
Lenticular Photo Used To Secretly Convey Hot Line Number To Abused Kids - scholia
http://www.diyphotography.net/lenticular-photo-used-secretly-convey-hot-line-number-abused-kids
======
onan_barbarian
No, thank you. I know abused kids are a serious issue, but the vast majority
of kids aren't abused, and this is a disturbing ad to show specifically to a
kid, especially when the grown-up with them doesn't see it.

I'm picturing walking past this billboard with my kid and having him ask
"Daddy, why does that kid look all beat up" and answering "no, that kid looks
perfectly normal, you're making it up". Nice.

There are far better ways to have a very high-quality 2-way covert channel to
any kid old enough to read an ad and act on the information here, namely:
school. Many teachers are extremely pro-active about figuring out signs of
abuse. My mother was a teacher and intervened decisively and successfully in a
serious ongoing physical abuse situation once.

Plus, the idea that you might care about kids at school and find out what's up
with them is a good precedent that can lead to a lot of other nice related
things even when there isn't abuse. On the other hand, lenticular ads that
show different things to adults and kids is not a good precedent, whether it's
used to show grosser ads to grownups than we currently have to see already
("hey, the kids can't see this") or to covertly market to kids.

~~~
btilly
I am sad that this is the top comment. Estimates vary, but something likely
over 10% of the population has been abused. That's a lot. That's a lot of kids
that are going through schools and being missed right now. It is wonderful
that your mother caught one, but she missed dozens more. That's not an
effective approach.

Doubly so when kids tend to think that schools work hand in hand with parents.
Your expectation is that anything you tell the school, goes home. Even if they
say it won't. Adults lie. Abused kids don't have a lot of trust. Anonymity
makes a big difference.

Also there are worse things in the world than having to have that discussion
with your kid. Like not wanting to stay home when you're sick because you're
afraid that you'll wind up with a sore ass from your mother's boyfriend.

What? You think that is an unfair thing for me to say? Well I've got worse for
you. I don't have to imagine that - I just have to remember.

If a billboard like this helps one kid like I was, and disturbs a hundred like
yours, that's a worthwhile tradeoff in my books. Before leaping to disagree,
stop and think about the fact that the typical estimate is that equivalent
experiences are the reality of childhood for 20% of women and 5% of men.
That's a lot of kids. It is wonderful that your kids get better. But far too
many don't.

And no, schools are not an effective answer to this problem. Ideas like this
one might not be either, but it is worth trying them so that we can see how
well they work. Because until you try them, you can't find out if they might.

~~~
run4yourlives
I thought the parent comment was a great point, but yours is as well.

Question for you though, since I've been trying to figure this out since I
pulled up this post: What exactly is the point of "hiding" this from adults,
besides cute gimmick? It's not like an abuser can somehow prevent a child from
seeing a billboard that they themselves also see. Are we afraid that access to
the phone number can be restricted? Well, this article does that all on its
own.

What's the point? What's the benefit?

On the flip side, I'm VERY concerned at marketers trying to direct a message
to my child while _deliberately hiding that message from me, the parent_. I
personally don't care what that message is. It could be for abused kids or it
could be to tell them that their parents should be turned into the authorities
for not agreeing with the government. The message is irrelevant.

As a responsible parent in charge of creating the best 18 year old man I can
out of my 6 and 4 year old boys, I NEED to be aware of as much as possible
that their little brains are taking in. Not to censor them (although in some
cases this is appropriate), but to temper that intake with a does of 38 years
of wisdom that they simply do not possess at the moment.

I have no issues discussing child abuse with my sons. In fact I would love to
do so in an effort to ensure that they come to me (or another adult) if one of
their classmates or friends is in this situation. Hell, I want them to come to
me if _they_ feel in this situation too.

This billboard does not promote any of this. It separates me from my child in
a very underhanded way.

~~~
btilly
In my case, my abuser threatened my life if ever I told, and used to brag
about how good he was at finding people. With the implication that he could
track me down.

If he'd recognized a billboard like that, he could have taken it as an
opportunity to warn me. I would have believed that warning from someone I
viewed as incredibly powerful. Which would make the billboard entirely
useless.

But if he didn't see the ad, he couldn't deliver that threat. If by chance I
became aware that he couldn't even _see_ the ad, it would have undermined my
impression of how powerful he was.

Would it have worked? I don't know. Quite possibly not. Maybe it would for
some but not others. The only way to really find out is to try it.

Furthermore they should keep track at the other end of how many kids calling
saw that billboard. If those statistics say it is effective, then roll it out
to a bunch of places for as long as it keeps on working. (Over time abusers
will become aware of the trick and be on the lookout for it.)

As for the marketing issue, I hear you and do not disagree. The technology
could be used in very bad ways. I just happen to think that this is a good use
of it, and is something that is worth trying.

~~~
run4yourlives
You were already living is such fear of the power of your abuser that I doubt
this ad would help much. As it stands, there is nothing to tell the child that
the abuser isn't seeing exactly what they are.

I hear what you are saying and sympathize with where you are coming from.
However one must always be mindful of the unintended consequences of our good
intentions. In this case, I see a huge potential for abuse with little
positive payoff. I can't logically conclude otherwise without simply making a
play to emotion.

~~~
btilly
Sorry to be blunt, but you fail at logic.

You have a theory about my behavior that might or might not be correct. You
have extrapolated that to a theory about all abused children that is even less
likely to be correct than the first. You have concluded from that that you see
no point in actually trying the experiment and collecting data because it is
guaranteed to fail.

Your initial theory about me is incorrect. After years of abuse I got to that
point, sure. But I didn't start there. I believe from my own memories of
myself that there was a period where I would be willing to try it, and a
period where I wouldn't.

Your generalization of my experience (which you weren't there for and know
almost nothing about) is even less correct than your initial theory. I was but
one child with one set of experiences. Different children react differently.
Different children go through different patterns of abuse. My description is
anecdote, not data.

And finally your absolute certainty that it is useless to even try is nothing
short of absolutely galling. On what evidence do you give up before trying?
I've got a heck of a lot more experience/knowledge than you do, and I
certainly don't think it is hopeless to try this! (I don't necessarily think
it will work, but it seems like a promising idea.)

As for the message itself, well, I am not in a position to judge. Ideally it
was crafted with input from people who had suffered the exact kind of abuse
they are targeting about what would have been most likely to work for them. I
know that the most effective messages are often not what someone without
experience would guess them to be. They've got more knowledge about physical
abuse than I do.

My experience was sexual abuse, which is different in many ways. But if it
shows any signs of effectiveness for one then it can be repeated with messages
aimed at other kinds of victims.

For sexual abuse I might suggest a message along the lines of, _He says you
asked for it, and it sometimes feels good. But it is wrong and you don't want
it. We understand. We can make it stop._

Why that message? Because the best way to show you actually understand is to
state the deepest, darkest truth of sexual abuse. Which is that abusers try to
convince themselves and their victims that this is an act of love, and
children are not equipped with the emotional maturity to distinguish "this
feels good" from "I want this".

(That message might be a bit too raw. I've known a lot of adults who were
unable to look back at their own abuse and face that statement. And explaining
it to your kids would be extremely hard. But it is a statistical certainty
that they will have kids in their classrooms who are actually GOING through
that, but nobody knows it...)

~~~
run4yourlives
Since you are being blunt, I'll respond in kind.

I think you are too emotionally invested in this topic to see my point and
thus have a rational discussion about it.

I appreciate your experiences and never intended to insult you. However I
wasn't really talking about you, you are.

~~~
btilly
Continuing the theme.

You were sufficiently unaware of the ways in which abusers try to control
victims that you failed to understand the purpose of the sign.

When the way in which the design of the sign is meant to bypass the dynamics
of abuse was described to you, you leaped to the conclusion that abusers are
going to succeed in controlling victims, so there is no point to even trying
something like this sign.

When I pointed out that the fact that abusers try to control victims does not
mean that they necessarily succeed, and it is worth trying the sign out to see
if it successfully reaches some victims, you concluded that I'm too
emotionally invested to have a rational conversation.

Returning your bluntness in kind, on this topic, you are sufficiently
uninformed that you can't have an opinion worth respecting. Your only choices
are A) inform yourself, B) shut up, or C) be an asshole.

I'm sorry that you've chosen option C, and see no point in continuing this
conversation.

~~~
run4yourlives
_You were sufficiently unaware of the ways in which abusers try to control
victims that you failed to understand the purpose of the sign._

I'm perfectly aware, I just don't agree that it is a valid measure, and in
addition I feel this particular method is open to abuse that has little if
anything to do with this particular message.

 _you concluded that I'm too emotionally invested to have a rational
conversation._

Because you are, in as much as you:

1\. Fail to see my main point, or feel that the negative consequences are
unimportant because of the possibility of positive outcomes.

2\. Have downvoted my comments.

3\. Have called me an asshole.

I'm pretty clear on where you stand, and see nothing to change my original
assessment. Feel free to downvote this comment as well, as I'm not
particularly connected to happy points on the internet.

------
jleader
The whole thing strikes me as the ad agency trying to do something clever that
will impress other ad industry folks, and not really trying to address any
real issues. Basically, "here's some clever technology, how can we pretend it
solves a problem?"

Seriously, abusers will let their kids look at an ad about child abuse, as
long as it doesn't have a phone number on it, and the kid in the ad isn't
injured?

Is the problem with getting child abuse reported really that the kids don't
know the hotline number? "If only those poor abused kids knew the hotline
number, they'd all call it."

Also, the lenticular lens restricts the image to a particular viewing angle,
not a particular height, so kids standing farther away will see the adults-
only image, and adults standing very close will probably be able to see at
least the upper portion of the kids-only image.

~~~
eridius
Did you read the whole article? The upper portion of the "kids-only image" is
identical to the upper portion of the adult image. Only part of the lower half
is any different.

~~~
brown9-2
The article states that the agency was concerned with how to reach children
looking at an ad without letting the adult they are with know they are looking
at an ad about child abuse.

However, the version of the ad that adults see is _still about child abuse_.

------
sukuriant
Maybe I'm too serious about this; but a couple of the kinds of responses in
this thread really irk me.

1) "not good enough". Yeah, but it's better than nothing; and if it can
protect one kid from an abusive situation, or one set of kids from their
abusive situations, then that is wonderful.

2) "lol, sucks to be [insert random demographic]". Yes, because child abuse is
funny </sarcasm>. No, it really isn't. It's not funny at all. The person
that's supposed to be watching after you is your greatest danger. It's like
cyber-bullying and regular-bullying except with your parent. It's even harder
to escape that.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
Maybe we should take all kids away from their parents and let the state raise
them. After all, that will certainly protect one kid from an abusive
situation, so it is wonderful. <sarcasm, obviously />

I don't have a strong opinion on the advertisement, but I _do_ have a strong
opinion about the "do anything to protect one X" where X is used more for
special interests than out of actual concern for X.

Things should be thought of in terms of cost-benefit. Otherwise, you wind up
with crap like the TSA, where far more people are dying from driving due to
not flying because of horrible TSA policies than the TSA is saving from
terrorist attacks.

So, on the advertisement, it is a good thing to cause emotional distress to
all the kids who _aren't_ being abused and who have no idea that kind of thing
exists?

(And, fwiw, I take this topic very seriously. I have four kids myself and was
abused growing up. It is _not_ just an academic, somebody-else's-kids topic to
me.)

EDIT: Oh, and I completely agree with your second point. Child abuse is an
amazingly serious topic. There are few things worse than the person whom you
are supposed to trust most and who is supposed to care most for you violating
that trust.

~~~
sukuriant
> I don't have a strong opinion on the advertisement, but I do have a strong
> opinion about the "do anything to protect one X" where X is used more for
> special interests than out of actual concern for X.

If I came off as encouraging that sort of argument, I am very sorry. That was
not my intent even a little, and it's certainly not what I believe.

> So, on the advertisement, it is a good thing to cause emotional distress to
> all the kids who aren't being abused and who have no idea that kind of thing
> exists?

This is a rough thing to answer. I would ask if the kids really are
experiencing emotional distress from seeing those pictures. They might, they
might not; though, now that you've brought this method into question, I'm now
torn on this whole issue, especially since that the conversation of "why is
that boy hurt?" / "He doesn't look hurt to me, dear" conversation is a
plausible one; and, to be honest, I don't have an answer yet. I do think that
both the adult and children's version of the image talks about child abuse, so
that might make the conversation easier.

Again, if my previous post engendered the "do _anything_ to protect the X"
stance, I wholeheartedly apologize; and if possible, please let me know what I
said that made you think I was taking that stance, since I don't want to be
confused there. (emphasis on the _anything_ part, because that's where the
danger of doing too much/fixing the wrong thing/harming more than good/etc
problems come in)

~~~
SoftwareMaven
To answer your question about what made me think you were taking that stance:

"it's better than nothing; and _if it can protect one kid_ from an abusive
situation, or one set of kids from their abusive situations, then that is
wonderful."

The thing that made me think it was the lack of any qualification. It appeared
to be (your follow-on comment repudiated that, obviously) a case where, if you
protect one kid, regardless of the consequences, it is wonderful.

Taking this discussion back to the kids, I think it should be possible to do
things to help kids, even one kid, that don't have potential downsides, but it
requires the people who are performing the actions to be more likely to do it
for the kids and less likely to do it for themselves.

Politicians seem to fail continually at this; the ad might be a positive (I
have no data) but it leaves me uncomfortable that somebody is targeting my
kids directly with something I can't see.

Something tells me is isn't the last "message hidden from mom and dad" that
will be directed at kids. But is it worse than "Remember to drink your
Ovaltine"?

------
konstruktor
A user recently pointed out that the most important advertising festival is
coming up (<http://www.canneslions.com/>) and that agencies are doing
campaigns just to enter the race for awards, which seems to be relevant here.
See also [http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57581882-71/microsoft-
turn...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57581882-71/microsoft-turns-forbes-
magazines-into-wi-fi-hot-spots/)

~~~
stbullard
The impracticality of this ad doesn't mean it's just Lion bait.

Some ads are made solely to win awards, and are utterly impractical, but the
converse doesn't hold: not all impractical ads are made solely for awards
shows.

In this case, the impractical presentation is driving a conversation, which is
itself increasing awareness of the issue and the phone number, 116-111. That's
a good ad at work: not necessarily at the obvious level - people seeing it on
a Spanish street - but nonetheless creating outsize value for the client.

------
nichodges
The headline of this ad is the giveaway to it being little more than an ad
agency and their client wanting to 'be famous' (in the world of advertising),
with a video about their idea that will reach 1000x as many people as the
purported audience of the actual ad.

The use of charity clients by agencies to win awards is not unusual. Sometimes
the ideas that win awards are truly effective and wonderful (The Tap
Project[1], Million NYC[2]), but more often these are 'scam ads' that are
never even seen by the intended audience.

The traditional advertising industry is attempting to cope with obsolescence
in a way that sees it increasingly loosing touch with reality.

A tweet for Oreos recently won a major advertising award, and 14 people were
credited[3]. How a lenticular that nobody will ever see in real life makes the
top of HN is a bit of a mystery to me.

[1] <http://www.unicefusa.org/campaigns/tap-project/> [2]
<http://www.millionnyc.com/> [3] <http://t.co/lxI7W1ty9A>

~~~
fyi80
Oh my. In my day they just gave us coupons for free personal pan pizza for
each 10 books we read.

------
lessnonymous
Adult sees an advertisement for McDonald's Healthy Salad. Kid points to it and
wants to go to McDonalds. Parent likes that kid responded to ad for salad.

But the kid was really responding to an ad for deep fried processed chicken
and potato.

~~~
vacri
Never going to happen, because the PR fallout would be terrible. Lenticular
presentation doesn't make you immune from seeing the image if you're above a
certain age. Adults will still see it if they're short, if they're sitting
down, if the billboard company put it a bit too high or in a bad place, if
you're crouching down to tie your kid's shoe, because you've been told it's
there by an article or someone involved in installing it... the list goes on.
This is the kind of thing people will overlook for a noble cause, but would
have bad fallout for commercial gain.

~~~
bnegreve
> Never going to happen,

I wouldn't be so sure. Advertisement industry uses a lot of tricks that are
not really different from this one. Some people don't like them but most
people don't notice or don't care.

Another example is Facebook that keeps adding features that reduce people's
privacy, you see a lot of complains on the web, yet they don't change anything
because 99% are fine with it.

So it's definitely not because a trick _can be_ detected, that it isn't worth
using it.

~~~
freehunter
But in Facebook's example, the 1% who were not fine with it made enough noise
to have Facebook regulated by the federal government. They are now mandated to
honor your privacy settings, no matter what.

So that example falls a bit short in that if it's egregious enough of a trick,
regulators will take notice.

------
minopret
This campaign is a bit "meta". It succeeded to get _our_ attention, or rather,
the attention of people like us in Spain. As far as I can tell the lenticular
posters are only a design concept.

Here in brackets are my guesses at emendations of the Google Translate version
of what the ad agency wrote on YouTube: "We appreciate your comments. ANAR
Foundation has few resources to give out [its] telephone [number for]
complaint [about] abusers. Thanks [to] the publicity [the] campaign is having
on media and [to] all [the] comments on social networking [it, ANAR
Foundation] has achieved the main goal of the campaign: Raise awareness of the
Foundation and the phone [number] 116 111 to assist children and adolescents
at risk. We encourage you to continue to help raise awareness of the ANAR
Foundation. Thank you very much." --
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0h1mgpn95s>

------
throwaway1980
The supposed reason for this is that the abuser won't be able to tell what the
kid is looking at. If it's unsafe for a kid to look at such an ad with the
abuser around, how is the kid supposed to know that the abuser can't see what
he's reading and possibly copying down?

~~~
stormbrew
Would the kid benefit any more by the ad not being there or by not using this
technique to make it only visible to the kid?

Any kid scared enough to scrub having seen it from their own mind would not be
well served by any version of this. The hope would be that some kids will see
the number, remember it, and then call it later.

~~~
Samuel_Michon
But then, why limit it to kids who are 4'4"? Aren’t shorter and taller kids
being abused? If it’s a numbers game, shouldn’t you want to cast the net as
wide as possible?

~~~
sukuriant
Shorter kids will probably be able to see it (it's an angles thing; so,
shorter kids will probably see it from further away I'm guessing).

I'm theorizing here; but, abuse probably doesn't start with the child is 14 or
15. It probably starts when they're 7 or 8; and they'll see the ad. By the
time they're 14 or 15 and not able to see the advertisement anymore, they'll
hopefully have seen it so much that, when they finally have the courage to
call the number and flee, since they haven't already in your prescribed
scenario (which is VERY possible), they'll remember it from their youth.

I believe the thinking for this kind of tool is that it's better that the
parent doesn't know that the kid knows this number than it is that all
children know the number.

~~~
mikeash
"It probably starts when they're 7 or 8"

Pretty sure it's much earlier than that. It's not like a parent wakes up one
day and says, "Well, little Johnny is seven years old today, finally old
enough for me to start beating him with a rake like I've always wanted to do."

This stuff starts very early. One serious problem with this stuff is that,
since the child is subjected to it from pretty much the beginning, they grow
up thinking it's normal. This makes it less likely for them to seek help (help
for what? it's normal!) and helps perpetuate the cycle, as they're more likely
to do the same thing to their own children.

------
meraku
The sad thing about this is that we're probably going to start seeing this
form of advertising being used to specifically target kids with marketing
messages, where the parent (or adult) looking at the same sign will be
oblivious to what is happening.

~~~
darkarmani
Joe Camel is really going to start advertising cigarettes to kids now. The
"high" ad is a no smoking ad and the "low" add is joe camel getting kids to
try smoking.

------
blackjack160
Clever idea but I think the ad space is better utilized delivering the message
as legibly as possible within that space. "Abused? Call NNN-NNN." This would
increase effective range, making it harder for the abuser to evade. You can
argue that it makes it easier to evade, but in a busy subway, or other closed
environs, legibility is hard to suppress. They can also mix and match font and
background colors to make it harder for the abuser to detect Banner patterns
for avoidance. It would also be smart if the campaign could pseudo-randomize
display spots, again making it harder to consciously evade the message.

If we had to go with the lenticular approach, they could also experiment with
sound frequencies that kids are sensitive to, but adults would struggle with.
That could be a cool hailing beacon to couple with the display.

------
nate00
I'm not sure what to make of the sentence at the top of the ad.

 _Sometimes, child abuse is only visible to the child suffering it._

It seems like the sentence is supposed to be a clever wink, which makes me
wonder whether the lenticular photo effect is meant for secret communication
or for a discussion-provoking gimmick.

~~~
bostonpete
It told me that the sign was more intended to promote awareness of child abuse
issues than to really serve as a secret/hidden message to abused children.

------
downandout
It has interesting mainstream applications for in-store advertising. You can
tout the benefits of a product meant for children to an adult and appeal to
the child at the same time.

~~~
batgaijin
Remember, whining in the car works best

------
sgdesign
My first impression is that this is a particularly stupid idea. It will
probably result in lot of kids not seeing the number because they're a little
too short or a little too tall for their age.

~~~
pseudonym
For one, there is no "too short" for this particular type of display. It's an
under-over type of thing.

For two, they're explicitly taking the 'average height of a 10 year old' for
this. You would write off the entire ad as pointless because, as implied by
the very definition of "average", 50% of 10 year olds and a smaller percentage
of each age below 10 would be unable to see it?

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater...

~~~
mcintyre1994
That criticism sounds valid to me. That's a lot of children, and it's not like
10 is some sort of cut off point for anything.

~~~
pseudonym
I think the only cutoff is "lower bound of the height a potentially abusive
adult would see it at", and retroactively went back and said "okay this height
is average for a 10 year old".

According to what I find from a quick google, average height for a 10-year-old
is about 4.5", with it starting to spike up dramatically at the age of 12-13
(from ~50 to ~60"). Without knowing the actual height they set this for,
though, it's impossible to say how many kids they would or would not get with
this kind of advertising.

------
joshmlewis
Ad content aside, this type of advertising is a step further of how grocery
stores place certain items at eye level with kids vs eye level with adults,
aka cereal. Very interesting progression.

------
DigitalSea
Child abuse is a serious issue and I applaud any campaign that aims to help
bring it to the spotlight. I have a couple of serious questions about the
campaign though:

1) What if a child is abnormally tall? They wouldn't get to see the
advertisement. And trust me. I have a cousin who was taller than most average
adults when he was 11 years old (might not be the average, but certainly tall
enough the number wouldn't be seen by him).

2) The campaign aims to hide the number from adults, but what if the adult was
abnormally short, they would see the campaign. Would this be a big deal?
Probably not, but it does show a flaw or two in the ideas behind the campaign.

3) Is this enough? The intentions are noble and clear, but is a poster with
magic number enough to help? Most people will see a poster with a beaten up
kid, but no number, so it kind of loses effect. If the number was always
visible it might be of more help and doubtful it would be any child in danger.
The money spent on this campaign will far outweigh any benefit it provides and
it somewhat saddens me.

The number #1 thing kids who are abused have mostly in common is that they go
to school. Teachers are exceptionally good at spotting signs of abuse and
reporting it, it's highly encouraged especially here in Australian educational
communities. Posters with the number clearly displayed being plastered around
school grounds and playgrounds would probably be more beneficial and helpful
in my opinion as parents or perpetrators are most likely not following the
kids they're abusing around the school between classes.

~~~
nl
To (1) & (2): Perfect is the enemy of good.

To (3): No, only short people see the bruises. Read the article.

------
lucb1e
Am I the only one who thinks it's a good thing that people are at least trying
to do the right thing for abused children? Trying to come up with something
new that might help?

~~~
DanBC
I thought it was fairly obvious that this ad-campaign is less about the actual
gimmick being useful or not, and more about creating discussion.

The ad is probably not going to directly get the number into the hands of
children, and there are much better ways to get the number to children
(leaflets in loos at schools; leaflets in phonebooths at schools; etc) and so
the numbers of children directly helped by this are probably going to be low.

But it does raise some interesting discussion.

------
sahaskatta
Seems like a great idea for movie posters too. Children see an advertisement
for a 'G' movie while adults see an advertisement for a 'R' movie.

------
lenazegher
I guess this is _kind of_ interesting, but it also seems a lot like fluff.

------
bmmayer1
Shouldn't this be the opposite? The kid sees a regular ad. The adult sees a
disturbing picture that says "PLEASE DON'T BEAT UP YOUR KID."

~~~
brazzy
No, because the point is to get abused kids to dial that number, and before
that to understand what the message is about.

------
loupeabody
I'm curious to know if this ad actually resulted in more child abusers being
reported.

~~~
sukuriant
Or /will/ result. Getting the kids to a phone will probably be the hard part.
I hope they figure out a way to handle that.

------
mhb
Wouldn't the 911 dispatcher be able to direct the kid to the appropriate
service?

~~~
toast0
Not in Spain, you'd need the 112 dispatcher to direct the kid. I thought about
this as well, but I think the intent is to reach out to children who are being
frequently abused and may not realize that abuse isn't normal; and maybe also
reach out to children who know something is wrong but don't know who to call.
I'm not sure if this ad is the most effective outreach available with this
organization's budget, which I think is the real issue. (Although, doing PR on
the ad seems to have been effective outreach)

------
Yver
It's a very interesting idea, but in the end it's a moderately-sized number
that's light gray over a dark gray background... It seems hard enough to read
that the kid would have to stare at the ad.

~~~
mikeash
The whole point is that it's OK for the kid to stare at the ad, because from
the vantage of a normal-sized adult, it doesn't look like it's anything
related to child abuse.

~~~
gburt
Except it's just the phone number and quote that are hidden from adults.
There's a message at the top about child abuse and a picture of an abused kid
that everyone sees.

~~~
MichaelApproved
I think the child looks normal with no injuries to the adults. The bruises
only show up to the children.

------
NatW
it seems this is a technique for targeted marketing in the abstract. One sign
might target two age group market segments, simultaneously, a kind of 'message
discrimination'. I find it a bit concerning precisely because the age groups
may be unaware of the segregated presentation.

In this case it's theoretically a public service announcement, but it could
alternatively be e.g: a business marketing toys / candy, 'under the radar' of
parents.. The message of a political or religious group, or any number of
possibilities.

------
braum
not much of a secret anymore...

~~~
sukuriant
True; but, if they can do it with this image, they can do it with hundreds of
other images. It makes me very happy to see an old tech used in a potentially
very, very helpful light; and not just a gimmick for movie box art

------
blots
I doubt that parents abusing their kids or the kids being abused are even
aware that some people would think of the relationship as abusive. What if
it's just verbal bullying? And I suppose it's mostly psychological abuse.
Maybe when the child grows up it will realize that the parent was wrong, but
not at 10 years or younger.

------
GigabyteCoin
What an incredibly great use of technology.

------
brandan
Bad news for tall kids.

~~~
Spectral
This isn't "bad news" for tall kids. Essentially nothing has changed for them
overall, they wouldn't see this message anyways. This is just possibly good
news for the demographic of medium/short kids who may have the chance of
seeing this, which is the whole purpose of this campaign.

~~~
hawkw
I think this is a pretty common problem, people failing to realize that good
news for one demographic isn't necessarily bad news for another.

~~~
brandan
i think a more common problem is people taking flippant comments way too
seriously.

~~~
hawkw
Fair enough. :)

------
LekkoscPiwa
And this works as long as you don't advertise the whole world how you did it!

Idiots!

