AD-MONITION: Are animal ‘portrayals’ in advertisements a new brand risk?
Animals are not objects to be paraded for profit. If brands wish to show images of real wild animals in their campaigns, they should show them in the wild where they belong, and in no direct interaction with humans.
MATTHEW MILLER: What if the statement, ‘No animals were harmed during the making of this ad campaign’ is no longer good enough? That’s a question that CMOs and other brand shepherds may be pondering in the wake of a controversy over a recent Gucci campaign. The campaign, promoting a line of products for the Year of the Tiger, showed some of the big cats not in their natural setting, but in a ‘lifestyles of the rich and famous’ sort of milieu—their regal presences alongside people wearing expensive clothes and accessories in homes decorated with the garish decor that signifies great wealth (in luxury ads at least).
Animal-rights groups lambasted the brand for treating wild—not to mention endangered—animals as if they were pets or accessories. What’s more, Gucci had to face the denunciation even though most critics were aware from the start that the campaign did not use real tigers, just photo editing. The reasoning Gucci’s critics unspooled is that such campaigns glorify the cruel and dangerous misuse of animals and contribute to a sense that they’re playthings for human enjoyment, while potentially driving exploitation.
“Animals are not objects to be paraded for profit,” Nick Stewart, head of wildlife campaigns at London-headquartered non-profit World Animal Protection, tells Campaign Asia-Pacific. “Whether the animals were actually there, draped over the piano or not, it is fuelling the mindset which contributes to their commodification. If brands wish to show images of real wild animals in their campaigns, they should show them in the wild where they belong, and in no direct interaction with humans.” Brands and agencies must consider whether their campaigns might inadvertently fuel public demand for wildlife products and experiences, and whether their ads might actually drive demand for the trade of wildlife, whether legal or illegal, Stewart argues…
Many people might even brand such concern for animal welfare as ‘wokeism’ or ‘virtue signaling’ run rampant. Yet according to others with a good perspective on the situation, it seems clear that consumer expectations around this issue are changing. “We are seeing a shift,” says Boaz Paldi, global engagement and partnership manager at the United Nations Development Programme. New York-based Paldi works on a wide range of animal-protection initiatives. The recent ‘Don’t choose extinction’ campaign that kicked off with a velociraptor addressing the UN was “my baby”, he tells Campaign.
He’s also an adviser to The Lion’s Share Fund, the innovative UN-led programme that asks advertisers to contribute an amount equal to 0.5% of their media spend for conservation when they use animals—wild or domesticated—in their marketing. “The shift is slow,” he continues. “It’s not as quick as we would like it to be, but it’s definitely there. Consumers today are more aware of environmental impact, of sustainability, of what the real costs of products are, what the damage is. We’re definitely seeing that shift across the board.” Gucci stuck with its campaign…
Paldi points to ample research showing that brand purpose is quite high on the list of factors people, especially young people, consider when it comes to the companies they buy from. And speaking from experience, he sees the increasing engagement the UN garners for its campaigns as evidence of rising demand among consumers for brands to act in ways that support the planet—and justice for all its inhabitants. “We reach more people,” he says simply. “More people are aware of our messaging. More people are engaged with us. We are able to mobilise the public more easily.”
For the record, Paldi says he understands the criticism of the Gucci campaign. “There’s only about 3,800 tigers in the wild right now, so it’s a very, very acute problem, and we think that the perception of animals as accessories really adds to that,” he says. Yet he also points out that Gucci signed on with The Lion’s Share about a year ago, and confirms this means the company will be chipping in half a percent of what it spends on media for the tiger campaign.
World Animal Protection’s Stewart acknowledges this as well, but says it’s not enough. “Like many other fashion brands have done as part of their Year of the Tiger campaigns, Gucci has committed funds to protect endangered species and their natural habitats,” he says. “But now they must also reflect this across their business practices.” “We’ve had some conversations with Gucci,” Paldi says. “We hope that they realise that consumer demand is moving away from these types of ads, and they move away with it”…
Stewart of World Animal Protection advises brands to consult with animal-welfare organisations that stand against captivity, in order to be guided toward a truly wildlife-friendly approach… “We need organisations to lead the way by educating their consumers on the plight of wild animals, rather than directly or inadvertently driving their commercial exploitation”, Stewart says. SOURCE…
RELATED VIDEO: