Banned animals rights group plots new ad campaign without ‘human animals’
An animal rights charity whose anti-animal testing ad was banned for using ‘unjustified graphic violence’ will not appeal the ruling – because it cannot afford the $2000 it must pay to appeal.
The ad for Against Animal Cruelty Tasmania had been running for 12 months before it was taken down after a single complaint to Ad Standards.
The ASB ruled that the ad used ‘unjustified graphic violence’ in a billboard showing a women having make-up applied to her battered face by a dog.
Advertisers must pay $2000 to appeal an ad banned by the ASB. Today is the last day the AACT is eligible to make an appeal.
The AACT and Choose Cruelty Free, which co-authored the original ad, are now considering launching a new campaign, with backing by Lush Cosmetics, a handmade make-up brand that does not test on animals.
It is also looking for an agency to help it devise the campaign.
The new ad will most likely not feature images of “human animals”, the AACT’s coordinator Chris Simcox told Mumbrella.
The ASB had ruled that the banned ad “presents violence in a manner that is not justifiable in the context of the product being advertised.” The AACT is taking this to mean its ad should not have featured a human being.
Since the story broke last week, free legal services have been offered to the charity by Mumbrella poster JB, who complained to the ASB last week about a beer ad he thinks encourages unhygienic behaviour among men.
well done JB 🙂
User ID not verified.
Common sense does prevail. I’ve put it to every creative director I know.
User ID not verified.
I look forward to the follow up in this and the Carlton Draught case with interest.
User ID not verified.
how good is the photoshop job on the dogs hand?
User ID not verified.
I do not believe that the face shows signs of a beating or battering and so does not depict “violence”.
However I gather that the Board of the ASB felt that it was enough for one person in a 12-month period to apprehend that violence was being depicted despite the add referring to swelling, blistering, ulcers, presumably arising from the application of chemicals.
Whatever the case, in a case as evidently marginal as this one and concerning an NFP organisation, where the ASB has had to go out on quite a limb to justify its determination, I would have advised the advertiser to ignore the determination or perhaps modify the poster by, say, covering the affected part of the model’s face with the words “Too shocking to show”, or whatever was cost-effective.
User ID not verified.
so JB goes so far as to complain to the ASB about a beer ad a reasonable person with a sense of humour would see for what it is, he then offers to work for free to keep an ad in market that has parents complaining about it scaring their children……..JB’s political leaning is getting in the way of his message, free speech should work both ways pal
User ID not verified.
It does seem a rash decision by the ASB.
But then the campaign is a bit rum overall. The call to action is imperceptible. And any notion of action impossible to find.
As so often. Too hard on banging the pot.
However, when I pulled out my loupe I noticed a website.
So I went there, wondering if my moisturisers and hair gel might be being tested on ferrets or donkeys, or even backpackers.
A bit of noise about the banning itself, but no link for me to do anything about it. Oh but there is a link to the previous Mumbrella article.
So I looked at the campaigns. Lots about a long list of stuff. Fish, greyhounds, ducks, dairy farming (really?) and a few other nice things, but no animal testing.
So the newsletter. Last November. No animal testing mentioned.
What’s on page? Bugger all apparently.
So now JB, a poster of no note until last Tuesday (but 24hrs before this broke) suddenly appears, unconvincingly, then suddenly offers legal services to a curious and yes, abstruse, environmental group that seems to number around 20 from backwater Tasmania?
Something really stinks here? Tin foil hat?
Otherwise – back your OOH budget with some thought of an actionable campaign. I’m interested, but you’re not telling me
User ID not verified.
(hit wrong button!)
…what to do. Or anything about why companies do it and who to tell to make it stop. It’s really expensive to test, so why would they do it and not just bung the cosmetics out?
Maybe governments mandate certain tests? Maybe this is outdated?
Who do I tell? What am I to do?
It’s not rocket science, but it makes you look a little less like crazy cat people.
User ID not verified.
ancient greek philosopher philo asserted that humans ability to reason is what separates us from animals…..i see no reason for animal testing and no reason for so much ignorance on the issue. animal testing happens, its cruel, unethical and completely unreasonable. Look at the outrage of the indonesian abattoir yet animal testing means for animals a prolonged painful death.
User ID not verified.
This ad is no good, yet all those horrible, graphic anti-smoking ads are ok? What rubbish!
User ID not verified.
So Rebekah,
If animal testing costs (vastly) more than not animal testing, why do they do it?
Cruel sport or legislative requirement?
Are you prepared to be a human guinea pig for products?
Tell me the full story, otherwise I can’t engage. This ad is shock schlock.
User ID not verified.
Hi Ad grunt yes I would make different choices about products at my own discretion.
User ID not verified.
But why do these companies do it?
Cruel sport or mandated via legislation?
You won’t make a damages cloaim against any company that doesn’t animal test, but causes you harm?
This campaign doesn’t give me any means to make those informed choices.
I want to engage, but it’s vapid campaigning. Shock Schlock, as I said.
User ID not verified.
What a joke, this is worse than smoking campaign adds!! Very sad ASB
User ID not verified.
@lol – Cracks me up everytime I see it. On a par with Skippy’s 2nd Unit paw shots.
User ID not verified.
Hey AdGrunt, you make a very valid point (about there being no info for you to follow up on) but it’s got you talking, and thinking! I agree there should have been some follow up info, and there will be on the next one. Stay tuned! But to answer some of your questions: Firstly, companies use animals instead of doing invitro (test tube) testing because it’s cheaper. Products have to undergo strict testing before they can go on the market and most companies choose the cheap option. Companies like Colgate, L’Oreal, Pantene etc are notorious for using animals testing. Then you get smaller companies like Organic Care who don’t. So you have to ask the question – if the smaller companies can afford the more expensive tests, why can’t the huge companies? Answer: It’s all about the profits. Make as much money as possible and screw the poor animals!
Then you get the other kind of testing – like the American football helmet tests on baboons which I mentioned earlier. And the famous case of the researcher who was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to do heart research on animals. He performed sickening experiments on animals for decades and falsified his findings so that the money would keep coming in.
The U.S. armed forces likes to scorch pigs with blow torches so their medics can practice healing burns! The pigs obviously suffer terribly, and are then killed after they’ve endured hours and hours (and often days) of pain. And so it goes on.
No matter which way you look at it, animal testing is WRONG! UNETHICAL! UNNECESSARY! And INNACURATE! What does or does not work on a non-human animal wont necessarily work or not work on a human animal.
If you need more info try PETA, Cruelty Free, Animals Australia or any number of animal rights orgs.
And the way to make animal testing stop? Tell your friends, family, everyone about the issue and tell everyone to buy cruelty free products (companies that DON’T test on animals will say so on their packaging, and there will be a little rabbit logo). PETA have an online list of the companies that DO and DON’T test on animals. It makes for VERY interesting reading!
Oh, and by the way, I don’t appreciate your need to be insulting about AACT or Tasmania. At least we’re doing something!!!!!
User ID not verified.
A commenter above mentioned that ‘The call to action is imperceptible’ – I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that it’s asking people to reconsider buying products tested on animals. I mean, do you really need it spelled out that clearly?
I think the ad is fantastic – I care for animals but it’s so easy to forget about what happens behind closed doors when you’re strolling down the supermarket aisle browsing through brightly packaged and well known products. I used to always look for the Bunny logo when buying personal care and household products and having seen this ad I will commit to doing that again.
User ID not verified.
Good onya FG!
Unfortunately some people DO need it spelled out, and that was our mistake for not doing just that. But the next one certainly will!
Thank you for caring 🙂
User ID not verified.
AACT has a tiny committee of five and we survive on a budget similar to that of an unemployed 16 year old. None of us are professionals in any way, we just care. A lot. We work hard to do as much as we can to make this world a better place for animals and if anyone dares to look into the animal rights movement and the hundreds of topics we have to address you will understand what a challenge lies before us to cover subject and every angle. If you really care about any of the things we are trying to change, become a member for $25, volunteer or simply be on our email alert list. We want to be as good as everyone seems to demand we should be. Rather than criticize, help us…to help the animals. Thanks. n
User ID not verified.
Just another horror show shock image campaign about as subtle and creative as a sledgehammer … not quite as bad as that hideous blood in the hanky thing but probably just as ineffective
User ID not verified.
Kate – would you mind providing some references to your assertions? It’s just the animal rights movement has considerable form for stretching the truth, shall we say.
Neon – I understand your passion, but why put all your eggs in one OOH ad which is rather disjointed. You’ve got some sane advice above – if you’re going ton make a point / claim, then do it well and enable action. Otherwise your only audience is yourself. By the way, how is JB’s legal advice helping you?
User ID not verified.
“….the animal rights movement has considerable form for stretching the truth, shall we say….”
Said the advertiser, with a cheeky leer I assume.
User ID not verified.
“It’s just the animal rights movement has considerable form for stretching the truth, shall we say.”
AdGrunt – It’s very rare that I’m lost for words but, here I am, gobsmacked at how someone can be so obnoxious. I know you are probably punctuating your day with posts like these only to antagonise people (anonymously) who are fired up about something they’re extremely concerned about but, seriously? Why try to discredit people who are only trying to rectify something that takes place under our noses despite the fact that the majority of the population are strongly opposed to it. And, no, I don’t have facts or figures to back up that statement so please don’t respond with some kind of smarmy request to provide statistics. It’s merely a hunch I have based on the responses of people I’ve spoken to or people who have posted comments on posts such as these.
Find another hobby.
Cheers,
Sarah Greenaway (See: you can use your name when your posting opinion. It’s not that hard).
User ID not verified.
AdGrunt “It’s just the animal rights movement has considerable form for stretching the truth, shall we say.”
Where is your proof for this statement AdGrunt? Or is this just another unfounded put down against people trying to do the right thing? We don’t need to make things up because the world is full of horrible people doing uninmagineable things to animals. We couldn’t even begin to think up some of the things that are done. It takes a pretty sick mind to come up with things like putting bears in tiny cages (for their entire lives) and draining the bile from their bodies or skinning animals alive, or using tiny kittens as bait for shark fishing, cutting off sharks fins and throwing them back into the ocean alive (I have seen the footage of all these things).
There is a mountain of documented proof of the experiments I have listed. Ingrid Newkirk’s book ‘Save the Animals’ is about the animal liberation movement in America and it goes into great detail about the experiments inflicted on the animals they saved. Have a read, it’s very enlightening! (But make sure you have some tissues handy)
User ID not verified.
Katie: I reckon this numpty has too much time on his hands. Might be best to let him antagonise other people and let him go on this merry way… x
User ID not verified.
In isolation, the post above seems to be name calling. I wrote a lengthy comment before it that justified it but for some reason it isn’t going through moderation.
User ID not verified.
Hey SarahG, I thought it was a pretty good comment anyway. Made me laugh, thanks 🙂
User ID not verified.
I’m sorry Kate. You seem to be confusing slightly spurious claims of Animal Cruelty, with Animal Testing. Kittens poorly crash-cut with sharks from around the world is not Animal Testing. It’s a cruel hoax with no corroboration. And unrealted to if my hair gel is tested on animals and what I can do about it.
Ingrid Newkirk is a nutter. PeTA is an embarrassment. This http://i.imgur.com/dXAO2.gif should crystallise that – note it has verifiable sources.
Fight the good fight, but don’t get caught up in this shock schlock if you hope to make a difference.
User ID not verified.
@Katie, tell me: The smaller companies that do not test on animals, do they mainly avoid this process because the key ingredients in their products have been previously tested and are now effectively free to use and / or they are only using natural ingredients so testing is not required? I don’t know the answer to this but having worked on a range of cosmetics brands over the years I know that the active ingredients are frequently common to all products. I am also a little dubious on the claim that in vitro testing can replicate all or most animal testing. Perhaps I am naive but are multi national billion dollar companies simply torturing animals to save a few bucks and risk all the negative PR and brand damage that would bring? Surely the key drivers are legislation and legal liability. Most people do not want to be exposed to risk so governments tend to put laws in place to ensure that. No doubt you can furnish me with the the answers.
chrs
User ID not verified.
Oh AdGrunt you really are a sad case. As SarahG said, get yourself a new hobby. I will not be replying to any more of your inane posts.
User ID not verified.
Unfortunately Katie, these are precisely the questions your intelligent audience will be asking. You know, the ones you want to join up, give you money and take action.
You fail to explain the problem, answer the questions, engage in a viable course of remedy or define a picture of success. No plan = no success.
And so tragically, you will remain a group of 5 Tasmanians wringing their hands ineffectively about the pain of the world’s animals.
Your problem, not mine.
How is JB going on the ASB appeal work for you?
User ID not verified.
Hi Gezza, thank you for your sensible questions. I have taken the below answers from the ‘In Defense of Animals’ website (simply because, as I am at work, it was a quicker option than writing the info out myself). It’s referring to American companies, but the same applies to Australian companies.
I hope this answers your questions.
Cheers
The Hidden Ingredient in Cosmetic Testing: Animal Suffering
Every year, cosmetics companies kill millions of animals to test their products. These companies claim they test on animals to establish the safety of their products and ingredients for consumers. However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not require animal testing for cosmetics, and alternative testing methods are widely available and lead to more reliable results. Hundreds of companies – including Avon, The Body Shop and Mary Kay – already use humane non-animal testing methods to ensure the safety of their cosmetics.
Painful and Deadly Tests
Product testing is commonly performed on animals to measure the levels of skin irritancy, eye tissue damage, and toxicity caused by various substances used in the manufacture of cosmetics. In the Draize test, caustic substances are placed in the eyes of conscious rabbits to evaluate damage to sensitive eye tissues. This is extremely painful for the rabbits, who often scream when the substances are applied and sometimes break their necks or backs trying to escape the restraints.
Lethal Dosage (LD) tests are used to determine the amount of a substance that will kill a predetermined ratio of animals. For example, in the LD50 test, subjects are forced to ingest poisonous substances (through stomach tubes, vapor spray inhalers or injection) until half of them die. Common reactions to LD tests include convulsions, vomiting, paralysis and bleeding from the eyes, nose, mouth or rectum.
The Failure of Animal Testing
Not only is animal testing inhumane; it is inherently inaccurate. For example, LD tests do not measure human health hazards, but only determine how toxic the product is to the type of animal it was tested on. Test results cannot be extrapolated from a mouse to a rat, let alone from a rat to a human. Each species reacts differently to various substances. Moreover, LD test results can be affected by the age and sex of the animals tested, their housing and nutritional conditions and how the compound is administered.
Humane and Effective Alternatives
Non-animal testing methods that are more reliable and less expensive have been developed. These make use of cell and skin tissue cultures, corneas from eye banks, and sophisticated computer and mathematical models. Some companies avoid testing altogether by using non-toxic natural ingredients or those that have already been safety-approved by the Cosmetics, Toiletry and Fragrance Association. As Gordon Baxter, cofounder of Pharmagene Laboratories, which uses only computers and human tissues to create and test drugs once said, “If you have information on human genes, what’s the point of going back to animals?”
Why Test On Animals?
Regulatory agencies don’t require animal testing of cosmetics, and the effectiveness of non-animal product testing methods has been thoroughly demonstrated. In 2003, the European Union passed a ban on the use of animals in cosmetics testing starting in 2009, and a complete sales ban effective in 2013. So why do some American companies still insist on conducting these barbaric and obsolete tests?
The resistance of industry technicians and researchers trying to protect their jobs accounts for some of the reason. In addition, corporate legal departments typically use animal testing as a way to evade liability in the event of a lawsuit. However, consumers who purchase products from companies that test on animals are also partly responsible. Compassionate consumers must use their purchasing power to send a strong message to cosmetics manufacturers that testing on animals is cruel and unacceptable.
What you can do
1. Only buy products from companies that don’t test on animals! A comprehensive list is available at http://www.leapingbunny.org. Encourage your friends and family members to support humane companies, as well.
2. Let companies currently testing cosmetics on animals know that you will not buy their products until they stop. Most companies have toll-free numbers that you can call for free!
User ID not verified.
Oh, quick update, I think Avon may have just recommenced animal testing not sure, will have to check on that. And the Body Shop was bought by L’Oreal, a serial animal tester, but when I wrote to them about it they said that the actual Body Shop brand products are not tested on animals. I still don’t shop there though.
User ID not verified.
Oh, forgive me Gezza, I thought YOU were an itelligent person asking serious questions – which I certainly DID answer, fully – but obviously you’re just another moron with nothing better to do than waste the time of people who actually give a damn. Go play with AdGrunt (or maybe you ARE AdGrunt?) and get your jollies at someone else’s expense.
User ID not verified.
There you go. I knew you could do it. 2 days after asking you worked it out. I’m proud.
Now put that into a cohesive website (though use Australian info as no-one trusts Americans to do anything right).
Deliver some meaningful “small wins” for those who engage. Maybe even set up some social media to make it more accessible.
Stay away from the tired, confusing shock schlock (especially the kittens / sharkbait bollocks – that’s dubious cruelty, not testing), answer the “why” with a clear call to action and engagement, then you may have some more success.
Well done. Marketing 101 on a Mumbrella thread.
Oh and don’t try to suggest that Orcas are slaves like PeTA did…
http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/66609078.html
User ID not verified.
@Katie huh? Bit over the top there but thanks for your answers to my questions.
User ID not verified.
Apologies Gezza, mistook AdGrunt’s reply for you.
User ID not verified.
Meh.
I tried.
User ID not verified.
No problemo.
User ID not verified.
Please don’t use terms like “put all your eggs in one basket”. We are all vegan and have nothing to do with eggs. Yukky.
User ID not verified.
You see neon – that’s the kinda thing you want to avoid saying.
It marks you out as a bit daft and blinkered to the inherent advantages of living in a developed nation, that allow the vegan option.
I now have to ask if you wear leather shoes?
You’ve still got a long way to go, but good luck on the journey and give Katie some laudanum before your set off.
User ID not verified.
Ad Grunt:
It was a joke mate.
Are you seriously that humourless? You poor thing. And no, no leather. By the way, don’t you have anything else to do with your life? You’re certainly a champion cyber critic: sitting safely at home in the anonymity of cyberspace and doing bugger all but stirring up other people who actually go out and do stuff. It’s a bit sad buddy. Not as worrying as your lack of a sense of humour though. That needs attention pronto. If you reply I’ll just have my point proven. ; )
User ID not verified.
Touché.
I thought this was a serious subject?
How is JB doing helping your appeal?
If you don’t reply to this you aren’t a real vegan and your mum smells of wee.
User ID not verified.
Neon: I think your point was just proven unequivocally. Clearly this tool has an issue with JB and he’s wasting your time by using this conversation with you to surreptitiously get to him. What a joker. I’m fairly certain he thinks he’s clever and funny. Misguided, but who are we to burst a joker’s bubble? 🙂
User ID not verified.
Sarah, you’ll notice up until now I’ve ignored your vapid comments.
But since you won’t go away, time for you to do some introspection.
Could you cast your eye over your posts to this thread and point our where you’ve:
Commented on the piece of advertising at hand. [You haven’t; I have]
Commented on the ASB decision and its veracity. [You haven’t; I have]
Progressed the discussion on the advert’s subject matter. [You haven’t; I have]
Suggested how this campaign could be more effective. [You haven’t; I have]
Taken lazy strawman potshots at someone who is, if you take the time to read, actually telling your dear vegan friends how to make their angsty campaigning more effective. [You have incessantly; I haven’t]
And I’m the joker? Why not try being irrelevant somewhere else?
User ID not verified.
@AdGrunt at least these people you have such a problem with are getting off their bottoms and trying to do something. It’s very easy to sit on the sideline and give negative feedback when you are doing f*ck all about it. Believe it or not, some people have enough heart to care about these causes. You are an ignorant fool who clearly does a lot more damage than good.
User ID not verified.
@Give a damn
Stop marking yourself out as an assumptive moron.
You have no idea what I do or don’t do for animals.
In this case, I’ve given some pretty salient advice on how to do something meaningful to help the animal testing cause, rather than this abomination of a campaign, which salves the AACT (human) conscience but has no impact on the cause.
If that is lost on you, then you should think harder about how much of your own effort is actually effective in helping animals, versus how much is to make you feel better by waving a placard meaninglessly.
User ID not verified.
@AdGrunt re your advice being “salient”- that’s your opinion, not mine. What I do know is that fighting for a cause as a united front is more effective than the bollocks you’ve been coming out with (which has really just been nitpicking). Look mate, if you want to do something about it contact Animals Australia or WSPA and lend a hand. If not, that’s fine. Either way, there is no point in me continuing this discussion.
User ID not verified.
AdGrunt you have a lot to say and are very opinionated, so tell us, what is it you DO for the animals? You’re very quick to criticise others who are out there trying to make a difference. What is it YOU do (apart from offering obnoxious comments)? I’m sure everyone on this blog would love to know why it is that you feel so qualified to give advice and criticism.
And don’t give me that bull about offering helpful advice to AACT. If that were your intention you would have done it in a non-confrontational and insulting way. You don’t give a toss about helping these people or the animals, you just want to ‘have a go’ at someone and make yourself feel superior and important.
So the ad could have been better by having some info on what people could do to help stop animal testing, but that doesn’t mean it was an “abomination of a campaign, which salves the AACT (human) conscience but has no impact on the cause.”
Obviously it HAS had an impact on the cause or we wouldn’t all be talking about it. And why would the AACT people need to salve their consciences? They don’t cause suffering to innocent animals.
Tell me AdGrunt, do you consume animal products? Wear wool or leather? Buy items that have been tested on animals? Do you give freely of all your free time to help the animals? If you answered YES to the first 3 and NO to the last (and I bet you did) then you have no right to criticise these people.
Try living by this creed: Action, not words.
User ID not verified.
@Give a damn & Active-ist
I’ll answer you collectively as you’re both falling into the same trap.
This is a Marketing Mong-board. This isn’t the steps of parliament or the ABC’s Q&A.
I comment on the marketing, insight and strategy aspects of the marketing efforts reported by Mumbrella.
If you believe that me and thee discussing the merits of a poor camapign on this Mong-board is gettign your message out there, then good for you, but to me, you’re very much deluded. By some aspect of your consciences I presume, as what else motivates you to campaign at all?
It’s entirely irrelevant, and a tiresome strawman, to make this about what I personally do for animals with your angsty agenda-revealing quiz. I doesn’t matter, and I won’t be drawn on, whether I eat animals, save animals or shag animals. They are entirely moot to the points at hand.
Grow up and make a good campaign then this conversation will be moot.
User ID not verified.
Well gee, I think I hit a nerve. This may be a marketing (media and entertainment) site but the issue discussed in this blog is ANIMAL TESTING and whether the ASB were right in demanding the ad be taken down (on the complaint of one unenlightened person) because it showed ‘unjustifiable violence’. There was NO violence shown in the ad. The woman hadn’t been beaten up, as some people seem to think, she’s showing the effect of being tested on. If someone finds this distasteful they should immediately stop buying products that have been tested on animals, because those poor animals look a lot worse than the lady on the billboard. They didn’t ask for the ad to be removed because it didn’t give info on how to stop animal testing.
And AdGrunt, you very much show your ignorance and how unsympathetic you are to the suffering around you by once again declaring that these people are campaigning to ease their consciences. They campaign because they (we) hate to see the sad and needless suffering of animals (in this case). Is that so very hard for you to grasp? They’re not doing it to make themselves feel good, or to get thanks or any other reason than that they just hate animal cruelty. I don’t know why you have so much trouble with that concept. And for you to be so condescending and pretentious toward them just shows you for the self-serving, narrow-minded, shallow person you are. If growing up means being like you, I’ll stay immature thanks!
Oh, and I knew you wouldn’t answer my questions regarding animal products. Maybe it’s YOUR conscience that’s got a problem. Why don’t you just go and put on your suede slippers, sit on your leather lounge and hoe into a nice big steak. And before you go to bed don’t forget to brush your teeth with some Colgate toothpaste. I’m sure you’ll feel much better, and you can rest easy knowing you’ve done your part for the animals by educating the poor plebs at AACT.
User ID not verified.
Be quiet now, child.
If you’d wiped away the angry tears and read what I said, you’d note that I think the judgement was rash.
However as a communication camapign it’s utter shite. This is not based on my feelings towards animals. It’s based on my experience in Marketing. Not in your experience of angsty cause fury.
As a campign to have any positive effect on (your) cause, or enable any non-AACT person seeing it to do something, it’s confusing. It really is.
This isn’t a matter of maturity, conscience, sympathy or anything. It’s a fundamental of a poorly planned and executed campaign.
Now re-read what I said, learn to be less angsty and I hope you’re refreshed for the next term at school after the Easter break.
User ID not verified.
AdGrunt, you really are an obnoxious prat. Firstly, I’m not the slightest bit angry (nor am I crying), frustrated maybe, but not angry. I suggest you re-read the comments and you will see that the AACT members, long ago, acknowledged the ad’s shortcomings. And if this truly was your reason for making comments here, you would have made your point in a helpful, non-confrontational manner right at the start. Instead you chose to be condescending, arrogant, obtuse and downright rude. You have shown yourself to be a sad little person with way too much time on your hands and an overinflated sense of worth. I feel sorry for you, and like 4 or 5 others on this blog that have endured your contemptuous drivel, I too bid you adieu, sionara, asta-la-vista baby…..
User ID not verified.
As you may already be aware, April 21-29, 2012 marks the annual World Week for Animals in Laboratories. The week aims to highlight the plight of over a hundred million animals who continue to suffer unethical, inhumane & unnecessary experimentation in research laboratories across the world. Our latest available statistics indicate that over 6.5 million animals were used for research in Australian laboratories, an increase in numbers from the previous year.
We’re calling on you to help us make a difference!
We’re urging our members & supporters to take action during the week of WWAIL, following is a list of the events you can attend & actions you can take to help end the suffering of animals in laboratories.
Events:
Australia wide, 12 pm Tuesday 24th April: UN Day for animal in laboratories. Lush stores across the globe will be asking customers to sign their store windows as a live petition at midday on the day. See http://www.lush.com.au to find your local store.
Melbourne, 12 pm Thursday 26th April: Federation Square will set the stage for a protest by the newly formed group ‘Ladies & Gentlemen for Liberty’ opposed to animal experimentation in Australia. The group will be dressed in black, white lilies in hand, and will erect a large black cross to symbolise the millions of animals whose lives are lost due to unnecessary scientific research each year. After the vigil the group will walk to Bourke St Mall to distribute information & collect petition signatures. Lyndel Thomas is the organiser of this event, she can be contacted at forrer396@gmail.com
Melbourne, Choose Cruelty Free will be leafleting outside Lush Cosmetics Swanston St store at various times during the week. For more information please contact CCF on 0408 368 645.
Brisbane, 11.00 pm – 12.30 pm Saturday 28th April: King George Square is the location of the Brisbane rally to commemorate WWAIL. Please get along to support this important event if you’re in Brisbane. Demonstrators will be distributing information & collecting petition signatures. For further details please contact danielkhennessy@hotmail.com
Take Action:
Download the Be Cruelty Free petition
Be Cruelty Free petition (996KB)
Write to or email Tony Burke, Federal Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population & Communities and demand an immediate ban on the importation of primates for research purposes
The Hon. Tony Burke, Minister for Sustainability,
Environment, Water, Population & Communities
PO Box 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House,
Canberra ACT 2600
Email: tony.burke.mp@environment.gov.au
Write to or email Tanya Plibersek, Federal Minister for Health, and ask her why Australia has not made a genuine commitment to replace animals in research and invest in humane & more scientifically valid alternatives. Remember – as a tax payer your dollars are being used to fund unethical, cruel & unnecessary scientific research.
The Hon. Tanya Plibersek
Minister for Health
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Email: Tanya.Plibersek.MP@aph.gov.au
Write, email or make an appointment to visit your local MP.
Send a letter to the editor of your local newspaper & the major daily newspaper in your city.
Call talk back radio and voice your concerns.
Help us promote the week via your Facebook or Twitter accounts – @HRAust – http://www.facebook.com/pages/.....2225408908
If you’re not already a member or monthly donor, join us today! You’re valued financial contribution will allow us the continue the fight to end the suffering of millions of Australian animals that currently endure miserable lives in our laboratories or are killed unnecessary in the name of antiquated scientific progress. Secure on-line processing is now available on our website, please visit http://www.humaneresearch.org......-donations
User ID not verified.
@Ad Grunt: I read your feedback and I take your points. It’s easy to lost track of the issue at hand when the debate becomes heated so, in answer to you questions…
Could you cast your eye over your posts to this thread and point our where you’ve:
Commented on the piece of advertising at hand. [You haven’t; I have]
SG: I commented on the ad at hand in the initial article about the ad being taken down. My comment was something along the lines of children needing to understand the world around them so they can grow up to treat it better.
Commented on the ASB decision and its veracity. [You haven’t; I have]
Again, my comments on this point were made in the article that covered the ban. I’m sure you won’t be surprised that I thought the decision was heavy-handed (as did you) and it concerned me that one person’s complaint could lead to such drastic action (especially considering the ad had been up for 12 months as I understand it)
Progressed the discussion on the advert’s subject matter. [You haven’t; I have]
Guilty as charged. But I did find an ad agency to help AACT refine the creative so they could have another crack.
Suggested how this campaign could be more effective. [You haven’t; I have]
I don’t think it could’ve been more effective so it follows that I wouldn’t make such suggestions.
Taken lazy strawman potshots at someone who is, if you take the time to read, actually telling your dear vegan friends how to make their angsty campaigning more effective. [You have incessantly; I haven’t]
Who are you to tell anyone how to do anything? Suggestions are fine but acting as though you have all the answers is just plain narcissistic. You thought it was too in your face, most of us believe that the softly softly approach hasn’t yielded results and stronger, graphic, hard-hitting creative is what’s needed to wake people up who prefer to live in ignorance. It should not be a choice. At the end of the day, humans have waged war on animals and many of them don’t even know it.
And I’m the joker? Why not try being irrelevant somewhere else? Don’t even know how to respond to that except to say… you’re a joker.
User ID not verified.
lost track = lose track
User ID not verified.
Sarah – play the ball, not AdGrunt.
Well done for getting Rhubarb on board. Though if the existing campaign is just fine as you suggest, then they won’t have much to do?
I’m a utter no-one to tell anyone to do anything – as are you. However I make relevant comments as I see fit – as do you, sort of. Take them or leave them with good grace, not defensive name-calling.
I’ll take any validation from the nature of the campaign Rhubarb come up with. Which I suspect will involve most, if not all, of the areas highlighted.
ps – Tip to take or leave. This stuff:
“…most of us believe that the softly softly approach hasn’t yielded results and stronger, graphic, hard-hitting creative is what’s needed to wake people up who prefer to live in ignorance. It should not be a choice. At the end of the day, humans have waged war on animals and many of them don’t even know it.”
…really makes you sound bonkers.
User ID not verified.
LOL – many would say I am bonkers and they may not be far off. Thanks for your response. You’re right – this is a marketing blog, not a place to try and negotiate world peace.
Cheers,
Sarah
User ID not verified.