Film, Media & TV0 min ago
Upsettingadverts.
Doe anyone else think that the adverts about animal cruelty,children with deformed mouths etc.are self defeating? I find them so upsetting that I have to look away,on the other hand the latest adverts by Battersea dog’s home showing what can be done with donations are very uplifting and heartwarming.Maybe showing kindness rather than cruelty works better.
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ludwigvan. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I don't watch live TV. I can record 13 channels at the same time and FF through the adverts. Other people in the family have their TV on in the afternoons though and the charity ads seem to be relentless and they are distressing. When it's not charity ads it's funerals or life insurance telling my old folk their funeral costs are going to be a burden to me and they should be ashamed of themselves - that's the way they come across to me.
It's not the content that gets me angry it's the number of charity and funeral ads in an hour, it's a bombardment. The advert break on some channels seem very long, too
It's not the content that gets me angry it's the number of charity and funeral ads in an hour, it's a bombardment. The advert break on some channels seem very long, too
I hardly ever see an ad these days but yes I think you have a point they are cringe worthy. I have sympathy of course but I doubt any donation gets anywhere near the intended target anyway. I just don't trust big charity, too many rake offs to middle men and local officials etc. if 1p in the pound gets anywhere near the child/donkey etc I'll be amazed.
I agree especially as there are so many of them viewers can become immune. The ones I hate the most though are the bombardments for cancer as if we haven't already got enough to worry about. I particularly hate the one at the moment of the woman crying at her hair loss in the shower and always turn it off if I can. I think most of us are aware of the horrors we'll face if we get a diagnosis without being constantly rammed at us on TV. I also think comments like 'if you've had a cough for more than 3 weeks and you don't have coronavirus it could be a sign of cancer' are unacceptable, do we realise how many people are then stuck worrying themselves to death? - and I don't think the general population is of the same mindset as a lot of those on this site who think anything wrong has to go straight to A&E or their GP instantly.
I can never understand why these people keep breeding children when they know what their life is going to be like. Some of these countries have had problems for as long as I can remember but still they produce babies in famine and war zones. Since I was at infant school when we had 'Sunny Smiles' booklets to sell to raise money for whatever charity it was there have been countries producing more and more children when they can not look after them.
Lankeela, that is a very complicated subject. Very poor families in Victorian Britain had large families and they accepted that it was likely that some of their children would either be stillborn or not reach adulthood. I know there was no reliable contraception then but they knew what caused pregnancies.
Just like people living in extreme poverty in third world countries today those Victorian families relied on their children to look after them in the later years - if they lived that long. The extended family is crucial.
In many communities babies are considered to be blessings and it goes against the social norms to use any form of contraception and in some societies childless couples are stigmatised - there must be a reason their god hasn't blessed them with children.
Often families rely on their children to help contribute to the family income even from a very young age especially if they work in agriculture.
Very limited access or no access to contraception is another factor when couples are prepared to use it.
There are plenty of large families in the UK where parents are unable or unwilling to support their children financially or emotionally and give them no stability or proper values whatsoever. I can think of no valid reason why they keep having children.
Just like people living in extreme poverty in third world countries today those Victorian families relied on their children to look after them in the later years - if they lived that long. The extended family is crucial.
In many communities babies are considered to be blessings and it goes against the social norms to use any form of contraception and in some societies childless couples are stigmatised - there must be a reason their god hasn't blessed them with children.
Often families rely on their children to help contribute to the family income even from a very young age especially if they work in agriculture.
Very limited access or no access to contraception is another factor when couples are prepared to use it.
There are plenty of large families in the UK where parents are unable or unwilling to support their children financially or emotionally and give them no stability or proper values whatsoever. I can think of no valid reason why they keep having children.
davebro - // "You all remember the ads you have seen, that's ads doing what they are supposed to do."
Yeah but no but yeah! If you remember the ad was off-putting won't you not give to that charity or avoid buying that product? //
It's a known fact that some advertisers will construct an ad campaign that is intentionally irritating (Go Compare!) because people will talk about about it, and even if that is because it is irritating, a proportion of the people who hear the product name will investigate, and potentially buy it.
Yeah but no but yeah! If you remember the ad was off-putting won't you not give to that charity or avoid buying that product? //
It's a known fact that some advertisers will construct an ad campaign that is intentionally irritating (Go Compare!) because people will talk about about it, and even if that is because it is irritating, a proportion of the people who hear the product name will investigate, and potentially buy it.
// it's funerals or life insurance telling my old folk their funeral costs are going to be a burden to me//
the funeral insurance - you are better off saving - martin Lewis's competitor ( phil someone) said of the post office
"i rang to check and its true - the pay out goes DOWN the longer who are a contributor - I cdnt beleive it"
the funeral insurance - you are better off saving - martin Lewis's competitor ( phil someone) said of the post office
"i rang to check and its true - the pay out goes DOWN the longer who are a contributor - I cdnt beleive it"
1 to 16 of 16
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.