Has PETA’s Advertising Gone Too Far?
First they give us a vegan with Alicia Silverstone swimming naked in a pool in support of animal rights. Now they’ve gone on the attack against Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen for wearing fur. Dubbing them the “Trollsen Twins,” and more specifically, “Hairy-Kate and Trashley,” PETA has seriously stepped up its provocative awareness tactics. But, is this effective?
We know that celebrities can help sell products, such as Guthy-Renker’s Proactiv. But do we really care whether or not they wear fur or support animal rights? Are Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen as instrumental in halting the production of fur garments as those who actually make the business and distribution deals in the fur industry? The billboards featuring the Olsen twins that read, “Fur is worn by beautiful animals and ugly people” debuted yesterday in L.A., and will also run in magazines. In addition, PETA has launched a microsite with videos and interactive games, as well as a MySpace page for its “Trollsen Twins” campaign.
Has PETA gone too far? Or will this multichannel marketing effort prove effective?
-Pat Cauley, eMedia editor, Electronic Retailer Magazine
Tags: Advertising, alicia silverstone, disruptive marketing, fur, guthy-renker, mary-kate and ashley olsen, myspace, olsen twins, pat cauley, peta
December 12th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
I think it’s an innovative new approach to go after high profile celebrities with a catchy phrase like “trollsen twins.” It caught my eye when I read about it and isn’t that the point?
December 12th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
For me, PETA’s tactics turn me off from the cause more than anything. I sympathize with their plight, but the vile public harassment makes their campaign less about fur and more about the defamation of their current target.
December 14th, 2007 at 8:05 am
Ummm, that’s pathetic. I don’t think it is effective to attack people as far as their lifestyles are concerned. They are just attacking celebrities because of their iconic status, thus drawing in attention. Yes, that works but not for the mission of the company. I think it would be more powerful if they actually focused on the reality of animal rights, something that would open the public’s eyes to the issues and recruit supporters.
ps: This makes me think of Jeremy Piven throwing meat at the Vegans in PCU.
December 14th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
I think PETA’s approach is not very different from other product advertising campaigns, such as, tobacco’s - “smoking after sex”. Alcohol and tobacco have been selling sex for years, why not PETA. Peta should hire a nutirnutionist to conduct some research into the possiblity of vegetarians being more verile and potent. It could launch a whole new viagara type adverstising campaign. Let’s uncover the hard facts about being a vegetarian.
December 14th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
There is a documentary on HBO about the head lady of PETA. She is a nut. After watching that I would never support PETA. As for this campaign, it does nothing for me. Instead of using celebs they need to show people some of the hidden camera footage they have of the way some of these animals are treated. PETA has a crazy following with the mantality “you are with us, or against us”, and that is the wrong way to go about things. If they are looking for people the change the way they treat/consume animals the hot Olsen Twins are not going to get it done.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
The tactics of PETA are sensationalistic and ineffective. If they really wanted to change the plight of animals and make a difference, they would not be wasting their time defaming celebrities and making tabloid headlines, but rather putting their efforts into exposing and trying to correct the horrible conditions behind the scenes.
March 18th, 2008 at 5:23 am
I think it’s an innovative new approach to go after high profile celebrities with a catchy phrase like
March 19th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
[…] I wrote a post discussing PETA’s marketing tactics against the Olsen Twins for wearing fur. Click here to read the original post, “Has PETA’s Advertising Gone Too Far?” This post […]
August 1st, 2008 at 3:41 pm
I disagree with the method of attacking celebrities and resorting to mocking them/name calling in the media. They should stick to trying to spread the negative affects of animal fabric clothing.