Is it fair to advertise your personal emotions? Some weeks ago on Corriere della Sera, one of the main Italian newspapers, a particular “advertisement” was published (see the page): the entire page showed colored photos of a guy while he was having fun in some outdoor activities like parachuting and riding the bike. The “happiness” of the pictures clashed the writing “You will always be my angel, your dad” and some direction for the funeral ceremony. I found out that the man died in a car accident and his father decided to buy a full color newspaper page to commemorate him and “inform” about the funeral.
When I first saw this advertisement the emotions had the upper hand: you feel sorry that such a “joyful” young man died. After some minutes, I started thinking about it. Is it correct to give the possibility to buy a whole page in an important newspaper for such personal reason? I mean, many people died and the majority does not have the possibility of doing it. I don’t think other parents’ sorrow is less than this particular dad. Therefore, should we permit to do such a personal advertisement?
In my opinion, pain and sorrow are personal feelings that can be openly shared when the person involved is well known by everybody for the good he/she did. In general, I disagree with this kind of communication, it can be ethically difficult to determine whether such a type of advertisement should be published. What if the same advertisement would have been done by the son of a famous Nazis soldier to commemorate his dad? Or the son of a mafia man to honor his parent? They probably feel the same grief for their relatives.
Daniel Windels, former Senior Marketplace Planner at GSD&M Advertising in
In my opinion advertising should be a way of communication, open to businesses, institutions and organizations in general, but not for private feelings. Only few wealthy people are able to access to the mass media and I don’t think it is correct to privilege the rich ones. Moreover, I am sorry for the dead guy but I still do not understand why they allowed to “advertise” it, the dad could have published a big obituary or something on the web.
I would like to recall what Seneca (4 -65 AD), a famous Roman Stoic philosopher thought about pain, probably we should pay more attention to the ideas of past theorists: “Est aliquis et dolendi decor, hic sapienti servandus est” (16 book, Epist. 99) – “Even through suffering, there is dignity and only wise people can hold it”.
The big question that pops up in my mind is why? Why would this person feel the need to advertise their son's death? How does the public benefit from having this information? And more importantly, how does the family benefit from such an advertisement? Like you said, if this individual was an important or well-known figure, then his death would certainly have more relevance. But if it was a celebrity-type, media outlets would have the story covered and an advertisement wouldn't be necessary. If the man in the ad was in some way related to the news organization or was in advertising himself, or wanted this sort of commemoration in his will, then I would be more understanding. Without that relevance though, it seems to be asking for a bunch of strangers to show up at your son's funeral.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up many good points on why this type of advertising probably shouldn't be available, and while I understand where you're coming from, I have to disagree about cost being an issue in this situation. The problem is that with that kind of reasoning wealthy people shouldn't be able to have extravagant funerals or even nice things at all. I know my argument is a slippery slope, but what makes an expensive advertisement different than other similar demands from the wealthy? If the father wanted Irene Grandi to perform at the funeral, should it be prohibited because poor people can't afford it? In general I think the whole funeral ad is silly, but when you're willing to pay, people are going to do almost anything you ask.