MD Anderson Threatening Ad
-
Scott - I have no idea how you take it that way. And sure, if you said those things while just standing in the middle of the airport with nothing around, you might get in trouble, but if you're even causally looking at the billboard and reading it aloud... well I do suppose we live in ridiculous times. lol
-
@Dashrender said:
Scott - I have no idea how you take it that way. And sure, if you said those things while just standing in the middle of the airport with nothing around, you might get in trouble, but if you're even causally looking at the billboard and reading it aloud... well I do suppose we live in ridiculous times. lol
Take it which way? In the literal sounding way? What is the ad even saying? It is "removing cancer" from its statements. Which would imply that they are "no longer going after cancer" and "no longer a cancer treatment facility". Right? Other that reading into it something that isn't in the readable ad text what is the ad trying to say?
The only thing it shows is that cancer has been struck out. If cancer had been cured, I could see this meaning that they don't need to deal with cancer anymore. But given that it has not, what do you believe 1) they ARE promoting and 2) it comes across?
-
Remember.... I found this posted online in a thread elsewhere where people had posted it for the reason I mention. A much more "mainstream" community than an IT one. So this isn't a "Scott thing" in any way whatsoever.
-
Sure, in a purely literal, grammatically correct appearance, the strikethrough (missing from FF) would mean removing cancer from their services. But that's clearly not what they intend.
To me, their intention is to say something to the effect that they defeat cancer, that they remove it from you, the patient.
What site did you find this one? Was it posted by someone who is a writer? Again, in this case it's context that changes the meaning for the masses. Should it be done? meh, maybe not and if not it's because the strikethrough has a very specific known reason. But even writers choose to purposefully break the rules to bring attention to things at times, and those broken rules are sometimes what makes a specific writer great.
-
@Dashrender said:
Scott - I have no idea how you take it that way. And sure, if you said those things while just standing in the middle of the airport with nothing around, you might get in trouble, but if you're even causally looking at the billboard and reading it aloud... well I do suppose we live in ridiculous times. lol
Oh, and I take it back.. I do know how you take it that way, but then again, the ad isn't meant for you either.
-
@Dashrender said:
To me, their intention is to say something to the effect that they defeat cancer, that they remove it from you, the patient.
But they specifically made the ad say the opposite. You are bringing in what you "feel they meant to say or would want to say" into the equation rather than reading what has been put on the ad itself.
This is the same way that marketers get people to think that they've said all kinds of things about products that they have not. Getting the customer to "guess what we meant" and then think that they said it and stand by the statement is a marketing trick we've talked about before.
And yes, I understand that the ad surely is not meant to say something bad. But 1) Im not 100% sure what they are trying to say and cannot determine it completely from the ad, your guess is just one possible option and 2) whatever good thing they meant to say is not said NOR implied by the ad itself but purely from a certain type of reader.
-
@Dashrender said:
Sure, in a purely literal, grammatically correct appearance, the strikethrough (missing from FF) would mean removing cancer from their services. But that's clearly not what they intend.
It's the only use for that there. You can ask @dominica as I pointed several of these out to her last month and she agreed that the ads, even when you had five or six different ones in one place, made zero sense.
-
@Dashrender said:
What site did you find this one?
9gag, people mocking it for being nonsense and saying the opposite or completely different than intended.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
To me, their intention is to say something to the effect that they defeat cancer, that they remove it from you, the patient.
But they specifically made the ad say the opposite. You are bringing in what you "feel they meant to say or would want to say" into the equation rather than reading what has been put on the ad itself.
This is the same way that marketers get people to think that they've said all kinds of things about products that they have not. Getting the customer to "guess what we meant" and then think that they said it and stand by the statement is a marketing trick we've talked about before.
And yes, I understand that the ad surely is not meant to say something bad. But 1) Im not 100% sure what they are trying to say and cannot determine it completely from the ad, your guess is just one possible option and 2) whatever good thing they meant to say is not said NOR implied by the ad itself but purely from a certain type of reader.
You're absolutely right. But that doesn't matter. Those that are affected by cancel that are looking for solutions will call, and that is all the advertiser cares about. This ad is totally there to emotionally drive someone.
-
The bottom line is, it does not convey a defeat of cancer when you read it quickly. And you can't tell what is intended, even after long discussion.
I believe that there is every reason to believe that they are advertising that they are moving beyond cancer to treating other things.
What you think that ad implies is completely arbitrary and even less supported by the ad itself than what I think it could also mean.
End of the day, you do not know what the ad was meant to say and are guessing.
But more importantly, a casual glance at the ad does not leave someone walking by the sign with a sense of cancer being defeated. A quick read you don't even see thew word cancer. You just see the words that the guy is "coming for you".
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
To me, their intention is to say something to the effect that they defeat cancer, that they remove it from you, the patient.
But they specifically made the ad say the opposite. You are bringing in what you "feel they meant to say or would want to say" into the equation rather than reading what has been put on the ad itself.
This is the same way that marketers get people to think that they've said all kinds of things about products that they have not. Getting the customer to "guess what we meant" and then think that they said it and stand by the statement is a marketing trick we've talked about before.
And yes, I understand that the ad surely is not meant to say something bad. But 1) Im not 100% sure what they are trying to say and cannot determine it completely from the ad, your guess is just one possible option and 2) whatever good thing they meant to say is not said NOR implied by the ad itself but purely from a certain type of reader.
You're absolutely right. But that doesn't matter. Those that are affected by cancel that are looking for solutions will call, and that is all the advertiser cares about. This ad is totally there to emotionally drive someone.
Will they? It seems clear that that's not who they are marketing to. Do people with cancer call random hospital ads? Do they call ones that aren't clear that they 1) treat cancer anymore or 2) focus on it like they used to?
-
And, if the doctors there can't figure out that this is a crazy ad, why would you want them treating you?
-
Clearly this is a bad grammatical ad. But I think you're reading way to much into it.
Also, those that I've known that have cancer that are searching for answers will call anyone and everyone that they even think could possibly provide a solution... so yes I do think they will get calls.
As for the Drs at the hospital. They don't write or even approve these ads. Some ad agency writes them.. and some board or CEO approves them. Now you personally may feel that this ad shows a systemic problem with that facility, and that's completely up to you (and the people on 9gag).
-
@Dashrender said:
Clearly this is a bad grammatical ad. But I think you're reading way to much into it.
See, that's what I feel you are doing. All I know is that the ad says nothing and you are working off of what you feel they would want you to know but not what the ad says. I'm reading nothing into it, that's the point. Getting anything from it means you have to read into it and add your own opinion rather than reading what the ad says itself.
-
@Dashrender said:
Also, those that I've known that have cancer that are searching for answers will call anyone and everyone that they even think could possibly provide a solution... so yes I do think they will get calls.
But do they want calls? You are reading into it to feel that way. It's a reasonable option, but we don't know that for sure from the ad. And having gone through my mother having cancer, this would have done literally nothing. If a place was well known for cancer she would have gone on reputation, not chosen to call based solely on reading into the inability to write ad copy. That might be the worst reason for calling a medical facility ever. If I had a disease I'd want to know what medical professionals thought was a good facility and what had a good track record. That a cancer facility even needs to advertise should be cause for serious concern about it.
-
Do these two lines say the exact same thing do you?
-
@Dashrender said:
As for the Drs at the hospital. They don't write or even approve these ads. Some ad agency writes them.. and some board or CEO approves them. Now you personally may feel that this ad shows a systemic problem with that facility, and that's completely up to you (and the people on 9gag).
If I was a doctor there, I'd be pretty upset at this representation. But maybe they can't get discriminating doctors. They don't appear to be able to afford good advertising people. This is a pretty big blunder and super obvious.
But, like I said, if they need to advertise and aren't busy, likely they don't have good people (see other thread about how most companies can't have the good people.)
-
@Dashrender said:
Do these two lines say the exact same thing do you?
At a quick glance, yes, because the striked out word is not visible without stopping and spending time to pay attention to it, something you cannot do with billboards typically.
If I take time to read it.... the first one makes zero sense. Because if cancer hasn't been defeated, it sounds like the threat has been shifted to something else. And if cancer has been defeated, what is it saying?
-
@Dashrender said:
Do these two lines say the exact same thing do you?
I'd have to say no, they don't mean the same thing. But only because they didn't strikeout the ","
-
If they meant to say that cancer was defeated, this doesn't imply it. If they meant that they are moving on, they forgot to mention what they are fighting instead of cancer.
