This ad is evidently creating some controversy, including the use of a very (medically) graphic image at :24. Don’t say you weren’t warned. Is it worthwhile? From my point of view, yes — but then, I think anything is fine by me that grabs the eye and makes the message in a media saturated world.
Shock and Awe Advertising, Part 1
Wot You Wrote (and I Wrote Back)
#1 by The Nerdy Nurse on Sunday 02 January 2011 - 1005
Not sure about the statistics, but it seems that this PSA is targeting a specific group. To me the uproar about this video will be/should be that, rather than the anal cancer image.
#2 by Jenn Jilks on Sunday 02 January 2011 - 1044
I could never be a nurse. The two barriers: needles and blood make me faint. I always sent the kids to the office, where they had much medical care than I could give, or they sent for someone.
This image is a real one. Cancer isn’t pretty!
What bothered me are the actors they presume look like gays. That is typecasting! How did they choose them?!
#3 by Raquel on Sunday 02 January 2011 - 1105
I agree. The ad seems to be aimed at a pretty narrow demographic.
It ‘s true…cancer isn’t pretty. I’m all for showing people the truth. Whatever it takes to get their attention and hopefully change some behaviors.
#4 by SM on Sunday 02 January 2011 - 1209
This is pretty clearly an anti gay sex ad. Are you trying to tell me that hetero sex is consequence free? Women don’t have anal sex? Where are they in this ad? No needles? Is the outbreak in Saskatoon because of gay sex? Not likely. Nope, this is an anti gay ad, not an HIV warning.
#5 by torontoemerg on Sunday 02 January 2011 - 1737
Interesting — I didn’t perceive it as being anti-gay or even anti-gay sex, but a message targeted at gay men. I mean, let’s get real here: this is put out by New York City Health Department, not some backwater in Oklahoma, or somewhere similar. It’s pretty silly to assume homophobia there, wouldn’t you think?