Stop the shock tactics

Advertising campaigns to stop child abuse are harming children, writes Kathryn Holmquist

Every child matters? One child is miserable because the electronic teradactyl isn't happy. He's always growling, or fighting and he won't eat his food. "Like his owner," quips Dad.

Another child has dropped a one euro coin in the toilet. "Nobody flush 'til Mommy gets it out!" It's Saturday, the house is a mess, the exhausted parents beside themselves and the children cranky - time for a drive. Off we go looking for distraction. Something simple - a walk, an inoffensive film, kicking a ball around the park. We pass a billboard that says: "When Ma and Da are fighting I pretend I'm asleep. I'm not scared because I'm six and a half." At the bottom of the billboard is the slogan, "Every Child Matters" and the sponsor, Barnardos.

"What's that about?" one of the children asks, in that anxious, quiet voice that means a deep conversation and reassurance are required. That's all I need, I resist muttering to myself. Another billboard campaign frightening the life out of children. We had already seen and heard the Barnardos TV/radio ads, where a woman speaks in a child's voice, describing how she would block out her parents' fighting with music. Another speaks of growing up in a B&B, while another adult with a child-voice talks of having a father who comes home and passes out in the hall from drunk. "Every childhood lasts a lifetime," the ad tells us. These are brilliant ads - but I don't want my children to see them.

There is also a disturbing TV ad for the NSPCC running, where a man kicks a cartoon child down the stairs. Then we see a real child lying unconscious at the bottom of the stairs. This one is way over the top - everybody knows beating up children is wrong. What about the causes? And don't get me started on Sellafield. "Tell me I'm safe, Tony" has led us into a world of anxiety, forcing me to explain radiation, illnesses caused by radiation, nuclear-fuel reprocessing, the chances of terrorist attack... and on and on.

"What's that about?" the child asks again. My first impression is that the billboard is an information campaign reminding parents how damaging it is to fight in front of the children. To be honest, I'm thinking what's the point of scaring children old enough to read billboards (or have them read aloud by older siblings), in the interest of telling parents that something is wrong, when parents already know it's wrong anyway. Isn't this just another example of emotional terrorism? The slogan "every child matters" should have an addendum - "(except for children reading this billboard/seeing this TV ad who may be upset by it)".

If every child matters, then why frighten them with billboard campaigns? So I rang Barnardos. A spokesperson tells me that I am the first parent ever to contact the organisation who felt that the billboard campaign was frightening for children. Barnardos say that they consulted with children and parents involved in its services, and that these people approved of the campaign. And anyway, if you're driving, the average six-year-old can't read that fast. "What about being stalled in traffic? Or billboards in carparks?" I ask, rapidly losing the battle.

Barnardos says that the campaign was created by award-winning agency Cawley Nea free of charge, with billboards donated by JC Decaux, so that Barnardos spent a mere €50,000 for €500,000 worth of publicity.

The title of the campaign is "Parents Under Pressure". It's part of a two-year campaign dealing with parents under stress, giving the message that society is not supporting parents and calling on the Government to introduce policies that reduce pressure on families. The impact of alcohol misuse on families and poverty and inequality will also be covered.

It's a worthy campaign with desirable ideals - but I still don't think it justifies the emotional billboards. Another billboard reads: "I think my Mam is in the hospital, but I'm not sure. Da says not to be afraid that she'll be better soon." Again, my children saw this and felt instantly anxious. "Why is the child afraid? Why is the mom in hospital? Are you going to hospital?" These were the questions I was trying to answer.

Deirdre Mortell, fundraising and public information officer with Barnardos, says: "We are trying to provoke a debate." She is delighted that my family are talking about the campaign, the purpose of which is to "highlight realities in children's lives". I think that I and my children are perfectly aware of the realities, thank you.

Families are under huge pressures and stresses for all kinds of reasons and the Government is not responding. Barnardos is campaigning for paid parental leave and an extention of maternity leave, among other things.

Family life is changing rapidly and, as Owen Keenan, chief executive of Barnardos, puts it: "While our Gross National Product has increased, what has happened to our 'Gross National Happiness'?"

I agree with the aspirations of Barnardos and support them; I just question the means. I don't see the point of a condescending, consciousness-raising advertising campaign, which only seems to highlight exisitng anxiety. The fact that Barnardos have to use the best emotional triggers a top advertising company can muster is part of a larger issue: that we adults have grown so used to being provoked by advertising, that we hardly notice it any more unless somebody ups the ante and shocks us further. But our children do notice it. Of all organisations, Barnardos should understand that.

If children had their own advertising campaign, it would be "tell me I'm safe". As parents, we try to make them feel safe. But it doesn't help when worthy causes continue to spread the message that children are unsafe. Just my opinion. Call me a coward - and my kids too.