Not getting to kiss your loved ones goodnight.

mud

Imagine that?

Why is this ad absolutely everywhere on the site?

I've cancelled it off using the little x but it keeps reappearing.

My feedback regarding this ad is that it is invasive and offensive and is achieving the exact opposite of what the OCF people want.

Boards.ie: Niamh

Thank you for the feedback, I will pass it on to OCF.

It is a Sponsored Post to raise awareness of Lollipop Day (annual flagship fundraising day for the Oesaphageal Cancer Fund) and is displaying in 6 forums plus the homepage until Sunday evening, 5th March. The collection/Lollipop Day days are Friday 3rd March and Saturday 4th March.

My guess is that the ad and content is designed to be both eye-catching and (somewhat) shocking to call out to more people. It appears to have done that.

whoopsadoodles

It's upsetting a lot of people Niamh. Whatever its intention.

Obviously I have nothing against cancer research but this is a very nasty way of promoting it. They can keep their lollipop

0gac3yjefb5sv7

whoopsadoodles wrote: »

It's upsetting a lot of people Niamh. Whatever its intention.

Upsetting people? I've heard it all now. An advertisement for a good cause. Maybe think about the people who need the support more than the people who get annoyed by every little thing.

Pheonix10

Pheonix10 wrote: »

Upsetting people? I've heard it all now. An advertisement for a good cause. Maybe think about the people who need the support more than the people who get annoyed by every little thing.

I imagine theres a lot of people who dont get to kiss their loved ones goodnight for a variety of reasons, and this ad is an unnecessary reminder to them. Its an insensitive ad that relies on shock and guilt

whoopsadoodles

Pheonix10 wrote: »

Upsetting people? I've heard it all now. An advertisement for a good cause. Maybe think about the people who need the support more than the people who get annoyed by every little thing.

I get annoyed by very little. I get upset when I'm reminded every time I click into the forum that I don't get to kiss my children goodnight. Ever.

I've supported this particular cause myself. In fact, I support a lot of causes. I am disappointed with the execution of this particular campaign and I'm not the only one.

It seems to me, that the people who are noticing this ad, and the ones who are upset by it, are the ones who don't need to imagine not kissing their loved ones good night. Wrong target audience I feel.

The Specialist

Pretty crass campaign, obviously the people behind it didn't notice any of the negative fallout a recent "I want to get cancer" advert got for being too clever for its own good.

Imagine being someone diagnosed with a terminal cancer, logging on to boards and being reminded that very soon, they won't get to kiss their loved ones goodnight. Classy stuff.

0gac3yjefb5sv7

So easily offended by a campaign that means good.

whoopsadoodles

Pheonix10 wrote: »

So easily offended by a campaign that means good.

You're not really listening, are you?

I'm certainly not offended. And I don't think most are. Upset though, yes. Unfortunately, I can't help being upset by something as horrible as this. It's not a choice I have.

It's a badly executed campaign which probably isn't actually doing much good for the cause. I'm not making a complaint about it. I'm simply pointing out that upsetting the people who already know what it's like not to kiss their loved ones goodnight, is bad marketing.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Tom Mann Centuria

Well it's raised awareness of the cancer if people are discussing it so maybe it is a good campaign, poor taste or otherwise. Any publicity is good publicity and all that.

Incidentally I don't have an opinion on it, other than its sad that it's upsetting people which I'd hope was not the intention of the charity running the campaign, that, and its an horrific cancer to die of.

whoopsadoodles

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The boards office is now closed. By Monday boards will have fulfilled their obligation to run the ad and will get their money.

They have decided that if they stick their fingers in their ears just long enough, that they will get away with it. It's fairly standard now how they treat feedback.

I would have expected that a representative from the Oesophageal Cancer Fund may have popped by but my cynical mind can't help but wonder if the "feedback" will only be passed to them once their bill has been settled.

Lovely Bloke

The whole Gearbest thing shows there's nothing that won't be stooped to, so it's not surprising.

Lady is a tramp

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

Well it's raised awareness of the cancer if people are discussing it so maybe it is a good campaign

Well no it hasn't raised awareness of the cancer. It would perhaps be raising awareness of the cancer (even if in a painful way) if oesophageal cancer were the only reason someone might not be able to kiss their loved ones goodnight.

The reality is that there are one million and one reasons that any one of us might not be able to kiss our loved ones goodnight. Death due to cancer (or specifically this one type of cancer advertised) is only one of them.

In fact I would go as far as to say that very few people reading this can kiss every loved one of theirs goodnight every single night, whether due to death or distance or whatever. Very few of us need to imagine it. For some, it's sadly more permanent than for others. In every case, it's painful.

If this ad is raising awareness, it's in very poor taste and extremely insensitive. I was already aware of Lollipop Day and of oesophageal cancer and of the charity, I will make a conscious effort not to let this ad dissuade me from supporting the charity, as it's such an important cause, assuming they reply to this thread soon with an appropriate apology and explanation. However I'm afraid they will lose many supporters even when/if they do so - this sort of heartlessness is inexcusable.

hullaballoo

Raising awareness of cancer? Is there anyone who is unaware of cancer at this stage?

The mind well and truly boggles.

Tom Mann Centuria

Emotive advertising isn't new, cancer UK has images of people undergoing treatment for cancer, life insurance ads have images of lost loved one's, there is currently an ad on UK TV showing a woman passing away at her sister's wedding, or another where a son wants to talk to his dad, but he's passed away from heart disease, there are multiple other examples which I won't mention.

I don't doubt that some of these ads cause terrible distress to people who've been affected but it's not new, it's not uncommon and not unique to this campaign.

Tom Mann Centuria

hullaballoo wrote: »

Raising awareness of cancer? Is there anyone who is unaware of cancer at this stage?

The mind well and truly boggles.

The ad is for oesophageal cancer, the same as most diseases it has unique issues that merit being highlighted/discussed even if people feel the ad is inappropriate.

hullaballoo

The ad is that cancer kills you ffs it's not that difficult to understand.

But it is more insidious because it brings in everyone who has ever lost a loved one irrespective of the cause of death.

I am not upset or sad about the ad (perhaps because I'm an emotional automoton), I just think it's insensitive and stupid.

Tom Mann Centuria

hullaballoo wrote: »

The ad is that cancer kills you ffs it's not that difficult to understand.

But it is more insidious because it brings in everyone who has ever lost a loved one irrespective of the cause of death.

I am not upset or sad about the ad (perhaps because I'm an emotional automoton), I just think it's insensitive and stupid.

I don't find this ad appealing either but as I said, these kind of adverts are everywhere and they probably are looking to bring attention to their campaign to everyone who's lost a loved one, to appeal to the largest audience. Brutal reality, unpalatable or not, is they are one of dozens of Cancer charities all fighting to get donations for causes presumably very close to their hearts.

hullaballoo

Yes, it's supposed to be "gritty."

But they missed their target of gritty and hit crass.

Tom Mann Centuria

hullaballoo wrote: »

Yes, it's supposed to be "gritty."

But they missed their target of gritty and hit crass.

Can't argue with that.

lawred2

Pheonix10 wrote: »

So easily offended by a campaign that means good.

So as long as it 'means good' all is OK? Poor taste is poor taste whatever the cause.

athtrasna

hullaballoo wrote: »

Yes, it's supposed to be "gritty."

But they missed their target of gritty and hit crass.

Precisely, like the Irish Cancer Society's horrendous "get cancer" ad campaign. Neither charity will get a cent from me this year whereas I would previously have supported. Money will go to charities with cop on!

Richard Hillman

It's vile. These cancers organisations are getting above their stations with some of the messages they are putting out lately.

It's a disgusting marketing ploy. All how we get that opportunity to give our money to some luvvy CEO

evolving_doors

It shouldn't be up to charities.
But because it's Ireland it is. Every week in our school there is a charity collection 'day'. I'm getting a bit tired and cold to the point of switching off hearing news of the latest 'day', sadly because charities have to compete they are getting desperate. The add sounds a bit much, especially for anyone who has gone through it and 'needs reminding' whilst going on to boards expecting a bit of light banter.
Gearbest was totally innocuous by comparison.

Boards.ie: Niamh

I passed the link to this feedback thread when it started to my colleague who was dealing with OCF but whether they have read it or not, I don't know.

I'm genuinely sorry that people were upset by the ad or have a reason to have been upset by it. Perhaps it was meant as hullaballoo said, to be gritty, but for some it fell short of the mark.

I'm not trying to minimise peoples upset in any way but aside from an obligation to you, our users, we also have an obligation to the site to keep it self-sustaining and hopefully making a profit (there's that dirty word); this benefits all of us, users included.

Some people will read this and think "OMG all they care about is money!! :mad:"
If that were strictly true we could just roll out all sorts of in-your-face ads that would annoy most users but at the same time make us lots of money. We don't do that (and won't) because we want you to enjoy your user experience and keep coming back. Income is important, but it's not the bottom line.

I am really glad that you have all taken the time to give your feedback instead of maybe complaining to yourselves/your friends or even by logging out and not coming back; honestly, thanks for that. All of your feedback helps us to make better decisions for the community in the future.

whoopsadoodles

Boards.ie: Niamh wrote: »

I passed the link to this feedback thread when it started to my colleague who was dealing with OCF but whether they have read it or not, I don't know.

I'm genuinely sorry that people were upset by the ad or have a reason to have been upset by it. Perhaps it was meant as hullaballoo said, to be gritty, but for some it fell short of the mark.

I'm not trying to minimise peoples upset in any way but aside from an obligation to you, our users, we also have an obligation to the site to keep it self-sustaining and hopefully making a profit (there's that dirty word); this benefits all of us, users included.

Some people will read this and think "OMG all they care about is money!! :mad:"
If that were strictly true we could just roll out all sorts of in-your-face ads that would annoy most users but at the same time make us lots of money. We don't do that (and won't) because we want you to enjoy your user experience and keep coming back. Income is important, but it's not the bottom line.

I am really glad that you have all taken the time to give your feedback instead of maybe complaining to yourselves/your friends or even by logging out and not coming back; honestly, thanks for that. All of your feedback helps us to make better decisions for the community in the future.

I am so disappointed with this answer, in its entirety.

Firstly, on Wednesday last, you said that you would pass the feedback to the OCF. Not only did you not do that, but you can't even tell us if it has been passed on at all. It surely would have been simple to ask your colleague this?

Secondly, you say that you have an obligation to the site to keep up income. That's entirely understandable and I don't think you'll find anyone who has an issue with the site being kept free by using ads as an income. I further doubt you will find a single user who has an issue with the OFC cause trying to fund-raise using boards as a platform. They'd have no reason to.

What you have done though, is you have managed to alienate your users, yet again by holding out until the ad had run before attempting to address the issues. You have also potentially set yourselves up to lose a client over this. If I was sitting in the OCF marketing office, and I found out that this feedback had not been passed to us in a timely manner so that we could amend or even simply explain the ad in time for lollipop day, I would not be at all happy with the service and I would be considering whether or not the invoice should indeed be settled.

Perhaps OCF didn't realise the negative affect which the ad may have had on their campaign, and perhaps they would have liked the opportunity to rectify that before the time had expired on the ad but from what I can see, they weren't even given that opportunity as it may have resulted in boards.ie not getting paid.

The site is continuing to roll slowly but surely downhill by continually ignoring feedback from those who are ultimately the ones who click on the advertising links. Without the former, you will not have the income from the latter.

Star Lord

That 'No such thing as bad publicity' attitude is disgusting, particularly from a charity.

Penn

Boards.ie: Niamh wrote: »

I passed the link to this feedback thread when it started to my colleague who was dealing with OCF but whether they have read it or not, I don't know.

All of your feedback helps us to make better decisions for the community in the future.

Yeah, sure sounds the feedback is taken into a lot of consideration.

Either your colleague read it, and did nothing, which is bad. Or they didn't read it, which is bad.

__Alex__

whoopsadoodles wrote: »

It's upsetting a lot of people Niamh. Whatever its intention.

I know, I hate the "Yeah, well it raises awareness" argument, as if that cancels out the negatives. And we are all well aware of cancer by now. Same with the "I want to get cancer" ICS campaign. Not to be too "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children" but someone I know who works in a related field was getting calls from people about their children who had lost a parent or other relation to cancer getting quite upset about the ad.

Oh and before anyone says anything, I'm not getting offended on behalf of other people. Without getting into it, I am right in the thick of it.

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

Well it's raised awareness of the cancer if people are discussing it so maybe it is a good campaign, poor taste or otherwise. Any publicity is good publicity and all that.

We are all well aware of cancer by now.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

__Alex__

The Specialist wrote: »

Imagine being someone diagnosed with a terminal cancer, logging on to boards and being reminded that very soon, they won't get to kiss their loved ones goodnight. Classy stuff.

Yup, exactly. I was reading a spiel by one of the "masterminds" behind the ICS 'I want to get cancer' campaign and he said something like 'Well, somebody who is terminally ill with cancer has far too much on their plate to be bothered about this advertising campaign', basically saying that the people who were getting offended were far removed from the issue. I just thought "How fúcking clueless can you get?". Anyone who has had somebody close to them terminally ill knows the emotional anguish they go through. Just because they have lots of medical treatments happening doesn't mean they don't feel things emotionally too. I just couldn't believe that this dude was pontificating on behalf of terminally ill people and deciding that they wouldn't be bother by the ads. That whole campaign annoyed me, it seemed to be more about the advertising agency being clever-clever and looking to scoop up industry plaudits for being so daring. And the ad agency behind the OCF campaign seems to want a piece of the action too. Will this now become a competition to see who can be more "ground-breaking"?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Sight See wrote: »

No offence but that is just plain incorrect. I have worked for several charities similar to this over the past 2 decades in various roles including marketing and awareness and the fact people are even talking about it would have us happy, we certainly would not be looking to 'amend it' to keep a small few happy or even that laughable thought of withholding payment And, how many people are genuinely upset by it? The majority of the 'user base'? No. We wouldn't care nor would our advertising partners care to see a small few disgruntled.
When I worked for what is now the RSA, we first started showing those graphic car crash ads in the late 90's, the outrage was far worse than we expected, we even received death threats to the offices on a daily basis but would never even consider 'toning it down' if we knew people were riled up enough to talk about it.

Happy that people are talking about it? Would you be happy that said talk is turning people away from supporting the charity? That ad campaign did just that. The adage that there's no such thing as bad publicity is bunkum.
I supported, and raised funds for this charity for years, having lost a brother to OC, but I'm done with them now.

Annasopra

Sight See wrote: »

No offence but that is just plain incorrect. I have worked for several charities similar to this over the past 2 decades in various roles including marketing and awareness and the fact people are even talking about it would have us happy, we certainly would not be looking to 'amend it' to keep a small few happy or even that laughable thought of withholding payment And, how many people are genuinely upset by it? The majority of the 'user base'? No. We wouldn't care nor would our advertising partners care to see a small few disgruntled.
When I worked for what is now the RSA, we first started showing those graphic car crash ads in the late 90's, the outrage was far worse than we expected, we even received death threats to the offices on a daily basis but would never even consider 'toning it down' if we knew people were riled up enough to talk about it.

What a seriously sickening attitude. This is not just about a few disgruntled people.

uck51js9zml2yt

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What a seriously sickening attitude. This is not just about a few disgruntled people.

It's about a "few people" since most of the users of boards haven't cared to comment on this thread.
I've not seen the ad but like all ads, I assume it's aimed at getting a message across.
If we were to all not say something because it might upset a few people , nothing would be said.

Lovely Bloke

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What a seriously sickening attitude.

You've never experienced someone in marketing/advertising before

Money, money, money. A-Ha!

B_Wayne

Novalee Purring Web wrote: »

It's about a "few people" since most of the users of boards haven't cared to comment on this thread.
I've not seen the ad but like all ads, I assume it's aimed at getting a message across.
If we were to all not say something because it might upset a few people , nothing would be said.

Plenty who might be upset by this that simply haven't responded to this. The ad upsetting people and affecting mental health is saddening to see from a charity. Don't give a **** is a terrible attitude from a charity in general.

bucketybuck

Novalee Purring Web wrote: »

It's about a "few people" since most of the users of boards haven't cared to comment on this thread.

How incredibly disingenuous.

ohnonotgmail

Novalee Purring Web wrote: »

It's about a "few people" since most of the users of boards haven't cared to comment on this thread.
I've not seen the ad but like all ads, I assume it's aimed at getting a message across.
If we were to all not say something because it might upset a few people , nothing would be said.

out of the total number of boards.ie users how many actually visit the feedback forum? Your idea that it only upset a "few people" is nonsense.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

I had been keeping Adblock turned off for boards, that ad and more specifically
the patronising disingenuous joke of a response prompted me to turn it back on. If boards couldn't give a fcuk about this kind of feedback from the userbase I don't give a fcuk about helping them generate revenue.

Any dope would have been able to predict that there might have been negative feedback from a deliberately provocative ad like that, letting it slide til the weekend was over and then doing an "Oops I did my best, not sure if anyone but me has read this feedback but sure the ad's over now, we're cool right?" pally wally response is really annoying.

Lovely Bloke

Malaya Low Snowman wrote: »

If boards couldn't give a fcuk about this kind of feedback from the userbase I don't give a fcuk about helping them generate revenue.

The more people coming to this realisation the better tbh.

uck51js9zml2yt

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

out of the total number of boards.ie users how many actually visit the feedback forum? Your idea that it only upset a "few people" is nonsense.

Until you can prove otherwise my point stands.

ohnonotgmail

Novalee Purring Web wrote: »

Until you can prove otherwise my point stands.

Prove what exactly? that it has upset more than a few people? If we take "a few" in its normal meaning that means 2 , 3 or some other number less than about 5. There are more than that number of people complaining on this thread. Was there anything else you needed me to prove?

__Alex__

Novalee Purring Web wrote: »

Until you can prove otherwise my point stands.

Look at the many people thanking posts on this thread. More than a few.

Lady is a tramp

I wonder if anyone here has contacted the charity to make them aware of this thread. If so, very bad form that they haven't responded.

whoopsadoodles

Lady is a tramp wrote: »

I wonder if anyone here has contacted the charity to make them aware of this thread. If so, very bad form that they haven't responded.

I got a message from someone the day after boards' pathetic response showing me that they had not only contacted the charity, but the charity had acknowledged and thanked them for bringing it to their attention.

So there are two of them in it.

It's a case of "if we don't respond it will go away by itself". Typical of boards now, but disappointing for the charity themselves.

Boards.ie: Niamh

I had a response typed up for this yesterday but didn't get to post it so this is a shorter version.

The campaign was sent to us as is and we ran it for free for a good cause so it wasn't a case of taking money and running. We didn't dream up the title ourselves, it was part of a wider campaign by the charity. If we'd been tasked with coming up with the title we'd have given more time to thinking about how the community would perceive it than we did at the time and that was a mistake.

However we/I have learned from this for future campaigns and I don't plan on us finding ourselves in the same position again.

We do care about feedback, it is invaluable to us and the reason we still have a Feedback forum open to all users.