APMeehan on 12/11/2007 at 15:39
The trouble with those workplace safety adverts are that the scenarios are so specific as to be meaningless and do nothing to dispel the "it won't happen to me" mentality, as it's easy to say "well <i>I</i> would <i>never</i> hang precariously off a dodgy ladder over a glass table, nor indeed ever sit on the edge of a building in front of a massive gas tank!" The cute little "I jus wanna make it back to see my baby girl for the first time"-backstories don't help their credibility either.
A recent advert I saw that did resonate with me though was (
http://youtube.com/watch?v=SXI8-_9FrB4) this one. It should really be patronising to be told to "look left, then look right, then look left AGAIN", but the fact is that as a biker I always have to assume the car waiting at the junction up ahead is going to pull out in front of me, because far too often it does.
I'm not having a go at car drivers, because I know how easy it is to drop your guard or forget to check blindspots or whatever. Which is why that advert is effective: every driver is familiar with that heart-in-your-mouth moment when you realise you've fucked up, and the more people are aware of how easily those moments can happen the better.
btw those domestic ads are unpleasant but unfortunately they are also golden nuggets of slapstick perfection.
she spilt my coffee ehe
Starrfall on 12/11/2007 at 15:45
It's at least a little effective because seeing a commerical kitchen without floormats is fucking horrifying and if Canada needs a public interest campaign to get people to ask for/buy such mats then all I can say is godspeed
Gingerbread Man on 12/11/2007 at 15:52
Quote Posted by Stitch
Errr...did you watch the Californian domestic violence ones? I really have no idea who the hell they're aimed at, but it doesn't seem to be the casual bystander.
I was more specifically commenting on fett's "Anyone who thinks those are going to stop domestic abusers, drunk drivers, or greedy coporations who don't keep a tight reign on safety policies, is well...retarded."
They are precisely targeted at the casual bystander, mostly in an effort to promote outrage and intolerance toward this sort of thing. Raising the profile of certain matters (especially things that tend to occur outside of the public eye) is all part of the plan... As awareness and intolerance increase (particularly if the subject matter is presented in a way that makes a strong visceral impact upon the viewer) then -- the theory goes -- reporting will increase. As will public demand for "something to be done about it"
Koki on 12/11/2007 at 16:19
Quote Posted by Mingan
I lol'ed at the exploding welder. I'm a bad person.
You're bad person because you spoiled it for me. I still chucked though. That truck was a nice touch.
The domestic abuse ones were funny because of the (seemingly) random outbursts of violence.
What was this thread about again?
[Edit]Whoa, Klaus. You're one bad motherfucker.
fett on 12/11/2007 at 16:39
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
I was more specifically commenting on fett's "Anyone who thinks those are going to stop domestic abusers, drunk drivers, or greedy coporations who don't keep a tight reign on safety policies, is well...retarded."
Of course they're aimed directly at the perpetrators. The narrators say:
"YOU can't get away with it here..."
"It takes less than YOU might think to become a drunk driver."
"If YOU hit me..."
I'm also trying to figure out how or why they would be aimed at non-perpetrators. It's not like I can do anything to make other people drive slower or follow them home to make sure they're not beating their spouse. Of course the drunk driving, seatbelt, spousal abuse variety are aimed at the perpetrator. The safety reg ones are aimed at the corporation, which I also can't control. So why the fuck are they in my face about any of this shit?
Thirith on 12/11/2007 at 16:53
Quote Posted by fett
Of course they're aimed directly at the perpetrators. The narrators say:
"YOU can't get away with it here..."
"It takes less than YOU might think to become a drunk driver."
"If YOU hit me..."
There's a difference between the ostensive addressee and the actual addressee. There may be a handful of wife-beaters who see one of those ads and stop. However, there is much more of a chance of actual success if you get the bystanders who do nothing to feel strongly enough about the issue to get off their butts and do something. How many people hear the guy next door beat on his wife and decide it's none of their business? On the other hand, you don't want to make those people feel like they're the real perpetrators, because then the message is lost on them. So you make ads that apparently put the blame somewhere else yet still might shame you into doing something.
SubJeff on 12/11/2007 at 18:17
Quote Posted by fett
The safety reg ones are aimed at the corporation, which I also can't control. So why the fuck are they in my face about any of this shit?
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Workplace safety ones seem to be to educate people about what they should expect from employers
It's all too easy to use equipment that is in poor condition because you don't think you have the right to question your employer. Educating people about what they should expect is a good thing, and that extends to just letting people know that there are laws about this stuff. You may not be a welder or a chef but watching those ads may make you think "Hey, the X I use at work is in pretty crappy condition." and quiz your boss/superior about it or it's safety.
nickie on 12/11/2007 at 21:04
Quote Posted by Thirith
There may be a handful of wife-beaters who see one of those ads and stop.
Its also possible there may be a handful of victims who see one and perhaps get the courage to make a complaint. Perhaps not so much nowadays, but in my experience, victims of anything tend to feel alone. If nothing else, adverts may break through that and help people realise there's places to go to get help.
And SE is right, there are many cases of people, at least in the UK, who have been victimised by their employer for speaking out about unacceptable practices.
mopgoblin on 13/11/2007 at 00:19
Quote Posted by Thirith
There's a difference between the ostensive addressee and the actual addressee.
Perhaps, but I don't know if many people would perceive it that way without deliberately analysing the ads. While I haven't actually watched these ads (my computer is rather old and struggles with internet-video), it sounds like they're mostly pretty similar to the ones we have over here. The only health-and-safety type ads I recall were focused on the home, initially seeming to advertise some fake product until someone gets hurt. I did find those pretty hilarious, probably because it's very easy to interpret them as annoying advertisement characters getting their comeuppance, along with the notion that people who do stupid things have only themselves to blame (why would I identify with someone who can't secure a ladder properly?) and the knowledge that no one is actually being harmed.
The drunk driving and domestic violence ads, however, I tend to interpret as an accusation against me (even when the actual words don't imply that. Maybe it's also the tone of the voice or something). It could be a mathematician thing, but my first instinct when someone makes a confident assertion is to look for a counterexample or counterargument, even if I believe the statement is true. The eventual result is "yeah, drunk driving/domestic violence is bad, but some of the people trying to stop it are arseholes too" and +1 to the semi-conscious tally of false accusations. Nothing changes, except perhaps I become a little more likely to suspect that a victim of domestic violence isn't telling the truth - presumably this is the opposite of the intentions behind the ad.
