Noah: Hitler
Here´s a campaign which shows dictators in a reponsible way. And for a relevant product.
Agency: Jung von Matt/Alster; CD: Goetz Ulmer, Oliver Voss; Creatives: Christian Fritsche
Ads of the World advertising archive and community showcases fresh creative campaigns daily from around the world. Read more
Do you need a great new logo?
If you need a logo for your company or product you can get it done with us.
In our logo store you can pick from over 28,000 pre-made logos that will be customized to your name for free or you can post a contest for us for just $250 and our designers from all over the world will submit dozens of logo design suggestions to your specific needs.
35 Comments
This is the stupidest ad campaign ever. Why is it up here?
I didn't think it's stupid.
Why it´s up here? Mostly to annoy people like you.
this is a really good campaign, I hope it makes the idiots think twice about getting a fur.
Gerat ads! I really like the idea and the presentation...
design is like a puzzle... I`m just trying to solve it now
nice..as usual quality comunication from hamburg
coMMunication ;)
Its just too silly for words.
"Here´s a campaign which shows dictators in a reponsible way. And for a relevant product."
I don't think it's very "responsible" AT ALL to compare people who wear fur with Hitler...
Or to compare the victims of the Nazi regime with animals that are kept for fur...
I putted the comment there in regard of the chopstix campaign, which - in my opinion - is more offending.
Part of me wants to like it, part of me doesn't. But at least its better than all the bad PETA ads. I swear the only things their ads do is make people hate them.
Nothing new about this ad campaign.
Nothing cutting edge about it.
It has been done over and over and over again.
Not a single hard days work went into the creation of this ad.
It is a tired Gimmick.
What’s worse than that, it is based on an Insulting Passive- Aggressive Lie.
Maybe if the NOAH and JUNG VON MATT people had been in a High School were they had to witness just ONE of their friends have their head blow off by a peer, They would have a better appreciation for what ONE murder is like. Let alone millions and millions.
Shame on you NOAH and JUNG VON MATT for spending money on a perpetrated lie. If you really wanted to do some good you could spend that money helping People (Human Beings) Men woman and Children that have no Food to eat and no Water to drink.
THOSE WHO SPEND THEIR MONEY ON FUR CAMPAIGNS INSTEAD OF PEOPLE WHO ARE STARVING TO DEATH ARE MURDERS.
MURDERS HAVE NO RESPECT FOR LIFE (OR TRUTH)
Why do people have more right to live on this planet than animals?
because you and me are thinking creatures and your dog is not.
animals don't have the same rights as people and never should. just like plants shouldn't have, or dead objects... if you put animals on the same level as people, why not plants? if you start stretching logic for animals, you won't be able to stop. ever.
AdArena: Sex Sells
http://www.adarena.net
So, thinking creatures should have the right to live and not thinking not? Following this rhetoric, it's ok to kill mentally challenged people because they don't think clearly? And should protect the rights to live of very smart animals, like large parrots, dolphins, orangutangs and german sheppards because they seem to be thinking?
Where do you draw the line for intellect? Who are you to say who has the right to live and who has not anyway?
Truth well told.
;)
Noah shares the believe any kind of killing is murder - wether it is a human being or a tortured animal. In the end we are all animals.
Regarding Jung von Matt - how do you know what this agency is doing socialwise? Besides all their social campaigns which arent just for awardshows.
And another question: What are you doing to do your part to make this world a better place?
Not much i guess, otherwise you wouldnt hide behind a posting which doesnt show your name.
It is quite obvious that your hatred for this campaign comes out of something that has nothing to do with advertising.
I think postings are for serious discussions, not a place where people think they can compensate their personal problems by pissing other people on their shoes without having them to look them in the eyes.
>Regarding Jung von Matt - how do you know what this agency is doing socialwise? Besides all their social >campaigns which arent just for awardshows.
Are You actually believing the stuff You write, haha.. You're either brainwashed or... I don't know.
sorry for the misspelling (murderers)
>Nothing new about this ad campaign.
>Nothing cutting edge about it.
>It has been done over and over and over again.
>Not a single hard days work went into the creation of this ad.
>It is a tired Gimmick.
Now that is what I call solid argumentation ;)
well, are you trying to tell us that you've never seen a similar campaign before?
because I sure did in the Archives of the past 7 years I've spent in advertising.
IT REALLY ISN'T ANYTHING NEW.
AdArena: Sex Sells
http://www.adarena.net
Read the posts before. It´s an old campaign.
what is "similar", and what is "new"?
i care for subtle differences because they
can result in a completely different
meaning (as in this case). I still think
the ad is lovely.
This campaign is tacky and mildly insulting.
Any middle-class woman alive during WWI and WWII had a mink coat in her closet... it was the norm to wear fur. It seems that any time you want to get people to rally around a point of view, you throw up a picture of Hitler and call it the opposition. Hitler drove an SUV. Hitler wore fur. Hitler used Crest.
It's just a really unsophisticated way to smear something. I would have thought that modern day audiences would be too evolved for this, but judging by the supportive comments, I guess not.
The campaign doesnt consist of Hitler alone - do you judge a movie by one fourth of it and then say it´s crap?
I agree on the part that Hitler isnt the "freshest" thing in advertising. But then who said this campaign is new? I think a lot of people here assume that all the ad´s shown are new. They are not.
Any middle class woman had a mink fur?? So between the great depression of the 20´s and the end of the second world war? Hmmm...and here i thought it was allready seen a luxury to get stockings back then.
Reminds me of my grandfather who told me that he didnt even see butter before the war ended - by that time he was 16 and he got raised on a farm.
Keep evolving Bobby, keep evolving.
hello Phil, these ones are good also, and being controversial is part of the campaign, so never mind the protesters, as you can see only hitler's picture makes most of them angry.
anyway as I already mentioned I like them even though I don't agree with this anti-fur thing cause I think wearing real leather or fur is much better than wearing synthetic, which is, like all the plastic, basically made of oil, and does more harm, not to mention, that we're at least partly carnivores, but as you see a controversial subject with a controversial execution almost(!!) anywhere is a hit.
but enough of saving the world the humanity or whatever, let's get back to the real subject, I don't find these so much better then the chopstix ones.
this is a mere statement, its an effective idea, and because of the art direction (what is real neat) Its really catching the sight, and also the copy is clear and the typography is a match, but misses all the fun that the previous example had a lot of, so I don't find it much relevant or responsible, and I think using heavy creatures like them is always irrelevant but maybe that's the point.
and the way of the parody that I mentioned before is one of the oldest, show someone and make him ridiculous by presenting his secret (of course nonexisting) life which no one knows about, tadaam
from this point the KKK one is better because the character's gesture is funny as can be, so the art is helping the copy really effective.
my bet on the chopstix, but I see this one is more efficient in helping the customer to achive it's goal.
all the best,
gabS
let me take a guess...
all those folks who are pissed with this ad are fur-wearers right?
hahahahahhahahahahhahahaha
oh god. no comments!!!
Unless you're doing an ad for the Holocaust Museum, Hitler should be off the table. It's not only offensive, it's borrowed interest. Ooh, look how shocking my campaign can be because I have Hitler in it. Possibly the most brutal man in the history of the world should not be used to hock anything, I don't care how clever the execution.
>“Why do people have more right to live on this planet than animals”?
Ivan: First of all thanks for the forum.
It isn't about Rights it's about Dominion due to Sentience. In all the known Universe (as far as we know for now) there is only one Being (not Animal, but Being) that has self-awareness. Sentience or self-awareness is exclusive to Human Beings. We Beings are the only life form that UNDERSTANDS right from wrong, good from bad. Humans know that they Exist, Animals do not possess any of this. Please do not make the mistake of projecting your feelings or understanding on that of your pet or monkeys or orangutan.
When a Dog does something that the owner is displeased with, the Dog doesn’t tuck it’s (He or She) tail between it’s leg and lower it’s head because it knows right from wrong, it does this because it has been conditioned to react to its owners display be Instinct alone.
Same goes for an Orangutan or Monkey that has been taught to use sign language. People want to believe that the animal has learned to communicate, in fact this is no different that teaching a cat to use the toilet and flush rather than a litter box, the animal is not self aware, it is performing what it has been taught without even the understanding of what it is doing. Pavlov has done extensive research on this very subject. (Pavlov’s salivating Dog)
An Animal can not even be given ‘a Right’ why? Because an animal can not be brought to understand what a right is. Anything else is Human projection.
>“Weather it is a human being or a tortured animal. In the end we are all animals“.
Phil:
As stated above, No, Human Beings are not animals. (Although some of us CHOSE to act like it) Humans are set apart from EVERY other species. We think in complex patterns and make choices not just on instinct but on variables of right and wrong and that which is appropriate. An animal can not differentiate the awareness of appropriate.
Killing an animal is not torture. The word Killing and the word Torture have two separate definitions, one word doesn’t mean the same as the other, and it is important to remember that words mean things, replacing one word with another word doesn’t suddenly change that definition. First you torture then you kill, I don’t care how many times one hits an animal or human after it’s dead they can not feel a thing.
It is not torture to kill an animal because you want its meat or because you want its skin or fur. It is easy to take the life of an animal without causing it pain. The practice is done everyday millions of times a year. It is the Humans responsiblity to treat animals well because we are sentient and are supposed to know better. I hope that your not so against Fur but at the same time you love Baby Back Ribs, Or an excellently marinated Chicken. Or maybe the perfectly prepared steak. Because that would make anyone who did that a pampas ass of a Hypocrite!
I’ll bet Noah has absolutely no problem with doing whatever it takes to get rid of a bunch of New-York City sized rats when they start running around the house getting into the food spreading disease. Earth would be depleted of all it's natural resources and disease would be rampant.
Did you know that if humans didn't kill animals, or rats we would be over-run with them,
Earth would be depleted of all it's natural resources and disease would be rampant.
How do you know some animals are not self aware? We know so little about them. You may claim they just act by instict, but in reality this is not necessarily true. The only way we would be able to claim it is true or not if we were to communicate with them, but we can't. And, it's not because animals can't communicate properly or don't have a language. Some animal language is much more sophisticated in areas than human languages. For example a bee can do a dance for a couple of seconds and it communicates a complex route that can be kilometres away that another bee can follow and find food. Can you tell me the location of a lost vallet in a matter of seconds within a forest? No. Does it make you less intelligent than a bee? No. Then why do you claim that a bee is less intelligent?
When a child is born it is not self aware and only develops that ability with time. It's a gradual process and it's not a sudden discovery that suddenly makes the child from animal like to human. Self awareness is the same with animals. Some of them are instinctual, others are partially self aware and some are for sure fully self aware as you are. Prove me wrong if you can.
One argument can be is that if they were self aware they would have culture as we have. You may say that culture is what makes us apart. Culture is simply collection of knowledge that breaks the linear way of one-to-one communication. So, you don't need an elderly to be alive and tell you about his learnings anymore, but you can take a book he wrote long time ago and read it. So, the only reason why humans seem to be apart from anymals is that we have this little extra step, that we developed writing and recording of information. If bees were to develop some kind of record of information they would start drawing maps and soon they would have the most sophisticated and up to date knowledge of the world. This little step makes a big difference. If survival in some way would require them to do it, they would be able to develop this feature within a couple of thousands of years.
But, this is not a qualitative difference between humans and animals. Yes, we choose to devote our freetime in some cultures to recording information. But if this makes us human, would you claim the tribes in Africa and South America who have no writing are animals? Of course not.
I can find hundreds of ways how animals are better equipped to life, or live a fuller life or chose any quality factor that can make an animal better than a human.
For example dolphins live an emotionally much better and much more sophisticated life. They give names to each other, they have hundreds of words. They continously chat. Much like simple human tribes so far. But, they also spend 90% of their life playing and making love. No work 5 days a week. No suffering, no wars, no pain. Just an ideal life of love and happiness. Surely a futuristic way of life that we all humans try to reach within our lifetime and mostly do not get to ever. Do dolphins have a way of life that superseeds in quality an average human life. Surely it does, but it doesn't make them stand above humans. But you claim humans stand above dolphins. On what grounds? Other than quality of life? What's more important to you than that?
My point is, things that make you feel one of a kind species is real, but it's not the deciding factor of human superiority. From human perspective it is, but from an animal perspective it may be pityful. If you try to look at the world and all it's creatures with a more global perspective you will realize that we are not special in any way. Or I can say we are as special as any other animal. We all have our amazing specialities and we all stand above each other in certain ways, and it would be foolish to pick one subject that we lead in and claim that is the only aspect we should rank all living beings against.
OK people, let's just say that in my day I have met one or two people who most would classify as "thinking" animals, but when you sit down to speak with them, that clearly isn't the case. So, now I ask, as it was asked before, where do we draw the line?
Ivan you are genious! I study animal managment at college, animals are very complex creatures, far more than we shall ever know. And i think alot of people who say we are superior to them have little education on the subject, end of.
Guest - is that your real name - or just s'thing u hide behind? Obviously, you have never been lucky enough to have communicated with an animal - any animal. Because if you had you wouldn't have had to copy oodles of text from some science website and paste it here to prove your point.
A'body who has eve5r been in close contact with animals would know that it isn't so easy to dismiss them as a lower form of intelligence. Unlike humans - who take and take and take - and give n'thing back to this planet - and who are steadily pushing this planetto extinction; they take no more than they need, they respect each other and never take more than they need. You have my sympathy and understanding - maybe if you had been held more often as a child - instead of being contemptuous of animals, you might have been able to appreciate the joy they add to life.
forced