2.16.2017 NJ Star-Ledger Ad: "Were you sexually abused by the Jehovahs Witnesses?"
Does anyone even read newspapers anymore? I hate to say it, but unless the media REALLY latches on to the evils of the org, not a whole lot is going to happen. Reporting on it every now and then or posting a few lawyer ads in newspapers isn't going to cut it. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm just being realistic.
MyName: I'm just being realistic.
No you're not.
You are taking the position that appears to be realistic to you. That is all. Stating your view of reality does not equal "realistic".
Newspapers are an excellent venue for this type of ad. It will reach people who are of an older generation - ie...those historic abuse cases that have been so far invisible
And...using the phrase "the appearance of "a few lawyer ads"" - reveals that you are discounting the importance of these ads being mounted by several law firms. These "few lawyer ads" are evidence that the media to this point has given attention to these child abuse cases and secondly...that lawyers are of the opinion that they have the legal teeth to pursue the WTS
Realistic? Well...according to how you view it
*to add - these ads are also targeting a group of people who have been taught to mistrust online versions of news. They have been told that Satan manipulates the internet (unless it comes from jw..org) They will instinctively trust hard copy newspapers more readily. Placing the ads in newspapers is a genius marketing move
That's a big-ass ad.
I almost feel sorry for JWs going door-to-door in Jersey this Saturday.
BTW, If any of you hear New Jesey JWs whining about "apostate-driven lies", ask 'em...
"if it's bullshit, why isn't the WTS suing the newspaper?"
Does anyone even read newspapers anymore? I hate to say it, but unless the media REALLY latches on to the evils of the org, not a whole lot is going to happen. Reporting on it every now and then or posting a few lawyer ads in newspapers isn't going to cut it. I'm just being realistic.
It could be a case that your proposed agenda is not the law firm's agenda. So, from that perspective, despite what you say, you may not be realistic. Here's why:
If the aim is to advertise legal services that are available (and not a broader exposure of "the evils of the org"), then the ad coverage is appropriate, even if not blanketed across more popular media.
No law firm will go for blanket coverage across all media when the specific returns in terms of new clients may be relatively small. In the present instance, the law firm will assess the outcome (e.g., how many people contact them and of those, how many have cases that could be pursued further). Once this is ascertained, the law firm will weigh up the costs of further ads and possibly accessing other media. But it is a business and beyond gaining more potential business is not interested in "broad" exposure of religious groups.
BTW, despite impressions that print media is no longer as effective as it once was, businesses still find the returns healthy enough from print advertising. Nonetheless, you make a fair point about shifts in the types of media people currently access. One impression is that media has become very fractionated and there are relatively few dominant sources.
@ OrphanCrow and steve2:
Fair points. It's never a bad thing to have differing viewpoints. Growing up, most of us weren't allowed to have any.
No Consequence - "Does anyone even read newspapers anymore?"
Otherwise they wouldn't print them.
Weitz/Luxenberg is one of the big law firms that run nationwide TV ads looking for class action suit participants....and this time they've teamed up with other firms. This is huge. Yoooge. Already the TV ad is running throughout the tri-state (NY, NJ, CT) areas, that we know of. If any of you see it elsewhere, please share.