Opinion

Is this doing good? Or shameless exploitation?

Child abuse victim Michael HatfieldWhat if a victim of child abuse agrees to be tattooed as part of your campaign? And what if a child abuse charity stands to gain from the publicity? Is it still exploitation?

I have read a press release we were sent today from a PR agency in Queensland a few times over. And every time it makes me shudder. Here’s the first paragraph: “Harshmellow Media + Design launched a year-long fundraising campaign for photo book Townsville INK yesterday (March 2, 2011) with a North Queensland man and former victim of child abuse making a lasting commitment to child protection by having the logo of charitable organisation ACT for Kids tattooed on himself.”

Seven picked up the news, and ran a story featuring the victim being tattooed by a local tattoo artist whose work is to run in said photo book, Harshmellow’s client. Here’s a clip that was posted on YouTube:

The idea behind tatooing this man is to generate enough publicity to encourage 100 tattooed people of Townsville in North Queensland to feature in the photo book, the proceeds from which will go to ACT for Kids. It also promotes the talents of local tattoo artists.

Fair enough. But I find there’s still something very creepy about this campaign. And the last sentence of the press release smacks of making the most of someone else’s misfortune: “According to Mr Hatfield the tattoo is a chance to put something positive on his skin, alongside the scars that remind him of his violent childhood.”

Cringe. The connection between tattoos, scars and child abuse I find to be crass to the point of being offensive. On calling Harshmellow, I was assured that Michael Hatfield, who the Seven report pointed out was “viciously beaten from the age of 4”, jumped at the chance to be tattooed for charity. The release also hurriedly points out that this is a pro bono campaign.

Here is a small agency in need of some publicity, which it has been eagerly discussing on its LinkedIn page. The campaign will no doubt do good, and was probably executed with the best intentions. But am I being too cynical in thinking that this is a case of an agency going too far – as is often the case with charitable campaigns that those behind them insist on shouting about – and perverting a worthy message in the process?

Robin Hicks

ADVERTISEMENT

Get the latest media and marketing industry news (and views) direct to your inbox.

Sign up to the free Mumbrella newsletter now.

 

SUBSCRIBE

Sign up to our free daily update to get the latest in media and marketing.