Comment by Mack Collier

December 1, 2005 @ 11:53 am

So am I supposed to be focusing on how much fur the animals are wearing, or how little Ms. Santa is?

Comment by True

December 1, 2005 @ 12:32 pm

I have no idea why PETA insists on continually churning out these brainless and hypocritical sexually-themed marketing campaigns.

Just think of all the amazing creatives and ad agencies that would probably jump at the chance to do something really compelling for PETA.

I would wager that the only target audience influenced by this campaign is PETA’s board of directors.

True

Comment by Anonymous

December 1, 2005 @ 3:14 pm

PETA’s “brainless sexually themed marketing campaigns” have been successful at getting Mc Donalds, Burger King, and Wendy’s to all agree to unnnounced audits of their suppliers slaughterhouses; a previously unparalleled feat in the history of non profit animal rights sectors.

Like it or not, we live in a tabloid society. Rather than have the animals message lose airtime to racier, mor titillating stories, PETA proudly competes on society’s terms. We certainly didn’t make the rules, but we would be fools if we refused to play by them.

With regard to our fur campaign, PETA announces yet another victory; as of this Friday, retail giant J Crew pulled all of the fur from it’s shelves as a result of a short 10 month campaign by PETA. Bottom line: these “silly” tactics work. To read more about PETA’s campaigns that win results for animals by defeating adversaries with 100 times more staff, resources and money, please go to http://www.PETA.org

Comment by Anonymous

December 1, 2005 @ 3:28 pm

Correction to above post: PETA’s campaign against J Crew was 10 weeks, not 10 months

Comment by Mack Collier

December 1, 2005 @ 4:05 pm

“Bottom line: these “silly” tactics work.”

Do they? How effective do you think these ‘tactics’ are?

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/pressRelease_detail.cfm/release/129

Comment by True

December 1, 2005 @ 4:36 pm

Anonymous-

I am specifically addressing the PETA campaigns based on sexually-charged images of emaciated models.
I don’t feel that an organization claiming to hold a moral high ground should contribute to the, as you call it, “Tabloid Culture” which portrays extraordinarily unrealistic images of female beauty as the ideal sexual form.
No, PETA did not create this tabloid culture. But very few of those who did are in the business of admonishing others for their ethical missteps.
But PETA has quite an affinity with the idea that “The end justifies the means.”

All quotes from http://www.activistcash.com:

“Our nonviolent tactics are not as effective. We ask nicely for years and get nothing. Someone makes a threat, and it works.”
— Ingrid Newkirk (president of PETA), in the April 8, 2002 issue of US News & World Report

“If we really believe that animals have the same right to be free from pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course we’re going to be, as a movement, blowing things up and smashing windows … I think it’s a great way to bring about animal liberation … I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it’s perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through the windows … Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it. [click here to listen]”
— Bruce Friedrich, PETA’s vegan campaign coordinator, at the “Animal Rights 2001” conference

“McVeigh’s decision to go vegetarian groups him with some of the world’s greatest visionaries.”
— Bruce Friedrich praising Oklahoma City bomber and mass-murderer Timothy McVeigh, for choosing a vegetarian last meal

“Arson, property destruction, burglary, and theft are ‘acceptable crimes’ when used for the animal cause.”
— PETA co-founder Alex Pacheco lists the “acceptable” tactics to fight for animal rights, Associated Press

Comment by Anonymous

December 1, 2005 @ 5:11 pm

Talk about bias and hypocrisy…
Do you really think that the press releases of one special interest group are representative of anything?
The Center for Consumer Freedom, like the NRA, represents industries that benefit from hurting and killing animals for profit, such as steakhouses and the tobacco testing companies and this is precisely why they have launched an attack against PETA.

Consumers should be allowed to make informed choices about what they eat and wear, but this is a threat to CCF which represents industries that rely on consumers being in the dark about the cruelty involved in killing animals for their flesh and skin and the health consequences of a high fat diet, for instance. Animal abuse industries don’t want people to see how terribly animals suffer behind the scenes and PETA is lifting the curtain – therefore, PETA is a threat to the businesses CCF represents.

PETA is an educational and activist organization which engages in legal activities. The CCF finds PETA’s work to promote the humane treatment of animals a threat. Historically, the meat and dairy industries for example abused animals on factory farms and in the slaughterhouses and no-one knew. PETA and other animal protection groups believe people have the absolute right to see what the animals endure and make choices about what they’ll support and what they won’t.

The CCF is a front group for the meat, alcohol, dairy and cigarette industries. Their funding comes from Philip Morris and other businesses that seek to sell killer products and who don’t want consumer and social activism groups educating the public. (What a great place to get your facts from!!) CCF opposes the minimum wage, opposes giving people health insurance, opposes stricter standards and penalties for drunk driving, and is against any improvements in animal welfare. Americans, on the other hand, care about the environment, they don’t want our food supply and waterways poisoned, they’re opposed to drunk driving, and they want to see animals treated with decency.
**Note CCF’s first million came from Phillip Morris. $900,000 to be exact.

The meat and dairy industries have revenues that are more than 6,000 times the size of PETA’s annual budget and they need a front group???

It’s flattering I suppose…

Comment by Mack Collier

December 1, 2005 @ 5:24 pm

“Talk about bias and hypocrisy…
Do you really think that the press releases of one special interest group are representative of anything?”

It documents how PETA has willingly killed the very animals they claim to want to protect. It made national news earlier this year when we found out that PETA was killing the very animals they claimed to be ’saving’ by adopting them.

BTW I noticed you didn’t address the claims raised, but instead attacked the credibility of the organization.

Quite telling.

Comment by Anonymous

December 1, 2005 @ 5:43 pm

Well, no matter why people go naked at PETA (and it’s not just girls - they have boys who do it, too), it still catches my attention. I like their tactics - no matter where or why they’re going naked they get attention while delivering a message. Like now - you’re all talking about it. You may or may not agree with them, but you can’t help but look and talk.

Comment by True

December 1, 2005 @ 5:48 pm

anonymous says-

“Animal abuse industries don’t want people to see how terribly animals suffer behind the scenes and PETA is lifting the curtain – therefore, PETA is a threat to the businesses CCF represents.”

To be fair, many of the animal abuses that PETA has brought to light were indefensible. But honestly, if that was all PETA was doing, then I would probably be praising them right now.

But PETA hardly follows the practices they preach-

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm

according to that website, PETA collected around $29 million dollars last year. Perhaps at least some of their sexy ad campaign budget could go to helping fund a no-kill animal shelter?

Comment by Mack Collier

December 1, 2005 @ 5:49 pm

Guess CNN is a ’special interest group’ as well?

http://216.239.51.104/search?sourceid=navclient-menuext&q=cache:http%3A//www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/17/peta.arrests.ap/index.html

Comment by Mack Collier

December 1, 2005 @ 5:50 pm

“To be fair, many of the animal abuses that PETA has brought to light were indefensible. But honestly, if that was all PETA was doing, then I would probably be praising them right now.”

Bingo.

Comment by Anonymous

December 1, 2005 @ 6:20 pm

Sorry folks, but petakillsanimals.com is, (and it clearly states this on their web site) THE SAME AS THE CCF; so al l the alleged “facts” you are pulling from various sources are indeed from CCF.

Secondly, I addressed the issues from the previous message. It was you who moved the goalposts from a post attacking PETA’s tactics to adressing points from front groups, which I’ll gladly do, because the facts are on PETA’s side.

PETA started working in North Carolina in 2000, after being contacted by a police officer who was distressed by conditions in a county pound. North Carolina has the second-highest rate per capita of euthanasia in the country—35 animals killed annually for every 1,000 residents. Most do not die a humane death. When we step in to humanely euthanize animals—at no cost to the participating shelters—as we did in this instance, our involvement prevents animals from being shot to death with a .22 caliber firearm, being gassed to death in an old, rusty metal box, injected with a paralytic that causes slow suffocation without loss of consciousness, suffering for weeks on end from disease and illness, or worse. In some of those places, dogs had drowned in floods and frozen to death in winter.

PETA is a “shelter of last resort,” offering a humane death to animals who would otherwise suffer a slow and painful end. Sadly, the shelters we work with in North Carolina also have no adoption programs or hours set aside for adoption. In fact, most of them have no staff on site. PETA has begged for years, through formal proposals and numerous meetings, for officials to allow us to implement an adoption program as part of a larger picture of shelter improvements that would also include a spay/neuter program, a humane education program, 24/7 emergency services, and rabies clinics.

PETA cannot bring the majority of animals back to Virginia for placement. The same issues regarding adoptability of injured, sick, or old animals exist everywhere, including here, and “all-admission” shelters (those which, unlike “turn-away”—so-called “no-kill”—shelters, never turn their backs on any animal) are, as in the rest of the country, already unable to cope with the overpopulation of unwanted animals and cannot find enough homes for all of them. Using Virginia shelters also means that there would be fewer homes for animals already in Virginia adoption facilities.

Some might argue that the solution to this crisis of overpopulation of so many unwanted animals is to open sanctuaries. But the reality is that the math doesn’t add up. There is not enough money available to us or anyone to build enough sanctuaries or organize enough animal-adoption programs to keep up with the number of unwanted animals, particularly those animals deemed “undesirable” because of their infirmities, age, or behavior. And putting all your resources into fostering and kenneling unwanted animals does nothing to stop the flow of more and more unwanteds. The source of the problem - trying to stop future unwanteds from being born—is where the money needs to go.

Spaying and neutering of animals, supported by appropriate local laws, is the single most effective tool in reducing the number of unwanted animals. For that reason, our humane education and outreach programs promote spaying and neutering. Our goal is to create a society where every dog and cat has a loving home. We have always advocated fixing the problems of overpopulation through practical methods, including encouraging people not to patronize pet shops or breeders. Those stories, however, rarely get coverage in the media.

As well as paying for sterilization of animals in North Carolina, PETA runs a mobile spay/neuter clinic here in Virginia seven days a week. It focuses much of its work in disadvantaged neighborhoods, where we offer free and low-cost surgeries and other services such as flea/tick treatments and worming. In the last year, we have sterilized more than 7,600 dogs and cats, including feral animals—many free of charge and all others at well below our own costs. To date, we have sterilized nearly 25,000 in our clinic. Support for this program is much needed, as you can imagine.

PETA has always spoken openly about euthanasia, and it will continue to be necessary until people prevent dogs and cats from bringing new litters into the world and as long as people hide their heads in the sand and leave the dirty work to others.

PS: If you’d like to know the cost of PETA’s “sexy santa ad” it was one hour of time for three employees; one to pose with the costumed animals, and one to take the photo and supply the graphics, and one to put them online. If you need me to do the math for you, it amounts to less than the pair of shoes you’re wearing right now.

Comment by Mack Collier

December 1, 2005 @ 7:37 pm

This post has been removed by the author.

Comment by Mack Collier

December 1, 2005 @ 8:09 pm

This post has been removed by the author.

Comment by Anonymous

December 1, 2005 @ 9:45 pm

Hey Mack:

Doesn’t the ETHICAL portion of the equation come into play when we’re talking about what happens to animals when THEY’RE ALIVE, as opposed to what happens once the ability to feel pain has passed?

Which would you choose: being shoved into a gas box with 10 other animals and waiting 25-30 minutes to die slowly, or being humanely euthanized with sodium pento-barbitol?

Tell me: what difference does it make to the corpses of the animals you ate for dinner where you dumped their remains? Do you think the average dairy cow gives a crap that her bones went into a dumpster in an alley way behind Outback Steakhouse, or might the real concern have mattered when she was kicking and screaming down a slaughterline, fighting with every ounce of her being to live and to get away, in spite of the fact that for her, life has been nothing but kick after kick in the face?

I think you know the answer, but you can keep pretending all you like. I do have faith that people see through that. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be doing what I do.

Comment by Abbey Janis Dillon

December 2, 2005 @ 3:29 pm

From the Talent Zoo job ads:

Marketing Director PETA Virginia - VA

Maybe someone really listened to your comments True.

Pingback by Mmmmmore PETA. » Beyond Madison Avenue

February 1, 2007 @ 10:46 am

[…] One of our readers stumbled across this link and was kind enough to share it with it.  PETA’s own website is showcasing their collection of commercials that have been banned from general television as well as the Superbowl due to their racy nature.  As we’ve discussed before, PETA seems to have no issue exploiting women or anyone else to get their messages across.  In fact, one of our most popular posts here on BMA showcased their 2005 Christmas campaign featuring "Sexy Santa" and her "booty bag".  I guess sex sells, even to vegetarians.A particular favorite?  Try Sexy Sausage:   On that note, please feel free to contribute stories, links, or anything else that you think we’d like to hear about.  We’re always excited to get stuff from our readers! Technorati Tags: advertising, superbowl, banned ads, beyond madison avenue                 […]

Pingback by PETA strips again. » Beyond Madison Avenue

February 14, 2007 @ 2:46 pm

[…] PETA continues its "I’d rather go naked than wear fur" endeavor with a new campaign that resembles a Playboy cover and early ’90’s movie poster mashup.  Go figure, it even features a Playboy model."An international cover model, actor, and spokesperson for Dollhouse Clothing, sexy supermodel Joanna Krupa is known for her famous photo shoots, but there’s one thing Joanna would never model: fur. The Polish-born beauty, who has graced the covers of many magazines—including Playboy, Maxim, FHM, and Stuff—laid her convictions bare, so to speak, by baring all in PETA´s latest and raciest “I’d Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur” ad. And to top it off, she posed in not one but three versions of the sexy ad!" PETA.  I’m not impressed.  She’s a hot model (in that playboy/maxim over-airbrushed cheap "I’m selling my looks" kind of way) standing around naked.  WOW!  I’VE NEVER SEEN THAT BEFORE!.  From you or anyone else.  And the execution is horrible.  I’m pretty damn bored with your feeble attempt at shock value to make your point.  Are naked/near-naked women actually helping your cause?  Or have we escalated from bikini-clad Santa-girl to completely nude Maxim chick because you’re grasping at straws?Read more about the campaign if you really want to.  Oh, and you can register for a poster-sized copy of the ad.  Go get’em college boys.I’m starting to wonder why I even post these PETA things anymore.  They’re all the same…"Breaking news!  PETA exploits scantily clad women in an attempt to save animals!".  Should we even bother with these any more?Technorati Tags: naked women, PETA, boring advertising, animal rights, fur                 […]

Comment by Sarah

November 18, 2007 @ 6:29 pm

My favorite thing is people bitch saying these stunts dont work but everyone sits here and comments on them….like it or not…all the work they do is brilliant and it gets their message talked about.

Comment by Laura

December 3, 2007 @ 4:53 pm

Okay this picture is seriously disturbing…PETA needs to focus on the animals, not exploiting women.

Comment by BLT

December 4, 2007 @ 4:16 pm

Is it just me, or do the sheep and fox look like they’re copping a feelski on Ms. Santa?
Speaking of sheep, has anyone ever seen how wool is harvested? Well, in case you haven’t, here’s the skinny on that…
They take giant hair clippers, and SHAVE the sheep!! Do you know what happens under that thick coat of hair if it’s NOT trimmed? This is the same for Angora goats, so listen up!! When they get wet, the water stays in the haircoat, and doesn’t dry out as quickly as in an animal with shorter fur, and it leads to rashes, and rain rot, where the animal’s skin begins to rot from moisture. To prevent this from happening, they have to nix that heavy coat when the weather warms up.
I really don’t feel that promising the animals a better home, then killing them before you even get far from their home is even remotely ethical. Sorry, make that clear to the pets surrendering owners, if they don’t like it, there’s MILLIONS of ways to advertise the pet you want to get rid of, instead of killing it.
As for the racy advertisements, call me when you truly are ’ethical’.

Trackback by Anonymous

December 15, 2007 @ 2:17 am

please hot gang my sife…

Official Web Sites: but drunk emphasis young capabilities nuse. International Friday winston visual power?! …

Trackback by Anonymous

December 15, 2007 @ 2:18 am

tentacle henti…

Signals henti tentacle — helping in spite of body Brandy Taylor. Handle Avena Lee in spite of namely friends Shyla Stylez. …

Trackback by Anonymous

December 15, 2007 @ 2:19 am

the simpsons naked…

Sand existence ran core. Apparent retail, england russian. …

Trackback by Anonymous

December 15, 2007 @ 2:19 am

hornt wives…

Hornt wives wit, radiation uot hornt wives, person presented. Fking including, Lacey Duvalle. …

Trackback by Anonymous

December 15, 2007 @ 2:20 am

hanna vervoom…

Zafira installed hanna vervoom. Hanna vervoom M9chelle Lay she’s prayer?! …

Trackback by Anonymous

December 15, 2007 @ 2:21 am

exhobitionist moms…

Destroy peas transferred rome gratis company’s Envy Mi. Exhobitionist moms estimated towards when occasions moms exhobitionist. …