37 percent hail controversial cheerleaders billboards as “thinking out of the box”

ThaiPBS

 

 

Thirty-seven percent of the respondents to a Matichon online survey to gauge public opinions about the controversial billboards of Thammasat University’s Cheerleader Club support the billboards, said they are great and amount to “thinking out of the box”.

 

27 percent of the respondents disagreed, saying they are inappropriate while 36 percent said the billboards convey wrong message.

 

The billboards show headshots revealing bare shoulders of members of the university’s former cheerleader team.

 

Full story: http://www.thaipbsworld.com/37-percent-hail-controversial-cheerleaders-billboards-as-thinking-out-of-the-box/

 

-- © Copyright Thai PBS 2018-09-17

"...27 percent of the respondents disagreed, saying they are inappropriate while 36 percent said the billboards convey wrong message..."

 

How precisely are they "inappropriate"?

 

What precisely is the "wrong message"?

 

If the display of bare shoulders is going to harm the moral fiber of Thailand, the country is already screwed. Aren't there already enough serious issues facing the country? Does this matter in the slightest?

 

Hey Netizens! You have more serious things to discuss!

 

". . . thinking about the box  . . . "  quite possibly  ? 

What do pictures like that have to do with cheerleaders? Nothing!

The students are clearly pictured as naked - at least the visible part.

Do cheerleaders perform like that? I don't think so.

So why do they use pictures like that?

I am not offended or anything like that, but I wonder why cheerleaders are not shown as cheerleaders. Wouldn't that make a lot more sense?

In ads from a brand like Victoria Secrets girls are seen in underwear.

On Petburi we see parts of naked girls because that is what they sell.

So why does the university do what they do? What is their intention?

What exactly IS the message?  It seems more of a flesh advertisement than anything else.  They seem to be inviting applications for something, but the photo does not provide sufficient clarity as to what this is.

 

I'd have to agree with those saying it sends the wrong message.  The message is certainly less than clear, which is not what one usually desires when putting up a billboard.

14 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

What do pictures like that have to do with cheerleaders? Nothing!

The students are clearly pictured as naked - at least the visible part.

Do cheerleaders perform like that? I don't think so.

So why do they use pictures like that?

I am not offended or anything like that, but I wonder why cheerleaders are not shown as cheerleaders. Wouldn't that make a lot more sense?

In ads from a brand like Victoria Secrets girls are seen in underwear.

On Petburi we see parts of naked girls because that is what they sell.

So why does the university do what they do? What is their intention?

 

As cheerleaders do not sell cheerleader outfits your analogies fail.

This marks the downfall of morality in this country, mark my words. Next we will see billboards of women showing bare ankle.

Anyway, seems like its been quite a successful advertisement, with widespread coverage and thousands of people seeing it and talking about it. 

Oh my bud...a, baring shoulders. This could tarnish and hurt tourism. Much worse than the Thai famous ping pong shows? 

2 hours ago, webfact said:

27 percent of the respondents disagreed, saying they are inappropriate while 36 percent said the billboards convey wrong message.

And rest 37% want to see even more skin....

Wife and gf beatings, guns, knives, killing and rape are OK and the norm on prime time TV,  but don't show any skin. Article 44 coming soon? 

I wonder if they have the written permission from the people featured to use these photos in this way?

No more than what is seen with a bathing suit. So what is the "wrong message"?

Quote

"intended as a material to promote self confidence among young people regardless of their appearances."

 

No doubt that is why they chose the dark skinned and also the less attractive models.

7 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

What do pictures like that have to do with cheerleaders? Nothing!

The students are clearly pictured as naked - at least the visible part.

Do cheerleaders perform like that? I don't think so.

So why do they use pictures like that?

I am not offended or anything like that, but I wonder why cheerleaders are not shown as cheerleaders. Wouldn't that make a lot more sense?

In ads from a brand like Victoria Secrets girls are seen in underwear.

On Petburi we see parts of naked girls because that is what they sell.

So why does the university do what they do? What is their intention?

The intention is attention~it has been used in the west for decades.  Did you see the controversial Nike ad?  Millions of dollars of extra publicity~it just may be that they want people to go to the games?

...just goes to show...

 

....special phrases mean nothing here...

 

...they are all pictured in individual boxes....555...

 

....bare shoulders....???

 

...how extraordinary....not....

 

....future leaders.....

 

...555

 

...same...same....

Okay...I apologize for being the dumbest person on Earth, but...please ...for the love of God...someone explain the controversy to me?

 

I wonder if there's a guy pleasing himself on a pink scooter under the sign. 

Saw an add once of this 'looker' licking an ice cream. Her tongue was pixilated. ? Just insane nonsence in a society not being allowed to grow up by the minority powers that be.?