... Blood-stained furry hats

I’ve blogged before about my support for PETA and their tendency to churn out ads that are likely to offend (yet get noticed as a result) (see here and here)

So they’ve only gone and done it again, but this time, they have tackled a far more prominent and controversial topic: The helmets worn by the iconic Queens’ guardsmen.

They launched some really graphic and impactful posters on the side of a handful of London buses, which have caused a bit of a stir in more than just the marketing press. (I heard a rumour they had already been pulled, but can’t find this confirmed anywhere..)

The ads show a guardsman wearing a bear’s head instead of his traditional furry hat; blood is streaming down his face with the slogan ‘MoD: Go fur-free’ displayed alongside.

PETA want the MoD to swap to fake fur for their iconic guard’s hats as each is claimed to use the entire skin of a Canadian black bear. The bears are also killed in the cruellest manners… shot in hunts or ensnared in painful traps. Some escape wounded, and die later on. Mother bears, with nursing cubs can even be shot, leaving their babies behind to starve (that’s what really gets me… the hunters obviously have no concern at all for what they are shooting at, causing more suffering and death than they realise!)

The MoD are claiming that they cannot switch to a synthetic fabric as they haven’t yet found an alternative material that is adequate enough for all weather conditions, however they say they are not opposed to using an alternative should they find a suitable one. I think that’s just nonsense, and it’s an excuse that the MoD has been using for 20 years now. PETA even went so far as to source high-tech synthetic materials from leading faux-fur manufacturers around the world, which they made to the MoD's own specifications, but these were not well-received, with the MoD saying it ‘lacks life.’ Well if by ‘lacks life’ you mean it’s not been bloodily torn from one of nature’s creatures, once alive and carefree, now skinned for the creation of one measly hat, then yes, I guess it would lack life!

More than 200 MPs have signed EDM 1756 which points out that this iconic caps serve no military purpose whatsoever, and are purely ornamental– one of the MPs pointed out, they are not even bullet-proof – that’s insane, how can the MoD claim that synthetic materials couldn’t match up to the qualities of fur?! Hello, bullet proof vest material nested inside faux fur anyone?!

This campaign has gained loads of celeb support from TV personalities, authors, comedians and models so far, with many bearing all… showing once again, how the issue of fur continues to get people talking.

Spokesperson Poorva Joshipura has rightfully said: "'Tradition is no excuse for cruelty, and we plan to make this the year that everyone hears about how slowly the British military adapts to change."

PETA are good at causing a stir with this kind of advertising, and with their protests etc, but it would be fab to see this campaign picked up by the mainstream public for a change; it’s not the usual animal-testing/meat-trade kind of topic, so is more accessible and less ‘crazy’ I guess! I’m really looking forward to seeing the parliamentary EDM go further, and seriously hope that the MoD start their change into using less cruel (and more sustainable) fabrics for their iconic guardsmen.

(all info borrowed from ThisisLondon site and PETA campaign site)

p.s If you were a lovely caring person you would sign the petition on the PETA site please…

p.p.s Have you heard about popstar Kelis' recent dig at PETA via her myspaceblog? They wrote her a letter asking her to stop wearing fur, her response is nutty: Check it out.

p.p.s I am very aware that this entry was more of a rant, peppered with observations/opinion, as opposed to being a more insightful consideration a campaign.. I’ll try harder next time to keep this blog on track!

... a vitamin-infused Facebook experience

I’ve taken a 10 week break from blogging, time to get back on the wagon (despite my realization that my topics aren’t very original, my narrative-style sucks, and I don’t have enough dedication to the blogosphere to push my tales to the masses… oh well, gives me something to do eh!?)


Anyway, what better way to ease myself back in, than with a story all about one of my favourite websites… Facebook!


Have you ever wondered what Facebook tastes like? Well wonder no longer! Those lovely, ethically-questionable, people at coca-cola have only gone and created a 'Facebook' flavour Vitaminwater (called ‘Connect.’) Now I’m not a fan of Vitaminwater, and have blogged about it before but it seems that the die-hard fans have had their say.


In September, Vitaminwater launched a Facebook application on the site to crowd-source ideas for their next flavour. It monitored online buzz about different flavours on the market, and then users could vote for their favourite via the ‘flavor creator tab’ on the million-strong Facebook fanpage. Then came the fun part; users could design & write the blurb for the bottle’s label, which was then voted on by celebrity judges including spokesman/shareholder 50 cent himself. The winning designer got a cash prize, and the chance to see their design on this new flavour bottle instores. All of this activity was promoted via a Youtube ad by NBA’s Steve Nash, showing how integration amongst social networking sites can really work at supporting your brand in any marketing activites.


Crowd sourcing really isn’t a new thing in adland, with some brands even encouraging fans to make their entire ads for them for some form of cash reward/prestige. Voting for your favourite flavour of something isn’t that new either (remember Gary Linekar’s promotion of the ‘tasty Walkers’ squirrell crisps last year?) But Vitaminwater have combined the two, in an official, brand-supported way, via the magical medium of Facebook (with Youtube support,) encouraging both creativity and voting-power amongst fans, and I think it’s worked. 


I would have maybe upped the prize a little for the winner though and jumped on the opportunity for some more brand PR. The winner could have been invited to some kind of launch party, meeting the celebrity backers of the brand... fiddy could have even got a wee rap on the go. By dreaming up this new flavour online, with a niche group of tech-savvy energy drink fans, Vitaminwater will still need to put the effort in to market it offline, to ensure the whole concept and excitement translates properly. 

So as the US Facebook-geeks eagerly await these branded bottles entering the market in spring, the rest of us will have to wait and see if the fad comes over the pond to reach us. I, personally, will not be squirming with anticipation… the idea of a drink described as ‘a tasty black cherry-lime flavour made with caffeine and 8 key nutrients’ is pretty minging. Give me a bottle of tooth-rotting, nuclear Irn Bru anyday!

… Massive Ad placement fail!

So doing my usual scour of Campaign etc this morning, and I came across a story about new anti-knife crime adverts. All fine and well, good campaign, testimonials warning of consequences and all that jazz. Nothing I would usually blog about. Until…


The story is interrupted with a small advertisement. An ad for a company specializing in targeting advertising to reach your desired market.

This ad features a man throwing knifes at a woman in a circus-setting.

A little inappropriate, no? Especially when the article mentions a campaign featuring a youngster rendered severely disabled after a knife fight.


People started commenting on the story about this unfortunate ad placement, and it was soon removed. I luckily grabbed a screen shot first so here it goes... Campaign being inappropriate:

Ad's 2nd frame in the grey shaded area there ^ 

Ad's first frame there ^ ! Eeek!

Oh dear! If you visit that story now (HERE) there is no ad at all, and comments have been removed. they must have covered their tracks pretty well and pretty quickly. just goes to show that smart arse targeting type ad programs really aint so smart all the time!


I regularly visit a website called ‘probably bad news’ HERE. It features a lot more of these ad placement faux pas, it'll make you LOL at work- embarrassing but worth it!

... Cadbury's Pop-Up Online Shop!

Finally, some brand promotions that I’m proper excited about!


Cadbury have been advertising their new Nibbles a fair bit recently, featuring a sexed up caramel bunny wearing a dress and scarf designed by Giles Deacon. Now they are giving the public the chance to win a limited edition scarf.

They will be given away via an online store this Thursday and Friday, but the catch is that a link to the store will pop up on various fashion websites, retail sites and blogs in a random, erratic manner. Once the user finds the shop they will join a virtual queue where they are eventually ‘served’ by a real shop assistant based in their temporary Carnaby Street Boutique. (this store is just for window shopping in real life!) for anyone who misses out, they can buy the scarf in John Lewis during November for £15 with proceeds going to Fashion Targets Breast Cancer UK.

The brand are hoping to create interest on Twitter with a #nibbles hashtag so that users can alert others to the stores location at any moment in time. There is also a Facebook page harboring discussions on where to find the store. Cadbury thought that this premier of a digital pop up shop would be a “perfect way to drive discussion and engagement” around their new product.


I think they are onto a winner here; the minute you say anything is ‘limited edition’ people will be jumping to get it! Couple that with great social networking discussions (already happening) and feed in the odd lead here and there and you have a great marketing campaign for this new choccie.


Really like the idea of you buying online but from a sales assistant in the actual wee boutique too. I mean, this obviously happens with online stores at the moment, but the fact this store was created especially, and isn’t actually a shop itself, is pretty cool.


I hope they have some good offline activity to accompany this. I assume the Carnaby street store will have some marketing messages on it, driving visitors to get involved, but I haven’t seen anything in my girly mags or on billboards yet. Even if it is just an online/social networking campaign, it would be nice to get some offline impetus; I’m a regular social network user but often leave the realm for a day or two and then i miss out on stuff like this. If they have some print ads in the metro etc tomorrow I will heart them massively ☺


I will definitely be joining in the treasure hunt tomorrow, fun way to get involved for once!!

... Apple Taking Advantage

I think this is the most ridiculous way to block users from using their computer in the way they want.


Apple have put in a patent application for a computer operating system that has advertising embedded throughout it. It would mean that users would have to interact with ads before being able to use certain applications on their computer, locking the system if they don’t reply! And it’s not just computers they are aiming for; ipods and mobile phones could fall foul to this form of coercion.


There is even talk of getting users to fill out questionnaires on interests etc to allow targeting. What I wonder, is would people buying these products have to sign up to a contract of some form, stating the terms of use of their new computer or whatever? Surely if your operating system locks when you try and access an application you are going to get a bit pissed off and want to complain; but will they let you? Or will it be written somewhere in small print that you have to submit to this ad interaction if you want to use your computer the way you want? Interesting….


Apparently there could be user benefits wrapped up in this, including free upgrades for accepting the adverts, but is it really worth it if? I guess if they are selling this computer operating system for really cheap, that is, if you are willing to put up with ads, then fair enough… then hopefully after enough ad interactions you could upgrade to an ad-free system, though I don’t think they would let you escape that easily.

But when will we ever escape eh? People go on their computers for work or pleasure; in work you don’t want to waste time clicking on ads so you can access your word processor, and during your down-time you want to browse facebook, blog and game at your pleasure, without being pestered by annoying ads. I think it’s a bit of an invasion of privacy! And surely by integrating ads into the computer system itself, this will only serve as a massive irritation to user, pushing them away from Apple, towards ad-free systems? Will be interesting to see if their patent goes through, but I might buy my new ipod touch kinda soonish to avoid falling foul to these sneaky, money grabbing ways…!

... McDonald's recent Ads

I am a veggie so find a natural aversion to places of this type. Plus my wee mum is a nutritionist so we rarely got to go to fastfood joints when i was a kiddie, the odd happy meal here and there but that was it. 


I still dislike these kind of places and this feeling of hatred has been multiplied by the recent TV ads for McDonalds where everyone is 'just passing by.' I really don't like it and find it irratating as hell. (See it HERE)

I personally don't know many people who go into McDonalds because they were ‘just passing by’ (def not my grannie in anycase!) but the busy-ness of so many of their stores suggests that it must happen an awful lot more often than i would like to think.  


To be fair on them, they've done a good job on the equality front here; think they have catered for almost every demographic. I still hate it though. To be fair i haven't hated an ad in a while.... well, since the Go Compare Tenor ones; it's nice to have somewhere new to direct my anger. Thanks McDonalds.


On the other hand i really do like this new print execution that i've seen on billboards round busy London areas:

(stole this pic off flickr, will try get my own version shot soon...)

Quite clever and made me smile as it is obviously in busy areas where pickpockets may operate but is also tongue in cheek, referring to those annoying mates who always nick your chips. Well done on that one Maccy D's, but i've still not forgiven you for the annoying TV spots yet...!


(This ambient advertising was also pretty cool... no idea where it came from but it got circulated round work a wee bit ago.)

... Cadbury Complaints

The latest Cadbury ad promoting its Fairtrade-ness has received a bunch of complaints for 'racial stereotyping'. The ad, set in Ghana and featuring a giant tribal head that rains cocoa beans, has prompted 15 complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority. It has yet to decide whether to investigate the complaints, which claim that the ad is demeaning to African people.

Surely this ad is there to celebrate, not exploit the fact, that it’s sourcing fairtrade from Africa? If aim was to give a ‘typical’ view of Ghana then hasn’t it done this? According to wonderful Wikipedia, Ghana consists of mostly Black ethnic groups, with only 7.8% of the population classed as ‘other’ e.g. White British. Therefore, how is this ad demeaning? It’s a celebration and noone is portrayed negatively. Think this just a case of people being pernickety and submitting to Britain’s complaining culture. Boo to them.

... Government stopping tobacco ad cuts

I’m not a fan of smoking. Or social smokers. Or people who try and get other people to smoke. So I guess I’m definitely not a fan of tobacco companies trying to get the general public to start this dirty habit.


Today I read that ministers have blocked a proposal from Labour’s former health secretary (Frank Dobson) who wanted to force these manufacturers into submitting detailed figures on their marketing and research spend to the Dept of Health every 3 months. This was put forward as part of an amendment to the Health bill and it would also outlaw point-of-sale ads and vending machines, extending the 2002 law banning press and poster ads. Basically it means that manufacturers would have to detail their online marketing spend, any trade press adverts and brand development costs and these would be published. It’s thought that these would eventually be used to help limit spend on promotions for tobacco agencies even further.


To be fair, if you look at some of the old tobacco ads, Hamlet cigars, the Marlboro man, Silk Cut, they were considered really creative at the time, and often feature in any top 50-countdown program on ads that e4 likes to throw out now and then. But its been seven years since Labour passed the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act, and the days of this kind of above the line advertising for tobacco products is long gone. But marketing on the whole is getting more and more creative (especially with the boom in digital marketing) so if that ban wasn’t in place I’m sure there would be plenty more interesting and engaging methods of grabbing a consumer and hooking em in to the habit.


Dobson preached about the increased creativity in marketing cigarettes over the years to bypass the ban, claiming that the Government was continually "playing catch-up with the latest scams". I’m sure that giving them access to the digital realm will only be adding to their ability to be sneaky and bypass the ban in clever ways.


So I kind of agree; more stringent measures do need to be in place.


But alas, nothing has come of his proposals: health minister Gillian Merron ‘appreciated the sentiment’ but couldn’t accept them due to the burdens it would put on those businesses concerned including issues of confidentiality, proportionality and effectiveness.


Now I’m not a business-minded person and find it hard to see the big picture here, but surely transparency with costs is a good thing on the whole? Wont it lead to better understanding of market/consumer behaviours etc? if the measures for the stats to be submitted were regulated properly then surely issues of confidentiality shouldn’t be an issue either? Pffft I don’t really understand business-related issues so maybe its not a place I should be meddling.


End of the day though, I think that smoking=bad and as many measures should be taken as possible to stop the tobacco agencies marketing themselves to new generations of consumers, increasing the threat of lung cancer across our population. 

(-rant over-)

... Kelloggs Going Crazy

Kelloggs have gone a little crazy. Nutty if you will. Crunchy nutty infact!

To ‘protect’ themselves from imitation products they have decided to start branding the actual individual Corn Flakes with the company logo!


They are going to laser on the logo and bung in a bunch of the branded flakes into each box. Could be rolled out to more of their cereal if it’s a success.


They want to stop the increase in the number of own brands trying to ‘capitalise on the popularity of Kellogg's Corn Flakes.’


I really don’t understand. Really?!


So they are adding their own official ‘stamp of approval’ to ‘reaffirm that Kelloggs does not make cereal for anyone else.’


Were people really buying own-brand cornflakes under the impression they were the exact same as the brand-name? of course not. They know that own-brand ‘cornflakes’ are just imitations, and don’t expect any extra ‘quality’ that may or may not be offered by buying brand. They wont be looking for little logos on their flakes to suggest their quality.


Or are Kelloggs worried that the brand name- Corn Flakes- is becoming synonymous with that type of cereal, much like the Hoover/vacuum cleaner and Google/search engines…. Do they want to stop this by ensuring they are totally separated from own-brand imitations? I would have thought that’s kind of a good thing if your brand name gets used lots by consumers, even in error.


Oh well, all seems a little crazy to me, I mean, branding Skittles, m&m’s etc; totally cool and makes sense. Cereal flakes however; just a wee bit strange.

... PETA Scaremongering

Oh dear, so I wrote about PETA getting ads banned last month (HERE) Since then they’ve run a much-complained-about billboard ad featuring Baby P’s murderer’s name stating “animal abuser, rapist and murderer….people who are violent towards animals rarely stop there.” And now they’ve gone and caused offence again.


This time, they are being told off for swine flu fear mongering. They’ve had a campaign poster banned by ASA for spreading “undue fear and distress” about swine flu. It featured on a billboard in Glasgow in June.


The ad states ‘meat kills’ then lists diseases such as e.coli, mad cow, and swine flu features prominently. It’s to encourage people to go veggie (YAY!) ASA banned it as it might infer, to some readers, that eating meat causes swine flu.

PETA are saying that the ad was aiming to “highlight the role that livestock production played in the incubation, development and spreading of fatal infectious diseases.”


Today, PETA released another poster with the same message. It follows a similar theme, showing a conveyor belt of diseases (including swine flu) travelling from a factory farm into a person’s mouth. It states: "Your demand for meat creates disease. Stop factory farming. Go veg now."

I do love PETA and all they stand for, and this ad is a big improvement both conceptually and visually. I think it gets the point across much better, and is far more hard-hitting than its predecessor. Hopefully no silly people will complain this time, though i'm sure there's always going to be someone who just 'doesnt get it'....!