Jump to content

Recommended Posts

this is so oversimplified...some career women make bad mothers and some make good mothers... as much as housewifes can make bad or good mothers...


i can?t understand why some people can start a campain and waste so much energy for such a vague topic...:-S



you are right: it is irritating!

...it depends what the one who started the post wants to chat about...


is it the ad and it?s power or the issue with career women itself...


i don?t think i missed the point here;-)...it just depends on the question...


so let?s ask the one who made the post: do you want to talk about the "power of an advert" or do you actually want to talk about the "career women"...


as if we are talking about the influences of ad?s i do not think it?s irritating at all...but if we are talking about the "career women" issue...then i do think it?s irritating!


tanza? what?s irritating to you?


maybe that helps us to know what you acutally mean!?!

Bus company ads are run by CBS Outdoor (an old outfit of mine).


In Jan occupancy is typically around 10%.


Mid 90s we ran charity campaigns on the other 90%, by the early noughties we ran campaigns aimed at ad agencies with photofits of senior guys in advertisng and game cards. The idea was that it would make agencies aware of how often they see bus campaigns.


CBS joined with the OAA (Outdoor Advertising Association) in the mid noughties and persuaded them that the medium itself was a way of promoting the medium.


Most ad agencies still reject outdoor posters on the grounds that their content is subliminal.


This particular campaign is to prove that outdoor campaigns are not passed over, but they incite public debate and engagement. They have no conviction in any challenge, the objective is merely to prove engagement.


They have 90% void, it costs nothing.


It's brilliant.


Really, unless you're a sucker, you need to make the debate disappear ;-)

I'd say it's effective but cheap. They could achieve the same result without using a statement that will make a lot of working women feel even more guilty and some non-working mothers / reactionary men just that bit more smug and critical. The Daily Mail will probably run a series of editorials agreeing with it, larded with examples of celebrity mothers to prove their point.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
    • I do hope NOT, wouldn't trust Farage as far as I could throw him, Starmer & co.  He's backed by GB News which focus's predominantly on immigration while the BBC focus predominantly on the Israel - Gazza conflict.   
    • Everyone gets the point that Corbynites try to make with the "total number of votes cast" statistic, it's just a specious one.  In 2017, Corbyn's Labour got fewer votes than May's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes). In 2019, Corbyn's Labour fewer votes than Johnson's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes); and he managed to drop 2.7 million votes or 6.9% of vote share between the two elections. I repeat, he got trounced by Boris F***ing Johnson and the Tories after the Brexit omnishambles. It is not true that a "fairer" electoral system would have seen Labour beat the Tories: Labour simply got fewer votes than the Tories. Corbyn lost twice. There is no metric by which he won the general election. His failure to win was a disaster for the UK, and let Johnson and Truss and Sunak into office. Corbynites have to let go of this delusion that Corbyn but really won somehow if you squint in a certain way. It is completely irrelevant that Labour under Corbyn got more votes than Labour under Starmer. It is like saying Hull City was more successful in its 2014 FA Cup Final than Chelsea was in its 2018 FA Cup Final, because Hull scored 2 goals when Chelsea only scored 1. But guess what - Chelsea won its game and Hull City lost. Corbyn's fans turned out to vote for him - but an even larger group of people who found him repellant were motivated enough to show up and vote Tory.
    • I guess its the thing these days to demonstrate an attitude, in this instance seemingly of the negative kind, instead of taking pride in your work and have standards then 🤷‍♀️
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...