PETA's Top 5 Animal-Friendly Ads of 2009
By Logan Scherer
With 2010 fast approaching, the holiday shopping season is at its peak, and the business of year-end listmaking is well underway. We couldn't resist the urge to take inventory of '09, so we're counting down our five favorite animal-friendly ads of the year—from CGI hamsters to Claymation squirrels. The companies on our list offer further proof that promoting compassion toward animals is as easy as saying "yes" to educating people about our furry friends and saying "no" to the abuse of animals in the entertainment industry—animals who are denied food as a means of forcing them to perform on cue and who are often beaten when they don't do as commanded. Here are 2009's finest GOODY-winning marketing masterpieces:
5) AT&T: "LG Xenon Mobile Phone." When a lucky woman gets to use her cell-phone to transform the real world, the first change she makes is to swap a barbecue restaurant with a vegetarian paradise—delicious, cellular, cruelty-free brilliance.
4) Ask.com: "Mutts Are Better." In this thoughtful commercial, a man asks his wife whether purebreds or mutts are better, and she proudly answers mutts, of course! Here's another no-brainer: Is Ask.com awesome?
3) Mutual of Omaha: "Aha Moment." We still get goosebumps every time we see this mother beam over her 6-year-old son's decision to donate money to homeless animals instead of asking for birthday gifts.
2) Diamond Foods, Emerald Nuts: "The Nut Snob." Claymation squirrels with French accents—um, more, s'il vous plaît!
1) Kia Motors: "A New Way to Roll." This year, Kia taught us that vehicular envy isn't unique to the human species. Four wheels are always better than one—even if you're a CGI hamster.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
There is no gloss PETA could put on their organization to cover up their ugliness. PETA is hypocritical, ignorant and ought to be laughed at whenever they publish anything.
I understand how they could be seen as hypocritical but how exactly is PETA ignorant?
Humans are omnivores.
I don't think PETA ever argued that humans weren't capable of eating meat . They argue that its unethical to eat meat .
Wow, what an unfortunate take from Sugar Coating about a group that--yes--can be rather "out there" at times, as a means to make sure they get into the public consciousness so that they can effect in getting real improvements for conditions for animals !
So the ends justify the means? K Gotcha. So, how is your defense of Hitler coming along?
...on Earth are you talking about? The group has ideals just as any nonprofit, social-justice group does. That's the nature of their existence. It's a tabloid-happy society that we live in, you need to wave your arms around and something "worth looking at" in order for someone to look at you. They want to educate people on how animals are systematically abused in various institutions, so that people take a stand against it. The group is therefore flashy and controversial, so as to gain public attention. What else would you have a group do that is trying to change the world (as all such nonprofits want to do)?