It's certainly possible but they could have simply drawn a fake disaster instead of using recognisable images.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
BenQ uses 9/11 for advertising campaign.. caution sensitive image
- Thread starter Bern
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's certainly possible but they could have simply drawn a fake disaster instead of using recognisable images.
I agree, you have to look at the intent, the audience and whether the image actually syncs up to what the artist or the company is trying to sell. I'm from the U.S. and I'm not offended by this image, though I know it would never fly in the states. I would be offended if it appeared that they were trying to play on anti-American sentiment in China or something like that, but there's no evidence of it in this ad.
dornoforpyros said:
Is that a devil's advocate stance? I mean obviously this is the only question an advertiser (devil?) is going to ask himself, but seriously, when it comes to images with propagandistic or nationalistic value, I think one has the right to criticize and expect a certain standard of advertisers even, perhaps especially, in other cultures. I remember awhile ago seeing ads for that video game with the soldiers in what appeared to be a mosque -- I certainly had a problem with it, and I would think people who have to live with that reality every day would even moreso were they made aware that things like that were running in the U.S. To say it should only matter if the people it's marketed to are offended by it is missing the point.
Devils advocate? some what, however the deeper issue here is that we in the west, have no right to instill our values & hang-ups on other cultures. Yes WE are offended by this use of WTC ruins in an ad. However in China it might be fine, so why should China have to worry about what people on the other side of the planet will think about ads they deploy in their own country? As I stated before, when deploying an ad you can't possible run it by every cultural background in the world.
I'm Indian and I don't find the ad using Gandhi offensive at all. In fact, its their best ad ever.. because Gandhi did 'think different' and led the non-violence movement which of course, eventually led to India's freedom.
Like I mentioned in a previous post, showing a person, or an event in an ad shouldn't be offensive to anybody.. unless the ad actually mocks that person/event or tries to insult it in some manner.
So I'm guessing the Benq MP3 players will appeal to the Islamic market.....
Benq explode different
Benq explode different
*snickers*
Would you believe its copyrighted in 2007?
Thats a pretty f***ing impressive feat. Copyrighting something in the future.
I guess BenQ has working time machines now.
Would you believe its copyrighted in 2007?
Thats a pretty f***ing impressive feat. Copyrighting something in the future.
I guess BenQ has working time machines now.
You need not dignify the question with a response to the person who initially brought up the comparison, seeing as he is debating the Gandhi poster as being offensive yet downplaying the BenQ ad, just comes across as grabbing at straws while not understanding what the real debate is about. If anyone can make that a fair comparison, there really is no point even to debate.
so comparing two politically charged images used in advertising is grabbing at straws now? I'm sorry that my realization that the world doesn't end at North America's borders is to much for you to grasp. This is the last time I'm going to say this because obviously we're just going in circles.
Different parts of the world, have different cultures, and values. Something that is offensive to us, may not be offensive at all to other countries. There for advertisers only need to be sensitive to the countries/context they are advertising in.
Stop pushing your hang ups and offenses on the rest of the world, just because your offended, does not mean the rest of the planet must be offended with you.
Have you ever opened a gay lifestyle magazine and seen some of the major companies advertising with pro-gay images/ads? I'm almost certain Budwiser wouldn't be running an ad with 2 cowboys in tender embrace during, say, the superbowl. But in the context of the magazine they know there is a slim chance of right wing homophobes seeing it and boycotting their product as a result.
So please, remove your blinders once and a while and remember, people are different on this planet.
I find it odd you're defending an ad that people in this thread clearly find offensive. What do you hope to accomplish in your debate? Whether it is intended for a foreign market or not, that really isn't the point. Do you really believe people are thick enough not to agree with your other points, because I agree with them. And no, we shouldn't "push" our offenses on others, did you feel that we were? It seems that's where you're hung up on.
Is this ad real? Believe is spelled wrong, and I couldn't find any mention of it on Benq's site.
Edit: Never mind, it was just spelled wrong because the actual ad is in Chinese (and only appears on the Chinese site), and this was just a misspelled translation.
Edit 2: According to Gizmodo, the actual translation is this (and I quote):
The words are:
1st line: Even if
2nd line: The World is destroy to dust, I still believe in
3rd line: Music
So, "Even if the world is destroy[ed] to dust, I still believe in music".
Edit: Never mind, it was just spelled wrong because the actual ad is in Chinese (and only appears on the Chinese site), and this was just a misspelled translation.
Edit 2: According to Gizmodo, the actual translation is this (and I quote):
The words are:
1st line: Even if
2nd line: The World is destroy to dust, I still believe in
3rd line: Music
So, "Even if the world is destroy[ed] to dust, I still believe in music".
I think it's in bad taste.
But it certainly isn't the first time "shocking" advertising has been done. Look at Benetton...dying AIDS victims etc.
But it certainly isn't the first time "shocking" advertising has been done. Look at Benetton...dying AIDS victims etc.
I'm defending it because I still don't think the context of the ad is "oohh let's be edgy and stick 911 rubble in an ad!" I think it was "let's put some kid in front of some rubble" and in the attempt to find rubble some of it ended up being from 911.
No... way... did they not know it was the WTC.
Your arguments as I've read them are extremely poor. The 'can't please everyone' argument holds no water because it could apply to literally anything somebody wants to put out there. And your 'it's not offensive in other parts of the world' argument is pretty flimsy too. Only in the smallest minority of areas would the WTC tragedy not be viewed as a horrible tragedy. Thousands of people dying is universally tragic, unless you are in favor of the perpetrators.
that's your opinion I guess. I think my arguments are very valid. How many tragedies go on in the world that you don't hear about? How many times have you seen a picture of the hindenburg exploding? People died in that, and it's a widely used image now a days.
Just because you don't agree with my arguments doesn't make them less valid, it just means you've got your own opinions on this. So please, don't attack my person just because you don't agree with my point of view.
I got a translation from a Chinese Malaysian: " i'll love music even if the world is destroyed."
He didn't find it even remotely offensive, even though they apparently used that specific image. I'm still waiting to hear from another 70+ people.
Less offensive because fewer people died...I think the true devil's advocate image would show the kid listening to music as the second plane crashed into the second tower or better yet ignorantly rocking out during Kristallnacht or during a genocidal attack in Rwanda, Darfur, etc...but of course that wouldn't sync with the message of the ad.
I find it curious that the thread has focused on the recognizable WTC wreckage (and how that makes us "feel") while making no attempts to either confirm that the rest of the image is WTC wreckage or, if not, locate the source of those images an explore if the feelings they evoke are similar (if they do indeed come from a disaster of equal proportions).
And playing devil's advocate...how do we know that the source images in spicyapple's excellent video aren't victims of similar disasters or war criminals, rape victims or rapists...Imagine watching that ad and recognizing the man that raped you 40 years ago. Obviously not indended, but still either offensive or evoking strong negative reaction on the part of the viewer.
The point is that every content producer need to be more sensitive to the feeling there images make evoke, on the other hand safeguarding against offending everyone is impossible. Whether the image was used in error or on purpose, we have no way of knowing. If it was used on purpose, we have no way of know if the artists/marketers concepts were meant to belittle the tragedy or to show the strength of the important ideals (personal and artistic expression) that survived that day.
There is a lot we don't know about the intent of those behind the image, all we know is how the image makes us feel and I think everyone has a right to express those feelings (on both sides or even as devil's advocates) here in the thread or in other ways.
No it was the ace venture emphasis. so it ws proper for loosers.....
And unless you lived in a hole or were too young to remember, it had better be obvious to americans what that picture represents. It is the only attack on the US mainland since the revolution. ie it was an overly profound event that has shaped US society and polictics since. That is the problem here. We are too quick to forget.
Try visiting Pearl and see what sort of feeling you get. Or better yet, run this same ad with the Arizona burning in the back ground. I would imagine you would get similar feelings and thoughts regarding lack of taste.
I think you are forgeting Fort Sumter, and for that matter all the battles started by the south during the civil war and the raids Pancho Villa made in New Mexico. I'd include some battles during the War of 1812, but since we started that one I don't think we can count those.
I'm from Singapore and I can speak/write Chinese natively, personally, if you guys did not bring this up I would not have notice it is from WTC. That translation from your friend is pretty close. The message is generic and it is not referring to WTC. I'm sure someone has mistakenly taken that image for use.
(I tried visiting the site again to re-read the text, but the page seems to have been taken down)
Yeah, I couldn't find it either. Bet someone just used some stock footage, and when someone pointed out what it was, they took it down for now. I'm sure they'll use something else next time, perhaps less recent. Like the Hindenburg (sp?) or something from stock they don't have (or want) to pay for.
Not happy, but not offended.
Worshiping the images of 9/11??? Tone down your rhetoric, it is not like you are the one being offended here. Where is your outrage coming from? Americans keep getting accused of being insensitive all the time, but when Americans get offended, that's your response?!?! Shame on you...
I am not from NYC, but after being exposed to the same images in the past five years, I can immediately recognize WTC. It is very very obvious.
Well, somebody took a picture of WTC rubble before it got darkened and pushed to the side a bit and then added the kid in the foreground. Somebody knew what was being done. It could have been a mistake, but a very big mistake.