Celebrities are signing up to support a new campaign for animal rights organisation Advocates for Animals, created by Merle.
The OneKind campaign has launched featuring images of Strictly Come Dancing judge Alesha Dixon, chat show host Paul O’Grady and comedian Johnny Vegas alongside a different animal which is designed to build a base of supporters looking to see improvements in the treatment of animals in all areas of life.
The celebrities have agreed to the use of their name and image pro bono, with the idea being developed by Merle’s co-creative director John Dean.
Dean explained: "A lot of people have gone the extra mile to make this campaign happen - from the client, right through to the agents and the celebrities involved. Our recent work for the Seals campaign attracted record numbers of new supporters, and we are hoping that this activity will create widespread interest in all of the work that Advocates for Animals does."
The campaign will break later this week and run in newspapers and online throughout October and November, featuring the line ‘We’re not that different’, and juxtaposes the celebrities against animals expressing similar emotions.
Media planning and buying was handled by Spirit Media while the accompanying website has been developed by the client’s in-house digital team.
Comments
Nice logo.
Yes we are. I bet the dog couldn't host an hour of live tv every weekday at 5 on Channel 4.
The dog? What Alesha?
I have to agree. The logo is excellent.
Top logo.
comments
the logo was done by studio LR I think - the campaign's not too bad either. nice
thats logo is the dogs...
comments
Why are you folks clicking 'Anon', when all you're doing is complimenting a logo?
I'm sure the guys at Studio LR would be pleased to put names to the nice comments.
I think people are commenting on the logo rather than comment on the poor ads. It's called sarcasm.
comments
I love these ads, the pictures make me smile, i'm not in advertising, i'm marketing so it interests me why you think they are "Poor ads" is it something I'm not seeing/getting?? Are you in advertising anon 11.09?
where's Cesar Millan when you need him?
It's interesting to see the anthopomorphism of animals in these ads. This is not something I agree with. Animals are not like people and we should not project human emotions on to them - I personally feel this is manipulative.
Animals encapsulate everything that is not human in this world and that is what I would focus on instead in a campaign, because let's face it, people suck.
What's next, Advocates? If animals are so like people, then why do you object to things like chimps in PG Tips ads? People like tea - why shouldn't they?! Perhaps I am being overly picky, but I feel your tactics are a bit hypocritical and your messages are confusing.
comments
Anon 16.17 -
The anthropomorphism you refer to is a visual metaphor for the fact that we share basic emotions and emotions with animals: fear, hunger, pain, stress, etc.
The brief from Advocates For Animals on this project was quite clear, that we shouldn't manipulate the animals in any way and that the expressions should not be ones caused by stress or distress.
Though the celebrities kindly took the time to work with us and put their names to the campaign, there wasn't an opportunity to set up photographic shoots for them so we worked with supplied shots. The animals were then chosen to match the expressions and facial characteristics as closely as possible.
These were not exaggerated in any way, we simply graded the colour and cut them out (the same is true for the celebrities).
The effect of using positive imagery has been astonishing. Over 3000 people signed up in Glasgow last weekend to help AFA campaign against animal abuse and for the rights of animals.
Hope that goes some way to answering your concerns Anon 16.17
Oh dear. Defending poor work on this forum. Tragic.
Hi John, thanks for your reply. It's helpful to hear Merle's take on this brief. I have no qualms about the campaign using positive imagery - as I previously mentioned it's more Advocates' schizophrenic message that bothers me.
In the past Advocates have been known to project almost militant views and opinions on various topics and have been very hard-line in their approach to animal welfare. This "nicey nicey" message they are now using will no doubt appeal to the masses, as the 3000 people from the weekend will testify. Perhaps they've realised that in order to get the public on side they need to lose the hard-core attitude they've had in the past.
Does this mean they now have a less hard-line approach regarding their policies on animals used in medical experiments, their issues with meat based diets or the utilisation of captive breeding programmes, for example? (I wonder how many of the 3000 new sign ups love a good steak?) Interestingly, the website has very little information regarding any organisational stances prior to 2009 and there is practically nothing regarding the OneKind campaign itself, other than "we believe animals should be treated well". This is a bit vague, no?
I'm not trying to bash Merle with this campaign and say that these ads are crap. Rather, I disagree with the methodology Advocates are using to convey their message, including the anthropomorphism from these ads and the (deliberate?) vagueness of the campaign.
comments
Now this is what The Drum's website and Forum are for - reasoned and well argued debate. Thanks John and Anon.
comments
I think that's something only AFA could answer.
Personally I've been Veggie/vegan most of my life, an animal rights campaigner, anti-vivisection and hunt protester etc etc. But I think I've probably had a greater influenced on attitudes sat at my desk writing ads for campaigns than I did crawling round in undergrowth laying fake trails for hounds or standing in rain outside research labs handing out leaflets.
Over time all protesting moves towards political methods of achieving the goal. But without Emmeline Pankhurst's actions we wouldn't eventually have had a female Prime Minister. Without Rosa Parks refusing to give up her bus seat to a white passenger in 1955 there wouldn't have been a President Obama. It's a natural evolution.
I just see it as finding the most effect approach to resolving the same problem.
comments
I like this and it ticks all the advertising boxes
Arrest/Attention - nice striking imagery and celeb grabs your attention - headline works as there are many basic similarities Inform/interest - tells be about the charity in just a few words Desire - built into copy through emmotive quality Act - call to action is in the sign off
we can even tick E for entertain in the Johnny vegas advert.
Job done
I take on board the 'anthropomorphism' bit but the average man in the street doesn't really think the same way as an advertising person - so is it important? I'm not sure - from analytical point of view it is but i don't think it has any major issues with regard to overall effectiveness.
As for the 'softline' approach - it's obviously working
Maybe the anons can tell me why they are poor and don't work?
And no I don't work for Merle - it's just annoying to see anonymous posts criticising work that has very little wrong with it
comments
Yeah, sorry about the Thatcher reference. What was I thinking?
Hi Paul and John, I take your opinions into account and agree that the campaign is effective – I had an inkling it would be very appealing to your average Joe due to its softer approach. I am also pleased that there is positive imagery used instead of the age-old pathetic battered animal route, which I’m sure Advocates will have done to death in the past.
In my original commentary regarding anthropomorphism etc I was uncomfortable with connotations of animals and people being just like each other. Time and time again animal rights organisations similar to Advocates (and even Advocates themselves) have shouted out till they’re blue in the face that animals are their own sentient beings and I feel this campaign’s message is a bit hypocritical - it’s okay for animals to be like people when Advocates are drumming up new supporters, but it’s not okay for animals to be considered like people at any other time. I dislike the campaign’s message as I feel is emotionally manipulative and glosses over Advocates less than glorious past.
These are, of course, just my personal opinions and you’re welcome to disagree with this. I am by no means an animal hater, being vegetarian and very conscious of animal welfare practices and environmental concerns. However, I have always found Advocates to leave a bad taste in my mouth and this is no exception. I do not find their methods considered and feel that they are picking and choosing from some of their previous hard line policies in order to appeal.
I am not criticising Merle. The agency has answered the brief that they were given and it has already proved effective for the client. I am being critical of the message conveyed and the strategy am really more interested in what Advocates’ perspective is, as they signed the campaign off and have put their name to it.
I have to say that all this debate cannot disguise the fact that these ads are just average. And badly art directed in my opinion.
Mr Anon at 15.31, 18.31,11.15 etc etc you made your point several comments ago on this page and are just repeating yourself.
You may find this of some use...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2007/may/19/weekend.guybrowning
Write Your Comment