PETA Ruins Primate Advertising for Everyone

Came across this gem on the Consumerist this weekend, so it may be a few days old. But there's one question nobody is asking, and it actually makes me kind of sad.

PETA was apparently put in a tizzy by a recent Dodge commercial, produced by Wieden + Kennedy, featuring a chimpanzee pushing the button on a confetti cannon. So Chrysler took a page from George Lucas and did the only logical thing.

The original.



The Digital Remaster.



And according to this LA Times blog post, Dodge also decided to pull the accompanying print ads.
On one hand, it's actually an improvement--like when an actor's improvisations make a hohum script look like pure genius. On the other hand, although PETA has failed to ruin eating meat for the world, they may have just ruined animals on film.

One commenter, claiming to be a PETA member noted, "Yeah. I'm a member of PeTA but I have to ask, don't you guys have some horrific pet stores or university animals experiments to shut down? Can't you leave Hollywood alone, since laws have been made and complied with for many years now?"

Another wondered if PETA will be going after KIA for their questionable use of giant hampsters.

And many others noted, Nice work PETA, now that monkey is out of job (and this may hold more truth than you think).

Those comments were obviously meant as jokes, but in truth, no one has noted if this particular chimp was abused or not, and digitally removing the animal from the spot really doesn't fix the issue. It's really more just Dodge saying, Okay, now will you shut up? And that's generally what PETA looks for with these high-profile requests and frequent naked protests: Attention. PETA will tout this as a victory, but the one entity who wasn't protected in this instance, was actually this chimp. After all, they didn't go back and unshoot the commercial or release him into the wild.

And in all seriousness, after all this blowback, and with other company's following suit, that chimp's next job may not happen. As an advertiser I'd be leery of pitching anything with animals to most clients, for fear of similar reprisals. So it makes me think, is this the death knell for primate advertising? No more e-trade. No more careerbuilder. No more Suburban Auto Group Trunk Monkey. Today the chimp, tomorrow the lemur, Friday the three-toed-sloth. Will I have to file away all those great spots I've written in my head staring monkeys in smoking jackets; monkeys hugging hobos, and a monkey playing badminton with (dare I say it) Bruce Campbell? Sadly, probably.

I think Dodge made the best of the situation and came out with a more entertaining commercial, but I shudder to think what kind of awful CGI they'll now need for the remake of Every Which Way But Loose. If you've seen the recent Marmaduke debacle, you probably threw up in your mouth a little just now.

Mark my words, August 2010, we saw the end of an era. "Right turn clyde?" Never again. Animal advertising has gone extinct.

On the bright side, the market for monkey robots just skyrocketed. I have some spots to revise.

--George C. Convery, Copywriter

PS Apparently, pulling campaigns featuring higher primates is a real sore spot for me. I blame my dad for taking me to Every Which Way But Loose when I was 6 months old...and for my separated shoulder.

Read more...

You Know Folks are Jumping on the Bangwagon When Leprosy Starts Advertising for Itself

I've been on the lookout for advertising like this ever since I came across those bastards at "Cancer for Christmas."

So when I saw this billboard for "Leprosy" on O'Donnel Street a couple weeks ago, I immediately snapped a grainy picture with a crappy cell phone camera.

Alright, the picture looks like something out of Twister, but the billboard reads, "Ever had Leprosy? Thanks to medical research, you won't." So I did a little research and found a couple more.

Now I'm not here to weigh in on the appropriateness of animal testing, unless it's testing the best tasting barbecue sauce! ZING! What I want to talk about is the conversation.

I recently learned of a growing movement among actual scientists (not lobbyists or simply ignorant idiots) who are against the whole global warming hoopla. Now this is a comparatively small group, but a group nonetheless. And their main gripe is not that global warming isn't happening, their complaint is that scientists who propose evidence that man-made global warming is not destroying our environment--or at least not destroying it to the degree proposed by numerous studies--are essentially blacklisted.

Why? Because as they see it, global warming and what some refer to as the "Green Agenda" is a cash cow for the scientific community, and scientists who oppose the principles of global warming are hurting the scientific community's bottom line. How many projects and studies have been funded to research climate change and its effect on our environment? In a bad economy, this field of study has been keeping many scientists and labs in business. Carbon credits is another huge industry that has sprung up in the past five years. Some economists say it's poised to be the next big speculative market on Wall Street. Without the threat of global warming, this market doesn't even exist.

Now I'm all for preventing global warming. I was celebrating Earth Day when I was 10. Do you remember the 1990 Save the Planet: A CBS/Hard Rock Cafe Special hosted by Bobcat Goldthwait and Katey Segal, where Bobcat Goldthwait sang the Village People's YMCA to the the tune of U2's With or Without You? I do. And if you can find that clip somewhere, please send it to me. I lost my VHS of the show. Besides, you're stupid if you're not doing your part to not totally screw up the environment. I don't have a bar graph or anything, but really, what do you have to lose.

Now these less-than-happy-with-current-global-warming-views scientists may have their own agenda. Perhaps their non-global-warming-related projects aren't being funded because so much money is being invested in studies on climate change. But what I'm saying is these scientists at least deserve to be heard. Whether they're right or wrong, they deserve the opportunity to state their case. And in turn, animal researchers at least deserve to state their case as to why what they do is valid and useful to society, in scientific journals or on billboards. You don't have to agree with them. You can argue back with them. That's the way free speech works. Everyone has the opportunity to say their peace short of spray painting F*** Bank of America on the side of your house, so people on passing commuter trains can read your opinions on the international financial services company. If PETA can put naked protesters in a busy intersection, why can't scientists promote their message on a much more tasteful billboard.

The question then goes to ad agencies, do they want to work for these groups? With small to mid-sized agencies dropping right and left, you may feel your moral compass veering off magnetic north, and I think that's okay. If you vehemently disagree with a cause or if their message is in complete opposition with an important client, by all means, turn down the business. If your biggest client is Nicorette, you probably won't be doing much advertising for Lucky Strikes. But if you only kind of have an opinion on a subject, at least listen to the argument. And if you feel their voice at least deserves to be heard, whether you agree or disagree, do the work and cash the check.

Just because you make commercials for Pepsi, doesn't mean you don't like the taste of Coke. After all, Pepsi sucks. But that doesn't mean people shouldn't be given the option to decide which soda they like better. I'm not saying don't have a moral compass. I'm saying, your job is to help people get their message out. Then let the public decide which message they feel is right. Then there's the question of how good are you and how stupid is the public, but I'll leave that for another post.

Feel free to disagree. I know lots of people who hate me.

--George Convery, Copywriter

Read more...

Banned Ad or Brilliant Ploy

By now you've probably already heard about the recently banned PETA Super Bowl spot. If not, watch it here.


Here's the thing, did PETA really think this ad would get past the Super Bowl censors? No way. Ever since the infamous "wardrobe malfunction" networks are uber-sensitive about upsetting the public, namely the Parent Television Council. I have a feeling PETA knew this spot would get banned. I bet they planned on it. Because this way the get all of the media exposure of a racy, banned Super Bowl ad, plus they save themselves $3 million dollars that they can spend on more fruitless nude protests. And I have to say, pretty smooth. The only sad thing about the spot not making the game (trust me, I have no love lost for PETA) is that their message would actually resonate with their audience.

Brilliant ploy or poor foresight, PETA got one right.

--Captain Awesome, Copywriter

Read more...

"Clueless" About PETA and Urination-at-law

So, I recently found myself home with my wife donating an hour and a half of our Saturday to the classic 90’s coming-of-age silver screen delight, Clueless on TBS. Guys, that movie is one of the most underhanded chick flicks of all time. As it opens, I’m thinking, “Oh dear, this is painful.” By the end, I’m like, “Just kiss her Josh! Just kiss her!” Then I’m left wondering if I’ve lost some of my inherent masculinity. Dastardly stuff indeed.

So, this got me thinking back to whatever happened with Alicia Silverstone and that PETA ad? You may or may not remember, but back in September, the State of Texas, the local cable company, PETA, and Alicia Silverstone got locked in a philosophical debate over an ad featuring Alicia Silverstone in the nude. The point of the ad is fairly harmless with Miss Silverstone like a modern day Lady Godiva, explaining that she keeps her figure slim and trim by not eating meat. The cable company pulled the spot from the Houston airwaves claiming it was “too racy.” I’ll be the first to admit, the ad is a bit racy. I mean, I eat meat, I’ve always eaten meat, and I’ll continue to eat meat, but I did have a hankering for carrot sticks before the ad was over. You do the math. My issue, however, is where do censors draw the line? This is too racy? Have they seen half the advertising that passes on normal television everyday, let alone the programming?**

So as I’m about to get up during a commercial break to refresh my adult beverage, who do mine eyes see during 30 seconds of pure gold? Barry Glazer – Baltimore Attorney At Law. (Are there other kinds of attorneys besides those “at law”?) For those of us here in the Baltimore DMA, Barry Glazer’s commercials have set a gold standard for...something...in local advertising. Picture creepy looking guy standing in front of brick wall, yelling about insurance companies in his best Bawlmer drawl. Cut to still picture of him, dazed and posing with a phone to his ear as a serious-minded voice over details who and what Barry Glazer stands for. Good stuff to be sure.

In this particular gem he waxes on about how the insurance companies are always out to get the little guy. Being comfortably lulled into a sense of glazed stupor at the lack of productions values and schlocky messaging, I could not have been more blind sided by one of the best worst lines I’ve ever heard on television. At the height of his tirade he exclaims, “Insurance companies, don’t urinate on my leg and tell me it’s raining! We’re going to court!” Wow! Then to boot, our serious minded voice over comes in redefining, the aforementioned counselor as “Barry Glazer- Legal advocate for the injured, disabled, and urinated upon.” Man, oh man! What a terrific new peak we’ve reached in low budget cable advertising.



So let me make sure I have this straight, nudity – bad; references to urination – no worries? All I have to say is, if a cable company wants to take a moral stand, that’s fine, but don’t urinate on my leg and tell me it’s raining! Local Content Censors, we’re going to court! Assuming, I don’t choke on this tasty cheeseburger, that is.

**Footnote: I’m guessing the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association must have gotten their greasy fingers involved. Keep in mind, according to the Nation Cattleman’s Association "An estimated 111,875 jobs and $4.82 billion of personal income are generated in Texas from the beef industry." Sounds like about 4.82 billion reasons for the cable company not to air the ad, no?

Ken Hall, Associate Creative Director

Read more...

Marketing Mike Vick's Misery

OK. My wife and I have been accused of being a little eccentric because of the number of animals we keep (two dogs, six cats, and a pond full of koi). We collect pets the way Bill Paxton’s character on “Big Love” collects wives. We’re Polanimalists. That being said, I’ll spare everyone my own personal diatribe on everything that’s wrong and disgusting about the dog fighting incident and about Michael Vick as a human being.

I will however give mad (rabid, even) props out to the people who’ve found a way to make a difference—or in some cases, make a dime—off of the guy’s stupidity. The beauty of America is its marketing spirit, and our natural ability to turn terrible circumstances into causes célébres and cash-a-plenty. Simply take a look at how many American flags Wal-Mart sold on September 11, 2001 compared with the same date a year earlier (for those keeping score at home, it was 116,000 units to 6,400 units, respectively). They made money, and people were able to display their support of their country. That’s the win-win of Patriotic Consumerism.

So when I saw the Mike Vick chew toy, I was ecstatic. Like it or not, you’ve got to give the four budding entrepreneurs who started the venture some punk points for inventiveness. Their product is molded, vulcanized rubber irony, guaranteed to stand up to even the toughest pooch. Now, whether they actually follow through on their website’s promise to share a portion of the profits with organizations dedicated to animal welfare, is another story. But they’re back-ordered, and that means business is good. Even better, Vick isn’t making a penny from it. Until he eventually sues their pants off.

PETA’s in on the action, too. Vick’s dog fighting charges—and plea bargain—are exactly what they needed to raise real awareness about the atrocities that take place in dingy urban basements, abandoned warehouses, and back-road trailer parks across America. The number of tips they’ve received has jumped since they rallied their efforts around condemning his actions. He’s the ultimate boogeyman, like the lurking burglar in ADT spots or the slippery floor that no elderly person can escape from in Life Alert ads. He’s the best and worst thing that’s ever happened to the animal rights cause in recent memory.

Who knows. Maybe Vick will even figure out a way to market his own mistakes. Think about it. Once he’s out of the pokey, he’ll no doubt be any network interviewer’s first round pick for easy ratings.

“Tell us how you’ve changed, Mike.”
“What made you do it, Mike?”
“Is that an Armani suit, Mike?”
“Who do you think will win the AFC, Mike?”

He’ll be on TV in no time. Then, perhaps a book. An acting gig. Hey, maybe even parlay his infamous persona into a professional wrestling career. In some way, he’ll find a way to get paid. And that, too, is what business in America is all about.

Marketing goes both ways, benefiting the good guys and the bad guys alike. Like the light and dark side of the Force or Andy Dick. It’s a just little tough to tell which is which, sometimes. As a pet owner, I feel pretty good that something positive will come out of this mess. As an ad guy watching people make money and promote their causes at Vick’s expense, I feel even better.

--M.M. McDermott, Senior Copywriter

Read more...