Everyone’s invited to the table: MLA stands by Spring Lamb ad as controversy grows
Meat and Livestock Australia has stood by its contentious Spring Lamb campaign as the controversy around the ad featuring religious figures has grown.
The ad received an instantaneous reaction for putting Lamb on Hindu deity Ganesha’s plate, despite believers seeing him as a vegetarian.
Acknowledging this, a spokesperson from MLA said in a statement to Mumbrella that the Spring Lamb campaign was intended to be all inclusive by inviting everyone to the table.
“To achieve this we undertook extensive research and consultation. To this end, those religions that don’t typically eat red meat are not shown consuming Lamb, but they are still invited to the table.”
Hindu statesman Rajan Zed, urged Australian authorities to fine MLA for projecting a disrespectful belief of Hindus and other religious communities.
Further to his point, Zed also asked MLA’s board chair, Dr. Michele Allan and managing director, Richard Norton, to resign for “upsetting consumers instead of charming them”.
Despite Zed’s concerns MLA agreed the campaign includes gods, prophets and deities from a varying range of religions, however, its “intent was never to offend” with brand making an effort to include everyone.
“By acknowledging that Lamb is a meat consumed by a wide variety of cultures, captures how such a gathering might look if one left their differing views at the door and came to the table with open arms, and minds.
“MLA advertisements have a history of being irreverent and jovial but always with the intent of adhering to the Advertising Standards Code.”
Meat and Livestock Australia said it was aware of the number of concerns raised by community groups and as a way of rectifying the situation is in the process “of meeting with and responding to these to better understand their concerns”.
The company also wanted to reiterate the positive intentions behind the ad.
“For a number of years, our “You Never Lamb Alone” campaigns have promoted the value of unity and inclusivity. This latest campaign instalment is no different,” the spokesperson said.
Linkedin
Would you still stand by the ad if you had offended the Muslim religious groups, some of whom could easily use this to start a new war? One word for MLA ‘standing by’ their decision – ridiculous.
User ID not verified.
Just back from Asia and after showing the Mumbrella comments can still hear laughter at “whats happening with the downunder sense of humour” – pity we look so silly really !
User ID not verified.
This is what happens when you let a bunch of ‘cheeky white lads’ develop an ad about inclusion and diversity.
User ID not verified.
Long time atheist, semi-regular contributor here.
This work isn’t brave, inclusive or clever. It’s blatantly disrespectful to people’s sincerely held beliefs, in particular Hindu’s.
If the agency had any balls they would have depicted Mohammed, but they make an exclusion basically because it would have offended Muslims, and because, you know, look how Charlie Hebdo turned out…
Advertising isn’t a space where deliberately aiming to comment on religious belief is appropriate. ‘God’ has frequently appeared in many forms of advertising, and to humourous effect. But the underlying message of this ad is that all faiths are equal, it’s deliberately provocative…to a point, and it shows no understanding of any of the religious beliefs depicted.
The creators, who I expect would consider themselves progressive, clever, inner city type folks, might like to reflect on what this campaign actually says about themselves next time they are holidaying in part of the world where the deities ‘satirized’ in this ad are taken seriously as the foundation by which the people there live.
User ID not verified.
It’s as rascist as the Richie beneaud ad. Makes me sad.
User ID not verified.
Putting aside the confected offence, it’s painfully awful to watch. Time to stop the sniggering and put this turkey out of its misery.
User ID not verified.
Well, the fifth word actually.
“Meat and Livestock Australia have…”. How many Meat and Livestocks are there?
User ID not verified.
Thanks Last Word,
Now fixed.
Paul Wallbank,
News Editor
I’m really disappointed by the response from MLA. There doesn’t seem to be an acknowledgement or even understanding the offence was caused.
It was designed to be controversial – which goes against the ‘inclusive nature of lamb’.
User ID not verified.
Has MLA changed the name of the advert on YouTube from “The Meat We Can All Eat” to “The Meat More People Can Eat” post controversy?
At 2:00 (https://youtu.be/f8kuoFGgj8s?t=119) it’s pretty clear that one of the characters states that lamb is the meat they can all eat (not the meat most can eat) & at 0:42 (https://youtu.be/f8kuoFGgj8s?t=42) you can clearly see that Ganesha has a rack of lamb on his plate.
Why even bother issuing a half-assed excuse like “those religions that don’t typically eat red meat are not shown consuming Lamb, but they are still invited to the table” when it can be easily checked by watching the advert…
User ID not verified.
Global parent Accenture must be happy….. sure they service clients in most countries whose religion is parodied here.
User ID not verified.
@Tim I agree it is painful to watch as the humour falls flat.
My partner’s background is Indian, her family Hindus and she found the ad offensive, but aside from that I wouldn’t say finding this ad distasteful is confected.
The choice to not depict one deity in deference to one major religous group illustrates that the creators realised that the ad was deliberately provocative and some people would find it offensive and that they needed to tread very carefully indeed so as not to offend Muslims, both for safety reasons, and I’d suggest for the potential to damage exports to Muslim countries of MLA halal certified meat.
What’s good for for the goose is good for the gander – you can’t do satire half way and pretend it’s clever.
User ID not verified.
Embarrassing situation for The Monkey’s new wranglers, Accenture. I would expect approaches will be made by these groups to the leadership at Accenture next – if it hasn’t already. Can you imagine a group of company directors laughing this off? Not all workplaces are as loose as ad agencies.
User ID not verified.
Hey guys – religion is a form of social control via superstitions that is responsible for half the wars and violence on this planet. It’s a lot more offensive than a cheeky ad selling lamb. Religion doesn’t deserve respect – we should grimly tolerate it, but that’s as far as it goes. The ad is aimed at everyday Australians, and if they don’t like it, they won’t buy lamb. I’m pretty sure that vegetarian Hindus aren’t the target market anyway.
User ID not verified.
I am not religious, I am both racially and belief tolerant, and I love and live for quality creativity in theatre and other forms.
This ad although a little cobbled together, is an attempt at good honest creative, with a touch of grandstanding. The sentiments are just fine, and the story line though forced, does not appear to be deliberately offensive.
This hullabaloo about Ganesha seems odd to me, since I have read that he is a God of some trickery, and loves a prank. He also devoured three other gods and spat them out again according to one story, so my guess is that he is a loving and tolerant God, and perhaps unlikely to get upset over non Hindus mistaking his personal desires or eating habits. Many Hindus are vegetarian, but many whose iconology contains Ganesha, are also meat eaters.
I suppose that well intentioned attempts to be inclusive will always result in some confusion and disapproval.
User ID not verified.
Australian lamb is made from DOG MEAT.. yes MLA.. you like cheap publicity and controversy..They force feed the dog meat and kangaroo shit along with some BULL CRAP to the lamb..
User ID not verified.
What is clever about this? It’s so obvious to use deities as symbols for religions. And to humanize them. And of course to try to be funny — isn’t that the formula? This had to be a deliberate attempt to be provocative, risk of offensiveness be damned. The only thing inclusive is that they decided to give everyone who is religious equal opportunities to be offended. And for what? To sell f***ing meat by pushing boundaries. But they didn’t push creative boundaries, just those of decency and respect. They conducted extensive research, they say, and just didn’t give a s**t about what they learned (or maybe they didn’t ask consumers). This needs to stop. Deliberate offensiveness does not equal brave creativity. There are creative ways to use the idea but this was lazy. Their response is just arrogant. And ignorant. Shame on those a**holes.
User ID not verified.