This is confusing.
According to this Gazette LttE, the letter writer firstly *admits* that they don't pay attention to TV commercials.
So CADA airs a public awareness announcement (it's basically an old 'commercial' that was produced by MTV, with different background song and labelling at the end) about drunk driving and it successfully served the purpose of catching his attention, and now he's complaining about the 'shock value'?
What the hell?
We need a little shock factor in our system, since our society is so damn apathetic to the dangers of driving while drunk. And since the only time most Bermudians are watching the same program is usually the Y&R-evening news-Oprah block, this is the best time to drive home the point to the general population at once.
Shoot, by this one single event and response, CADA has totally trumped everything that the Road Safety Council has. Well done.
Besides, young people aren't going to be traumatized by seeing someone wet their pants. Hell, it may actually stimulate conversation between the kids and their parents! As for a *gasp* thong on the air, there are surely more unpleasant things that come on the air before and afterwards. Substitute the thong shot with the proverbial "plumber's crack" and it's the same effect.
But perhaps he'd be happier if they just put up some happy smiley face telling the island to "just say no" to drinking and driving. Then he and the other 'average joes' can continue to ignore the commercials as usual.
2 comments:
After reading your comments, I would like to leave the following response:
1. I agree that CADA has a wonderful, thought provoking ad which stimulates conversations like this.
2. I agree that the writer of the letter missed the point in regards to combating the chaos which is drinking and driving in this or any other country.
3. However, I do not agree with your statement about CADA's trumping the efforts of the BRSC - - both of these agencies work in co-operation on a regular basis, so to suggest competition between the two is unnecessary. Their functions are different as CADA lobbys for only alcohol related changes in legislation and promotes drinking/driving awareness while the BRSC lobbys for changes in road related legislation (the BYL, vision testing, random side sobriety checkpoints, seatbelt law, cell phone bans, etc.) and promotes all different types of road safety messages (driving, riding, bike safety, helmets, road signs, etc.) I will admit that the BRSC can do better and should do better without question. I just don't think a comparsion is warranted.
Thanks for the opportunity to blog about it. Blessings be.
Thanks for the feedback, much appreciated.
You raise a good point in that CADA and the Road Safety Council aren't in competition, nor should they be. And everyone benefits from their occasionally working together in common circumstances, I would believe. Thanks for highlighting that key item and I apologise for insinuating otherwise.
Post a Comment