Whenever an advertisement campaign is launched, there are bound to be positive and negative reactions from the public. Controversial ads are ubiquitous, especially in the modern era. Often times, in an attempt to grab attention, advertising companies stretch the margins of what is considered socially acceptable.
One such campaign displayed an advertisement by PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). The caption of the billboard states “Save the Whales” over a cartoon of an ocean and an obese woman in a two piece standing overlooking the ocean with a hand on her hip. The caption below reads “Lose The Blubber: Go Vegetarian”.
Most of you reading this post are already thinking something along the lines of, “Okay, what’s wrong with that? Agreed that going vegetarian is probably not the only way to lose weight, but can’t we just appreciate the effort they are making to advocate for animal rights? Why all the resentment?”
Well, allow me to provide some context. A ‘plus-sized’ woman in swimwear, being labelled a whale – on display for the world to marvel at. The ad displays the woman whose fat is suggested to be like the blubber of a whale,
…show more content…
It exploits the female gender in order to appeal to “the masses”. Would this advertisement have been as effective had a man graced the billboard in place of the woman? It might not shock you that PETA is not new to using scantily clad women and subverting conventional advertising practices for drawing attention to animal rights. Neither are they new to being compelled to take down their advertisements due to glaring insensitivity. But a criminal cannot apologize and expect his/her crime to be undone after committing it. The damage has already been done. In the same way, whenever an insensitive ad such as this one is published, no matter how soon it is taken down, the damage will already have been