to repress those memories in the first instance.
If you had have asked me (your target) first, or ensured that your agency asked me (or even understood me!) I would have told you that in order to reach me, you need to offer me security, safety, comfort and friendship. A haven of like minded people that I could come to that would make everything in my life… lighter. All you had to do was offer me anything to help me believe that on my wedding day, I wont be looking at my sex abuser from the corner of my eye checking to see if he’s too close to me or any of the little girls in the room.
You failed miserably. And if you don’t believe me, read through the comments here and against the ad on YouTube.
Finally, thank you for bringing to my attention the potentially crippling effects of child abuse on the economic wellbeing of the Australian community. This highlights to me that you really did (NOT!) have “the welfare of the more than 2 million adults surviving child abuse” at the heart of this advertising campaign.
Personally, having been a victim of child abuse, I agree with the majority of Todds comments regarding the wedding ad. The ad sucks big time. It trivialises the abuse and every paedophile that watched it would piss themselves laughing at the pathetic attempt to promote the understanding on how it affects someone who has been abused. I also think that five years in the past is along time to try and link to the comments he made on the show. I would also like to point out to the Bill Henson apologists that victims of paedophilia regard his work in the same manner is those that take pictures for the internet paedophile market. Only twits make the distinction on the basis of art as a sop to their conciences – paedophilic pictures are paedophilic pictures. As for the Admen who are trying to apologise in this blog for the ad – grow up and maybe learn that many of us cannot stand your ‘you have to be shocked to notice’ attitude. To make this ad better it had to be looked at as not just how it would get the call responses up – but what sort of message does it send to the wider community and how do the paedophiles view it. I think that while it may have hit a chord with some of the survivors of abuse, it may have seriously pissed off many more – like me.
the community now has a very high awareness of child abuse – it is no longer a hidden epidemic, shock tactics aren’t required.
In a scene such as the one portrayed, wedding guests would walk out or throttle the father. The bride would hardly be likely to laugh along or even invite her father. This portrays victims as weak and pathetic.
This ad suggests that ASCA does not understand how real sex abuse victims actually feel. Their vehement defence indicates blinkered thinking and a refusal to see their mistake or learn from it. I would not support ASCA for this reason and i hope the govt doesn’t either.
The strange thing is guys, people who worked on the ad feel free to credit their name on the blog. A few doubters feel free to credit their name on this blog.
If this campaign worked, I’d feel free to put my name on here as a victim of long term, traumatic sexual and physical abuse.
Warmly,
Anonymous survivor.
That ad is a disgrace.
Survivor of past sexual abuse, industry creative.
Not the time to be funny, irreverent, and please don’t pretend that a female VO at the end makes it all ok.
ASCA, true, I know who you are, but there’s no chance I’m going to call.
In marketing speak just so you’ll understand, “You alienated me, not understood me.”
Thanks for the memories…..
I’m a victim too, i found the ad repellent and i was glad that other people do, they should do. It didn’t offend me at all, quite the opposite. In the past i sought help from ASCA and all i can say is that they are more than an organization with good intentions,go to their website and you’ll see how they are really helping sufferers.
I went to the asca website and had a look around. I looked at what they say about recovered memory therapy and false memories, given what has been said about their history and how the organisation was formed. I also looked at newsletters and noted the number of survivor stories that seemed to be from adults who had suddenly recovered memories of abuse after a long time of forgetting.
Seems like ASCA is ‘in denial’ that some memories that are recovered many years after events allegedly took place may be false or at least distorted. This suggests that perhaps the management of ASCA may have a dangerous bias towards not acknowledging the danger of believing false memories. They do not seem to have a balanced view.
I think this is why the ad is off kilter. Perhaps the focus of ASCA’s work is about validating the beliefs of those who have recovered memories and are not believed.
Why doesn’t ASCA assist people who may potentially have recovered false memories by raising awareness about the fragility and susceptibility of memory to suggestion? Isn’t there a danger of people’s lives being ruined if they are coerced to believe recovered memories of abuse rather than giving them the option that the memories might not be real?
It appears ASCA need to open their minds and listen to what is being said to them. Maybe the people in charge should not be ‘survivors’ but people who have a little more distance and balance.
7:57 – do you think as a community we have high awareness of what happens after child abuse … in other words that adults need support?
8:31am – really? I don’t know too many survivors (and I know a few) who are willing to go out in public and talk about their experiences.
This may never change.
If it does, it will be a gradual process.
The starting point for that is people feeling they have a right to help and support.
The focus to-date has been on kids. Now we are starting to talk about adults being deserving of our attention and support. Many adults (including myself until a year ago and I am now in my late 30’s) feel they should just get over it.
I am a survivor and I can talk to my close friends, but would want my name obscured when talking about it in public and probably always will.
Hear what you all say, but i still think the work is brave and has genuinely tried to spark discussion and debate. I wouldn’t be surprised if they anticipated the level of polarization and factored that risk into their deliberations.