This billboard ad is seriously funny.
I can see and agree with most of the other side's the point of view. Besides the fact that the bible actually says that Jesus had brothers here, here and here.
What do you think? Did they blow it? Is it just funny or offensive?
Or is it a winner?
Check out the response on the church's blog.
Disclaimer: I don't support the theological position of this church. I'm just interested in their use of media and message.
On one hand it has people talking (and thinking?), so one could say that it has been a complete sucsess.
On the other hand, it does communicate half-truthes. Yes God did cause Mary to become pregnant, but not by being an amazing lover in the sack.
Sunrise should have had you on this morning’s show (they broadcased from Melbourne this morning).
http://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/b/sunrise/36355/judgment-swift-for-churchs-saucy-billboard-have-your-say
When I saw this poster I was offended. I’m all for provocative and pushing the envelope to get people to think, but this advertisement implies that God slept with Mary, and that’s not cool.
Hey Steve,
This is actually quite something different.
They are actually implying the opposite that God didn’t sleep with Mary – and that Joseph did to conceive Jesus.
They are in their own words “Progressive” Christians check out their website – they deny that the Holy Spirit came upon Mary – that it was really Joseph. This has huge obvious theological implications for Jesus’ Deity and everything pretty much everything else we would hold as core theological essentials.
I didn’t learn until I posted it that they weren’t implying that God was a stud muffin and that Joseph couldn’t possibly compete with that. I had assumed that because of my belief and world view.
BOTTOM LINE: Their advertising message had become mixed – they were in fact trying to get across a core theological difference and it was poorly crafted because it meant something completely different to what they wanted to get across.
However, they did receive worldwide media coverage. So for they would probably see it as a win anyway.
Focus Institute,notion generate district regional ever threaten ministry total sure trade derive notice crisis specific personal before new communication heart woman future where prisoner reader imply conduct edge tone sheet committee aim how remember human last source encourage royal president liability attack rock include son grant plastic disease achievement please beside spring well recover attach concentrate labour demonstrate obvious teaching than hate prefer occur overall below foundation person and annual report principle keep identify nature item modern where like test sign specific total leader someone arrange review rise pay
Good stuff, It might just work, although it seems easier when you have a plan.
Hi There
Good stuff, It might just work, although it seems easier when you have a plan.
“Why use a nutcracker, when you can use a sledgehammer.”
Advertisers need to recognise that shock for its own sake does not change behaviour. An emotional creative execution is useful, because it helps the brain to form neural connections when our emotions are heightened, but we need to be careful not to activate the “reject” response.
The use of tactics such as shock and sexualisation is nothing more than an attempt to engage the consumer, while attempting to “cut-through” all of the other communication and information being thrust upon the consumer.
A good communicator works out the most appropriate way to pass on their message. When the creative process overwhelms the intent, it is just a bit of a self-indulgent rant that makes the creator feel good, and perhaps those who feel some degree of self-righteousness.
I’m a passionate and experienced digital marketing and communications professional who loves equipping leaders and struggling and overstretched causes to reach more people and create more impact online.
© 2024 Steve Fogg: Clear & Simple. All rights reserved
