Taiwan Database

Ringier, the publisher of "Blick", did not want to comment on the matter, citing the pending proceedings. Comment: In my first article about the "topless" advertisement, I had already pointed out that PR campaigns are always about attracting attention. The FDP women clearly achieved this with their flyer. In this sense, the first campaign spain rcs data would have been a PR success. Often, in politics and art, people provoke only so that they can create a media frenzy and become a media topic. The SVP had used this method successfully for years. Provocateurs are always angry when they are ignored. In this sense, the FDP women could actually be satisfied with their campaign.

The FDP women were able to explain their concerns - thanks to the public discussions. The latest lawsuit actually gives the women new publicity. Once again, people are talking about the supposedly successful "topless" poster. The FDP women's PR group can now pat themselves on the back again. The analogue poster once again attracted attention. The general secretary is now unhappy in retrospect. She believes that the story ultimately harmed her. "Blick" has now crossed the line by publishing the picture - without bars.

For me, this sequel has several levels: It is about the legal question: Did "Blick" violate the personal rights of the general secretary of the FDP women, even though the error was the fault of the graphic designer.