I hate it when this happens, but I'm having a controversial opinion, and I won't rest until it's out. It's about this Primedia "Stop Rape" campaign, and before I start ranting, I better state some things clearly.
The first is that I am (rather obviously, I should hope) vehemently horrified by the rape situation in this country, and by Anene Booysen's death, and by the atrocities women locally and internationally are suffering.
The second is that I am an expert in advertising law, and maybe plain language, and writing - not in rape politics. Although along the way I've managed to pick up a psychology degree or two. So, I am going to try to limit my thoughts to the advertising aspect of the Stop Rape campaign, and the rules around advertising in a disturbing manner.
So, let me start on Friday morning, and I have just (thank goodness) dropped my small children at school. I turn 702 up, hoping to get a bit of radio enjoyment in the two blocks I travel home, and I find myself subjected to a horror story about a child being raped by a school driver. Now the next thing I must be clear about is that I turned the radio off when the words "her bladder collapsed" sounded; and I continued to turn off anything disturbing during the day. So I am not an expert on the entire contents of the campaign.
Nonetheless, I arrived home feeling sick and personally violated, struggling to focus on my work. Which is most probably the intention of the advertisement.
Getting the message across
Now here's the thing. The general rule about advertisements around social issues and wrongs is that they can go further, and shock, and disturb, as compared to advertising for products. So the disturbing images we saw for a few years of accident victims from drunk driving and speeding incidents was justified because it might scare us out of doing the same. And a horrifying ad I had to consider when working at the ASA, showing a baby drowning in the running bath while its drunk parents fought, was justified because maybe an alcoholic would get help based on that ad.
In other words, the sense of violation the viewer or listener feels is justified because people who see the ad might change their behaviour patterns as a result.
Now let's look at the Stop Rape ad that I turned off. Is that ad going to scare people into stopping rape? In the first place, I don't think that the majority of violent rapists are listening to intellectual talk radio. I know that that is a generalisation; and I know that many rapes are committed by men that are professional and intellectual, BUT I think the particular type of rape that is horrifying us as a nation, the type of rape that killed Anene, is committed by groups of violent and uneducated men. Not middle-class liberals dropping their kids at school and hoping to hear a bit of talk radio.
Second, those rapists who ARE listening to 702 and other stations involved - do you think that they suddenly go "Oh gosh, I had no idea that people minded. Oh silly me, I'll just stop raping people right now."
Will shock tactics work? Unlikely
And as to getting the government to do something about rape - making then feel our outrage - well, I struggle to believe that they are neglecting rape out of a particular choice. I like (I use that word loosely) to think that they neglect rape convictions and captures and sensitive policing out of their general incompetence rather than out of a special focussed negligence. And will bigoted misogynists, who hand down sentences that are lenient because the raped child was treated carefully, suddenly say, "Oh I thought everyone agreed. I'll be stricter from now on"? I doubt it.
So where is the justification for these disturbing commercials? It's not going to change the behaviour of rapists. It might make government slightly more sensitised; but we're talking about people who can't even feed the nation competently. So I really wouldn't hold my breath for remarkable change.
Perhaps the justification lies in the fact that it has started dialogue and thinking - and maybe someone will have a clever idea that actually works. And I totally agree that if one fewer woman is raped because of this campaign, then it worked. I just struggle to believe that that will be the case. So I struggle to believe that the sense of personal violation that I had from this campaign is, in fact, justified. (And again, to be clear, I would be happy to feel this comparatively mild violation if I thought it would help. I just don't.)
Gail Schimmel is a specialist in advertising law. She runs a consultancy - Clear Copy (www.clearcopy.co.za) - that offers advice to marketers and advertisers in relation to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and other aspects of advertising law. An admitted attorney (with BA, LLB, Psychology Honours and LLM degrees), she was previously head of legal and regulatory at the ASA, and subsequently joined Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs as a director in 2008. Email and follow @GailSchimmel.
LEGAL DISCLAIMER: This Message Board accepts no liability of legal consequences that arise from the Message Boards (e.g. defamation, slander, or other such crimes). All posted messages are the sole property of their respective authors. The maintainer does retain the right to remove any message posts for whatever reasons. People that post messages to this forum are not to libel/slander nor in any other way depict a company, entity, individual(s), or service in a false light; should they do so, the legal consequences are theirs alone. Bizcommunity.com will disclose authors' IP addresses to authorities if compelled to do so by a court of law.
I agree with the comment. No amount of advertising is going to change the scourge of rape, but it will highlight the issue. I guess that is the best outcome we can hope for.
A bit like the plight of the rhino. It is all about education and changing attitudes. I am all for a name them and shame them approach.
Clearly the current approach is having no effect what so ever, so we need to do something different. Or will it be like the waste of time Love Life campaigns that are just wasting money and keeping some people employed?
Totally agree Gail. Only thing that might work is for the Govt to introduce amputation of the convicted rapist's equipment. Then advertise that. [Guarantee there'd never be a "Take a shower afterwards" story]
As with all advertising campaigns, it is not going to 'make' government or anyone do something they may not do before the campaign. It does however create awareness and help educate those that may actually be listening. it may cause a change of mindset and a way of thinking which is a start. It is also a way of communicating to those that may be uneducated and in fact a victim of rape, into beliveing that what happened to them is not ok. Bear in mind that even uneducated people listen to the radio. Perhaps having a more positive outlook on the campaign may in fact help it to have a more positive outcome and result.
The more people that are outraged by the facts, stories and real rape cases (not only the Anene Booysen's case), the more likely victims will get helped even if by the public and those that have the means and heart to do something about it. Just becasue the govenment may not be affected or may not do anything constructive about it, does not mean we should not have campaigns to encourage other people to make a difference and change a nation. If even one rape is prevented due to someone knowing that little bit more about protecting their own kids, the campaign was worth it. We are ultimately talking about humanity.
Well creating adverts showing gruesome images wont deter rapists but it creates increased awareness amongst people. The adverts aim to get more people to rally around the issue of rape so that individuals can help stop rape incidents.
I understand what you are saying but I still don't think rape prevention ads work. Most rapists get excited by the idea of the attention given to them. I'ts like adrenaline junkies. If anything, I think these campaigns pump them up. To hear the screams on radio, to see the girl in torn clothes on tv, makes them want to do it some more. Besides, they know that even if they get caught, they'll serve a couple of years then come out. Better yet, they walk free because of "lack of evidence". The sad part is that society knows but there's nothing we can really do.