Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Advertising influence on society
Ethical issues in advertising
Advertising influence on society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Advertising influence on society
Value in graphic design can possibly be summed up with some of the following criteria; is it informative? Is it aesthetically pleasing? Is it eye-catching, clear or interesting? What makes this piece of design good, or possibly, bad? Is it valuable to society? Though there is no definitive list…
The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Foundation (PETA), a non-profit UK organisation, are notorious for their shocking and often distasteful advertising campaigns that are usually very difficult and uncomfortable to look at. Along the same lines are Amnesty International, a human rights charity, who also produce shocking advertising to stir emotions and to make the general public aware of issues we are ignorant of or would rather ignore.
In this essay, I am going to explore the social, cultural and moral values in these advertisements and compare them to an advertising campaign that aims to shock but appears to have no real emotive value and it is just shocking for the sake of it. I will investigate whether shock advertisements are useful to society and do they have significance and worth, or does the value decrease when shock advertising is used without any real purpose other than to sell frivolous products?
As an activist non-profit organisation, PETA do not have to worry about negative views or raging criticism; in fact, they often thrive on it and deliberately go out of their way to offend the audience to rouse emotions so that their advertisement is noticed and people remember the message.
The advertisement by PETA I want to discuss is their “Holocaust On Your Plate” campaign from 2003, which was banned by Germany’s High Court. The campaign consisted of eight sixty square-foot panels depicting shocking images of people ta...
... middle of paper ...
...nd therefore has more aesthetic value than PETA’s campaign. There is something quite pleasing about the colours and layout of the design, though it is not beautiful, it is more attractive than PETA’s.
In conclusion, are shock adverts valuable and worthy to society? I would argue that they are but it is mainly about context. Though shock advertisements are fairly successful in their aim, I believe that the shock tactics used in trivial advertising could devalue the shock advertising on campaigns with real moral or ethical reason and value. Once you have been shocked because of a crime channel advert, it could take the shock out of more important campaigns and desensitise the public to this approach. The only answer for adverts to regain their value is to take the next step and become even more outrageous and appalling for the public to stand up and take notice again.
Advertisements are one of many things that Americans cannot get away from. Every American sees an average of 3,000 advertisements a day; whether it’s on the television, radio, while surfing the internet, or while driving around town. Advertisements try to get consumers to buy their products by getting their attention. Most advertisements don’t have anything to do with the product itself. Every company has a different way of getting the public’s attention, but every advertisement has the same goal - to sell the product. Every advertisement tries to appeal to the audience by using ethos, pathos, and logos, while also focusing on who their audience is and the purpose of the ad. An example of this is a Charmin commercial where there is a bear who gets excited when he gets to use the toilet paper because it is so soft.
Both images displayed, the first by the PETA organization or People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animal rights activists have played a major role in changing how animals are viewed and treating in many countries, including Germany and Switzerland. The animal rights movement in Germany dates back to the beginning of the 19th century where Germany’s first society for the protection of animals was founded in Stuttgart in 1837 (Guardian 1). This society however, was not like the animal rights organizations of modern times that call for the rescue of animals or attempt to persuade people to lead a vegetarian lifestyle. Instead, the society called for the slaughter of animals to be performed in a “more humane way”. It wasn’t until 1881 that the first German organization for the protection of animals was established. The Deutsche Tierschutzcerein, or the German Animal Protection Society advocated for the creation of animal sanctuaries and protection of animals from the hands of abusers. The society received public support and garnered national attention, likely in part to the celebrity endorsement from romantic composer Richard Wagner who published a series of papers calling for Germans to live on a meat free diet (Gua...
The campaign against Whole Foods and Chipotle for allowing factory farm to continue that killing of animals is what ‘Direct Action Everywhere’ is fighting against to inform the general population that there is an issue with “humanely” killing animals for consumption. Direct Action Everywhere’s is an organization whose “mission is to empower activists to take strong and confident action wherever animas are being denigrated, enslaved, or killed, and create a world where animals liberation is a reality.”
There are also amazing things that they are trying to accomplish. Some of the best things that have happened recently are that has been for the animals is they have banned the import and the abuse of dogs in puppy mills (Establishment that breeds puppies, typically on an intensive basis and in conditions regarded as inhumane), banned the import, sale and the testing of animals in cosmetics in Europe and India, began transferring of 100s of chimps in labs to sanctuaries, stopped the killing of horses for human consumption, and stopped wolf hunting in Wyoming and Michigan. Those are just a few things that they have done. The list of things they are working on is very long too. They are working on protecting sharks from finning (the process of which people kill sharks and take the fins leaving the other parts in the ocean), elephants from ivory poachers (people who illegally hunt, and kill, elephants just for their ivory tusks), and even are saving Rhinos’ from horn trade. They also get companies to help raise awareness like Nestle. Nestle now has adopted amazing reforms for farm animals. The Humane Society even has created a big cat habitat for the tigers that were involved in trades. They are trying to put a stop to all the animal fighting clubs too. The Humane Society has worked so hard to provide more care to animals than any other organization in the world. They have helped, even saved more animals than you could imagine.
PETA is arguably the largest animals’ rights organization in the world with more than 5 million members and supporters. They go further to say they are against the use of animals in food, clothing, research, and entertainment industries and claim to spread their message through public education, cruelty investigations, research, animal rescue, legislation, special events, celebrity involvement, and protest campaigns. This is all according to their website of course; however, a deeper look reveals another meaning filled with hypocrisy, deceit, terror, and greed.
Jean Kilbourne’s “Two Way a Woman Can Get Hurt: Advertising and Violence” is a section of a book titled: “Deadly Persuasion: Why Women and Girls Must Fight the Addictive Power of Advertising” that was originally published in 1999. It is about the images of women that advertisements illustrate. The central claim or thesis of the document is that: “advertising helps to create a climate in which certain attitudes and values flourish and it plays a role in shaping people’s ideas” (paraphrase). The author wants people by all genders and young children to acknowledge a right attitude towards what is shown in the advertisements so that the standards of behavior will not be influenced. As a result, it enables the negative contribution from the advertisements to be limited or eliminated.
Advertisers all have one goal in common, that is an ad that is catching to a consumer’s attention. In today’s fast paced society there are so many selling products and charities. As I exam the advertisement for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty for Animals (ASPCA), I will show how they use the pathos, ethos, and logos – also known as Aristotle’s Theory of Persuasion.
The video describes how our society may not even care about the product being advertised, but we still read the billboard or watch the commercial. Also mentioned was the use of colors in a commercial, the marketing effects in politics, and even market research obtained by studying different cults. Frontline takes an in-depth look at the multibillion-dollar “persuasion industries” of advertising and how this rhetoric affects everyone. So whether this is in the form of a television commercial or a billboard, pathos, logos, and ethos can be found in all advertisements.
Provocative imagery, shock factors, guilt trips and what they’re infamously known for, sexist shaming; this is PETA’s arsenal of tools to manipulate and mould people to follow their arguably twisted ideology. PETA uses women and presents them as stereotypical and unattainable sexual figures; over the facade of ‘helping’ animals everywhere. PETA displays these advertising campaigns at the expense of women. The exploitation of women stems from the manipulation of their images, PETA uses a touched up, airbrushed, photoshoped version of these women, therefore helping further unhealthy idealistic body stereotypes of a woman that media and society have already ‘gifted’ us. Satire, a commonly known M.O. of PETA is found among many of these adverts,
This does not change it as zoos are here as conservation and education; we are here to save the animals, and make more people aware of the situation at hand. I believe that we shouldn’t turn our heads or back to problems that zoos are suffering, going through misunderstanding or beliefs of what others say. This means propaganda, misinformation, or organizations; for example, PETA, should not matter on what actions we are to make. We have a job to do for these animals, and this world; because if we don’t take that first leap, then we have not just lost the fight but we have lost the
Abuse towards animals is recognized by many in the commercials shown on television, including the Sarah McLaughlin song and the pictures of animals starved and beaten. The commercials are shown quite regularly and give viewers a small look into the world of animal cruelty. What the commercials do not show, however, are the countless cases of people getting away with violence, as well as the hundreds of thousands of animals whom did not live to make the commercials. Television, radio, and internet ads often depict and portray the lives of animals living in shelters, and ask of the public to donate money each month for the cause. Without a doubt, this is the extent of what many people can say their experience with animal cruelty consists of: pictures and short video clips of half-dead dogs and cats left to die in over-crowded housing.
By encouraging women to take off their clothes so that they can sell nonhuman animal liberation, PETA has associated female activism with pornographic exploitation and rendered invisible other types of activist roles women adopt. To further demonstrate this, PETA’s website has offered a series of online games for visitors to play. The games have ranged from shooting tomatoes at “old hags” who wear fur to shaking “Hairy Kate and Trashley Trollsen” as hard as possible while recordings of violent screams play in the background. PETA’s 2015 “Games” section included “Breasts, not Animal Tests” and “Commando Chicks: Stick-a-Chick”. The first game required players to grab as many female breasts as possible without accidentally grabbing any nonhuman animals. In the second game, players had to keep a “flying” packaged chicken from entering into their grocery cart; otherwise, the player’s family would die of salmonella. It is unclear in these games how aggressively shooting tomatoes at women (the term “hag” is defined in Merriam Webster’s dictionary as an ugly woman), physically harming Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen, grabbing women’s breasts, and making sexually violent references suggestive of rape (“Stick-a-Chick”) can help liberate nonhuman animals. What is clear, however, is PETA’s assumption that reenacting violent acts and sexually exploiting women are effective advocacy techniques. Ironically, these games exemplify “a structure of overlapping but absent referents that link violence against women and nonhuman animals”. According to Adams, “it is through the structure of the absent referent that patriarchal values become institutionalized”. Through phrases like “stick a chick” and games that ask players to grab women’s breasts, the experience (rape) and
PETA deals with many animal rights issues, some including fair treatment to animals in movies and entertainment, such as Khartoum. PETA is a non-profit organization with a purpose of getting better treatment for animals. The organization has uncovered many illegal projects, which harm animals in doing so. In 1981, PETA uncovered the abuse of animals in laboratories and experiments, which launched the Silver Springs monkeys case. In this experiment, Dr. Edward Taub was cutting major nerves in the arms of monkeys, and teaching them how to use the paralyzed arm. While people argued that this experiment had no value to it, Taub did app...
Similarly, numerous advertisements on mass media has also created adverse impacts on society. Critics substantiate this fact by giving argument that advertising of expensive products cause sense of depravity in the poor people. In addition, daily thousands of advertisements are destined to an individual through different mind process of a person.