I don't normally moan about adverts as this is how MNHQ get revenue, but please - ditch the NSPCC one

I'm heartily behind the NSPCC's role as a campaigning organisation. Ads are a part of that.

But isn't this one on this site preaching to the converted? In a way that's likely to upset? Not sure what the value of that is.

oh goodness, I don't want this to become a slagging of the nspcc. They do a lot. I don't know why it is that you don't just find out what they do. You could look here

I posted a similar OP the first time I saw it. Hate the NSPCC's shock tactics and I think the animation on this one makes it particularly unpleasant.

That line about needing to use ads that spell out the problem and the need doesn't really address the issue. You can do that perfectly well without showing a video of a man thumping seven bells out of a soft toy. And even if you like that kind of thing, doesn't it over-simplify child abuse to the point of being rather crass?

'We have a duty to use our resources wisely" = the standard defence from organisations that don't like being challenged. I used to work for a charity that would always wheel out the 'this approach has worked well for us in the past' claim. Just an excuse for not looking critically at what they were doing. Suspect the same applies to the NSPCC.

And 21 per cent on admin is a very high proportion IMO.

The problem I have with the NSPCC is that they never say WHAT they are doing. Give us money to stop child abuse just seems too simplistic. I used to work in fundraising, and totally understand that charities need to spend some money to make some but I don't get the NSPCC

maybe. I see it sort of like those baby p threads (which I never read and it is so very easy to avoid them). That sort of constant public display of thumping and swimming in the horror. Sometimes it's just too much. And I think I said, I am not at all sensitive about charity ads. I know the targets and the evidence that drive them to do this.

I have very mixed feelings on this, but I wanted to say that I used to be involved in tv commercials and charities never paid the full rate. People would give their time and equipment companies etc would either give their equipment or agree to a much reduced rate. So the advertising costs are far less than if they were paying full rate card price. So their advertising budget may not be as huge as it appears.

i suppose they want to make the baby p people aware that they can make a difference with money

I haven't seen the ad as I use an adblocker. I have to, otherwise mumsnet's video ads slow my ancient machine to not-worth-surfing.

But I refuse to give money to the NSPCC anyway because of their adverts.

I really don't feel like pissing about with an ad blocker either when this is the one ad I have ever storngly disliked

This is the first time \I have ever objected to a charity ad. I usually applaud the gritty stuff.

I understand why they do it, I fully understand teh spiel NSPCC have come back with as well. I worked for charities (not that that makes miuch difference).

I know mn will not withdraw it but I do object to having to watch such an aggressive ad over and over.

Here is an ad blocker

Remember to 'allow' pages you want to see by clicking on the little red snake on the bottom right of your screen.

I know this is an old thread but I have literally just seen the advert for the first time, and really it is a bit much Is there no way you can get rid??

Depends on whether simply talking about it here is really worth while. There is such a thing as bad publicity.

I just wonder how many people they really alienate who then refuse to donate to the NSPCC. Me for one. I know I'm not alone, and I don't think the NSPCC are taking that factor into account.

There are different ways to convey messages. WWAV Rapp Collins, who do / did TV ads for NSPCC and Cancer Research, trialled two methods. They did two different ads for each charity.

One was along the lines of "look at this poor sad person. It's awful. Gloom and doom. They will die. You need to help us stop it by giving now."

The other was "look at this happy person. They survived a really really awful thing thanks to our help. You can help more of them by giving now".

The latter, more positive message got a much better response rate.

Yet NSPCC continue to upset mothers by putting such shocking ads on MN. Does that help stop abuse?

the adverts worked though-its got you all thinking/talking about it.

You can download an adblocker which means that you don't have to see this if you don't wish to. It also speeds up load time too!

If you search the archives, I believe that LittleLapin posted a link to one in one of her techy threads.

sorry, a much more complicated issue.

79p is below industry standard for charities I think.

Should be more like 10 - 15 %.

I'm sure someone from the NSPCC PR department would come back and argue the toss about that.

I'm interested that they say they get more donations as a result. I don't think that they measure the negative reactions that their adverts have. How many people refuse to ever support the NSPCC because of the crassness of the advertising. So they get a response rate that's in line with their targets? To my knowledge they don't measure how much they alienate people through their ads. Their own ad agency can demonstrate that people respond to a positive message far better than a negative one. So why do they pursue the awfulness?

The NSPCC, however much money it has, cannot stop child cruelty full stop. It's a much more complicated solution.

I saw it for the first time just now on the lone parent board, haven't seen it on others so far, and I actaully cried. I know what goes on, I used to be abused myself, I don't need to see it all over again and I'm sure most people realise what abuse it too without having it shoved in their faces.

Thank you for responding Justine.

Though understanding your point that things cant be censored, people's view points are sometimes at odds and you are stuck in the middle I feel that an outbreak of grans dying of choking on a yoghurt (heartbreaking though that would be)doesnt effect a huge % of the population, wouldnt for years keep me awake at night, suffer backflashes, taint my relationship with my children and make me weep uncontrollably - no, howl- at things read in the paper. My point was just that some if us are here for an escape for a few mins, and ads like this take that little escape away.

the consensus here seems to ask you to remove it. Isnt that what you said you would listen to in your post( though we are refined laydees here and aren't "screaming" )

But then again I havent seen it today so maybe it has gone!

Oh please have it removed
Some of us come on here to ESCAPE those things, not to have it thrust in our faces

It's an unjust way of thinking Justine that until it gets to xxx amount of people upset, it will continued to be allowed. Surely you can see if it brings unbidden thoughts, feelings, memories etc to even ONE person then it should be removed?