Analyzing animal rights advertisement to improve promoting awareness

The mission of animal rights is to have people be considerate towards animals and prevent unnecessary pain and suffering; however, in order for people to gain awareness of this mission, animal rights organizations must connect with their audience.

... This not only means that campaigns must try to attract attention, but persuade the public in a balanced use of ethos, logos and pathos. Logos is an appeal to logic, a form of persuasion using reason. Ethos is an appeal to ethics, a way of convincing the audience of the persuader’s credibility. Pathos is an appeal to emotion, a way of invoking an emotional response from the audience. (“Ethos, Pathos & Logos – Modes of Persuasion”). The use of stylistic word choice always incorporates one of these three components for persuasive language. Based on my research, I have seen that the Humane Society has excellent examples of this. Distracting advertising tactics that make the audience feel uncomfortable may work to bring attention, but they are not effective in the long run for the animal rights movement. For example, PETA’s tactics may work to bring attention to their organization, but their organization’s famously abrasive and dogmatic nature brings a negative connotation to what animal rights is. In order for the animal rights movement to gain more popularity, its approaches in advertising, news, propaganda, and others forms of campaigning tactics must change. To examine this, I compared several examples of animal rights advertisements in the hopes of further improving animal rights advertisements in the future.

The essay body is divided into three sections. In Section 1, I introduce the idea of being persuasive through informing one’s audience rather than trying to be persuasive through a combative manner. Section 2 uses an example outside of the animal rights movement to exemplify how a conscientious use of language can lead to greater support and impact for a movement. The conservation movement’s book Silent Spring by Rachel Carson is provided as an outside example for what animal rights campaigns should be inspired to achieve in regards to its admirable use of language techniques, educational impact, and nonaggressive approach to the public. Its ability to relate the audience to the cause and, in result, have a significant influence on how people take care of the environment is what makes this piece of literature a noteworthy example to the essay’s argument. Finally, Section 3 analyzes which campaign advertisements are effective and ineffective in connecting with the public. My evaluation of these advertisements was guided from Henry Spira statement in the article “Activity vs. Productivity: Strategies of Social Protest” on how “There's a need to find focal points personal enough for the public to relate to, yet with enough ripple effects to have an impact on the larger picture of animal suffering.” Future Animal Rights campaigns should derive their advertising tactics from the desire to find that focal point. This would be accomplished though using logos, ethos, and pathos. In pursuing to these three elements, the public can find focal points personal enough to relate to, and in consequence the campaign at hand will be deemed persuasive. When analyzing an advertisement, I look for how language and context are able to influence the meaning constructed in slogans and images. I also examine the interactions that exist between statements, audiences, and purposes.

“There's a need to find focal points personal enough for the public to relate to, yet with enough ripple effects to have an impact on the larger picture of animal suffering.”

The Investigation

Civilized Persuasion

The Oxford Vegetarian Group modernized the animal rights philosophies used today. The organization was active in the ‘60s and ‘70s by post-graduate students of Oxford University. It inspired individuals significant to the movement such as Richard Ryder, who is recognized for his concept of speciesism; as well as Peter Singer, the author of Animal Liberation. (Phelps, N. pp. 204-207). In “The Oxford Vegetarians — A Personal Account,” Peter Singer remembers the Oxford Vegetarians as a group of post-graduates considered to have initiated the foundation of the modern animal rights movement. the impact they had on his life, and how this led to him writing Animal Liberation. Within a passage of the article, he describes going to a philosophy lecture about free will, determinism, and moral responsibility with a member of the Oxford Vegetarians, Richard Keshen. When they had lunch after, Singer noticed when “… Richard asked if the spaghetti sauce had meat in it, and when told that it had, took a meatless salad. So when [they] had talked enough about free will and determinism, [Singer] asked Richard why he had avoided meat. That began a discussion that was to change [Singer’s] life. The change did not take place immediately. What Richard Keshen told [Singer] about the treatment of farm animals, combined with his arguments against our neglect of the interests of animals, gave [him] a lot to think about, but [Singer] was not about to change [his] diet overnight.” By how Singer recalls the moment, there is an apparent implication that Keshen’s argument was defended with intellect and a levelheaded attitude. If Keshen had the same intellect, but used a more abrasive manner in communicating his arguments, then perhaps Keshen would not have been as persuasive or deemed as credible. The most powerful tool of persuasion is to provide knowledge and raise awareness. Aristotle once said in the Rhetoric that “Persuasion is achieved by the speaker’s personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible.” (pp.7; ch.2). The movement is in a minority position, and therefore defenders and activists should do what they can to inform and be credible.

Conservation

It is important to note that the animal rights movement began to communicate its philosophies at an opportune time. During the 1960s and 1970s, the environmental movement had a great influence in making this a good era for animal rights advocation to be introduced. Silent Spring by Rachel Carson is a notable example of what contributed to making the environmental movement influential during this time. Published in 1962, it was met with fierce opposition by chemical companies, but it changed the way we used pesticides, leading to the country’s ban on DDT for agriculture and inspiring the environmental movement. It also led to the creation of the United States’ Environmental Protection Agency (Griswold; Stoll). It was able to surprise people without being grotesque. Though Silent Spring was published in 1964, her use of language is still modern for today’s standards. The only people upset with her were those who worked for the selling and distribution of DDT, not the general public. This is because she had effect control over her language, how she strategized her words to be honest without sounding offensive, writing in a style that avoids her audience from becoming defensive; therefore, it becomes easy for them to understand her message. It is an important lesson for the Animal Rights movement to learn from Silent Spring, being that it has the effective approach of hitting where it hurts. If your audience does not care about animals, but they care about themselves, then the emphasis of the message cannot be on how it impacts animals, but instead on how it impacts the audience. This is exactly what Carson does in her novel Silent Spring. It serves as an ideal revolutionary piece because of how well it connects with its audience through its use of persuasive language.

Carson describes how “Our heedless and destructive acts enter into the vast cycles of the earth and in time return to bring hazard to ourselves...” (Silent Spring.)

She makes it clear that supporting the welfare of the environment and the living creatures in it is also supporting a better future for people; therefore, Carson’s argument is effective in how it makes her concerns the audience’s concerns as well.

The collaboration between conservationists and animal rights activists would lead to much more success stories for both sides, as they fight for causes with similar moral, and the very definition of conservation includes protecting animals. However, in the article “Animal Rights and Conservation” by conservationist Michael Hutchins, the contrary perspective is expressed, as he states “… this unrealistic and highly reductionist view, which focuses exclusively on individual sentient animals, is not a good foundation for the future of life on our planet and does not recognize the interrelationships that exist among various species in functioning ecosystems.” Hutchins perceives animal rights activists to be impractical and concludes that due to animal rights irrational attitude, conservationists and animal rights activists are unable to work together. Sadly however, he uses People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) as the sole basis of this regard towards animal right activists and their mentalities; but, he is not the only one. While it is a significant non-profit in the movement, it is still disappointing because there are relevant organizations other than PETA that take part in the animal rights movement, such as the Humane Society, David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust (DSWT), the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), and so on.

PETA is a successful organization in the animal rights movement, gaining rights for animals, and according to their website bringing $67,034,918 in revenue for their organization (PETA, “Financial Reports”); however, their campaigns are not consistent in their ability to persuade and appeal to a larger audience.

Advertisements

Campaign #1: McCruelty

The images show a McDonald’s chicken nugget box with an image of Ronald McDonald as an evil clown; he shows a toothy big grin, arching eyebrows, and daunting eyes, all while exhibiting his bloody knife. The cover of the box parodies McDonalds’s slogans and catch phrases with slogans such as “I’m Hatin’ it”, “Unhappy meal”, and “Chicken McCruelty… Broken Bones and Scalded Alive.” Inside the box are red platters mimicking blood, a t-shirt wrapped up like a sandwich, and a paper cutout of an evil Ronald McDonald running away with a dead chicken in his right hand and a bloody knife on his left. At the bottom of the paper cutout, another slogan repeats, “McCruelty to the Chickens. I’m hatin’ it.” With PETA signed next to it. With slogans, the public gains a clear message of an organization’s mission. In this campaign, individuals could easily understand what was the message behind the parody slogans “I’m Hatin’ it” and “Chicken McCruelty”; and in result, PETA’s campaign for farm animal welfare improvements had shocked the nation into eating less from fast food restaurants, causing pressure for McDonalds to agree to adopting basic animal-welfare improvements for farmed animals. This pressured Wendy’s and Burger King to do so as well. (“PETA Takes On McDonald’s”). These publicity tactics brought lots of publicity to PETA’s organization. Families learned what they were feeding themselves, and most importantly, their children. PETA gets credit for making their message easy to understand by all individuals, using catchy, simple language in efforts to teach individuals where their food comes from. People saw the disgusting photos and grotesque advertisement, and were stunned by just learning that this is what they were consuming. It was grotesque advertisement, but people thought of how disgusting it is to eat from McDonalds, and in result help improve the lives of farm animals. This campaign was a success because of its use of cutting-edge, yet educational, photos and slogans. These approaches made the organization’s mission easy to understand.

Yet, PETA’s hard-to-swallow mannerisms and campaigns give opponents leverage to create misleading accusations of the movement, depicting it as radical. Such misleading accusations then lead to an increased risk of bringing a negative connotation to the name of animal rights, with animal rights activists becoming reputed for being crazy or dogmatic. When animal rights becomes a tense subject of discussion because its defenders are reputed for being harsh on outsiders, then there is a severe issue. An organization that is in a minority position, yet scrutinizes people for not understanding the movement’s values, is an organization making a grievous mistake. Meat and dairy products are consumed globally; therefore, if the mission is to have a world that does not consume animal products, then such drastic change can only be gradual. Psychologist Gordon Hodson of Psychology Today clearly explains in his article Advice for the Animal Rights Movement that “By stressing vegan-or-nothing, you’re ignoring the importance of incremental change in personal lives and societal norms. You also risk alienating others who are already very pro-animal, and you discourage people from taking a positive step toward change in the first place.” (10). By forcing this “vegan-or-nothing” mentality, the idea of making the end of animal industry cruelty becomes seemingly idealistic instead of realistic. This is because the approach itself of expecting people to change immediately is idealistic, not realistic. Therefore, while PETA’s goal is to make everyone vegan, advertisements and marketing cannot demand it in such a dogmatic manner or else the moral cause comes to be perceived as radical and irrational, despite wanting animal welfare to be widely accepted is a rational cause. The emphasis instead should be on helping people understand the movement’s moral rational, for if there is a passionate yet peaceful approach to the cause, then people could come to perceive the movement as revolutionary for society’s moral standards rather than radical. Change is gradual; after all, the catalysts of the animal rights movement are known as the Oxford Vegetarians, not the Oxford Vegans.

Campaign #2: “Pamela Anderson for PETA”

This PETA advertisement is meant to advocate against Canada’s seal slaughter. This advertisement exemplifies PETA’s mentality and approach, which is that it does not matter if the attention obtained is good or bad; all that matters is that PETA gets attention. PETA’s goal is to simply bring attention to their organization though shocking images and sex in their advertising, and the tactic does so successfully. The advertisement’s main subject is technically supposed to be about saving the seals, yet the audience’s main focus goes directly to Pamela Anderson. Anderson is a Canadian-American actress and model who rose to fame from appearing in Playboy magazine in 1990. She was also on the show Baywatch. In the mid-ground, Pamela Anderson shows to be barely covering herself, pulling down her shirt, her long blonde hair falling over her shoulders, her thighs pressed tight together, and her arms tight to her sides, accentuating her waist and figure. She exaggerates her facial expressions to accentuate seductive eyes and a gaping mouth. Based on this, it can be deciphered that the targeted audience is narrowed down to appeal to straight men. The campaign’s mission statement rests in the foreground, in front of Anderson’s lower hip area, stating “SAVE THE SEALS” in bold Helvetica font and all capitals. The words are selected to be in either red or grey, with the most important words in red and the less relevant words in grey. PETA selected the words “PAMELA”, “PETA”, “SAVE”, “SEALS”, and “CANADA’s” to be in crimson red. The words that were selected to be in grey are “Anderson”, “for”, “end”, “the”, “seal slaughter”, and a long quote from Pamela Anderson stating for PETA, “What do I have in common with Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin and The Dalai Lama? We all oppose the massacre of baby seals. It’s time to end Canada’s shameful slaughter.” Perhaps there was supposed to be an effort for credibility in throwing out the names of Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin, and the Dali Lama, but it falls flat, explaining why there is minimal attention brought to it in comparison to the rest of the advertisement. Finally, the background is white, creating undivided attention to the mid-ground and foreground.

While the advertisement does catch peoples’ attention, effectively bringing attention to PETA, there is nothing truly motivating about the campaign. It provides no sense of credibility or heartfelt sentient to the audience, and therefore is ineffective in connecting with the public. There is no ethos, logos, or pathos. It fails to find a focal point personal enough for the public to relate to; ergo, it is unable to create enough of a ripple effect that it has an impact against the slaughtering of seals. The only visual representation of seals is the drawing of a seal on her shirt. While the message is clear with the slogan “SAVE THE SEALS,” there is nothing informing about the advertisement’s mission. PETA’s approach towards being persuasive is by using the “sex sells” tactic, with no legitimate visual representation of the seals’ suffering. Instead, the seal’s existence and suffering has been degraded to a doodle.

Campaign #3: Humane Society against commercial seal hunting

In the Humane Society’s anti-commercial seal hunting campaign, it is stated to the right of the seal’s head that “One Side of This Tool is Deemed More Humane.” The literal implication is that people perceive themselves to be humane and animals to be savage. Simultaneously however, the viewer is placed into the perspective of the commercial seal hunter. If viewer reacts in horror or with sympathy towards the seal, then the viewer is automatically contradicting the statement made, making the parallelism between the text and visual representation more than ironic. Each detail is a persuasive element that appeals to create heartache in the audience. By being put into the perspective of the hunter and seeing the weapons in motion, enough anxiety is created that there is no need for blood to show. This perspective shot is an exceptionally creative technique for bringing power to the ideas being expressed. The audience feels the horror of seal hunting as they see the axe in mid action, about to assail the vulnerable seal. The stylistic strategy of framing the mid-ground with the foreground object is portrayed in this image; the seal, laying in the mid-ground, is framed into complete focus by the ice axe hovering above. The hunter is at a high angle, towering over the seal, which in result brings an emphasis to how small and defenseless the seal is in comparison to the hunter.

The seal has a despondent expression, showing human-like expressions with its frown and tears swelling in its eyes; as it looks into the eyes of the viewer, the viewer is able to understand the message. There is a motivating call to help defenseless seals, like the one shown, from inhumane killings. Then finally, in the bottom right corner, the Humane Society signs off the advertisement with “It Will Never Be Humane. End the commercial seal hunt.” This creates a firm, direct, clear, and concise ending to the message. The advertisement grabs the viewer’s attention, and does so successfully without having any sexual components to it. Collectively, these prominent details prove how the campaign successfully derives their tactics from the need to find a focal point in connecting their audience to the cause.

Campaign #4: ASPCA’s Adopt a Shelter Dog

In this ASPCA advertisement for adopting shelter dogs, the advertisement shows a Golden Retriever dog with its head raised, a poised expression, and with its eyes looking up. The dog's face is illuminated, its golden blonde hair shiny. A syringe filled half way is pointed down the retriever’s neck. Parallel underneath the syringe, there is a message stating how “10,000 dogs are euthanized every day” and at the end of the syringe, there is a pull tab. When the viewer pulls down the needle, the first thing to a appear is the message, “Adopt today. ASPCA.ORG.” Then as the viewer pulls more, the syringe is replaced with a big red collar.

There is major pathos created in seeing the Golden Retriever face death, representing the 10,000 dogs killed every day at the shelter. The reader is automatically left to think of what they can do to help lower the amount of dogs being euthanized. Then when the reader physically turns the syringe over to a red collar, it symbolizes the power the reader has to turn a new page in a shelter animal’s life. Seeing the Golden Retriever wear the red collar creates a clear visual message; when shelter dogs are adopted, they are saved from being killed. It is also important to note the choice of animal for ASPCA's advertisement, for not only are dogs a very common and popular animal in the United States, but Golden Retrievers have been ranked Number 3 on the list of Most Popular Breeds by the American Kennel Club for 2016, 2014, and 2015. (Upmalis). For the past three consecutive years, Golden Retrievers have been one of the top beloved dogs in the U.S.

Based on these observations, it is evident that the advertisement is conscientious in finding ways to appeal and connect with their audience. The advertisement is creative, clear, concise, and persuasive. By seeing the classic American dog having a syringe pointed to its throat, the reader stops themselves to understand the advertisement’s purpose, successfully capturing the audience’s attention. As a whole, this advertisement does a great job in not only engaging the audience, but motivating them to do something about the problem at hand.

Conclusion

While “Sex Sells” is an easy advertising technique, evoking pathos is not as easy; however, pathos is a must. Not only must the audience be able to sympathize with the cause advertised, but they must gain a motivation to do something about it. When compassion for animals and understanding of animal suffering is accomplished by being passionate, yet level-headed and informative, then it’s definite that one has connected with their audience properly. However, this essay is limited to language analysis. To further develop this research, I would need to use the academic analysis described in this essay and compare it to the perspectives of other individuals by performing surveys and interviews.

I learned that in a world that is so influenced by the media, it is essential that in order the animal rights movement to advance, one must come to understand approaches in advertising, the news, propaganda, and other forms of publicizing the movement that are most beneficial and harmful to its progress. Given this, I suggest that future campaigns promoting animal rights should be clear, concise, straightforward, and not have an aggressive manner. For future campaigns, the goal should be to have the audience self-reflect by raising awareness, not by trying to persuade them through guilt. Animal rights activists should endeavor to inform the public and represent animals with propriety, for they serve as the voices of animals. They speak for the defenseless, and therefore have the responsibility to educate and the potential to raise awareness with propriety.

Word Count: 3857

Works Cited

Aristotle, W. Rhys Roberts. (2012). Rhetoric. Courier Corporation, 2004, pp.7 <www.books.google.com/books?id=wW6qWDFztxQC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false>

Carson, R. (1964). Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2002. Print.

Conn, P. Michael, and James Parker. (1998). “Animal Rights: Reaching the Public.” Science, vol. 282, no. 5393, 1998, pp. 1417–1417. JSTOR, <www.jstor.org/stable/2897047.)

“Ethos, Pathos & Logos – Modes of Persuasion (Aristotle).” European Rhetoric, <www.european-rhetoric.com/ethos-pathos-logos-modes-persuasion-aristotle/.>

FOX News. (2009). “PETA's Bloody 'Unhappy Meals' Making Parents Angry.” Fox News, FOX News Network, 11 Aug. 2009, <www.foxnews.com/story/2009/08/11/peta-bloody-unhappy-meals-making-parents-angry.html.>

Griswold, Eliza. (2012). “How 'Silent Spring' Ignited the Environmental Movement.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 21 Sept. 2012, <www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/magazine/how-silent-spring-ignited-the-environmental-movement.html.>

Hawthorne, M. (25 Oct. 2008). “Framing the Animal Rights Message.” Striking at the Roots, <strikingattheroots.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/framing-the-animal-rights-message/.>

Hodson, G. (2014). “Advice for the Animal Rights Movement.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, 21 Apr. 2014, <www.psychologytoday.com/blog/without-prejudice/201404/advice-the-animal-rights-movement.>

Hutchins, M. (2008). “Animal Rights and Conservation” Conservation Biology, 22: 815–816. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00988.x <www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00988.x/full#references>

Jones, R. C. (2015). “Animal rights is a social justice issue.” Contemporary Justice Review, 18(4), 467-482.

Oliver, K. (2008). “What Is Wrong with (Animal) Rights?” The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 214–224. JSTOR, <www.jstor.org/stable/25670714.>

PETA. (2016). “Financial Reports.” PETA, <www.peta.org/about-peta/learn-about-peta/financial-report/.>

PETA. “PETA Takes on McDonald's | McCruelty.Com.” PETA Takes On McDonald's | McCruelty.Com, <www.mccruelty.com.>

Phelps, N. (2007). The Longest Struggle: Animal Rights from Pythagoras to Peta. Lantern Books, “The Rights of Animals” and “The Oxford Group," pp. 204-208 <www.academia.edu/10903373/The_longest_struggle_animal_advocacy_from_Pythagoras_to_PETA_-_Norm_Phelps.>

Singer, P. (1982). “The Oxford Vegetarians - A Personal Account.” International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems, 3(1), 6-9. <www.animalstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=acwp_aafhh>

Spira, H. (1987). “Activity vs. productivity: strategies of social protest.” The Animals’ Agenda, 7(1)<www.animalstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=hscedi>

Spira, H. (1983). “Fighting for animal rights: issues and strategies.” In Harlan B. Miller and William H. Williams (Eds.), Ethics and animals (pp. 373-377), New York, NY: Humana Press. <www.animalstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=hscboo>

Stoll, M. (2012). “Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, A Book that Changed the World.” Environment & Society Portal. <www.environmentandsociety.org/exhibitions/silent-spring/further-reading.>

Upmalis, J. (2017). “Breaking News: The Labrador Retriever Wins Top Breed for the 26th Year In a Row.” American Kennel Club, 21 Mar. 2017, <www.akc.org/content/news/articles/the-labrador-retriever-wins-top-breed-for-the-26th-year-in-a-row/.>

Wrenn, C. L. (2011). “Resisting the globalization of speciesism: Vegan abolitionism as a site for consumer-based social change.” Journal for Critical Animal Studies, 9(3), 9-27.

Wrenn, C. L., & Collins, F. (2012). “Applying Social Movement Theory to Nonhuman Rights Mobilization and the Importance of Faction Hierarchies.” Peace Studies Journal, 5(3), 27-44.

Wrenn, C. L., Clark, J., Judge, M., Gilchrist, K. A., Woodlock, D., Dotson, K., ... & Wrenn, J. (2015). “The medicalization of Nonhuman Animal rights: frame contestation and the exploitation of disability.” Disability & Society, 30(9), 1307-1327.