On Wednesday (March 14), an article in the advertising section of The New York Times focused on the recent backlash against ads featuring themes of suicide. Four ads released early last month, one each for GM, Volkswagen, Washington Mutual and CareerBuilder, have been withdrawn or re-edited because of the controversy. Though suicide was central to the plot of each ad, all of the spots were intended to be funny. But to my mind, there is a vast difference between making fun of a clumsy robot and making fun of a depressed man about to jump off a roof.

In explaining the “archetype of pessimism” which tied the VW ad to two other related spots, Tom Birk, vice president and director for cognitive and cultural studies at Crispin Porter & Bogusky, pointed out that suicide “has been part of our entertainment culture forever, in plays, movies, advertising.”

While that is undeniably true, many still believe that it should not be fair game for advertisers, including Robert Gebbia, executive director at the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. “In the last 10 years, 300,000 people have died from suicide in this country,” said Gebbia. “You wouldn’t see an ad poking fun at someone dying of AIDS or cancer.”

So where should the balance lie? Should suicide be a completely taboo subject for advertisers, or is it simply a matter of treating the subject matter appropriately?

Let’s compare and contrast the spots for GM and Volkswagen to identify what I regard as key differences between the two ads.

First, let’s looks at the GM ad (click here to watch the original version), which was intended to portray GM’s obsession with quality. Thrown out of the factory for dropping a bolt, a robot looks longingly at the GM cars passing by as it carries out various menial jobs. Finally it is all too much for the android, and we see it jump (actually, roll) off of a bridge. Then the robot wakes from sleep, and realizes that the whole thing has been a nightmare.

For me, the ad is clearly a parody. It does a great job of giving human expression to the robot, but the “character” is still just a mechanical object. We might think it cute, but it is tough for us to identify with its demise. Therefore I struggle with the concept that this ad is inappropriate.  (Though I must say, I also struggle with the rationale expressed by Eric Hirshberg, co-president and chief creative officer of Deutsch L.A., the agency which created the commercial.  He said “the most natural place to go for the story, if someone’s obsessed with quality and fails, is suicide.” I can actually think of a few other options.)

By contrast, the Volkswagen ad portrays a man who is on the verge of leaping from a roof. Then suddenly, the despondency he feels over global warming, reality TV and his own sense of social isolation is swept aside, simply because three VW models are now available for $17,000. Sorry, but to me this ad does cross the line, because it trivializes the motivations that lead people to commit suicide. Real humor might redeem it, but, unfortunately, it is just not that funny.

Advertising relies on creating an emotional response to be successful. I doubt the VW ad would evoke a response strong enough to encourage someone to take his own life—but could another ad do so? 

The refrain to the theme song from M*A*S*H declares:

Suicide is painless
It brings on many changes,
and I can take or leave it if I please.

And yet, many people can’t simply “take it or leave it.” Strong evidence exists that many suicides are imitative. In his book Influence: Science and Practice, Robert Cialdini reports research by D.P. Phillips and others that documents the rise in suicide rates following the appearance of front-page suicide stories. Phillips found that in the two months following such stories, an average of 58 additional suicides occurred.  (The deaths are termed “additional” because the upward spike in deaths is not countered by a subsequent dip, which would be the likely case if people who intended to kill themselves anyway had simply acted earlier than they otherwise would have.)

The evidence that suicide is susceptible to publicity should cause people to think twice before they make fun of such a grim matter in an ad. And it should definitely make people think twice about featuring suicidal people in a way that helps viewers identify with them. Press coverage may report in-depth and allow people to dwell on the facts presented, but TV ads do far better at evoking a sympathetic response to the characters portrayed. Also, because they are likely to be seen multiple times, TV ads have the ability to reinforce the images depicted.

I would suggest that responsible advertisers should leave the topic of suicide alone. It is neither painless nor funny, and less sensitive material exists in abundance to fuel their jokes.  Am I guilty of indulging in political correctness by holding to this view? Let me know what you think.

Nigel Hollis suicide advertising robot Millward Brown

 Email This Post

This entry was posted on Thursday, March 15th, 2007 at 4:06 pm and is filed under Creative, Media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Print this Page