Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz
First part: Absolutely an ad company should be worried about pissing people off. If they have clients that will be offended by this ad, and could potentially pull business from them, then as a responsible business they should not run the ad, as it could very well hurt their bottom line.
|
A successful ad company is one that can generate interest. Controversial ads, whether you like them or not, generate that interest. It appears Pattison is not in the business of that, and to me that's a shame. I think people can form their own opinions about the oil industry without having to be hidden from organizations that oppose oil production.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz
Third part: An ad agency is under no obligation to put this up, nor are they stoppoing Greenpeace from getting thier message out in some other manner. This isn't censorship, it's a private company making a decision about what messages they want to be associted with.
|
Yeah, I know.. I've stated that several times. Its just unfortunate that this decision has been made. What if it had been BP opening up a solar power division, and they wanted to put up an ad for it? Or is this just a middle finger to Greenpeace?