First you are going to hear an airplane. Then you will witness dozens of realistic-looking polar bears falling from the sky. Your eyes will still be glued to the screen as their flailing bodies crash off rooftops and bridges. You are going to feel uncomfortable. It looks real. You will continue watching as the bears reach their inevitable blood-splattered collision with the ground.
Then this will appear on the screen:
“An average European flight produces over 400 kg. of greenhouse gases for every passenger. That’s the weight of an adult polar bear.”
The promotional film, which was produced by Plane Stupid, a British group that campaigns aggressively to end airport expansion, succeeds in capturing the audience’s attention. But if you consider yourself an environmentalist, you need to think long and hard about the merits of the video.
Ed Gillespie, co-director of sustainable communications agency Futerra, writes in The Guardian:
Certainly it’s controversial imagery will garner press interest, after all I’m writing this analytical blog for starters, and for campaigning organisations with limited budgets and only one bite at the media cherry this is crucial. However I’m still not sure it will change behaviour, the danger is that by pumping up the high octane drama of an ad, you increase the risk of viewers feeling manipulated and dismissing it as pure propaganda. Or lapsing into highly questionable failures of tact and taste in pursuit of ‘edginess’.
The video reminds me of a profile of an anti-abortion activist I wrote for Willamette Week a few years back. The subject of the story, Darius Hardwick, was the Northwest regional director of education for an organization called the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform. Hardwick’s job entailed driving around Oregon in a semi-truck covered with gigantic photos of bloody, aborted fetuses.
Although Plane Stupid and the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform have different messages, their means of using shock to raise awareness is the same. And so are the problems that come along with it. Many religious and anti-abortion organizations in Portland were quick to distance themselves from Hardwick, claiming that his methods were so inappropriate that they actually further complicated the issue and distanced potential supporters.
Shock visuals are intended to polarize issues, leaving no room for middle ground or dialogue. Although undoubtedly effective at drawing attention, these methods make it easier for people to dismiss the issue entirely and write its proponents off, as Mr. Gillespie states, as propagandists.
The purveyors of shock visuals will tell you that images don’t lie. But that’s not entirely true. One of Hardwick’s photos featured a tiny dismembered fetus gripping a dime (for perspective). Plane Stupid’s video shows bears falling from the sky. Both of these images were manipulated to maximize gruesome effectiveness. Bears don’t fall from the sky and fetuses don’t have access to spare change. In both cases it can be argued that the sheer gruesomeness of the method outweighs the integrity of the entire argument.
What do you think?
[Via: Huffington Post]
Related Posts
No related posts were found, but here is a random post you might find interesting: The Last U.S. Poll on Climate Change.
This ad does what you said Kyle. Catches you’re attention. But other than that it doesn’t really say much. Is it asking people to stop flying? Or to fight for cleaner emissions? Nor is it logically sound. the production of 400kg does not = the death of a polar bear. It equals the WEIGHT of a polar bear. So that ad and the visuals dont really make sense..they should have had the polar bears float safely to the ground. It would have been playful and probably more effective. Unless it is true that one flight and that amount of emissions directly results in the death of of a polar bear. my vote? Fail.