Barnados 'Break the Cycle' Ad

Has anyone seen this?

http://www.barnardos.org.uk/

In my opinion this is the most shocking tv ad of the year. I have little doubt that it will be banned after recieving many complaints, similarly to the NHS 'fishhook' advert. However I don't know if it should be though. It certainly stopped me from what I was doing to pay attention, and made me think of the issues it raises.

Do you think it will be banned? Should it be banned?

Please let me know what you think and comment on my other thread regarding offensive advertising if possible:

http://community.brandrepublic.com/forums/t/8876.aspx

Many thanks

Chris, Brooklands College, Ashford Campus.

It's tricky one. I have a slight issue with any ad that spends 95% of its time with award-winning CGI/acting/direction on the negative aspects, and then whacks in a quick 'we're here to stop it' logo at the end. Making positives as 'interesting' as failures/explosions/bad behaviour is a real skill. Especially with charity messages. But to part me from my money I need to get some sense that my money would be well directed and do the most good. This one is a real turn-off, literally and figuratively, though that's just to me. See how the stats show. I have also seen waaaay too much of the CEO 'explaining his vision' and stirring up 'awareness', which gets me to wondering who these ads are most designed to benefit. And my suspicion is more boardroom bonuses than sharp-end troops or the kids they are trying to help.

Of course it shouldn't be banned. It's powerful communication that provokes you to think. Or maybe we should ban thought, too?

Of course, Richard is right. And I didn't answer your question. I accept that the ad provokes, but personally don't think it's the best way to get you to dip in your pocket. Rather depends on what the brief was in arriving at success then. But when much 'worse' is shown between the ads why should it be banned? There are boundaries that one works to, and I presume that these were checked against the rules with the necessary bodies - who exist for this very reason (though forgiveness is often easier to seek than permission) - to ensure compliance. Then the skill set is to take it to just the right side. Unless the idea was to create a fuss and get banned. Which brings us back to awareness. And dipping in pockets. I am aware, but was not motivated. Subjectively, it failed with me on the money donation front, and I have decided other high street kids' charity shops might make better use of our donations. Standing ready to be proved wrong on memory, the NSPCC Green dot ads were/are (haven't seen one in a while) equally 'gritty', but despite being pretty much the same '95% woe/5% hope' somehow and for some reason managed to leave me with a sense that they were there to intervene and help tangibly. But i n a time of crunched giving, maybe a few charities engaged in similar areas might need to consider amortising comms efforts and certain logistics so we have a little less going on the award winners and systems that require the creation of such as the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations (with its own CEO), and a little more where it may do some good via folk who are actually volunteering or being paid not so well, and doing an amazing job at the sharp end.

I agree that the NSPCC "Full Stop" campaign was very good (and effective; I give them £15 a month and I don't even like kids). But this work succeeds in illuminating that the mugger, the junkie, the 'stupid' schoolgirl, the under-valued child are one and the same, and that interceding at any point in this chain can save a life. Nobody (in my recollection) has done this before and so it should be congratulated. Might I direct you here for more insight: http://scampblog.blogspot.com/2008_11_01_archive.html (You'll need to scroll down to the 24th November entry)

Thank you for the link (for any other it is attached to some stray text so needs cutting and pasting to work). I don't want to drag this out, but all I can say is that a question was asked and we have both answered, though perhaps also taking things beyond the original question, where we agree that banning is not necessary. As I always told my teams, nothing you do will have you or an AE dropping out the screen to explain or persuade anyone, especially with more insight. Yes, I 'got' the cycle, but remain unpersuaded, mainly because I had no sense of how Barnados intervenes. And I am afraid that the fleeting call to action was not enough to make me want to go any further. That's just me. Equally, all I can recall of the Baby P furore, where the Barnados CEO opined that he would have ended up feral, is the unsubstantiated claim made to stir things up. I guess weighing in with an explanation of how intervention could have redirected various youngsters paths would not have been so headline grabbing. So I await some great creative ideas that manage to inform realistically and also reassure that the money one donates is well targeted and spent. You think the work succeeds and should be congratulated. Another, entirely valid viewpoint. Sadly, one I cannot share, if purely subjectively. I guess we'll just have to see how well it does for those it is aimed to serve. It's how the business works, from pitching to award juries. And for the sake of those who are in need, and those who have donated, I hope I may this time be in the minority.

Sorry to be negative but so is the ad. I think it's using out dated sledgehammer tactics that may stimulate a debate on ad websites but little else (read my blog). It’ll probably win an award, so that’s ok. There are far worse things happening in the world than this. It seems to be a social issue I feel the government should be tackling, I want my charity donation to save lives. I was more stimulated by the poster campaign on the Underground telling me about kids who grow up in awful families and why they end up in gangs, doing drugs and violence. It was informative and engaging and told me how I could make a difference. This isn’t. It’s just irritating which means millions will turn off the sound, the channel and off the charity. As charity marketing goes it’s not good marketing – weak on positive benefit, poor call to action, not engaging and it doesn’t tell you how to stop it but ends on a blindingly obvious statement. A poor copy of the brilliant award winning Full Stop NSPCC campaigns by Saatchi. The fish hook ad, if you look at the figures published in the press at the time it was not effective. They ran it at the peak giving up time of the year (probably to take credit). If you did the sums based on the government’s own figures then it cost us taxpayers £7000 per person who gave up. Would have been cheaper to pay each smoker a grand to quit. I think it's using out dated sledgehammer tactics that may stimulate a debate on ad websites but little else (read my blog). It’ll probably win an award, so that’s ok. There are far worse things happening in the world than this. It seems to be a social issue I feel the government should be tackling, I want my charity donation to save lives. I was more stimulated by the poster campaign on the Underground telling me about kids who grow up in awful families and why they end up in gangs, doing drugs and violence. It was informative and engaging and told me how I could make a difference. This isn’t. It’s just irritating which means millions will turn off the sound, the channel and off the charity. As charity marketing goes it’s not good marketing – weak on positive benefit, poor call to action, not engaging and it doesn’t tell you how to stop it but ends on a blindingly obvious statement. A poor copy of the brilliant award winning Full Stop NSPCC campaigns by Saatchi. The fish hook ad, if you look at the figures published in the press at the time it was not effective. They ran it at the peak giving up time of the year (probably to take credit). If you did the sums based on the government’s own figures then it cost us taxpayers £7000 per person who gave up. Would have been cheaper to pay each smoker a grand to quit. I think it's using out dated sledgehammer tactics that may stimulate a debate on ad websites but little else (read my blog). It’ll probably win an award, so that’s ok. There are far worse things happening in the world than this. It seems to be a social issue I feel the government should be tackling, I want my charity donation to save lives. I was more stimulated by the poster campaign on the Underground telling me about kids who grow up in awful families and why they end up in gangs, doing drugs and violence. It was informative and engaging and told me how I could make a difference. This isn’t. It’s just irritating which means millions will turn off the sound, the channel and off the charity. As charity marketing goes it’s not good marketing – weak on positive benefit, poor call to action, not engaging and it doesn’t tell you how to stop it but ends on a blindingly obvious statement. A poor copy of the brilliant award winning Full Stop NSPCC campaigns by Saatchi. The fish hook ad, if you look at the figures published in the press at the time it was not effective. They ran it at the peak giving up time of the year (probably to take credit). If you did the sums based on the government’s own figures then it cost us taxpayers £7000 per person who gave up. Would have been cheaper to pay each smoker a grand to quit. I think it's using out dated sledgehammer tactics that may stimulate a debate on ad websites but little else (read my blog). It’ll probably win an award, so that’s ok. There are far worse things happening in the world than this. It seems to be a social issue I feel the government should be tackling, I want my charity donation to save lives. I was more stimulated by the poster campaign on the Underground telling me about kids who grow up in awful families and why they end up in gangs, doing drugs and violence. It was informative and engaging and told me how I could make a difference. This isn’t. It’s just irritating which means millions will turn off the sound, the channel and off the charity. As charity marketing goes it’s not good marketing – weak on positive benefit, poor call to action, not engaging and it doesn’t tell you how to stop it but ends on a blindingly obvious statement. A poor copy of the brilliant award winning Full Stop NSPCC campaigns by Saatchi. The fish hook ad, if you look at the figures published in the press at the time it was not effective. They ran it at the peak giving up time of the year (probably to take credit). If you did the sums based on the government’s own figures then it cost us taxpayers £7000 per person who gave up. Would have been cheaper to pay each smoker a grand to quit. How irritating is repetition?