Cheap guns and choices for the poor

Status
Not open for further replies.
So? Isn't getting a reaction out of people that disagree, so that you can hopefully convert them, part of the purpose of posters like that? Otherwise, you're just preaching to the choir.
 
It's a hard call because you don't want the message to be de-coded in the wrong light--but then again, it's high time that we transcend racial baggage going forward as a country. From what I've seen, Oleg's posters often reflect that position--or maybe I'm missing things entirely. I like the poster--but I fear that the weakest thing is that few even know what the GCA of 1968 actually did or how it impacts them to this day.
 
I prefer "America's poor" too.

I'd also move the A) and B) text to opposite sides of the image, instead of having them meet in the middle - it looks kinda wonky to me, and the A) text is almost into the B) section of the picture.
 
Use a white guy instead of an African American


yea that pic of a black guy is gonna catch you some heat from people....

That was my first thought as well. No matter how the message is intended, there's a certain few that will take offense. I don't particularly care about being PC, but the point of this is to win everyone over. It can't be even a little bit inflammatory.

If you use multiple faces, some of them can be black. But using just one, it's gonna be taken wrong. Sad that we have to even consider that, but it's the truth.
 
Multiple faces would work too, but we aren't going to win everyone over. Someone will always be offended about something, and generally, I say screw 'em. There's nothing at all racist about that poster, and I think it should stay as-is.
 
Maybe I'm silly, but it seems to me that if you're trying to reach an African-American audience, using an image of a thoughtful, mature looking, African-American head of the family type guy isn't a bad idea.

But what do I know? Maybe a young, yuppie white guy would be better. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top