A Resolute Marketing Campaign


Not sure if everyone’s seen the current billboard above Cafe Flore at the intersection of Market & Noe in the Castro. HivStopsWithMe.org has been somewhat controversial from the start, challenging the argued complacency of current outreach attempts to reduce infection rates. Its aim is obviously to be provocative and it hasn’t pleased everyone on all sides of the debate. Love it or be enraged by it, I’m impressed with the blunt honestly of the message. Even looking up at it while crossing that hectic intersection, it certainly can’t be ignored.

5 Comments so far

  1. MattyMatt (unregistered) on January 21st, 2006 @ 11:43 pm

    are people seriously enraged about this? what, is there anyone who thinks MORE people should be getting infected?

  2. SEAN (unregistered) on January 22nd, 2006 @ 1:24 am

    No. There were segments of the HIV+ community who felt it demonized them and added to the stigmas they already face.

  3. K (unregistered) on January 22nd, 2006 @ 2:46 pm

    If the community feels demonized by a billboard that’s simply emphasizing precaution and safety, then it’s they who have a problem. The fact is that there has been a growing complaceny concering HIV and AIDS.

    If any segment of the populus should understand the importance of awareness and education, it should be said community. It’s childish and frankly dangerous that any attempt to ensure more public awareness over a deadly disease should be taken as a personal attack and prohibited because of egos.

  4. SEAN (unregistered) on January 22nd, 2006 @ 11:03 pm

    Agreed. But sorry for the ambiguity: it is not this particular billboard that is causing debate. HivStopsWithMe was launched several years ago and subsequent arguments ensued then. This sign is not causing turmoil.

    Again, for starters, it’s a minority (and controversial) opinion within that community. And not one I’m championing nor negating. Just touching upon. The argument being: each individual is ultimately responsible for his/her own well-being and safety. Thus, why should the burden of disclosure and responsibility rest on one party and not mutually? The presumption being, these days, that by default, anyone you hook up with, could and should be assumed to be positive.

  5. MattyMatt (unregistered) on January 28th, 2006 @ 2:54 pm

    that’s an interesting point. i guess a companion billboard to this one would read, “new year’s resolution: i won’t get infected by anyone.”
    i’m not totally sold on the “you should assume everyone is +” argument. unless someone mentions it before a hookup, i would assume they were negative. it’s something that’s so utterly crucial to disclose that NOT telling a partner that you’re + seems like lying by omission.
    i wonder if there’s any research on causes of transmission that indicates whether the “carrier” or “receiver” made the decision to have unsafe sex? that is, are + MSM more likely to disregard their status than – MSM are to disregard their partners’?

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.