PETA, the much-vilified animal-rights group, has launched its latest campaign — and like most of its recent efforts, it seeks to shock and awe people into paying attention.
As Adrants puts it:
Those radical exaggerators over at PETA are up to their old sensationalism again with the launch of Milk Gone Wild, a spoof on the Girls Gone Wild series which uses titillation and human udders to call attention to the apparent health hazards of drinking milk … PETA has, again, done what it does best; use sex and controversy to bring attention to its causes.
All true. PETA is radical. It does offend. In fact, what’s even more disturbing than the “Girls Gone Wild” parody is the actual glimpse into the life and death of dairy cows on the “Milk Gone Wild” site.
If you’ll indulge us for a moment, we just want to throw a little thought out there, for discussion purposes only — and then you can tell us how wrong we are.
Here’s the thought:
In the antebellum United States, most people — North and South — didn’t want to know about the messy details of slavery. Even plantation owners shielded themselves from it, leaving it to overseers to do the dirty work. People just wanted their cotton shirts and the other benefits of forced labor, and didn’t want to think about where it all came from. Abolitionists, as a result, were much-vilified.
Today, we want our gasoline, we want our perfume that’s been tested on animals, we want to have sex and abort the consequences, we want to eat meat but not see what happens in the slaughterhouse, and on and on.
We live in a world where if we don’t want to see all the unpleasant ingredients that go into the soup of our lives, we don’t have to. And we choose not to.
It’s a big cultural secret, the emperor’s new clothes. And the media, more often than not, is the royal tailor.
OK, so tell us we’re full of it. We can take it.
Technorati tags: PETA, Advertising, Public Relations, Marketing
Some people find PETA’s in-your-face tactics offensive, and not everyone agrees with their unapologetic approach to animal advocacy. However, their controversial campaigns (for example their use of titillating images, which I find problematic) have one particular, perhaps unintended, effect – they make other animal protection groups seem considerably more mainstream. This, in turn, enables these groups, for example HSUS, to argue for incremental reforms in animal agriculture, biomedical research, wildlife management etc.
PETA’s historically direct approach, such as the release of video footage of animal misuse in the fur industry or in animal agriculture, has made people more aware of what happens behind-the-scenes. Even corporate behemoths such as McDonalds have taken note. Two decades ago it would have been inconceivable for McDonalds to speak about “animal welfare,” which it’s now doing in its blog. So, while I disagree with many of PETA’s tactics, their effectiveness in raising awareness is indisputable.
Better check your history. The horrors of slavery weren’t as “covered up” as you make them sound. And abolitionists weren’t as vilified as you make them out.
PETA isn’t nearly as morally correct or virtuous as the abolition movement was or those fighting human trafficking are today (an issue, by the way, that involves real people and human rights). Please don’t give them the credibility they don’t deserve.
As for the media being the tailor of the Emporer’s new clothes, I think we often find the media sewing whatever tale happens to be in fashion to keep the doors open and money rolling in. Moral high ground, especially on issues like those PETA choses to engage on, is rarely moral or high.
FWIW,
Mike Bawden
Brand Central Station
Actually, Mike, I wrote two honors theses on the topic while studying Southern history at UVa, so I know a little something about the subject. It’s why even Lincoln distanced himself from abolitionists, why “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” was such a controversial revelation when it was published, and why “Gone With the Wind” mythology persisted for 100 years after the war.
I equate the two movements only as examples of reform movements that were vilified, as many are. Some, however, emerge triumphant in time. A hundred years from now, people may look back on how we treat animals, or how casually we treat abortion (to cite another reform movement), and be as shocked as we are today when we look back on the slavery era.
Andrea: the McDonald’s blog is excellent — and you’re right, the first post concerns animal welfare. In a free market economy with relatively little regulation, it’s up to consumers to push corporations to demonstrate social responsibility. And McDonald’s is a great example of a company responding to the legitimate concerns of consumers. Let’s hope they’re just getting started.
you may be the first person to group pro-life and animal rights activists in the same category, if i’m reading you right. Pretty interesting thought.
This might seem a bit lame, or naive, but surely a “cool and clever” viral campaign like PETA’s can’t do anything more than promote discussion about the issue, or perhaps raise awareness that there is actually an issue there in the first place … which in my book can’t be a bad thing … especially with an issue that wouldn’t have even hit the radars of most people… again. I might be being a bit dim, but I think abortion and slavery have hit people’s radars by now … whether or not they can be bothered actually thinking about them … or getting uptight about the “politically correct” or my “historically correct” view on issues?
Uncle Bob:
I agree with you. The point I was making about PETA is that most people (at least in my neck of the woods) loathe the organization. But in time, PETA’s cause may win out. Hence, the historical parallel to abolitionism. It’s just meant to be a discussion point; thanks for participating.