If the idea behind a viral campaign for climate change group 350.org is to make people take the threat more seriously having nine supermodels strip to their smalls is perhaps not the best way to persuade people it's a bad thing.If a warmer planet results in scantily dressed supermodels, some might conclude climate change is a good thing. Notwithstanding that the ad trivialises a serious subject; we learn nothing about climate change and it might alienate a large part of the female audience, some of us at Rubber Towers quite like this new viral. We can't think why.On a positive note, if the viral campaign is designed purely to generate a bit of PR and easy headlines with a bit of harmless titillation, it's bang on the money. See what you think (thanks to Rev for bringing this to our attention) ...
Celebrities... whether Z list or A will sell product. Fact.
Then, they'll take the "private jet" to the "lights on 24 hours a day" villa and preach to the great un washed, like myself, about saving the world.
Before handing over your hard earned bucks (or these days the hours standing in a dole que) make sure you check the charity is not run by a bunch of self serving socialites. AVOID this nonsense at all costs.
nice but agree the ad misses its target
Inane drivel. This is the sort of twaddle you would expect from a student team. It allows a load of models to 'Do their Bit' while communicating nothing of value or new to consumers. Another 'supermodel', Helena Christiansen, is currently communicating the benefits of Habitat to us simple-minded consumers. A few years ago they were also flogging cars - Vauxhall Corsas I think. Granted, this will get publicity - but at what cost? Trivialising a serious message by associating it with a bunch of rent-an-air-heads. Well that's all it's done for me.
Chris Quigley
Blogging for:
Member since: 09 Jun 2008
Last login: 20 Nov 2009
Total Posts: 82
