Subscribe
Previous Post
Campaign on Childhood Illness Succeeds at Being Provocative is the headline for an article in today’s New York Times by Joanne Kaufman about the New York University Child Study Center‘s “Ransom Notes” public service campaign. (If you would like to leave a comment on the NYTimes website about the article, please go here.)
“the facts of mental illness are even more upsetting.
“I am disappointed. I thought the people we’d be arguing with are the people who believe psychiatric illness doesn’t exist”or those who believe children are being overmedicated, he said.
“I thought we’d be fighting ignorance. I didn’t think we’d be fighting adult patients or the parents of patients whose feelings have been hurt.”
John Osborn, the president and chief executive of BBDO New York, the agency who created the campaign, notes that the ads were meant to communicate a “sense of urgency about the diseases and encourage conversation.”
The “Ransom Notes” campaign has certainly instigated a lot of discussion, but more in the form of protest and outrage. (Here is an online petition calling for the campaign to be stopped.) The ads, which portray autism, Asperger Syndrome, ADHD, bulimia, depression, and obsessive-compulsive disorder as “kidnappers” who have taken children who have those conditions “hostage,” is certainly “harsh and upsetting.” I’m not sure that simply conveying something as “harsh and upsetting” can be seen as providing information and promoting awareness; it seems to me that the “Ransom Notes” campaign rather deepens misunderstanding. I should also note that I don’t see myself as “fighting” the NYU Center, but rather questioning how it has chosen to characterize autism and Asperger Syndrome, and asking the center to take its part in the conversation and answer those who criticize the ad campaign.
Quoted in the New York Times article are Sue Etlinger, who writes The Family Room and who has a 4-year-old autistic son; Vicki Forman, who writes the column Special Needs Mama and who has two children, one of whom is multiply-disabled; and myself. Etlinger’s and Forman’s comments speak to the misperceptions of the “Ransom Notes” campaign: Sue Etlinger
….. maintains that hers is “not the P.C. outcry of an offended parent.” “It’s a legitimate claim that children with disabilities are vulnerable enough as it is……..I think we need to take special care that they’re not further stigmatized. This campaign characterizes them as a series of symptoms rather than as the unique people they are.”
Forman states that
“The idea of an autistic person being held hostage is a very disturbing and backward image…..Rather than promote public awareness, this reinforces stereotypes — that there is something damaged about the autistic person, something in need of a repair.”
And myself on the “Ransom Notes” campaign:
“It emphasizes a lot of negative aspects…..To say that autism or bulimia has kidnapped a child suggests that these conditions are part of a criminal element. I’m not saying it’s easy to have an autistic child, but it could be framed in a more positive way.”
Dr. Koplewicz notes that a previous ad campaign used images of “a child running happily through a sprinkler and a drawing of a child caught in a maze”; while he describes these as “‘wonderful,’” he also notes that these ads did not get the attention that the current campaign is. But, as Estee Klar-Wolfond, whose autistic son Adam is 6, writes, is any publicity necessarily good publicity? Is the “Ransom Notes” campaign so full of fighting words, the image it portrays of autism and the other conditions so “harsh and upsetting,” that the campaign creates fear and a sense of shame about having these conditions? There is certainly a way to represent autism that does not use either “pleasant and innocuous” images of children running through sprinklers, or purposefully negative language about autism holding your child captive. For myself, a straightforward account of my son’s day, of his every life with autism every day—like these top 10 reasons of why my life is better with Charlie—represents him best and most truly.
But mine are the words of a mother who knows how much ignorance is out there (how many averted eyes and stares have we walked last), and who knows how fortunate she is to have a boy like Charlie. And I know that Madison Avenue cannot so easily capture that kind of feeling—–not hurt feelings and certainly not fear.
Just a lot of love.
1365 days ago
[...] du vil lese mer om det kan du besøke Kristina Chew’s blog på Autism Vox – Hun har laget mange innlegg om [...]
1536 days ago
[...] York University Child Study Center launched a public awareness advertisement campaign called “Ransom Notes,” in which. The campaign was pulled a few weeks later, in no small part due to the work of [...]
1601 days ago
[...] noted the law of unintended consequences in reference to the aftermath of the Ransom Notes ad campaign: Our trip from New Jersey via Philadelphia to California to see my family for the [...]
1601 days ago
[...] “Ransom Notes” has come and gone: Some in the advertising world are noting that the ads were just “too hot to handle.” The December 20th The Scientist posts that Psychiatrist kills ads to pay ransom. And now, as Club 166 reminds us, comes the hard part. As one commenter asked, what would be an “effective public awareness campaign for child mental health”—-a campaign that would not only address issues of treatment, but of access to care? [...]
1605 days ago
[...] is calling for Senate hearings to consider “potential causes of autism.” The “Ransom Notes” public awareness “campaign” continues to generate much talk: Nancy L. Brown, [...]
1606 days ago
[...] advertising agency that is behind the New York University Child Study Center’s “Ransom Notes” campaign. I’ve obviously been a little caught up in responding to the Center’s [...]
1606 days ago
[...] in Brooklyn last night and then onto lower Manhattan (more on that later….) and saw nary a Ransom Notes ad. While the ads seem to have been removed from the New York University Child Study Center’s [...]
1606 days ago
[...] Provocative, Harsh, Upsetting: The “Ransom Notes” Ad CampaignThe New York Times and the New York Daily News report on the “Ransom Notes” ad campaign; an online petition; discussion ’round the blogosphere. [...]
1607 days ago
[...] and through). But I know enough to know that even negative publicity is good: However provocative, harsh, and upsetting the “Ransom Notes” campaign has certainly directed a lot of attention to the New York [...]
Marie S. — I’ve answered your question here:
http://autisticbfh.blogspot.com/2007/12/pity-its-100-curable.html
I assume that what they hope to achieve is: money. We live in a capitalist society and this is a part of it. More fear + More Misinformation = MORE MONEY!!!
I was coming here to make the same comment as KimJ about “patients.” It is quite telling that this man refers to people — us, our children, our parents, human beings all — as just “patients.” Enough said.
It is never appropriate to use fear to call attention to illness. And it is certainly never appropriate to describe a child with autism or a mental illness as “kidnapped.” This campaign could have been done with heart and empathy and in the context of reality. Instead, they chose to embarrass themselves by showing their ignorance and going for the most disabling of emotions: fear. I can’t even see what they really hope to achieve from this campaign. If education and awareness were really their intent, it seems like they should have started by becoming educated and aware themselves. They did not.
1608 days ago
[...] Square 8, Ettina at Abnormaldiversity, Kaissane at Rettdevil’s Rants, Kristina Chew at Autism Vox, Hymes at Charlottesville Prejudice Watch, Stephen at Not Dead Yet’s blog and Anne at the [...]
The fact that they’re using words like “patients” in regards to autistic people is indicative of the manipulative, chauvinistic way these people look at disabled people. In my years working in nursing homes, including sub-acute wings, we were never allowed to call the residents, “patients”.
It implies that they need to be “cured”, “taken care of”, recovered and controlled.
Just when it seems as if we’ve come so far, something as backward and ridiculous as this comes along. Osborn’s comment about “cutting through the clutter” is emblematic of the vacuous mindset of advertising — doesn’t matter what the message is, so long as it gets heard. These people are utterly, utterly clueless.
Does anyone read Newsweek? Let’s see if we can’t get some subscribers to cancel if they choose to run with this.
You are such a diplomat, Kristina. Thank you! We need a diplomatic voice. What an ass that man is. Now we really have to push to keep this ad campaign from leaving NYC and to make sure that no major institution acts in this way again.
Great statements in the NYT. It’s astonishing how little NYU appears to care about the opinions of the people they’re talking about/parents.
Talk about woefully ignorant on the part of NYU. Did they even look at the backlash as a whole? It’s not as if the complaints are simply those of individuals who were simply offended, as well noted by Etlinger. There are some real complaints about the wide scale damage being done by this project. I’m disappointed they’re dismissed as “those angry people”.
Cliff
great post, Kristina! i’m so glad you, Vicki, and Susan spoke up and out so quickly and that it was picked up by the Times. i actually think publicity IS good in that it offers the possibility of shaking people out of unhelpful and damaging thinking that promotes fear and polarization and and gives those with clear and powerful voices the chance to educate and unite. here’s to three such voices!