Was The ProRail ‘Victim Fashion’ Campaign Too Controversial?

Recently The Netherlands train carrier ProRail launched a short-lived, debatable campaign to scale back railway accidents. I need to share it with you because it raises a critical advertising question: When is debatable advertising going to ways? And particularly, is that this ProRail marketing campaign off the rails?

First, the campaign.
Victim Fashion. Created By Accident.

The ProRail marketing campaign becomes aimed at teens because, despite preceding PSA efforts, the number of railway casualties in The Netherlands has tripled, seeing that 2016. To attain this elusive target market, a “fashion” brand becomes created, offering a replica series of torn garb as worn by actual railway coincidence victims.  The “Victim Fashion” brand – promoted below the tremendous slogan “Created with the aid of accident” – turned into hyped through influencers and eventually released at a fashion show in Amsterdam in early April.

The desires for the marketing campaign consistent with a spokesperson had been the following:

The long-time period closely lessens (we move for the 0 marks) the variety of accidents on and close to railroad tracks. Reach 60-70% of the kids (aged 12-18). They are the bulk group of humans death & getting harm in railroad accidents. Generate media visibility and social traction – we’re going to target wavemakers, attaining our center audience: youngsters and all Dutch population.

The results for the marketing campaign in keeping with the equal spokesperson:

We handed all short-term standards inside 1 day.” Since the marketing campaign simplest launched in early April, the most effective time will tell if it saves lives. But the provocative nature of the campaign has a few people questioning whether it is long gone too a long way.

Did they just create a style logo with victims’ apparel?

That changed into my first concept, I admit it. It isn’t very pleasant to think about. In reality, looking at one of the articles of apparel–torn and shredded–surely brings the viewer nose-to-nostril with the sufferer in a very uncomfortable way. If a photograph tells a story, then that torn blouse up there tells a fancy and tragic one. Now believe the impact of these no longer as pix however live, in character, at the style show.

Even just seeing the pics, I can’t assist; however, imagine the victim getting hit by teaching. I cannot help, however, visualize the shirt or pants getting savagely mangled. However, I cannot assist in reflecting consideration on the individual who wore these clothes as all that took place. What had been they doing? What had been are they wondering? Did it harm or changed into it over quickly?