Ethics in Ads - World Wildlife Fund

[Selene]

Michael, I think this belongs here.

This is the ad to watch before clicking on the next link that contains the story behind the ad.

http://link.brightco...tid=36830783001

Ethical?

http://adweek.blogs....new-wwf-ad.html

Adam

[ginny]

Adam, unfortunately, in my opinion, this ad is revolting, but yet, it's ethical. Maybe a thing can be both. The purpose of an ad is to attract attention, be memorable and make a point. This ad qualifies as it compares the deliberate destruction of men with the deliberate destruction of animals and trees. Regrettably, to the WWF, it's one and the same. On the plus side, this might make some supporters of WWF think again.

God, those people are worse than scum. But they have a good ad agency.

[ginny]

Wait a minute. By ethical, do you mean legal and proper or honest? Just realized there's a big difference. Yes to the first, frigging no to the second.

[Selene]

Wait a minute. By ethical, do you mean legal and proper or honest? Just realized there's a big difference. Yes to the first, frigging no to the second.

LOL - yes quite a difference.

See, some folks, as you observed, believe it is ethical in the second sense.

I do not, but that is my own pure personal hatred for these groups.

"We spoke to a rep at the U.S. HQ of the WWF in Washington. She said the group "strongly condemns the messaging and the imagery" of the ad, and she added: "We can promise you this ad does not reflect the thoughts and feelings of this organization." WWF further says the ad was "never authorized or approved by any WWF person on the planet" and that the group is investigating the "unauthorized and illegal use of our logo." The group's official statement on the matter can be seen here."

And...

UPDATE: DDB Brazil has apologized for the ad, and a rep there tells the New York Daily News that the creative team behind it "is no longer with the agency."

I was surprised by the firing of the young, creative staff that won a merit award which has been withdraw.

What does not ring true, is the blanket denial by the WWF [geez I think of wrestling when I see those initials] that no one approved of that ad.

Hmmm.

Adam

[ginny]

I worked in advertising for years. It's impossible to get on ad out without client approval. Period.

[Selene]

I worked in advertising for years. It's impossible to get on ad out without client approval. Period.

Precisely Ginny.

Now the question is whether the ad ever aired or was it caught in time because the information is from a specialty publication or ad blog.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

I liked the ad only because it reminded me of flying into NYC in 1960 at night and seeing all of lower Manhattan ablaze with lights. The most gorgeous sight I have ever beheld.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

DDB is a wonderful ad agency. I did several things for them in Brazil. I have nothing but good things to say for their quality of production.

They screwed this one project up big time by focusing too much on one angle and forgetting the rest. People rejected it as tasteless. Some heads lower down in the pecking order rolled.

So what's different in this case from good old fashioned Corporate America?

Hell, I don't even detect a political statement here. Just the wish to shock and awe and ultimately things went overboard from too much zeal.

You win some and lose some. You sacrifice a person (or persons) to appease the outcry when you lose.

Isn't all this normal in business?

Michael

[John Tate]

The ad makes me sick but I really don't see it as unethical. Just silly.