The PeTA Story

PETA ANTI-FUR CAMPAIGN.

About PeTA

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is the largest animal rights organization in the world, with more than 3 million members and supporters. PETA works through public education, cruelty investigations, research, animal rescue, legislation, special events, celebrity involvement, and protest campaigns.


About the campaign

Since the 1980s PeTA has strategically focused campaigns on demeaning, humiliating, and exploiting women--- all in the name of protecting animals.In the 1980s when PeTA started making the headlines for throwing red paint on women wearing fur coats, women cowered and fashion designers took "no fur" pledges. Women who dared to wear fur were portrayed as cruel, shallow,materialistic, and with brains the size of a pea. They were also afraid of being attacked by a PeTA activist.

Law
Advertising depicting nudity of women or women shown as symbols of sex could be banned. More over the Indecent representation of Women's Act can be applied to these print ads. It states that, Any person who contravenes the provisions of Sec 3 or Sec 4 shall be punishable on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment for term of not less than six months but which may extend to five years and also with a fine not less than ten thousand rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees. All the above mentioned laws are on paper and in reality, there is nothing much which is done to penalize these so called creative, reputed companies who in the name of creativity gives double standards between the lines, messages to the people which is called as creativity by the handful of creative lot.



Criticism

This past summer, everyone got to see a preview of PETA's new anti- fur campaign which involved the web-series cast of If I Can Dream. I personally feel its highly unethical to make women strip in the name of saving animals. I don’t find it ethical, its very misleading and moreover commercialized.


“PETA is far more concerned with funding its media and advertising antics than finding suitable homes for these dogs and cats,” said J. Justin Wilson, CCF’s Senior Research Analyst.

The cast of I can dream were shown the videos of the animals getting killed at slaughter houses, and were skinned alive for the fur. One of the cast said “It's a hawt message, with a solid foundation, and even hotter photos!” This is what you say, after you have participated in a cause which you think is really great! No sense of concern, no mentioning of why she did it, what was the purpose? Nothing at all. I don’t see any sense of women stripping down to save animals. How is their stripping going to help save animals getting slaughtered for fur? How is a sexy and exploiting image of women help animals? Isn’t it degrading  women? What’s the sense in having a print ad which has a naked woman, 2 man covering her. It just looks vulgar according to me. I guess PeTA says no to fur and not to clothes.

All this isn’t even justified when the cause organization is only a fraud.

What is Peta Kills Animals?

According to records from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, PETA has killed more than 25,000 animals (mostly dogs and cats) at its headquarters in Norfolk, Virginia.. If PeTA itself is killing animals, why are the women naked and exploiting themselves in the name of saving animals? Is it just for publicity or commercialization? In any terms , it is highly unethical.

Unhate or Hate?

 United Colors Of Benetton-Unhate Campaign

"Advertising is a valuable economic factor because it is the cheapest way of selling goods, particularly if the goods are worthless"

-Sinclair Lewis



Campaign overview

The campaign termed ” Unhate” shows world’s top leaders kissing each other. These are the people in power and are the decision maker’s for the world. The message of the campaign — people of different race, orientation,and creed should not hate each other. Benetton has formed The Unhate Foundation, which promotes closeness between cultures, races, and religions, and brings topical hate issues to the attention of the mainstream public.


Criticism

I understand the concern of United colours of Benetton trying to promote closeness between different religions, but I don’t understand is what any of this has to do with Benetton clothing, and why they chose images of kissing world leaders to promote equality. Clothes are a form of expression and they range from bold and sexual to the light and cheesy and they usually try to convey a meaning, which the buyers want to obtain. But I think United colours of Benetton wanted to be an exception to the rule.

Using pictures of respected, esteemed personalities and degrading them by showing them kissing each other is demeaning and gross not only to the nation but for such honorable person just to promote equality, which isn’t even connected to the brand.

I personally wouldn’t like to buy a brand where in my nation’s president is humiliated and is made a joke of, in the name of advertising. I don’t think United colours of Benetton inspired equality in any sense rather it just deters buyers. For example, the issues created after the Pope-Imam kiss, United colours is definitely not considered as a brand who keeps others sentiments in mind. The idea is simple: Unhate. But the way it has been communicated is what makes it compelling. Even if the presidents/ distinguished personalities wearing United colors of Benetton were shown in the print ads, it would have had made sense. I feel united colors of Benetton is made for common man, I don’t understand how effective it is to use pope’s/presidents to advertise clothes( which are not even shown in the print ads)


According to Benetton “These are symbolic images of reconciliation – with a touch of ironic hope and constructive provocation – to stimulate reflection on how politics, faith and ideas, even when they are divergent and mutually opposed, must still lead to dialogue and mediation.”

I personally feel, it is unacceptable' manipulation that sentiments of the nation’s people.It shows a lack of respect for the world leaders. There are fundamental belief differences between some of those pictured above. Bad ideas should fail; good ideas should win. No kiss will help a person dying in a North Korean concentration camp.

The Digital Strategy offends the The Kiss wall, Unhate campaign, has the option of user-generated content on its website. Here viewers can upload, say, images of a dog and a
cat, and then see the two animals tenderly kissing, symbolizing the end of the big fight going on since years.

Law

There is no law which states that these ads are illegal. But the ads are expected to be of a particular standard, and shouldn't be disrespectful to any caste, creed or religion. It should extend some amount of respect for its presidents, popes and ministers.Such disgraceful ads don't inculcate any 'unhate' spirit rather it created controversy and agony.Images were unfurled in Milan, New York, Paris, Tel Aviv and Rome, but a large banner of the image has been removed from a spot near the Vatican. But it has been active in other parts of the world.

Conclusion

Is kissing the only way to promote equality? Isn’t there a decent way to do the same? Or they just wanted to make a campaign, which is controversial and creepy? "As a company they are more likely to lose customers promoting imagery like this instead of investing in strategies that might make a difference. Pity a company that chooses to make themselves look ridiculous instead of creating powerful imagery that embeds it's message and truly
changes lives.

People see such things and they keep shut. Its really time to react and tell the advertisers that we are not fools who would entertain such disrespect and stupidity to create publicity for their brand.

Creative Criminals

The Diesel Ad Campaign

"There is a point at which the law becomes immoral and unethical. That point is reached when it becomes a cloak for the cowardice that dares not stand up against blatant violations of justice"

-Kurt Huber 

The Diesel Campaign and Philosophy

Diesel  philosophy  is ' Be Stupid'  The  FW1  Sneakers  advertised  via  this  campaign  are 
catching  up  with 'Kick ass'  an  integrated   advertising campaign  using  video,  Twittas, print  and  online  media  featuring  kickable  people.  The sneakers  aren't made for running. People run because they are scared of getting fat, or being late or something bad will happen to them. Diesel is stupid and stupid doesn't run from anything. Stupid likes to kick asses. Kicking the ass of someone who deserves it, is one of the unspoken pleasures of life. It just feels so good.


Print advertisements

In this print ad, the young guy wearing the Diesel sneakers is shown kicking the ass of an American football cheerleader's ass.

Findings

There isn's a single review/ response / comment on the internet which raised its voice against this campaign except for one group on Facebook called the 'Boycott the Diesel-kick ass campaign' The campaign was on air in 2007, and till date it hasn't been criticized or condemned against. In fact people referred Diesel to be creative marketing genius and thought the campaign was brilliant.

Criticism

I personally found this campaign very demeaning and not at all creative. According to me any campaign can be made stupid, but actually creating a campaign, which makes sense, is a bigger challenge. The print advertisements in this campaign conveys the idea that if you own a pair of Diesel Sneakers, you can kick an ass of any one you think deserves to be kicked, even if that meant kicking a senior, old, experienced dentist, or a celebrity woman. My social and emotional intelligence doesn't allow to kick anybody.I found it very demeaning and disrespectful to portray women in such a bad manner.

The lower angle shot emphasizing the cheerleader's ass and her lingerie just gross me out and unethical. It just shows till what extent Diesel could go to sell their 'stupid' sneakers. Diesel tried to inculcate the idea that you could kick anybody, even women.This  senseless and pejorative campaign was  accepted by everybody with blind eyes. Nobody wants to question it and have proved that they can be highly manipulated by advertisements and media.

Law

"Indecent representation of women' means the depiction in any manner of the figure of a woman; her form or body or any part thereof in such a way as to have the effect of being indecent, or derogatory to, or denigrating women, or is likely to deprave, corrupt or injure the public morality or morals. This ad clearly is depicting the cheerleader in a very vulgar way, ideally it should have been banned ,Diesel should have been penalized and undergone the punishment, but nothing of this action was undertaken.


According to me, the campaign is based on amoral grounds, not keeping in consideration of the sentiments of the people, senior citizens, even females. The concept of kicking someone is unethical. No one gives me the rights to kick some one just because I wear Diesel sneakers. It sets a very bad example for children, fills up a sense of attitude in youngsters wearing these sneakers and sends wrong messages. A good brand always communicates good ideas and not ideas which would hurt or put someone down.

I feel that we should raise our voice against things which we feel is wrong, and not get into the trap of the controversy and cheap stunts which these companies create for the sales of their products.

The other demeaning print ads are as follows:-