Weren't we supposed to stop using captive great apes in ads, Google?

Business Insider just published Ace Metrix's list of top-performing ads in 30 categories for the first quarter of 2015. Among them is Google's "Friends Furever" spot for Android:

Wait a minute here: Didn't the US Ad Council announce that it no longer supports the use of great apes in ads back in 2008?

PETA has been lobbying the ad industry to stop using apes as props for years. As a result,  Omnicom Group's BBDO, GSD&M and Merkley & Partners; Interpublic's McCann Erickson, DraftFCB and RPA; Havas' Arnold and Euro RSCG; WPP's Grey Group, Ogilvy & Mather, Young & Rubicam and JWT; and Publicis Groupe's Saatchi & Saatchi and Leo Burnett all agreed to stop using great apes in ads in 2011. The Google ad was created by Droga5, who apparently didn't get the memo.

I'm not PETA's greatest fan, but as a human (and having the Jane Goodall Institute as a client) the exploitation of our closest cousins by my industry troubles me.

The challenge with using any animals in advertising is their treatment, since they are not willing performers. The most intelligent social animals, such as great apes (chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans), elephants, and whales/dolphins, are wild animals that suffer from anxiety and depression when removed from their peers — even if captive bred. (Dogs are domestic animals, so they're a little bit of a different issue.)

The Google ad has representatives of all three of these animal groups performing for your amusement, and that of 16 million of your closest friends.

Jane Goodall is asking people like us, who create ads and entertainment, to sign a pledge not to use captive great apes in our work. I think it's time we stopped treating our cousins like props.

Your child's public education... brought to you by PETA

Schools in Montrose, Michigan, are hard-pressed for funding these days, but WCRZ reports that a well-known international not-for-profit organization is willing to help out.

With one catch:

That's right. PETA wants to sponsor Montrose schools in return for placing anti-dissection messages in the hallways.

PETA executive vice president Tracy Reiman says

"Encouraging students to cut up animals who often suffer a terrifying and painful death teaches them that the lives of others don't matter. Our offer is a win-win solution: The school district would receive needed funding, and students would receive invaluable lessons in compassion and good science."

Win-win? From a marketing point of view, perhaps. I covered another Michigan PETA effort against dissection in April, mostly because it involved Iggy Pop. It's a good issue for them to focus on, because it's easy for mainstream people to identify with unnecessary death and gore.

But will it end with dissection? PETA is not exactly an organization I want having a lot of influence in the halls of education.

The problem is that, once schools become dependent on non-public funding, they are susceptible to influence. And that influence could easily involve other PETA pet issues, such as promoting veganism by vilifying all animal products, even milk.



Oh yeah, and then there's the question of their track record of recruiting young women to get naked for the cause. Handy to have their URL right on the locker, eh?

But don't think I'm exclusively bashing on PETA. Corporate sponsorship of education is just a bad idea all around — whether it's bringing fast food into the cafeteria, pop machines to fund events, or even a non-profit with a passionate agenda. That's not the way public education is supposed to work.

Care about education? Vote for better public funding. When it comes to our future, we'll get what we pay for.

He's a straight talkin' PETA with a letter for the U of M...

Man is the village animal, united by the glue of our loathsome qualities
- "The Villagers", 1982

Iggy Pop has joined forces with PETA against animal testing at the University of Michigan. It's not as unusual a partnership as you might think. Iggy likes theatrics. He likes to get naked. (Don't click that link unless you actually want to see Iggy Pop nude.) And despite all the drugs he put into his body in the Stooges days, he's actually a health nut who has been on a strict macrobiotic diet for over 40 years.

This particular appeal is close to home, as well. Iggy (once known as James Osterberg) grew up in U Michigan's backyard of Ann Arbor, and even attended classes in Anthropology for a term before dropping out to make rock and roll history.

Ig writes:

"Mary Sue Coleman, President
University of Michigan                                                                                   
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1340

Dear Dr. Coleman,

As a former University of Michigan student, I was disappointed to learn from my friends at PETA that cats and pigs continue to be abused and killed in U-M’s survival flight course even though the same skills are taught using more effective non-animal methods in other medical training courses on campus.

It’s common sense that cutting apart pigs and maiming cats isn’t the best way to train people to treat humans. Just last year, U-M announced that it was replacing the animal labs in a trauma training course—one that covers the same procedures for which pigs are still being mutilated and killed in the school’s survival flight course—with a modern simulator. 

U-M should not be harming animals when better alternatives are available and already in use on campus. Judging by The Michigan Daily’s recent editorial in favor of replacing these archaic animal labs, the student body agrees. 

Please make the switch to non-animal training methods for U-M’s survival flight course.

Thanks for your time.

Sincerely, Iggy Pop"

While I am not a big fan of PETA in general, I am a huge Iggy Pop fan. So I'm happy his collaboration with PETA was a cause I can get behind. There are more humane alternatives to animal testing — especially in education.

Go Daddy Gone

"Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man."

- The Dude


Wow, way to knock accused sexual slavedriver Dov Charney off his perch as the internet's most hated CEO.

Bob Parsons, who as CEO of godaddy.com is also known for sexually objectifying women in his ads, apparently also thinks he's a big game hunter:




This bizarre video shows Parsons as a Great White Hunter "saving" an African village in Zimbabwe from sorghum-trampling elephants. The villagers then butcher and eat it.

Sound like a scene from 100 years ago? Now, to be fair, the Zimbabweans in the video seem pretty happy about the whole thing. And elephants can cause havoc with farms.

But it raises these questions:

•  Isn't animal control a game warden's job?
• -Even if they decided the herd needed culling, is it a good idea to sell the opportunity to an American jerk who thinks he's Teddy Roosevelt?
• Should shooting an endangered, highly-intelligent and social animal be "beneficial and rewarding"? (Parson's own description of the experience)
• Might the rest of the herd not come back for vengeance?
• And what does AC?DC think of their music being associated with this? (Ted Nugent would have been a more appropriate choice.)

PETA (who Adland point out are registered with godaddy.com - as are some of my company's properties...) have of course called for a boycott, but as usual oversell the case by basically condemning all hunting as inhumane.

For me, at least until I know more details of the animal management policy behind it, it's the attitude that irks most. There is a creepy parallel between a man who treats women as sex objects and who feels no shame in posing as a macho big game hunter.

Although Adland's Dabitch notes: "killing problem animals gets people more outraged than objectifying women in sexist shite ads - perhaps I should go trample some farmers crops and get shot so us women can be worth as much as an elephant."

What do you think? Will you go "Go Daddy Gone" over this one?


Violent Femmes Gone Daddy Gone by Celtiemama

UPDATE: Parsons tells his side of the story:

"I spend a few weeks in Zimbabwe each year helping the farmers deal with problem elephants. The people there have very little, many die each year from starvation and one of the problems they have is the elephants, of which there are thousands and thousands, that trash many of their fields destroying the crops. The tribal authorities request that I and others like me, patrol the fields before and during the harvest -- we can't cover them all, there are just a few of us -- and drive the elephant from the fields. The farmers try to run the elephants away by cracking whips, beating drums and lighting fires. All of this is ignored by the elephants. When my team catch elephants in a field (there are never just one) we typically kill one of them and the rest leave for good. After we kill an elephant the people butcher the elephant and it feeds a number of villages. These people have literally nothing and when an elephant is killed it's a big event for them, they are going to be able to eat some protein. This is no different than you or I eating beef. If at all possible we avoid elephant cows and only kill mature bulls. By just killing bulls it has no effect on the elephant social structure (as it is matriarchal) as well as the herd size. The reason is another bull quickly steps up and breeds in place of the bull taken."