Stumblng Tumblr sent along this PSA from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, along with this comment:
I am confident that the animal-protection video to which I've linked in this
post...will astonish you.
What's interesting about this image is the comment on masculinity--the implication is that "pacifist" men (whatever "pacifist" is taken to mean) aren't "real" men because they can't or won't fulfill their role of protecting women. The gun becomes a replacement for sissified men.
You can find the image here. You might compare it to this post.
Thanks, Bill F.!
These two posters are part of Young Fine Gael's campaign for the Lisbon Reform Treaty (part of an effort to create a new European Union Constitution):
Here we have buying bottled water--a product criticized for its environmental impacts--portrayed as a form of humanitarianism. Also, in smaller text the ad sneaks in a plug for a movie: "Ethos is a proud supporter of 'Running the Sahara.' In theaters this spring." I presume Matt Damon stars in it. Why can't celebrities just donate their own money instead of trying to get us to buy something expensive just so a tiny bit of it goes to a charity?
And in the tiniest print down at the bottom you learn that 5 cents from every purchase is donated to the Ethos Water Fund. The Impulsive Buy says Ethos costs $1.85 a bottle (I found that price listed elsewhere as well). Also, Ethos is owned by Starbucks.
You might want to pair this image with this, this, and this.
I saw this energy drink this morning at a gas station. Notice that it's sugar-free. According to the website, a portion of proceeds goes to fight breast cancer, though it's unclear if they mean a portion of the profits of the drink, or just things bought at the online store. Another example of the idea of doing good through consumption, not by just donating money directly to an organization addressing an issue you care about (for other examples see here, here and here). Also, the website says Go Girl is not a rehydration drink (such as Gatorade), but a "functional beverage," whatever that is.
This ad came from an issue of the English version of the Spiegel. According to SocProf, it was "created by a French student union...to underline the issue of housing shortage for students," which is forcing many French students to continue living with their parents.
Thanks, C.M.!
These anti-statutory rape PSAs were made by advertising agency Serve for the United Way of Milwaukee. They created enough of a controversy that they were pulled (see an article at Salon).
In response to the controversy, the advertising agency put a little over 2 minutes of focus group footage on youtube:
Coolness and access to hot women are the rewards of proper consumption:
Dell Computer Product Red Super Bowl Ad: XPS Laptop Draws Cheers
Add to My Profile More Videos
Here is a link to a website sponsored by Tampax and Always about their work with the UN to give pads to girls in Africa, supposedly because these girls miss school each month because they don't have pads to wear.
Here is a t-shirt you can buy to support the program. It says "Use your period for good":
The t-shirt costs $21.99. Of this, $1 goes toward the program.
This brings up all kinds of issues--for instance, where does the other $20.99 go? To Tampax and Always? What do these companies stand to gain from this? Positive publicity or lifelong customer loyalty in Africa?
It could also be used as part of a discussion about consumption and activism--the idea we have now that you can just buy something if you want to fix a social problem. If you pick up any fashion magazine, there will be a page or an article in it telling readers they can change the world by buying some product--nevermind that only a tiny part of the purchase price goes to the charity.
For other examples of shopping as activism, look here, here, and here.
Anti-gun control propaganda (found here) aimed at EVERYBODY.
What you might expect from the pro-gun lobby:
For kids!
Pro-gun feminism?
Guns are for fags:
Gun control is racist:
Also see this post.
These posters were made by Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics (COYOTE), an association for sex workers' rights.
I found this ad in the January 2008 copy of Ladies Home Journal. It's for an organization that's called The Smile Train. It performs surgeries to correct cleft palates in the developing world.
What I think is interesting about this fundraising ad is that we, the potential contributors, are clearly supposed to find this child totally disgusting: "Imagine living your entire life looking like this..." We're supposed to pity this child not because he's hungry or has no access to clean water or might be caught in a civil war, but because of how he looks.
This is an interesting example of the way in which powerful media companies control what gets out there. MTV refused to show ads, made by the Media Foundation to promote Buy Nothing Day, on its station. They stated that the ad "goes further than we are willing to accept on our channels."
The ads are here. Thanks to AdBusters for this tip.
"Pornography: The Secret History of Civilization" (2005) is useful for showing that non-procreational sex and sexual enjoyment are not "modern," and that using and enjoying sexually explicit images isn't new, either. I liked the first two episodes in the series, especially the second one, which shows how many explicit images there are in religious buildings and texts from the Middle Ages in Europe. Be warned, you need to watch these before showing them to be sure you can get away with it with your audience--for many students, even the artwork and religious drawings would probably lead to outrage today (which can be an interesting discussion in and of itself).
"Fenceline" addresses institutional racism, environmental pollution, and activism by looking at residents in a town in Louisiana and the divisions that arise between blacks and whites about the possibility of toxic waste contamination. It could be useful for discussing environmental issues or looking at why two groups in the same community could come to such different conclusions about what is going on.
PETA is well known for objectifying women in their efforts to encourage us to be kind to animals. Here is a latest ad starring Alicia Silverstone:
Here are some print ads:
In case you were wondering if they were denigrating women as well as showing them naked... Here you go:
Boys too!
30% of the retail price of these shirts will be donated to "some of the country's best charities. What better excuse to go shopping?" The retail price is $68. The charities are:
Women in Need
Free Arts NYC
Rape Treatment Center at Santa Monica-UCLA Medical Center
National Multiple Sclerosis Society
Children's Hope India
American Refugee Committee's Darfur Relief Effort
I like these kinds of things because they bring up two issues: Why don't people just contribute $20 (or, in most cases, something like 10 cents) directly instead of filtering it through a corporation? And should we have to personally get something out of it in order to contribute to worthy causes?
For other examples, look here, here, and here.
