Cancer ad features terror attack on Sydney

That’s bloody great!

This is one of those “we’re advertising medicines when we’re not allowed to advertise medicines” ads, isn’t it?

It’s brilliant – really gets your attention and makes you stop and think. Great job

Nicely done, Banjo – nicely done indeed. Doesn’t belittle terrorist attacks and victims but gives a sense of context to this, especially the “front page” vs “nobody wants to talk about it” lines.

Good point that bowel cancer kills more than breast cancer – especially given the prominence of fundraising efforts like Pink Ribbon – but I think putting it next to a terrorist attack is unhelpful. One’s a disease, one’s murder.

Big fan.

Good creative, well executed. If the ad upsets you, your just proving its point.

Time to get me a checkup.

Well this is interesting.

I think I am in a unique position to comment on this given that I’ve spent most of 2009 undergoing treatment for breast cancer, AND I was also an eyewitness to 9/11 and the aftermath as a resident of Manhattan at the time.

For anyone who was there, references to 9/11 in advertising are very hard to take. I personally find these visuals disturbing and I know many people in NYC who would feel the same. Perhaps it’s different for Australians and if you were miles away at the time and watching it on CNN, but for those of us who were evacuated from our buildings amid falling soot, trying to comfort screaming colleagues as fighter jets swept low over our heads…it’s too soon (and given the deep scar this event left on the American psyche it may never be acceptable). I think Andrew Varsadi is being disingenuous if he doesn’t think viewers will make that connection. Once it hits the NY based advertising blogs (and of course, it will) I would be surprised if it gets anything other than a vehemently negative reaction.

Now please don’t comment back about how many 1000’s of Iraqi’s and Afghans have been killed since this happened….yes I know and I agree. The whole thing is a disaster. It doesn’t mean that the 3000 hard working civilians who died that day ‘had it coming’. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Using these images to support discussion of bowel cancer is something I also find odd. Putting my professional hat on, it’s a very dark and almost sinister way to present something that people are already afraid of. Given the nature of the illness and the best way to diagnose it (colonoscopy) is something most people are pretty squeamish about, I’m wondering why they didn’t take a leaf out of the Prostate Cancer Foundation play book…an organisation that has successfully partnered with Movember to take the awkwardness out of discussing that disease, and the way Dr’s check for it (the acronym for those who don’t know is DRE). I mean, I don’t really want to discuss with my Dad how he’s got the prostate of a 50 year old but these days, he feels compelled to tell me.

Now as a cancer patient, the goal for anyone with cancer is to live well, even in the face of a terminal diagnosis. The images of the body bags made me feel ill on so many levels. Why are people happy to talk about breast cancer more than bowel cancer? Probably because the focus for breast cancer awareness is on generating support, early detection and a cure. Focusing on the possibility of death is not helpful because it’s not motivating for fundraising, discussion etc. There is no reason the Gut Foundation could not have taken a more positive approach and tone to what is undoubtedly a serious illness.

So for me…as an advertising professional, ex-New Yorker and breast cancer patient…I have to say this is a fail.

Rachael – you have brought a knowledgeable perspective to this one.

At first I thought it was great as it actually got me looking into the subject matter and thinking about booking to see someone for a check up – something I’d not considered before.

But your insight has brought a new perspective on this ad – I can see your points and although the ad did get me to take further action, I do agree now that perhaps the approach shouldn’t have been the one they’ve taken: a total lack of sensitivity?

Keen to see how this one pans out as per Tim’s prediction (via twitter “Despite the cause I’ve a feeling this will be controversial”)

(disclosure: I have the pleasure of working near Rachael).

The link seems pretty tenuous to me – feels like the execution clouds the idea a bit. Nonetheless it’s good to see some ballsy work in this space.

Rachael has a right to feel upset at that ad and the imagery, but I don’t think that means the ad has done anything wrong.

The images could trigger bad memories for anyone who’s been involved in any sort of conflict anywhere in the world, but I don’t think that means they shouldn’t be used in a context such as this.

People who’ve been in horrible car accidents can find images of car crashes very disturbing, but we still use them in road safety ads because the impact of strong images can work to make people think about the issue.

I think it’s fairly obvious why breast cancer is a more acceptable issue for conversation than bowel cancer. Breast are liked by most people, but not many people want to chat about their bowels because people get embarrassed about what comes out of them, how and from where. A pink theme for boobs is much nicer to chat about at work morning teas than a perhaps a brown theme for your lower intestines and digestive system.

I think this ad works. Particularly the part about the difference in media coverage and general awareness regarding the way people die in Australia. Yes, they methods of death are very different, but this is designed to shock you into thinking about the issue in the first place.

Is there something is the Soy Lattes of Sydney? Are the advertising exec long lunches starting to take over most of the day, and the ideas are flowing faster than the wine? 3 ads in 2 weeks making the news. They say all publicity is good publicity…but I’m not sure Westpac and Toyota agree. I await the Twit-storm eagerly!

For a unique perspective on social media and viral advertising check out http://twotwentynothings.wordpress.com

I work for a charity and I’m impressed that they were able to make an ad with ‘the death message’. we have a constant battle with our medical advisory board in order to promote ourselves and the issues facing the people we try to help. they are vehemently against mentioning death, dying, death statistics and anything that might actually grab people’s attention regarding the seriousness of their chronic illness. Hopefully we can use this as an example of what can be done and improve our own messages and recognition in the community! Well done!

Some lessons are never learnt…

http://adweek.blogs.com/adfrea.....wf-ad.html

@Lauren Miller Cilento
@Polly

Lauren I think what you said is important…that you and your husband talking about your personal experience led to someone you know being diagnosed and treated. WOM and relatability is key.

I agree that the message needs to be communicated but for many people, shock tactics only serve to push them further back into a cave of denial. Having worked on anti-smoking campaigns etc. there is a fine line between what is a motivating hard fact, and what is too difficult to hear, and therefore, ignored.

I have a personal interest in this on several levels. Primarily the death of my father at the age of 56 from bowel cancer when he had seen only one of my three children arrive in the world.
I support the work of the Gut Foundation. Someone in Australia will see this ad, get screened and their life will be saved. It will be a very worthwhile campaign.

Despite the suffering and trauma of individuals, it is important on a social level to put terrorism in perspective. As a threat to our society it is minimal, yet attracts incredible expense and wild legislation.

Youth drinking, disease, and suicide are much bigger concerns, and with all due respect to Rachael, affect many MANY more people in just as dramatic a fashion as terrorism has affected her.

Terrorism shouldn’t be a taboo sacred subject which must not be compared to any other. It can’t be allowed to achieve untouchable status because that licenses governments to restrict social freedoms in it’s name – unjustly, without the statistics to support such an elevated status.

Sure, terrorism is horrible, but it is measured in loss of life, and as such is directly comparable to much more serious issues facing us today, which result in many more innocent lives lost. Funding is limted, so it’s important to spend it where it saves the most people.

Terrorism shouldn’t be that bottomless pit.

Why do we have to be aware of every different type of cancer individually?

Can’t we just tell people to go to the doctor and get checked for cancer full stop.
Breast, prostate, skin, cervical, bowel whatever.

A discussion with a GP is surely the best way to determine which ones an individual is at risk of needs to be tested for, etc.

Does information overload on which types kill more etc etc really help?

I’ve had similar conversations with my Father, given that he worked at Grey in the late 80’s and famously/infamously, worked on the grim reaper Aids campaign.

At the time, it was unbelievably controversial and I feel this ad is an attempt to tap into a similar space, and it touches a raw nerve on many levels as Rachael points out.

However, I don’t doubt it will be a talked about piece of advertising, which is the intent and it does that well.

Previous comment was without last without last name…

It’s a rip off of the WWF scam ad isn’t it?

@GuyMunro

Hi Guy, it reminded me of the Grim Reaper campaign too! That campaign was absolutely right for the issue and the times but I’m not so sure on this one.

I hope it does motivate more people to talk to their GPs. My concern is that you don’t usually have much success treating fear, with fear. The ‘big’ cancers…i.e. breast and prostate…know this and this is why we don’t see that approach in their comms. We see hope, action, even humour etc. Attractive qualities that are aspirational and relatable.

It’s clear that John Singleton and Banjo are being deliberately provocative and no doubt they will generate a certain level of awareness from the ad. I hope the message for people to get screened for bowel cancer if they are concerned, is not lost amongst the conversation around the execution of the ad.

@RachaelLonergan

Agreed. Let’s hope it raises the issue + awareness, not to generate water-cooler chat in agency land!

Rachael Lonergan

Sure it may be a bit sensitive to the handful of people who happened to be in NY during the attacks. But isn’t using a prominent issue (terrorism) to provide a sense of perspective worth it? Especially when the aim is ultimately saving countless more lives by raising awareness of a vastly more lethal & devastating thing.

Well, Anonymous (if I may call you that), there were 8 million or so people on the island of Manhattan that day and I happened to be one of them. If you read the entirety of my comments, my perspective on the ad encompasses quite a bit more than that one day in history.

I think that speaking to males about such a topic requires a certain amount of dramatisation to make an impact and then probably equal amounts of instruction to make it as simple as possible to act. This ad I believe does the former and would assume (hope) that other aspects of the campaign would help address the former.

Choosing any situation to dramatise is hard though as some people somewhere would have had personal experiencies mirroring what is in the ad, be it terrorist attacks, plance crashes, car crashes etc.

The topic is sensitive though. Having been one of those people told they have cancer (all good now), you are in a very different position to those that haven’t or don’t know yet. Probably alot more sensitive to how the message is delivered.

The challenge is that you need to make an impact with those who are apathetic to a particular condition without offending those that have it or have had it. I think this is very hard to do, especially when you are speaking to males.

Personally I would risk putting a few people offside if it meant someone decided to have a test for bowel cancer that hadn’t had one previously and they were able to catch it in time. Therefore I like it.

ah but Chris…herein lies the first issue. It’s not targeting men as bowel cancer isn’t gender biased. Will it be as effective in talking to women?

My gut feel (no pun intended) is that this would be more effective in targetting men. With many medical issues, blokes are basically crap at being aware and getting themselves tested. I’m not sure if this is reflected in testing rates.

You don’t like it and I do, but not sure how representative we are.

Don’t eat so much meat Singo. It helps (edited)

Rachael

I did read your comments in full, I just disagree with them. Bowel cancer kills 650,000+ people a year (including several family members of mine), with very little in the way of public awareness. This ad aims to change that. So (to be blunt) if it puts a few noses out of joint (even though it doesn’t reference any specific event) – too bad. (and 8mil is a drop in the ocean in the big scheme things). I am smack bang in the middle of the target market for this, and found it extremely effective.

I’ve (as have millions of others) had friends die in horrific car accidents, seen fatal accidents at race tracks etc, but I don’t have an issue with those events being portrayed in film – especially if the aim is to save lives.

‘fraid I have to say that, as a communication piece, I doubt this’ll make a difference.

It’s a compelling temptation to link numbers in this way for sure, but that’s kind of unsustainable. There’s no argument, anywhere ever that a single terrorist attack kills more people than any cancer (though I’m not sure that was the message in the ad; it was drawing the drama out and how that drama would assure a front page).

It’s also tempting to connect those numbers to catastrophic events; ones that are seeded deep into our psyche. The 9/11 attacks will remain in memory for a long time, for lots of different reasons and in many different people and herein lies a problem. It was a big event. There have been others since but none as big as this. Drawing a link between a terrible disease and the innocence of dying in a terrorist event is tenuous. The only real relationship then is the number comparison, which isn’t sustainable.

The argument though is whether this campaign will be effective as communication to get people off to the doctor for checks. Some will be affected and do so, but if the aim is to get most people affected, then I don’t think so.

Alternative medicine is a longer term campaign, experiential and in the market (not just talking to the market). A giant colon was making its way across the country some time ago; what happened to that? Maybe a long run ad campaign in newspaper and online that says how many people died this week/fortnight/month could also work, because it hits you more than once.

I don’t think this ad would offend anyone; I simply argue that it isn’t nearly the most effective way to communicate the issue.

What’s wrong with ass cancer adman?….arse cancer?
Listen, now don’t start a riot over this – lol

I just think its lazy and obvious.

@Anonymous et al

I’m sorry but based on your last post you have absolutely missed my point. My 9/11 experience is one reason I don’t like the ad. But I have two other valid reasons for disliking it.

1. my own experience with cancer
2. my professional experience in advertising

My point about 9/11 is that so far, I can’t think of one ad that has used that event and ‘gotten away with it’. I believe that the creators are using that event as a deliberately shit stirring strategy. There is no way they would not be aware of the imagery etc…good for them, if it increases awareness of bowel cancer. To Chris’ point, I don’t like it and thats too bad for me.

I do hope however that it doesn’t overshadow the message and that by using fear based tactics they don’t discourage both men and women from being screened.

@Chris Walton

The research I’ve seen says that just as many women put off going to the doctor as men. The difference is that women talk about it more so the overwhelming belief is that women are actually at the doctor more. A big reason to avoid the doctor….fear! If anyone has research to contradict this, would love to get a link.

The Grim Reaper worked in the 70s – shock, horror.
Get over it Singo – Siiimon did 🙂

btw, as you always did, you’ll get more value from the controversy than the message. And that’s sad when, like me, you’ve lost someone you love deeply to colorectal (bowel) cancer.

Rachel, clearly 9/11 (or 11/9 since we are in Australia) had a big impact on you as you were there. But to think that it was the only terrorist attack in the world, and that this is what Banjo is trying to immitate is just silly. London anyone? Even if it was, why elevate it to untouchable status.

Shit happens in the world, advertising can either ignore it, or use it to make valid points.

@Paul The images are clearly meant to evoke the terror attacks of New York – not London, Bali or anywhere else. Blind Freddy can see that.

Please go back and read all three of my key points in my original email. There are some things there that some people have missed including my admission at the very beginning that 9/11 will certainly mean more to me than to other people.

I am questioning whether shock tactics are valid and create effective advertising results.

So can we please get off the whole ‘you’re not the only person in the world to have a bad day ‘ commentary line now please? It’s not adding anything to the debate.

Oh Rachael. Blind Freddy mustn’t have watched the full ad then, as it references 12 people dying – not 3000. Tunnel vision.

But moving along… Fearfactor. It’s used all the time. Why is this any worse? Or should it never be used at all?

Personally I’d say this isn’t an ad intended to evoke fear – rather to get cut through. Because the cause of death is so removed from what the ad is drawing attention to, it’s not really about making people scared of bowl cancer, but rather to say “hey people, this is serious – PAY ATTENTION!”

No?

‘Images’ Paul.

As to the rest of your post I wouldn’t know where to begin.

This ad is disgusting. It’s a really cheap way of creating a bit of a sensation about death to drum up some business for a private doctor. It does nothing to highlight the real issues about colorectal cancer – the fact that we could and should have a simple screening program for colorectal cancer just as we do for breast cancer and cervical cancer. Instead the government has cobbled together a half baked DIY testing system that has just failed spectacularly when half a million FOBT tests mailed out by the health department were found to be faulty and had to be recalled. Click the Gut Foundation link and it’s talking about young people having a colonoscopy. The average age at diagnosis of colorectal cancer is 79. There are already six month waiting lists for colonoscopy at public hospitals.
And there are now so many cancer scare ads (cigs, skin cancer and now this) that we are getting desensitised. Time you creatives got a bit more creative.

average

Good ad.

Anything that grabs the attention of the fickle, attention-span-of-a-two-year-old media is a winner in my books.

We need everyone to be as aware of cancer and how to prevent it as possible.

good ad. judging by the discussion it’s caused. it’s job is done.

whats with all the americans jumping up and down saying a “disaster scene” in the city with body bags etc is disrespecting americans and 9/11……. uhm ok – are you sure New York is the only city in the world that has had a disaster…?

typical self centered american ranting if you ask me.

(and yeh i know – ironic i live in New York).

Hmmm, good points have been made by a lot of people on this topic, and there certainly seems to be a deep level of insight into this specific form of cancer, however the problem with all health campaigns, is that at the end of the day, noone can force a person to go see a GP by scaring them into action.

This is the hardest part in any kind of healthcare communications activity whether it be advertising, PR or patient engagement. And it’s why campaigns like this should be left to agencies who specialise in the health space.

Imagine being a 65 year old male who struggles to get it up, has high cholesterol, is 15kgs above his recommended weight, is losing his hearing and eyesight, whose wife has a hip fracture, who has recently been diagnosed with early arthritis, who takes pills for all of the above… “Oh great, now we’re at risk of bowel cancer too?”

You cannot drive people to action by scaring them about their health. You need to empower them, their friends and carers to make long term health decisions that benefit both themselves and those close to them.

As of a moment ago there have been 47 comments on this issue here on Mumbrella, and a total of 14 views of the ad on Youtube. Not sure if it is distributed anywhere else or if there is an impending media buy behind this ad but so far haven’t found this information. If they are relying on CSA airtime from the networks then as those of us who work on NFP’s know, it’s a hard road to get your share. Obviously this ad had been in the public domain a little over 24 hours so it’s early days.

For anyone who has not bothered to read my original comments and instead is gleaning some kind of position from recent posts by anonymous trolls, please do.

I have never suggested the ad not run, nor that NYC has some monopoly on tragedy. Trolls on this board are enjoying themselves by trying to paint that picture but it’s simply not true. My comments were to explain that it’s a sensitive issue for some people (using myself as an example…btw, a proud Aussie) but hopefully that won’t overshadow the message the ad is attempting to convey. Every other time I am aware of someone using realistic terrorism within their ad, it has backfired. If there are examples where it has been used in a tasteful way to successfully convey a message, please let me know.

As someone recovering from cancer, I would hope that no one ever has to go through what I’ve been through. Early detection is the key. I hope this ad encourages people with symptoms or within the screening criteria to get checked or discuss it with their Dr’s and family. I just don’t agree with the strategy.

Let’s turn this into a positive.

I do like the logo…thats the kind of cheeky (pun intended) strategy that can really help people feel less intimidated by enormity of the issue.

And a negative

I’m sure John Singleton spent a lot of money on the TVC. I wish they had used some of it to upgrade their website which in my opinion, is somewhat lacking, and I imagine one of the first places people go to seek information if they’re concerned

Hi Tim, I went through to Youtube from the GF website. Will be interesting to see what Joe Public thinks of it when it gets some mass distribution. Cheers, RL

Singo & his team think gastrointestinal cancers are like extremist muslims infiltrating your bowels. Is there an audio version as the 2GB target audience is perfect for this?

I find it highly amusing that Rachel insists on everybody reading her comments before commenting on the ad. It’s as though she thinks everyone has as much free time as her, and it’s necessary that viewers read her opinion before forming their own on the ad.

Good ad btw.

@Anonymous

Actually my point was “if you are going to comment on my comments, please read them first”. If you want to express your own, unfettered opinion about the ad, knock yourself out.

I did express my opinion on the ad, see post 53.

If you are going to comment on my comments, please read them first.

OK, shush now kiddies. I’ve had a gut full…

I’m guessing that Rachael (as an “advertising professional”) works in the Creative department. Centre of her universe with lots of time on her hands and lots to say.

We live in a free country where we have the right to free speech. We don’t need to be corrected each time one of us makes a comment or get referred back to one of your (too numerous to mention) responses.

Just wondering how we’d feel if the americans used the port arthur massacre to sell breast cancer check ups?

I was still woozy from the anaesthetic when the radiologist began my little adventure: “I won’t beat about the bush. You have cancer of the colon.” I was operated on, about 20cm of gut was removed, I have a scar from rib-cage to groin and then the chemo began. Seems to me there is enough drama there without resorting to borrowed interest or specious comparisons with breast cancer (it’s not a competition). The 911 imagery, I submit, is too trite, too easy and too easily seen as just another ad. It does not speak to me where I live. A couple of months after my op, I emailed around 400 of my closest friends describing what I had been through and linking to more information on faecal occult blood tests. I know of at least two kids who still have a father as a result. You’re over 50 or have a relative who has had bowel cancer? Take the test. You don’t even have to see your doctor. More info here: http://tinyurl.com/ya6o3pd

Very, very serious topic. If this ad saves only one life by getting just one person to have a check up, then surely the discomfort felt by other people watching (and I by no means want to trivialise the trauma of terrorism) is a risk worth taking.

I for one think the ad cuts thru. Its a point well made, and one that provides stark reminder that we take more & more precautions in our everyday health life (diet, exercise etc) yet neglect some of the more obvious things like a check up.

Really good awareness. I am personally enthralled by the ad. I’d consider donating to cancer research in the near future.

As someone who lived through the horror of 9/11, mourned the loss of friends and suffered months of nightmares and trauma, I find this ad so deeply offensive and inappropriate.

Cancer is awful and deserves a much greater public awareness, but it should never be compared to mass murder or terrorism.

Why does their logo look like breasts??? Trying to leverage off the wonderful work of the Pink Ribbon campaign and other efforts to raise awareness of breast cancer, is a cheap shot…

Re: Vee

I fail to see how the logo is trying to ‘leverage’ off the wonderful work of the Pink Ribbon campaign. You are correct, Pink Ribbon is a wonderful campaign but your remarks that this bowel cancer campaign is a ‘cheap shot’ are short sighted. If a campaign like this saves one life and prevents one family from feeling unnecessary pain and anguish it will have achieved its purpose.

Sadly, bowel cancer kills as many women as breast cancer. Yet all the women in my family are completely aware of their risks of getting breast cancer, have regular mammograms but not were aware of their risk of bowel cancer or how to be tested.

I suspect this CSA will get people talking and hopefully will drive people to be tested for the disease. Lets hope this is the first step in educating people about another form of cancer which is as deadly as those which we know so much about.

I do like the ad, love the logo but like others on here feel that it could be so much more.

Scary things dont need scarier things to get action. A much better way of getting the message across would have been to get Singo to do a doco style, fly on the wall check-up (ala Mike Munro on Sunday Night). This opens up not only conversation within the family (the nag factor) but also seeing a boomer step up will reduce those perceived barriers other boomers see. I think seeing this would also have the ‘shock value’ that so many on here love.

Cheers
Matt