在「廣告人」的身份之前，別忘了「人」的身份(引述自 小魚廣告網 )。
這個年頭的廣告人，當中有不知多少已為了做所謂打獎的廣告，埋沒了不知多少的良心、說了不知多少遍的謊話。昔日廣告業的光環失色，死因不在於保守的客戶，或者是壞品味的社會氣氛，卻在於做打獎廣告僥倖拿了獎然後以為自己真的是創意大爺的不務正業的廣告人，更壞的是，他們往往能夠繼續在那些大型機構內平步青雲，讓這癌細胞，代代相傳。
The Malala ad from Ogilvy we posted a few days ago is now everywhere on the internet:
http://j.mp/1mvSOHq
http://j.mp/1mvT2yi
http://j.mp/1mvTbBR
I pulled the Malala ad from Ads of the World on request from the creatives. The other two ads with Jobs and Gandhi are still there:
http://adsoftheworld.com/…/…/kurlon_spring_mattresses_gandhi
http://adsoftheworld.com/…/pr…/kurlon_spring_mattresses_jobs
Here is what I personally think about the ad.
Advertising is the art of the 21st century. We use and reuse symbols of good and evil. Advertising, just like art, is always pushing the boundaries of the benign and commonplace. But, people don't like change. They don't like modern art. That doesn't mean art or advertising is bad. It means people are uncomfortable with something they haven't seen before. It takes time.
The fact is campaigns like this one are not made for the general public. They won't be on billboards or in magazines. They are made exclusively for award shows and advertising blogs. If they appear in a magazine that's only for the purpose to qualify for the award show. This is a well known secret in the advertising world. They are demonstrations of creativity, like weird concept cars and unwearable dresses at fashion shows.
The brand sold is secondary here. Creatives find a client that fits their artistic idea. This is how this work should be judged. Any criticism that it's exploitation of Malala to sell beds is invalid because the ads were not created to sell the mattresses in the first place.
Even if you don't buy the argument that the campaign is not primarily created to sell, what's wrong with a brand standing behind a positive message? That's not exploitation. It's support. Did Benetton exploit people of color or did they stand for racial equality? Did Benetton contribute to a positive change in society on this issue? I would argue they did.
The artists chose these three people for the campaign not because they wanted to exploit them. It's because they represented something inspirational in the world. Malala was made into an icon next to people like Gandhi and Jobs. She became a symbol of being able to come back from the worst of life events and give inspiration to us all. Malala is portrayed as the ultimate fighter.
The ad would be offending if her achievement was somehow distorted, ridiculed or belittled.
What's offending is the reality that she was shot. The regime that makes it possible. The regime that prosecutes the victim. By all means let's fight that!
We could ask Malala herself if she is offended or if she's happy people learn about her life and cause.
Ivan Raszl
