LooseSuits

I see a pretty picture, and no I'm not particularly upset by it. It's bright and colorful. :)

I gotta say that I find most of those commercials distasteful in the extreme. They use shock value to try to talk about a serious issue and I think that it just dilutes their point. Most of their commercials seem to focus on demonizing the tobacco companies instead of getting the facts about the dangers of smoking out to young people. No one is going to stop smoking because tobacco executives are pricks, they'll quit smoking when you tell them plainly and articulately about what smoking does to their bodies.

I change the channel as a matter of course whenever I see those awful commercials.

</rant>

I'm with you too on thinking that their new slogan is inappropriate.

It's definitely gone overboard. A revamp of the whole campaign is long overdue.

Ah, "what the f***'s up?" It took me a moment to figure it out. So this is being shown at a time when children (who know what this says) are watching? If that's the case, then it is inappropriate. What's wrong with "Don't smoke, it'll kill you"? "Here's an x-ray of healthy lungs, and here's an x-ray of a smokers lungs." There really is no need to resort to swearing to get your message across.

@Ollie - it's "what a f*ck up" - as in you're a loser if you smoke. I think education works better than intimidation.

it's "what a f*ck up"

I disagree. The X indicates a "cks" (as in "fucks" or, in context, "fuck's") sound, and the question mark indicates a question.

I think Ollie has it right.

'Course, I haven't seen the ad or heard of the people, so I could be wrong.

Addendum: In the context of the ads, this seems to make little sense, but as I said, I haven't seen the ads. I may have missed a detail, or just have it wrong.

I gotta agree with Ollie on this one all because of the "da" in there. Tyme, you get 1000 pts deducted.

LOL Tyme it's ok I still think your cool. But yes the x says it all.

Not sure what to say but here, it means loser not how it's going. I checked with my son to make sure. Ghetto slang has different meaning in different areas I guess.

I'm pretty sure that these ads are aimed at children, 10 - teenage types, right?

So yes, they'd not only be showing at a time when children are watching, but likely only at times that children are watching.

On the other hand, I think that words only have power over people who let them have that power. Swearing is as silly as casting magic spells by chanting certain words - it only affects people who pretend like it matters.

in my opinion, of course.

Either way of translating the 'word', it's still swearing unnecessarily, which is something I don't think an advert should be encouraging.

My reaction would have to be side by side to WHEN it's aired.

If it's being aired on network TV during hours when kids are watching TV alongside programming aimed at those kids then a BIG shame on them...

If it's showing up on channels geared towards the 18-30 group then I think it's crass but oh well.

Is this being aired when the majority of kids are watching, or is it being aired later at night?

we are having a great discussion over at my blog about this feel free to join in there
http://tcramerica.org/2007/06/28/what-the-s-up/

I read it as "who the .." and it didn't make sense.

It is strange that us, a bunch of grown-ups, could't figure out what it meant but some ad executive bet kids could.

Ah, but if you've seen the ad series for the past several years, then you've probably thought 'What the fu*k's up with that, tobacco companies?'

50/50 on this one.

The F Word is a bit strong for regular, network TV. Especially if younger children see the advert.

But, an anti-smoking campaign aimed at teens and young adults, either use the word or know it, often and well. Effective for the demographic.

Whatever your views are on smoking or whether it's "what a f**k up" or "what the f**k's up" don't matter. The point is, the F word does not belong on network television when kids are watching.

IMO:

I think it was meant to get that type of response out of you. The more people you have talking about that slogan which is also the domain name should ultimately convert into the amount of visitors to the site. Which in turn means that more people will become aware of their cause.

Your being upset at the commercial has many good reasons. Perhaps we disagree on these reasons, and that's fine, but this is my opinion.

I have no problem with the word "fuck" being used on network television. If I think it goes overboard, nobody is forcing me to watch it or listen to it. To me, government censorship is unnecessary. As a person who was raised by responsible parents, I know contexts and social situations in which the word may or may not be appropriately used. Why should we shield our children from the language they will use every day? Does that somehow take the burden of setting reasonable boundaries off of our shoulders as parents? I guarantee you that they are not learning anything new by seeing or hearing the word on television or anywhere else (TRUTH campaign included), and they are not going to refrain from its usage because it's a "bad word." My point is that the usage of the word "fuck" in the way that the TRUTH campaign chose to use it is not what upsets me, and I really don't think that's what should be upsetting about it for anybody.

Aside from the fact that the FCC allows them and very few others to get away with it because -- well, it's propaganda -- my problem is in their presentation and in their use of language, both in an exploitive and self-defeating fashion. First, they are exploiting the use of language that kids and adolescents tend to use with their friends to insinuate that they are within that circle to which (in reality) they do not belong. "Yeah, homie, whudafxup wit' dat?" That doesn't help "relate" to kids and teens, or whatever these people think they're trying to do. Another issue is that the language also implies a certain anti-authoritarian attitude that is reflected by the urban counterculture that they so poorly attempt to emulate. Thus, to me, they almost defeat their own purpose in using it. (Don't smoke, kids! Crack and hoes is better.)

Most people aren't going to read that much into it, but in doing so, I find it irritating and ineffective. Patronizing our kids and speaking to them like they're retards is not the way to approach it. Just keep it simple. "Smoking is deadly to you, and it's rude to blow smoke in other people's faces. If you choose to smoke, know the consequences and be prepared to face them, keep it in moderation, and for gods' sake be polite about it." With that approach, it's not just another buffoon trying to boss them around and telling them what to do. If kids think it's their idea and their choice, they will more often than not choose the better one if they're given enough guidance. ;) Television can never replace good parenting.

"No one is going to stop smoking because tobacco executives are pricks, they'll quit smoking when you tell them plainly and articulately about what smoking does to their bodies."

I am 16, so I'm pretty much the target demographic for this kind of campaign. I tried smoking once when I was eight years old (I lived in a bad neighbourhood), but I've never been someone to do something I don't like--and the smoke was more or less disgusting. I've never smoked once since then.

HOWEVER, I have--rather, had--friends that smoke. A lot of them. Cigarettes and weed, some of them one or the other, some of them both. I have told as a concerned friend, plainly and articulately, what smoking (both substances) can do to their bodies. Do you think by now, after well over five years of health classes (it starts in grade seven here in Canada) that they don't know what it can do?

I think any approach that's different from "it makes your lungs black" ("well, black is my favourite colour"), or "it gives you cancer" ("what the f*ck doesn't, eh?"), is an improvement. Because really, it's not working. People know what it can do. People also know that heroin is bad for you. But if it's cool and all glorious to do it, then they're going to do it. Anything that takes away that "coolness," or general awesomeness that they feel when they do it is good.

Personally, I like stupid.ca campaign, since it puts the whole thing in perspective, which most campaigns don't do.

Anyways, that would be my 5cents.