Action for Children end TV ad campaign
The Action for Children TV commercial about the Story of Dan, a young man with Asperger Syndrome will not be shown after tonight, Sunday 8th February. According to the Action for Children blog the campaign was always meant to end today. Which is strange because both Barbara Jacobs and I received emails from Action for Children which said the commercial would run until next Sunday.I published mine here.
Action for Children’s responses to their critics have been confusing and inconsistent. It seems that different people from different departments have been dealing with a public furore which they clearly did not expect and struggled to understand. Initially people wrote to Gary Day, head of Supporter Care at Action for Children. Sharon published his reply to her in which he stated that
Dan tells his own story in his own words, and he chose to name his condition, the drawings that you see were also drawn by Dan, the pictures depict how he saw himself before we as a charity got involved and helped Dan and his family.
When I wrote I received an out of office reply and subsequently an email from Emma Alford, the Contact Centre Manager which was slightly different.
In our second advert, Dan chose to name his condition and approved the concept and drawings. These pictures depict how he saw himself and what he felt he needed help with before Action for Children helped Dan and his family for a number of years.
The blog is written by Fiona Lydon who works in the communications team at Action for Children. She writes,
The monster in the advertisement is absolutely not Dan’s autism. It is the way that he himself described how he felt his behaviour was before getting this support. Dan wanted to talk specifically about his autism and we believe it would have been wrong for us to censor him or his ideas in any way.
We also learn from Fiona that Dan was a victim of late diagnosis. This combined with lack of support meant he did not understand his behaviour. He and his family were under pressure that could have been avoided if the right support had been in place. According to Fiona Action for Children provided that support. Dan was a success story and he wanted to tell his story in his own words.
The monster in the advertisement is absolutely not Dan’s autism. It is the way that he himself described how he felt his behaviour was before getting this support. Dan wanted to talk specifically about his autism and we believe it would have been wrong for us to censor him or his ideas in any way.
As I pointed out in my reply on their blog (currently in the moderation queue - well it is Sunday night) presenting Dan’s view without any comment or clarification is not about censorship. It shows a lack of responsibility. And if, indeed, the monster was not a depiction of autism, but was in fact a depiction of the anger and frustration that autistic people feel when they are not properly supported or understood, can we look forward to a sequel in which Dan can talk about his autism in a new light now he is getting the support he needs?
So we have had mixed messages, contradictory statements and a slowly emerging back story of late diagnosis and anger and frustration at the lack of support and understanding that helps to explain the ad. BUT the millions who saw the ad on TV do not have access to that back story or the insights that come from a personal acquaintance with autism. A campaign that has to explain itself after the event has failed in its purpose. Let us hope that lessons will be learned and that not too much actual damage has been done.
Comment by Tera | February 9th, 2009
A lot of confusing responses to the protests, to be sure.
I was/am especially confused by Flora Lydon’s response, where she says that Dan “wanted to talk specifically about his autism” but the monster “is absolutely not Dan’s autism.”
Comment by Janine | February 9th, 2009
You say “BUT the millions who saw the ad on TV do not have access to that back story”. Thank goodness there are people around like you & Barbara to explore these inconsistencies. I wonder if they were so naive that they thought thay wouldn’t get any feedback they’d have to respond to!
Comment by Janine | February 9th, 2009
I felt I had to come back and comment again.
The ad, while it was showing the section where Dan appears to be inside the monster is accompanied by the voiceover -
“I used to lash out if something pushed my buttons or I wasn’t able to do something. Things that wound me up were if they’d insulted me I would physically hurt that young person. My parents sought out help with my autism because it was becoming a pain in the bum.”
I find it difficult, with that evidence, to accept that Action For Children were attempting to portray anything other than that the monster was the autism.
Comment by Socrates | February 9th, 2009
“A campaign that has to explain itself after the event has failed in its purpose”
The National Autistic Society’s “I Exist” campaign managed to deal with some very emotive stories and images without eliciting howls of rage from across the world.
The lessons about the presentation of autism to the general public have already been learned. I hope that the NAS will be a good teacher, and that Action For Children will be a good pupil.
However, both organisations need to learn lessons about engaging their respective constituencies - and in the absences of substantive communications from either of them about this whole affair, they should not be surprised if adverse inferences are drawn.
I can see little evidence that any of the clearly stated issues raised by the campaign, have been addressed. Nor do we have any evidence that they will be.
I was told by a Soho PR man that “the world will soon forget you” - perhaps.
But I won’t forget the very real and important issues that need to be dealt with - and the campaign continues until they are.
Comment by Socrates | February 9th, 2009
UPDATE: I’ve just had an email from the NAS (at last!), giving details of the representations they have made to AfC, and the undertakings they’ve been given.
I’ll post a run down of the statement this evening on the New Republic.
Comment by Paula | February 12th, 2009
Hi Mike,
I just came across your blog. I’m trying to connect with parents and carers of children with autism, for a new online community. Would you be interested in hearing information about this? Sorry to comment publicly - I couldn’t find an email!
Get in touch if you want to chat - paula@talkaboutautism.org.uk.
Paula
Comment by Lesley | March 6th, 2009
I would just like to say how much my 8 year-old son, who has a recent diagnosis of Autism, identified with the advert. He told me about it, before I’d had chance to see it myself, remembered the name of the charity, and said “that’s just like me”.
Perhaps people are looking too deeply into the advert, as as a child on the spectrum he completely recognised the ‘monster’.