Agreed - great ad. Well done to all involved.

My only concern when I saw it on the tube was that I didn't know how much I was going to be donating by texting the number. The cost wasn't clear because is was resigned to the smallest bit of print. Not transparent enough.

Ant

Thanks to the PCRF for sending me the versions of the Bob Monkhouse adverts which actualy went into production. I've now replaced the image at the top of this blog with the new version. The previous image was, unfortunately, just a rough draft of the campaign as it ended up.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

Just thought it might be of interest to you all to know that we have so far received over 700 text donations from the ads, so someone must be able to read them!! 

Emma Halls Chief Executive The Prostate Cancer Research Foundation

Unfortunately most Tube ads can't be read by people with failing eyesight - but the aim of the campaign as far as I know was to take advantage of closes spaces that people are in and are captive on the Tube with nothing to read.  It's aimed at the straphanger of which there are millions every day who have to stand and would be able to read every single word of that ad. 

 I think it's a fantastic ad and deserved to win and thanks for linking to my post on it too.  I was also personally impressed by Emma Halls from the charity who emailed not long after I wrote the post to thank me for publicising it and I'm glad to see it's still being talked about - which is another sign of an effective ad

According to Adam the version that appeared on the tube would be a struggle to read with poor eyesight.

Don't shoot the messenger

Firstly, I must declare an interest here as the writer responsible for this campaign.
Secondly, many thanks to Adam Rothwell for starting this debate. The more people talk about prostate cancer, the pcrf and the give a few bob campaign, the happier I'll be. It means that prostate cancer (the cancer no one knows anything about, but which kills almost as many people as breast cancer) is finally getting a higher profile.
Thirdly I'd like to reassure one or two of the people leaving comments here regarding their reservations about the campaign. 1. The ads were signed off with the Give a few bob campaign logo as we felt that our advertising property, Bob Monkhouse (a well known household name) would be easier to remember than the previously unknown charity's long name. We reasoned that Bob would help put the charity on the map. It did.
2. The reason the money is needed (for research) has been clearly articulated in every ad we have run
3. The tube card ads which had a larger point size, less copy and a different picture to the rough concept featured above, were very effective, raising far more money than anyone expected as well as raising awareness (which was our prime objective).
4. The campaign overall has been very successful for the charity, more tha doubling their income
5. I fail to see why work like this should attract snotty comments simply because it wins awards. Maybe, just maybe, all the awards are coming in because the work is very, very good. Personally I'm very proud Bob is picking up so many accolades. I'm also rather pleased that by doing so he is exposing the cause to an ever widening audience, all of whom are potential financial donors and at least 50% of whom (being men) have aavested interest in the charity's success

as a middle aged man (57 going on 58) with failing eyesight (astygmatism plus whatever it is that happens as you get older) I have to say that simonk is talking out of his backside. I could read the ads from the seat opposite quite easily. I couldn't read them from three or four seats away, but then I couldn't read the ads next to them either, partly because people were standing in the way and partly because I don't have x ray vision. It seems to me, you either put words into an ad like this if you think they'll have a good effect on the understanding that people close enough to read them will read them, or you try and do the whole communication in a headline. Personally I think the copy is very powerful so I'm glad the charity chose to include it. Actually the more I think about it the more bizarre simonk's comments are. It's a bit like saying it's irresponsible to put copy in a press ad because people who don't have the newspaper in front of them can't read it. I think simonk should be forced to make amends by getting off his high horse and giving the charity a donation. Unlike his comments that would actually be a worthwhile contribution

Legibility is always a very valid point and you'd be right in this case except for one thing. The image at the top of the page is of the original concept presented to the client, the ads that eventually appeared on the tube cards had a larger font size for the headline an body text (and fewer words) and a different image, for that very reason. So well spotted! Shaun, the Art Director.

See, that's exactly what they intend to do ;-) I reckon it'll work too and more power to them because the campaign's brave, innovative and, most importantly, genuinely engaging.

I still think Simon's got a good point about the small font size though.

Don't shoot the messenger

Thanks so much for highlighting our campaign Adam, we are a really small charity, only 4 staff and pretty much got the whole campaign for free, including winning a competition for the tube card ads.  We know that our logo is really small, it was a nightmare trying to find a good place for it whilst keeping the ads relevant to Bob and the wider campaign.  We have of course made sure that all follow-up is in our own name, so that people are starting to get to know us.  When we launched the campaign a year ago no-one knew us at all, partly as the charity had never actively fundraised before.  We are thrilled that people are still talking about us, and that although for now we are known as the Bob people we aim to go on to be known as the PCRF who did the Bob campaign.

If anyone has any questions or comments about the campaign please do get in touch with us info@thepcrf.org 

Emma Halls Chief Executive The Prostate Cancer Research Foundation

I reckon it may well prove to be a very clever move by PCRF. I guess they're calcuating (almost certainly correctly) that Bob's enduring personality has far more pull than their own brand identity, This being the case why dilute the message? Don't forget that they'll be responding to those who donate in the name of PCRF and that's their opportunity to 'transfer loyalty'. I also suspect that the balance will shift as the campaign moves on with PCRF's brand identity coming increasingly to the fore as the public get used to the "Give a few Bob" message. Adam's might be spot on, who's to know for sure, but I suspect that PCRF have got it right. I also agree with Simon's point (although I must admit that I hadn't thought of it earlier).

On a purely human level the Monkhouse family deserve a big mention. The campaign is very much in your face and it's a fantastic gesture for them to allow it.

Don't shoot the messenger

SimonK, you are of course absolutely right. On my nightly jaunt on the Northern line, I could read the small text relatively easily from the seat opposite the poster, but if - as you suggest - I had worse eyesight, then it would have been very hard. Not a great start for a campaign looking to get cash from older men (which I imagine is the target audience here).

Adam, Intelligent Giving

I have a rather different reservation about it. It's a great campaign, when you read it. I'm sure when the charity was shown a mockup of the poster, blown up to massive size so they could all look at it in their boardroom, they were delighted.

 Put that poster on a tube train, however, and the writing is so small that only the person stood up nearest to it can actually read it. Certainly no-one sat opposite could, especially if they were, for example, a middle-aged man with possibly failing eyesight. Your link to the London Underground blog above shows it exactly as it appears. You can read the headline and the call to action at the end, but nothing else, so you have no idea what it's for or what you're being asked to donate to.

But hey, it won an award from lots of other advertising people, so never mind the fact that it's absolutely unfit for the purpose it was designed for.