Suck me

For those who are looking at this post puzzled. The excitement comes from a series of email where I denied the publishing of this ad on the front page. Let me paste in my reply here:
Yes, I agree we are animals. But, if an animal does something is it automatically right for a human? It may or not be. Or even if one species of animals does something, is it right for another species? To dramatize my point, as the saying goes: "Eat shit - Hundred million flys can't be wrong!"

Going back to breast feeding. First of all there are many animals who do not breast feed. Birds or lizards for example. So, you should probably say mammals to be more correct.

But mammals have no choice, so this is not a choice, it is the only option for them. Therefore mammals don't know better — they know nothing else. Get my point?

I agree that breast milk is good for babies, but I'm not even debating the message of the ad. I'm debating the strategy of delivering the message. If we were to talk about the message itself, actually breast milk does not contain all the necessary nutritients that a baby needs, especially if the baby is growing up in an urban environment. For example breast milk does not contain vitamin D, which is crucial for development. Most babies in an urban setting spend they first 3-4 month in a house and rarely go out, because of the heat, cold, pollution or fear of catching a disease. In a more natural environment the daily exposure to the sun would produce enough Vit D to compensate for this, but not in a city. Ask any pediatritian, that breast fed babies need to be supplemented with vitamins to compensate for the lack of those vitamins in breast milk. They also say that a combination of formula and breast milk is ideal and because formula contains a lot of vitamins, so the baby gets the best of both worlds. In this case supplements aren't necessary.

And, we are talking about breast milk here, not breast feeding. You can give breast milk to the baby from a bottle too. You can give the care and bonding in a different way other than breast feeding. So, a more correct message would be to say that breast milk is good for the baby, not breast feeding.

Also, to get the facts right, you have to know that there ARE indeed high quality formulas produced that are almost the same or even better in some cases than breast milk. They are so good that the sale of these products is prohibited by the World Health Organization to encourage breast feeding. It is only given to hospitals where they feed the babies with it for the first few days until breast milk kicks in.

Bottom line, I think comparing animals in this way to humans is not correct. I'm very sorry I can't post the ad on the front page, but I enjoy very much the discussion...

Witch discussion... :)

I do not think the ad is that great that I would fight for it and get into an argument. I like the layout and choice of typography. I only read half of Ivan's comments but I agree that what is right for animals may not be right for humans. For example some animals have sex within the family.

There are better ways to talk about the benefit of brest milk and I am sure you can do better.

Desi
www.DesiCreative.com

BTW i like your header 'SUCK ME'....

Desi
www.DesiCreative.com

Wow. Is it possible that Ivan's newborn girl is behind his passionate response? He might be defending his wife who apparently does NOT breast feed.

Ivan, you are right about breast milk not having ALL the nutrients a baby needs. However, your response does not address the most important thing about breast feeding...the psychological and developmental benefits that the physical contact between baby and mother establishes.
Some benefits: increased IQ, healthier immune system, less likelihood of psychological problems. Hugging and kissing a baby will not necessarily provide these things.
And remember, these are PSYCHOLOGICAL or PSYCHOSOMATIC benefits!! There are thousands of studies that prove phsyically breast-feeding a baby is imperative for normal development.

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/895_brstfeed.html
http://www.medela.com/NewFiles/faq/benefitsbfdg.html
http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/indicators/90Breastfeeding.cfm :
http://www.nrdc.org/breastmilk/benefits.asp

However, I respect the choices any parent has regarding his/her own children.
And i agree that this ad is not "cover page" worthy. Especially recently; there are some Brilliant ads posted right now.
Oh, and one more thing...mammals in the wild that don't breast feed DIE!!!
And, it's ridiculous to compare animals and humans with respect to psychological development.

Ivan, you say you're not debating the message of the ad, but that's exactly what you are doing. I know (from looking at myself) that having kids makes one biased on the one or other subject. But doppsy has a client here. He can hardly go with "breast feeding is cool - but on the other hand..."

I may be biased, but we're not debating me. Why not debate about the ad itself? I still feel that the logic behind the ad is wrong.

1. Animals does not equal mammals. Animals in general do not breast feed. Only mammals do.
2. Mammals did not choose to breast feed. They have no choice. They either breast feed or die.

The ad doesn't talk about why is it good to breast feed, it talks about a parallel to animals that is false.

So, please guys, don't go personal, talk about the ad.

It's not meant to be personal, but your comment makes no sense. The one about humans being smarter and therefore finding better alternatives to breast milk. From Maria's and my ad it is clear that the benefits of brest feeding are two-fold. So how does it make a human being smarter to not do so? Please enlighten me, my knowledgeable friends.

Whichever method is best. The ad is factually misleading. Case closed.

How is the ad factually misleading? Case open.

because "Animals are smart enough to understand the improtance of mothers milk" is not a factually accurate statement. One of many reasons for this is that not all animals are "smart enough". Another is that the statement suggests that all Animals breast feed. Another is that the final question suggests that we (humans) are not animals. More reasons available on request.

Perhaps you should change it to "Some Animals are smart enough to understand the importance of mothers milk" and the question should be. "Why are we not all totally convinced of this possibly accurate concept?" but then again that would not make a good ad either.

But the issue here is not whether animals are smart enough or who is an animal? The issue here is why is anyone questioning the unquestionable need that babies have for being breast fed and the fact that breast feeding is the best food for infants? In addition, research has proved that breast feeding is also good for mothers. And which animal apart from the reptiles that have been mentioned does not believe in nourishing the child with mother's milk? Do enlighten me. Thank you. It's great to be part of this community site.

All insects, All FIsh, All Birds, these are all animals. Look up what an animal is on wikipaedia. It would be better yo say mammals.

I see. Hmm...of course, the target audience would think I was talking about fish, lizards and the like, right? How silly of me to underestimate the vast knowledge of the target audience and presume they' know exactly what I meant by broadly using the term animals. Thanks for enlightening me Mr. Wikipedia.

Boring. This ad would have been cutting edge in 1998.

it would be a better advert if it had a picture of a breast. a human breast, that is.

now we're talking about what we should really be talking about and not messing around with flawed logic. thanks.

first up, you cannot assume breast feeding is bad, research has proved that it's not. secondly, we human beings think we're smarter than animals. if it has been proved that breast feeding is good and animals, the dumb ones do so, then why can't the smarter ones do it when it has been proven that it is been scientifically proven that it is smart to do it? we are the ones that say we won't do the dumb things animals do, so how come we're not smart enough to do the smart thing that animals do? back to you.

and you're a copywriter, dopppsey? wow, buddy.

No matter who's smarter us or animails I think the ad is not that good - no impact and doesn't make me want to look at it more than 1/2 sec

i don't grudge you your opinion, i can't. i'm debating the lack of logic in your thinking. and 'sonofa' what means of that comment? and no, i'm not a copywriter, i'm a prostitute.

if you're reacting to the lack of coherence in my written responses, blame it on the infectious logic, or the lack of it, in the reactions. cheers.

The ad clearly hasn't met its objective. You are trying to communicate a message. The message has not communicated effectively to anyone on this site. The ad has failed to convince its target. Sorry but if this community represents in any way your target market the you must start again.

I reccomend to change the strategy to a less ambiguous statement. Something Proven Scientifically.

Good Luck

Right back at you.
I also urge you to apply
to be a suit.
you will make a fine one.
as regards the ad
it has done it's job.
as always it will not
appeal to certain types.
as always we don't write for everyone.
wish you a speedy recovery.

and miss/mr/itser guest.
i thank you for your comment.
clearly the ad wasn't for you.
but the fact that it
compelled you
to put down your two-bits
does say a bit about you
and the ad.

I am waiting for Part 3....

Dopppsy Vs. Jason Chang

and damn Ivan i didnt notice... you have updated the site.

now every comment needs a login!!

:)

hahahahahaha... the lords have finally listened!
No more irritating guests...

P.S. but what happenned to the Pub ?

Yeah I think your right. But as a young aspiring creative I would like to know more about who is critiquing my work. A guest could be anyone, I would like to see more info e.g "Senior / Junior ,Art director / copy writer/ years experience, agency/ above/below line. Just a thought. Cheers Nick.

Why is there such a huge discussion about the intelligence of mammals/animals/humans/whatever on this page? I believe that the only problem most people here seem to have is "animals know" from the ad. Well, no matter how cunning some mammals might be... it is an instinct to breast feed. They don't sit there with baby mammal and go "Yeah, I'm a mother. I want what is best for my child because research shows that my milk is great".

Imagine this situation. A husband sees this ad. Goes running to his wife and says
"Honey, I saw an ad that says animals breast feed. I think you should also breastfeed our kid."
Wife: "Great, and what else do animals do that I should be doing?"

Anymore doubt that the ad message is flawed?

Yawn. And we think we're smartr than animals. What a dumb human.

I think it would be better to say "Breastfeeding is good" than to say "You're dumb not to breastfeed".

this ad sucks

i havent read all the comments and am neither for or against breastfeeding, but it is apparent that surely we are not dumb, if we can invent a formula that is potentially BETTER than breastfeeding? with the vitamins in that it does not provide? perhaps the cd should have focussed on the bonding/empowerment aspect that a bottle does not achieve??

You won't see me feeding from my mothers nipple...

I'd rather chocolate milk.

http://mmackinven.blogspot.com/