The text is trying to emotionally draw you to making the decision to give money to the charity of Barnardo's. Because of the information in the text I know who their target audience is. They are looking for people who go to work and earn a wage that is of a sufficient amount a year. To be a bit more precise they are looking for people with disposable incomes and even perhaps people who have children. These adverts draw your emotional feeling for the baby's position.
In this world of advertising it's hard to determine weather they failed their aim to raise the awareness of poverty. It brings the question to mind, does bad press in the advertising world potentially fail your aims of advertising? In my opinion this is not nessaccerally true. As people looked at the images in disgust they will see the logo of Barnardo's and through the shock tactic that the photographer has used they will remember the charity and what they stand for, not nessaccerally in a good light but they will remember. And that in my opinion is successful advertising. Barnardo's was asked these questions bellow and these are the response they gave.
“What does Barnardo's think the adverts will achieve?
“The adverts are part of the Barnardo's campaign 2003 on Child poverty. The one key role of these adverts is to deliver the message across the nations that children growing up in poverty are robbed of their future.”
“These hard-hitting images will cut through the prejudice and apathy that we know exists, and engage with the target audiences and drives them towards supporting Barnardo's vital work. We want the adverts to provoke debate surrounding child poverty and establish this issue as significant”
“Finally, these adverts will continue to build the position of Barnardo's as a modern, relevant and deserving charity to maximise our potential for fund raising and influencing social policy for children.”
“The concept behind the silver spoon campaign refers to the proverb “born with a silver spoon in your mouth” meaning to be born into life of opportunity and prosperity.”
“Barnardo's is using metaphor within the advertising to make the point that not all children are born with the same opportunities or aspirations for the future. Children born into poverty are more likely to have a life that stays hard and a future of homelessness, substance misuse or crime.”
“Using the line ‘not every child is born with a silver spoon,' there are three different executions each featuring a newly born baby with an object superimposed in his/her mouth in order to demonstrate metaphorically the possible future consequences of children who are born into poverty. The objects chosen are a syringe to signify drug abuse, a bottle of methylated spirits to signify alcohol abuse and a cockroach to signify poor living conditions.”
“There is also a fourth advert in the campaign that shows a newborn baby with a silver spoon with the strap line ‘if only every child in the UK was born with a silver spoon'. This presents Banardo's vision that the lives of all children should be free from poverty.”
“The cockroach is an effective symbol of poverty. It is an unpleasant and unwelcome pest that thrives in squalid living conditions and blights the lives of those children
And their families that are unable to escape using the cockroach as a symbol of poverty was triggered from the experiences of service users and staff that were consulted.”
“The entire campaign cost £1,000,000 this is less than 1% of turnover, this spend was stretched considerably by the contribution of free recourses from our agencies and negotiating reductions of cost”
Isn't that a lot just for print? Wouldn't the money be better spent on your projects?
“The spend is less than 1% of turn over and is a fraction compared to other organisations' advertising activities. This budget has been stretched considerably due to the reduction of costs through out the development of the campaign, for example, the photographer Miles Aldridge waived his fees, and we have been given agencies' resources for free”
“Poverty is a key part of Barnardo's vision. We need to address the lack of awareness and apathy that we know exists surrounding child poverty in the UK . The campaigning activities are vital to ensure that the public are aware of Barnardo's work and that Barnardo's continues to be positioned in the mind of the public as a modern and relevant charity to stimulate deservedness and provide a climate for fundraising and influencing”
Did you use real babies for the ad's?
“Yes we used babies of between two and fifteen weeks old who were bathed and then had special make up and petroleum jelly dabbed onto their skin to signify that they were new born babies. There was a nurse on the photography shoot as well as the babies' mothers who were able to swap stories and chat to the photographer who has three young children of his own.”
Aren't you encouraging young children to put dangerous objects into their mouths?
“The adverts are not targeted at small children and will be shown predominantly in news papers.
We photographed the babies separately and then superimposed the objects as a later date in order to create the illusion that the objects were in the babies mouths.”
My responses to the advertisements were of mixed messages. I can't agree that leading a life of poverty can nessacerally lead to a life of drug abuse and a life of squalor, it's the choices the child makes, and it is up to other people such as parents and drugs education teachers to try and deter their child from making the wrong decisions. In this advertisement they have provided a stereotypical outlook on people who live in poverty, this brings present a lack of sensitivity to the poor population in the UK , who's argument is that of offence to the poor population. The up roar that is concerning these advertisements in my opinion is exact. These adverts are offensive as it could create repute between the social classes of society and label these people with an image. The advertisements should be banned. I do not think that the target audience would sympathise with the children in these circumstances so therefore I think that the campaign is at loss.
I think they have succeeded in their aim to raise the awareness of child poverty and their brand awareness in the UK but through neglectful language they have failed the campaign by failing to reach their audience with a positive message. They make fair points that poverty can change a child's life and choices and may lead to missed opportunity but they are insensitive. The pictures implicate that people who live in poverty do not care for their children, it is in a very subtle way that this is put to the audience but I can see the subtle offence that the public may have picked up on. One million pounds was spent on this campaign and it was then later banned, this with care and sensitivity could have been avoided and successful.
