TRUTH commercials...over the top?

[Bullet Theory]

I was wondering if anyone else saw the TRUTH commercials as too over-the-top. I saw a few recently that just annoyed me. They both have the same concept: Would you help your friend if they were in trouble.

One featured two girls at a dock. One was in the water, drowning while the other was just watching, then the voice over comes in: If your friend was in trouble, would you help them?

The other featured two guys. One was injured in the middle of the road and he had wrecked on his bike. The other guy was just staring at him while a truck was headed towards them. Again, the voice over: If your friend was in trouble, would you help them?

Now I don't know about you, but if either of those two instances had hapened to me, I would be helping as best I could to get them out of harm's way. Am I the only one who thinks this?

[AzureWolf]

[FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=Blue]I don't see the big deal: they are just showing you that doing nothing when your friend is smoking right in front of you is the same as letting them drown in front of you or getting hit by a car. If you ask me, it's a pretty nice analogy. I don't see anything wrong with it.

The idea of a commercial, in which you only have seconds to convey your message, is 1. to grab your audience's attention as fast as possible, and 2. convey the message as clearly as possible. The Truth commercial succeeds in those respects.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[wrist cutter]

[QUOTE=The Nameless]
Now I don't know about you, but if either of those two instances had hapened to me, I would be helping as best I could to get them out of harm's way. Am I the only one who thinks this?[/QUOTE]

Um, that's kind of the effect they're going for. Apparently the commercials aren't very good though because it seems like you're missing the (blatantly obvious) point.

[DeathBug]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]I gotta' say, I like the new TRUTH commericals much more that the ones they had several years ago, when they had grainy reels of lame prank phone calls. My favorites will always be the movie preview ones, and the musical.

Anyway, to the point: if it's disturbing you enougfh that it's staying in your thoughts and getting you to discuss it, it's excellent advertising.[/color][/size][/font]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

I think the TRUTH commercials are idiotic. Rather than describe actual dangers of smoking (which is the only legitimate reason for such commercials to exist, mind you), they convey it as some sort of involuntary suicide (an oxymoron...maybe I need a better phrase). I don't know about you, but smoking every once in a while and crashing a bike in front of an oncoming truck are two different things no matter how you look at them.

Sure the ads grab your attention, but that's hardly a redeeming feature. If I made an ad which had some big guy treating two naked women like all-you-can-eat buffets and then had a boulder fall on them and turn them into a bloody mess, following up with a "safe sex" phrase on the screen, sure, I'd grab your attention, but it's hardly a proper way to make the point.

Honestly I'm concerned about the motives that these anti-smoking campaigns really have. Seems to me like they're funded to do their job and they'll do it as hardcore ridiculous as they can just to justify their existence and make sure they keep getting funded.

[DetectiveMikeRS]

Smoking is a choice. Drowing in a lake is not, that makes this analogy, very pointless. If someone wants to smoke they do that because they enjoy it. South Park tought a good lesson on this topic, I just feel that if you smoke, its' your choice, and a commercial isn't going to change that, since most people tune out of them anyways.

[DeathBug]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Seems to me like they're funded to do their job and they'll do it as hardcore ridiculous as they can just to justify their existence and make sure they keep getting funded.[/quote]
[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]^__^ You just described every single political and social organization in the world.[/color][/size][/font]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='DeathBug][color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]^__^ You just described every single political and social organization in the world.[/color][/size'][/font][/quote]

True, true, but sometimes the organization is actually good for [i]something[/i], lol.

[Brasil]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade]True, true, but sometimes the organization is actually good for [i]something[/i'], lol.[/quote]But if an organization's point is to deter people from smoking, isn't that organization good for something? Smoking deterrence is a noble cause, certainly, and while the execution of some of their commercials is questionable, TRUTH still holds a rather commendable objective. I think their best commercial was the Times Square one, where they had a large number of people lay down in the middle of Times Square, to show how many die each day from smoking.

[Semjaza]

They got you all talking about it. I'm sure that's 99% of what they were trying to accomplish in the first place. Everything else just follows.

[James]

[quote name='DetectiveMikeRS']Smoking is a choice. Drowing in a lake is not, that makes this analogy, very pointless. If someone wants to smoke they do that because they enjoy it. South Park tought a good lesson on this topic, I just feel that if you smoke, its' your choice, and a commercial isn't going to change that, since most people tune out of them anyways.[/quote]

[color=#707875]I agree. Drawing a comparison between someone smoking and being hit by a car is pretty ridiculous. If that's all the commercial is doing (and I haven't seen it, I've only read the initial post in this thread), then such analogies don't even work to begin with.

So in that context it seems like a total waste of money.

In addition, it seems like they're pulling a guilt trip on those around the smokers, rather than the smokers themselves. That strategy is completely backward. lol

If you know anything about smoking (and other addictions, like gambling or alcohol), you also know that no amount of pressure from your friends is going to make you stop. It'll only serve to annoy you. lol

A smoker has to be convinced to stop and they have to have the willpower to do it themselves. So, both the analogy [i]and[/i] the core message are pretty pointless, I'd say.
[/color]

[Epitome]

[size=1]Not trying to get anyone upset or anything, but if you think the TRUTH commercials or even the Anti-Drug ones are, then you dont understand why the put those on the tele. Im glad the continuously keep pushing on this for a couple of reasons:

Number 1: Me, when I see those commercials I see how much drugs and cigarettes can do to you. I know that I will try them, but when I see those commercials it makes me not want too. And I will have a f***ed up future if I do that stuff.

2nd Reason: My Grandmother and Grandfather have bother died from Lung Cancer that they got from cigarettes. And I would hate to see someone in my family have to die from them again. When she died that sealed the deal that I would maybe try a cigarette, but if I did, once would be the only time I would. And I would NEVER do it after that.

Last Reason: My brother smokes... He started around 16 and now he has been recently diagnosed with cancer as well. Since then, he has stopped smoking and has been fighting it out. The doctors think he may be able to make it through the fight, but we are not sure. Hopefully he will.

So this is why the TRUTH commercials and all these anti-drug commercials arent "over the top."

EDIT: [quote]I agree. Drawing a comparison between someone smoking and being hit by a car is pretty ridiculous. If that's all the commercial is doing (and I haven't seen it, I've only read the initial post in this thread), then such analogies don't even work to begin with.[/quote]

Personally, I dont think its ridiculous at all. It has the same outcomes as cigarettes and drugs, especially if your driving under the influence of drugs. But smoking and getting in a car crash have the same possible outcomes. Just think about it.

If you get in a car srash, at my age at least (15-16), your parents will be pissed and ground you and make you pay off the damage, or possible death. If you smoke at my age, and you get caught, parents ground you and make you stay in the house and do stuff around the house all day or possible death. So its really not ridiculous in my views.[/size]

[natetron46]

I actually think in terms of statistics, they are similiar. Dont you have about the same chanc to do of cancer form smoking as to be hit by a car.

[James]

[QUOTE=Serraph-Angel][size=1]
Personally, I dont think its ridiculous at all. It has the same outcomes as cigarettes and drugs, especially if your driving under the influence of drugs. But smoking and getting in a car crash have the same possible outcomes. Just think about it.

If you get in a car srash, at my age at least (15-16), your parents will be pissed and ground you and make you pay off the damage, or possible death. If you smoke at my age, and you get caught, parents ground you and make you stay in the house and do stuff around the house all day or possible death. So its really not ridiculous in my views.[/size][/QUOTE]

[color=#707875]It's 100% ridiculous.

The person who created this thread said that we see someone drowning in a lake with their friend standing by. Then we see someone who has wrecked their bike and is lying in the middle of the road, with their friend standing by.

Now, if I'm driving a car and a truck hits me, you could say that it has the same eventual outcome as too much smoking (ie: death). But can you draw a proper analogy between the two? No. Why?

Because smoking is a choice. Nobody is taking the cigarette and forcing the smoker to inhale. A car accident, or falling into a lake is completely different. In both of those cases, we can presume that the individual didn't [i]deliberately[/i] wreck their bike or jump into a lake and drown themselves.

So there is a clear qualitative difference between the two. They aren't comparable; particularly in the way that the ad is portraying them.

Secondly, based on what I've seen here, the ad is putting the focus on the smoker's friend; would [i]you[/i] help your friend if they were dying? That's the message.

There are two problems with this message. One is what I've mentioned already -- the failed attempt to draw a comparison between an accident and a deliberate act.

So, the focus is not being put on the smoker. It's being put on the people surrounding the smoker.

If a member of my family somkes, it is [i]not[/i] my responsibility to stop them. Yes, I can help them if they ask and yes, I can encourage them to seek assistance. But stopping someone from smoking isn't the same as pulling someone out of a lake. There are clear differences.

As I said above, a smoker has to seek help. A smoker is an addict. And a smoker has made a choice to smoke. Only the smoker is able to get themselves out of that situation. By all means, if they ask for help, they can get it from those around them -- obviously in that situation you'd be neglectful not to help. But nevertheless, the comparisons that are being drawn by the ad are totally pointless.[/color]

[eleanor]

[color=firebrick] Uh, maybe we should just take a freaking chill pill and remember that this is a commercial.

A commercial. I'm sure this will be front line news tomorrow.

The point is so painfully simple: if you were a friend and you're friend was smoking, wouldn't you help them? Who CARES if smoking is a choice and drowning is an accident? No one SHOULD, because the whole commercial is directed to friends who should care enough to stop their other friends from smoking. The TRUTH commercials aren't out there because they think they're fun to make- it's trying to get across a message. [/color]

[DetectiveMikeRS]

[QUOTE=maladjusted][color=firebrick] Uh, maybe we should just take a freaking chill pill and remember that this is a commercial.

A commercial. I'm sure this will be front line news tomorrow.

The point is so painfully simple: if you were a friend and you're friend was smoking, wouldn't you help them? Who CARES if smoking is a choice and drowning is an accident? No one SHOULD, because the whole commercial is directed to friends who should care enough to stop their other friends from smoking. The TRUTH commercials aren't out there because they think they're fun to make- it's trying to get across a message. [/color][/QUOTE]


I wouldn't actually call TRUTH commercials, more like propoganda. I despise all comercials, they rate right up there with reporters sticking their dirty fingers into everyone's lives. I've even had a cigarette before, but I hated it and woudln't do it ever again. But those who do like it don't need to be forced to change by TV propoganda, that's why I brought up the Smoke Out episode on South Park, anyone who saw it knows, and it's true, since some people like it since it makes them feel relaxed in thier own mind, and they know the risks, they just have thier own life. If we all listened to what TRUTH and anything else that siad, we'd be robots to them. And Penn and Teller Bull ****, mentioned the truth about the failure on the war on drugs.

[eleanor]

[color=firebrick] Unfortunately for you, South Park wouldn't even be aired if it weren't for commercials.[/color]

[Kazuko]

...

Edited October 11, 2017 by Kazuko

[Transtic Nerve]

The commercials aren't comparing anything, they're asking for a solution.

The commercials, if you read the initial post, say "Would you help your friend if they were in trouble"... Thats the simplicity of the commercial, would you help them.... they don't compare smoking to drowning, they simply ask "Would you help them..." I think it's pretty obvious, regardless that smoking is a choice, that smoking is bad and harmful and therefor not good. As a friend, would you help them to get rid of this harmful thing... thats what the commercial asks. Just as you woul dhelp your friend if they were drowning or if they were hit by a car, the commercial asks if you would help your friend if they were addicted to or doing drugs. Marijuana, Tobacco, whatever. There is nothing ridiculous about saving a friends life, even if they are not in immidiate danger.

[natetron46]

Very true, I dont think thats a good analogy either. You cant stop a freind from swimming in the ocean, just because he runs the risk of a shark attack. The thing is, its his choice, you can try, but its his choice and with something so personal as chosing whether or not to smoke, I dont think you can rightly try to change his life.

[Epitome]

[QUOTE=James][color=#707875]It's 100% ridiculous.

The person who created this thread said that we see someone drowning in a lake with their friend standing by. Then we see someone who has wrecked their bike and is lying in the middle of the road, with their friend standing by.

Now, if I'm driving a car and a truck hits me, you could say that it has the same eventual outcome as too much smoking (ie: death). But can you draw a proper analogy between the two? No. Why?

Because smoking is a choice. Nobody is taking the cigarette and forcing the smoker to inhale. A car accident, or falling into a lake is completely different. In both of those cases, we can presume that the individual didn't [i]deliberately[/i] wreck their bike or jump into a lake and drown themselves.

So there is a clear qualitative difference between the two. They aren't comparable; particularly in the way that the ad is portraying them.

Secondly, based on what I've seen here, the ad is putting the focus on the smoker's friend; would [i]you[/i] help your friend if they were dying? That's the message.

There are two problems with this message. One is what I've mentioned already -- the failed attempt to draw a comparison between an accident and a deliberate act.

So, the focus is not being put on the smoker. It's being put on the people surrounding the smoker.

If a member of my family somkes, it is [i]not[/i] my responsibility to stop them. Yes, I can help them if they ask and yes, I can encourage them to seek assistance. But stopping someone from smoking isn't the same as pulling someone out of a lake. There are clear differences.

As I said above, a smoker has to seek help. A smoker is an addict. And a smoker has made a choice to smoke. Only the smoker is able to get themselves out of that situation. By all means, if they ask for help, they can get it from those around them -- obviously in that situation you'd be neglectful not to help. But nevertheless, the comparisons that are being drawn by the ad are totally pointless.[/color][/QUOTE]
[size=1]Yes, you are right to a certain extent. But what they are doing isnt trying to make a comparison, they are trying to show you what drugs and smoking can do. They are saying to the the viewer, if you have a friend that smokes, or has a problem with drugs, they are asking would you help them if you knew that they were. Same situation in the lake when the girl is drowning, and when the kid crashes the bike. They are asking, would you help a friend in trouble.

So really, its not ridiculous at all. Here let me put it this way: You and a friend are fishing. He falls in... he cant swim, would you jump in and save him.

You have a friend who smokes, you know he has a problem. Would you help him quit because of risks of cancer???

Its all the same. Except for the portion where you are right. They did not delibratley fall into the lake and smoking is a choice, but what they are asking once again is, would you help someone who has a problem with smoking.[/size]