A banned album artwork: Is this helpful in the marketing?

The cover of the new album of “Hey Ma” has been banned by the Advertising Standards Authority. The album was released on April 8 in the U.K. with the cover featuring a baby about to pick up a handgun. The guitarist Larry Goot said the art was inspired by the story of an American infant who was accidentally issued a firearms license, and is meant to convey a powerful message. “Firearms are dangerous, they’re not to be taken likely, and we as a society are becoming over familiarized with the image of guns and gun culture.” The band’s political statement through the artwork of the album has spread controversy in the U.K.

 

Some argue that the artwork shouldn’t be banned since it is against the freedom of expressions. I’d like to focus more on whether the band’s choice has been right to convey their voice to the public.

 

The trials of mingling political messages with the artwork have been done by other bands. For a similar case, album cover of “Nirvana” released in 1991 had an image of a baby swimming toward a US dollar bill under water. A dollar bill and a baby each represented capitalism and innocence of the time. This artwork was successful in that it conveyed a strong image in an artistic and inoffensive way to the public. As a result, the album made a big hit for the first time for the band.

 

 

Even though the band had a strong point about firearms and young generations, I’d say if the idea offended the public in any ways, the message loses its power. A blogger said “banned” is good for promotion of the album since it brings more awareness to the public. However, the artwork was aimed to bring a political message, and “banned” doesn’t help to give authenticity to the message. I’d say if they went with the artwork that would support their idea in a less controversial way; it would help more for them to express their point.