3 ms·
The whole thing strikes me as the ad agency trying to do something clever that will impress other ad industry folks, and not really trying to address any real i
by jleader 13y ago
The whole thing strikes me as the ad agency trying to do something clever that will impress other ad industry folks, and not really trying to address any real issues. Basically, "here's some clever technology, how can we pretend it solves a problem?"
Seriously, abusers will let their kids look at an ad about child abuse, as long as it doesn't have a phone number on it, and the kid in the ad isn't injured?
Is the problem with getting child abuse reported really that the kids don't know the hotline number? "If only those poor abused kids knew the hotline number, they'd all call it."
Also, the lenticular lens restricts the image to a particular viewing angle, not a particular height, so kids standing farther away will see the adults-only image, and adults standing very close will probably be able to see at least the upper portion of the kids-only image.
- eridius 13y agoDid you read the whole article? The upper portion of the "kids-only image" is identical to the upper portion of the adult image. Only part of the lower half is any different.
- brown9-2 13y agoThe article states that the agency was concerned with how to reach children looking at an ad without letting the adult they are with know they are looking at an ad about child abuse. However, the version of the ad that adults see is still about child abuse.