Ducks in a Row: Vision and Diversity
by Miki SaxonTwo questions. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the best, tell me
- If the thrown item represents vision how appealing is it to a diverse group?
- How diverse is the cast?
(Hey folks, I’d really appreciate your sharing your thoughts on this one.)
Click here for more thoughts on diversity.
March 16th, 2010 at 5:05 am
Miki,
My 1.5 cents worth….
Didn’t quite get the “vision” thing, but I don’t think there’s a problem with appeal. You wouldn’t have the same effect if you tossed a fully cooked filet mignon and you’d prolly alienate vegetarians. :)
It’s a great group of diverse dogs. But, really . . . no gay dogs? :)
Seriously, I thought it worked very well, captured interest, and made you want to see what the ad was going to be for at the end.
March 16th, 2010 at 11:40 am
Hi Miki —
I definitely agree that this shows a diverse cast of dogs and would appeal to dog lovers, but in a global sense, I don’t know that it would have appeal to a wide range of people, especially in a cross cultural sense. Americans have a distinctly different relationship to their dogs than people in many countries and cultures.
I also don’t understand the connection to vision — but the photography is beautiful!
I will be curious to hear others’ insight!
March 16th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
I’m responding to you both together so I can make more sense.
I was using the treat in the video as a metaphor for ‘vision’
Mark got close to my intent when he mentioned gay dogs and Becky noticed that the dogs might not play well in other cultures. My point was that the cast only looked diverse, i.e., many different breeds, but still all dogs that essentially react like dogs. The ‘vision’ wouldn’t appeal to cats, gerbils, butterflies, etc.
My point being that diversity isn’t attained by a group that looks different, but thinks alike—diversity of thought is as important as diversity of race, creed, gender, etc. Remember G. W. Bush’ original Cabinet? He claimed it was diverse, but the thoughts and attitudes were identical were ideologically identical.