The supposed reason for this is that the abuser won't be able to tell what the kid is looking at. If it's unsafe for a kid to look at such an ad with the abuser around, how is the kid supposed to know that the abuser can't see what he's reading and possibly copying down?
Would the kid benefit any more by the ad not being there or by not using this technique to make it only visible to the kid?
Any kid scared enough to scrub having seen it from their own mind would not be well served by any version of this. The hope would be that some kids will see the number, remember it, and then call it later.
But then, why limit it to kids who are 4'4"? Aren’t shorter and taller kids being abused? If it’s a numbers game, shouldn’t you want to cast the net as wide as possible?
Shorter kids will probably be able to see it (it's an angles thing; so, shorter kids will probably see it from further away I'm guessing).
I'm theorizing here; but, abuse probably doesn't start with the child is 14 or 15. It probably starts when they're 7 or 8; and they'll see the ad. By the time they're 14 or 15 and not able to see the advertisement anymore, they'll hopefully have seen it so much that, when they finally have the courage to call the number and flee, since they haven't already in your prescribed scenario (which is VERY possible), they'll remember it from their youth.
I believe the thinking for this kind of tool is that it's better that the parent doesn't know that the kid knows this number than it is that all children know the number.
Pretty sure it's much earlier than that. It's not like a parent wakes up one day and says, "Well, little Johnny is seven years old today, finally old enough for me to start beating him with a rake like I've always wanted to do."
This stuff starts very early. One serious problem with this stuff is that, since the child is subjected to it from pretty much the beginning, they grow up thinking it's normal. This makes it less likely for them to seek help (help for what? it's normal!) and helps perpetuate the cycle, as they're more likely to do the same thing to their own children.
Sure. Which is why, I assume, the poster is still about child abuse on the upper panel. Older kids are more likely to be able to google (if not safely at home than at school).
And I highly doubt it's the only effort on their plate, with many others intended to reach out to older kids. In this kind of thing you just have to do whatever you can.
I believe it's more to do with establishing a secret or 'exclusive' mode of contact between the hotline and the child. I imagine a large (possibly the biggest hurdle) about getting kids to phone when they need to is to make them feel safe from their abuser finding out. Establishing that safety off the bat is important - the communication is in confidence.
The supposed reason is to do something neat that creates press and gets people to talk about child abuse. This has been all over the news and nobody who sees the ad is going to be ignorant of who it works. Genuine subterfuge was never the intention.
