I actually like both of them...the original goes for the visceral gut reaction, while Nancy's succeeds with a rapier wit! Different people react to different approaches, so I don't see why you shouldn't use both!

I sure hope you guys will compensate Nancy for her hard work *wink wink*!

Posted by: BullyDawg | August 7, 2007 09:19 AM

how can i choose. I like them both SOO much!

Posted by: jojo | August 7, 2007 09:25 AM

Excellent work Nancy, much more effective than the other 'attempt'. A little humour connects the reader, rather than being repulsed.

let's get the message out that pregnant women and young children should limit their intake of shark, swordfish and other fish high in the food chain.
Shrimp and salmon are low mercury alternatives.
After all, fish is good for the brain. Even better if low in mercury.

Posted by: rojo | August 7, 2007 09:47 AM

I think the first one is the best, but they are both good. It is simplistic, and delivers the information without any distractions. Love it :)

Posted by: Adam Lonsdale | August 7, 2007 09:51 AM

Both do do a good job, but...I'm going to have to go with the second one.

Posted by: Jason Levy | August 7, 2007 09:56 AM

I like the first one. the second example strikes me as insensitive and exploitative, though others will think it purveys the seriousness of the issue. also -- both of the ideas have different website addresses - is there a reason for this?

Posted by: stasya berber | August 7, 2007 10:02 AM

I like both ideas, for different reasons. I think the "rejected" billboard is good simply because it is disturbing and controversial and should not be avoided just because it does not look "nice". However, Nancy's version is thought provoking due to its simplicity. You will get people looking at it just because it will remind them of the "Got Milk?" ads, but when they try to decipher it, they will really have to think about what they are seeing.

In order to raise awareness of such an issue, I do not think you have to limit yourselves to one particular billboard - I think both have their place in this campaign.

Posted by: Michele | August 7, 2007 10:13 AM

I like the "Got Brain Damage?" because Peta is not associated with it meaning that people who would otherwise not visit a peta site may just visit fishmakesmesick.com.

Posted by: Jaclyn | August 7, 2007 10:48 AM

Sorry, but I much prefer Nancy's. The image in the photo doesn't look like a child, it looks like a grown-up who's being exploited. It's offensive, regardless of the reason the poor person developed brain damage.

Posted by: KathyF | August 7, 2007 12:05 PM

Sorry Nancy., your idea is fine..but does not hammer the point home about the ultimate fate of eating mercury contaminated fish.

Posted by: keith | August 7, 2007 12:24 PM

I think Nancy's is better because it's less likely to offend people...plus, it cracks me up. I would say that you should DEFININTELY use it.

Posted by: Canaduck | August 7, 2007 12:29 PM

PETA should ask people who eat fish what they think of both ads. That way you're not preaching to the choir. Or ask a psychologist. I still think a scientific chart from a neutral source would be good too. ;)

Good luck. Fishes rule!

Posted by: Maya | August 7, 2007 01:23 PM

I like them both equally. Different people react to different things. The original shows what can happen and doesn't sugar-coat anything (Which some of the more hardened people will react to), and Nancy's is rather funny, so it will appeal to the younger crowd.

Posted by: Brianna Fritchey | August 7, 2007 01:36 PM

i don't like nancy's. i am not offended by peta's and am more compelled by it. i think with nancy's you concentrate more on the "wit"; i would be much more likely to think about fish with peta's original

Posted by: hawley | August 7, 2007 03:05 PM

I like the first one, mostly because it won't invoke the anti-peta stuff from press. Like how they say peta is a cult of extremist. Yes idiots, there is a cult trying to brainwash your children into loving animals. That's right. No no no, cults aren't out for money anymore, or power, they are out to make your children do good and that is bad.

Posted by: Scarlett | August 7, 2007 05:22 PM

i like the first because i understand it. i can't really say the same for the second.

Posted by: prad | August 7, 2007 05:24 PM

the first one by far... the second one is a tad bit exploitative and could offend people. plus the first one is much easier to read and such.

Posted by: yuri | August 7, 2007 07:16 PM

I also like Nancy's better.

Posted by: Mel | August 7, 2007 08:46 PM

ONLY my thoughts: The one with the picture has the most obvious impact, and I think it would bring stronger awareness to the public to become more concerned about mercury in fish...and I don't think that they would - or should - have any reason to find any humor in this horrible diagnosis. If some billboard viewers would think of it as being exploitive, perhaps it would be more like they would be denying or fearing the seriousness of this factual potential. However, it needs to be considered if the picture was obtained with approval.
I think Nancy's would be thought-provoking for the serious-minded people, but unfortunately, there is that potential for the jokers to laugh it off and never get a clue. However, that's their problem.
Conclusion: either one depends on the mindset of the individual viewer.

Posted by: Ariel | August 8, 2007 09:39 AM

http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/mercury/review.pdf

Shark and swordfish has around 70 times more mercury than salmon or sardines.
Shrimp and oysters are lower still.
The benefits from eating fish for the developing brain outweigh the negative effects of mercury. It is still best to choose fish with lower concentrations especially during pregnancy.

Posted by: rojo | August 8, 2007 10:55 AM

Put up both. Personally, I like the second one more, because it's really offensive to people who choose to be offended by everything except the countless murders committed daily to keep them on the wrong side of a healthy weight; they'll have a hard time ignoring it. But then again, I'm not a very nice person.

Posted by: DaliyVeg Editor | August 8, 2007 11:57 AM

I like "got drain bamage?"
It's witty but it makes the grim point without exploiting anyone. The one with the picture could be interpreted as exploitive, and if it was my relative's picture up there I might feel that way.

Posted by: Susannah | August 8, 2007 12:20 PM

Thanks, everyone, for your comments and critiques (and Jack for posting)!

Stasya asked why the URLs are different. That was my error (and no, it's not because of the mercury ;P). I just misread the original. A Freudian slip, perhaps...

Posted by: Nancy | August 8, 2007 12:54 PM

I love Nancy's it is sooooo funny but delivers the message right away.

Posted by: Mayra | August 8, 2007 01:53 PM

I like both, but the first time I saw the second one, it actually prompted me to go to the website to learn about *that boy's story.* When, after scouring the site, I never found it (did find a lot of other interesting things, and enjoyed the site), I was fairly disappointed.

It seems odd to have an individual brain damaged kid on a billboard, and not have any info about who he is or how his case was individually linked to fish consumption. (Or did I just miss it somehow?)

Posted by: Jessica | August 8, 2007 02:06 PM

I like the top one: Got drian bamage?

Posted by: Sarah | August 8, 2007 05:56 PM

Daliyveg, I don't quite see the obvious connection an obese onlooker would make seeing a thin brain-damaged kid and "murder".

Posted by: rojo | August 8, 2007 07:01 PM

i can't decide they both look so tasty

Posted by: Anonymous | August 8, 2007 10:35 PM

The first one

Posted by: Michele Vieira | August 9, 2007 12:15 AM

personally i like the second one better. i didn't quite understand and grasp the idea of the first one.

the second one seems much more serious and straight to the point. and it's understandable for many ages.

Posted by: Emmy Thi | August 9, 2007 01:32 AM

though I find both statements powerful and important...I would encourage you to push the "Got Drain Bamage" add as I feel it will be accepted by mainstream media more and reach many people...plus you folks in the writers/comms department are pretty clever with your wording on that one. loves it!

*regardless...even if this new version gets rejected,, seems that peta gets great media each time ads get rejected..and we play the violation of freedom of speech and controversy card.

keep up the great work and clever ads.

for the animals,

Lucas Solowey

Posted by: Lucas Solowey | August 9, 2007 03:57 AM

Why should that guy be your posterboy? Jesus, what is wrong with you people?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 9, 2007 04:27 AM

Hey! I just noticed the play on words! It says "drain bamage!" I read it as brain damage first time around!

Goes to show I ate too much fish in my misguided youth!

Also, it's far funnier now that I get the joke! Definitely prefer this one!

Posted by: KathyF | August 9, 2007 07:03 AM

deffo the second! its much more shocking |:

Posted by: Katie | August 9, 2007 04:39 PM

Good arguments have been made for both banners.

Emmy and Katie make good points for the second one.

And the first one is so clever and stark.

Use them both.

I also think that if the second one offends anyone then it's only making its case. What's being done to our environment is offensive.

Posted by: heather | August 10, 2007 06:24 PM