Can we have just 10 years to rest in peace...

Does this mean that bin Laden is in Taiwan now? Maybe we can invade, you know, until something else comes up.

Heinous Offense indeed!

I believe the company is in Taiwan, as in ROC not PROC.

Oh puhleeze. this is my country and I'll buy a crap car if I want.

whatcha gonna do? boycott them, LOL.

*runs away naked*

that's. like french wine and dixie chicks albums, i'm throwing all my "made in china" products away.

The Chinese govt and media FREAK THE HELL OUT when other nations even reference Tiananmen Square, so it would be out of the question to co-opt it in some marketing campaign. This company knew full well what they were doing; they did it for the reaction we're giving it right now.

adm, you mean this Amex Ad?

Do you see the smoldering ruins of the WTC there?

IMO, it's night and day.

Nick,

I would be completely up for agreeing with your vaild point if some folks over at the Gizmodo threads hadn't more or less tracked down where in its orithey got the actual images used to create that composite background. While some people in charge of making this ad might not have known the source, the people who actually found the images must have as the original is absolutely obvious in where it comes from. The ruins of the WTC are something the world saw. Their use here must have been conscious at some point - no one group of media professionals is that out of touch. Was that the original intent of the ad? Who knows. But intent is not the problem here - this is advertising not law. In ads, effect is all that matters and the effect in this case is pretty bad.

And remember De Niro's "My Heartbreak" American Express ad which showed Ground Zero. I'm not sure one is more offensive than the other, but the AmEx ad is certainly in the same ballpark.

"Hey, here's how 9/11 affected me, a famous movie star. Now get this credit card."

No, I'm sure they knew where it came from, just clueless as to the emotional impact that image still has.

While it is shameful to use this type of image in any ad campaign, I doubt this was done with any foresight. Like Nick said-it's easy enough to confuse rubble pictures especially if you are using an image database and this ad has all the hallmarks of image databases (poorly cropped foreground image that doesn't match lighting of background image). I'd be careful trying to stir up stuff because who knows what kinds of nonsense the American advertising community is up to that would rival or even eclipse this pretty easily.

I'm not even going to touch this...

I'd be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt -- they may have just been looking for pictures of rubble and may not have even realized what they were using. It's easy enough to do if you're looking at a large image library. Has there been any proof/confirmation that this was a conscious decision?

I'd be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt -- they may have just been looking for pictures of rubble and may not have even realized what they were using. It's easy enough to do if you're looking at a large image library. Has there been any proof/confirmation that this was a concious decision?

Awful, just awful. Surprised other NYC elements haven't picked up on this - course, it's an overseas thing so maybe it won't ever get the heat that those "Our Country" truck ads got for running Katrina footage and 9/11-influenced shots.

I guess the real question is, who at an ad firm thinks in such terms - that products are so important that suffering can be used to sell them?

You ever run into that, Jen?

yeah - reading again.