Disgusted by a new TV advert

[latz]

Hi All

Am new to this forum so first of all hello to everyone.

I was curious how most felt about "fake" animal cruelty such as the pretence of an animal being hurt or injured for the "viewing pleasure" of the public?

I for one am totally against it and do not find it funny when people in films and TV adverts and so on use animals as a means to generate comedy, despite the fact that a real animal wont have been hurt in any way.

So what brought this one you might ask? Why the sudden outburst? Well I'm checking my emails this morning and have recieved an email from a company (I might add I did opt out of recieving any mailings from them but thats another story....) who have a new TV advert that they wanted to send me. It "features" a pigeon having a leg tied to a parcel and being tossed out of the window which eventually gets run over after a long fall from mid air......... that's supposed to make me want to use this company!?!?!?!?! :furious: All it has done is secure my business with a more sensible company.

I have posted the link here in case anyone thinks I'm over reacting (Apologies moderators if this is not allowed). I would be very interested to know what everyone elses views are?

http://www.parcel2go.com/Advert-Video.aspx

Take care all.

[Scythe]

I think of this the same way as people getting hurt in comedy: I don't give a ****.

[Flyingfruitbat]

Hi Latz,

I must admit, I agree with you on this. I've emailed the company to raise my concerns. It would be a bit different if it was an animation, but I think that showing a live bird is irresponsible. With all the problems associated with delivery services, I would have thought they'd want to show a more mature 'front'.

I have a real affinity with pigeons and I would hate the thought that some unbalanced individual may get some silly idea after seeing the ad.

[karenlovessnow]

Hmmm...I watched it, I couldn't help but chuckle because it was clever, but I would probably say it's a bit in poor taste...but again, it was very clever...I think the fact that they take it further by having an explosion and a car tossed in the air makes it more tolerable...I think I'm more embarrassed that I find it funny, like, maybe I should be more outraged by it, but I'm not.

[uberkibbles]

Hmmm...I watched it, I couldn't help but chuckle because it was clever, but I would probably say it's a bit in poor taste...but again, it was very clever...I think the fact that they take it further by having an explosion and a car tossed in the air makes it more tolerable...I think I'm more embarrassed that I find it funny, like, maybe I should be more outraged by it, but I'm not.

Don't worry, I thought it was pretty funny too and giggled. We're horrible people.

[mushycat]

I didn't find it funny at all.

[CatLadyVT]

I didn't find it funny mainly because I worry that it will give people ideas.

[4EverGrounded]

I know who NOT to use for my parcels, now. :yes:

Thanks for posting that, latz. :up:

[Michael]

They may be taking the PETA approach to marketing - get their name out there any way you can. Personally I think posting it brings more attention to it (not necessarily all bad) and gives them the publicity they wanted.

As for violence in advertisements it really depends. If it's obviously fake and meant to be comedic it doesn't usually bother me too much. If it's cruel or may incite others to be cruel to animals then that's another story.

[Ice_Storm]

I didn't find it funny mainly because I worry that it will give people ideas.

I agree

[ReginaCeltarum]

It doesn't show anything happening to the bird. and considering how long the rope was, and how much heavier the package was, I think that the occurrence they are trying to convey is the parcel itself falling onto (or into the path of) a car, thus causing an accident, because the bird cannot hold it up. The bird was not hit by a car. it probably flew away once the rope was probably severed by the collision (or something pertaining to it), if that even was a real occurrence (which it wasn't). I really feel it's an overreaction to be so completely outraged by an ad like that. There are much worse things.
eta: I don't find it laugh-out-loud funny by any means, I just feel it's nothing to get all worked up over.

[isowish]

I've never seen the advert.
But generally, (fake) violence to animals on TV/in films doesn't bother me. Like (fake) violence to people. If I found out animals were hurt in the making of it, it would.

[soilman]

" it probably flew away once the rope was probably severed by the collision "

No. The bunch of feathers scattering in the air, after the parcel falls, suggests that the bird was severely harmed when the rope yanked on its body, tearing its body up. The amount of feathers shown appeared roughly equal to about 1/2 the feathers that the bird would have had. That many fathers floating around suggests severe damage to the bird, and crippling of its ability to fly. In actuality, a bird's leg would break away from its body, pull out of its hip joint and tear away the ligaments and tendons, way before a plastic-resin rope of the diameter shown, would break. A bird in the situation shown would surely suffer a fatal injury. Nylon and polypropylene rope of the diameter shown is very strong. But hemp other natural fiber rope would also be stronger than a small bird's hip joint. The fact that the rope was white shows it was nylon or polypropylene.

Most likely neither the rope would break nor the leg pull out of the bird, but the whole bird would be pulled down to the ground by the rope. Its leg bone would be broken and its joint dislocated. It would die over the course of several days if a predator didn't get it first.

[ReginaCeltarum]

regardless, nothing happened to the bird. what would happen if the event actually occurred is not relevant.

[peace]

I think how it will be taken depends on the audience.

A few years back there was a trend in the US of showing slapstick animal abuse on movies and commercials. The TV ad spots for 'There's Something About Mary', 'EdTV', "Idle Hands', 'Love Stinks', and 'Drowning Mona' all featured animals being hurt as the central joke.

Normal adults could see these ads and dismiss them, after all, no animals were actually hurt. However, for kids and teenagers who already engage in animal abuse and find it funny (and the number can be higher than we'd like to imagine) such images may further reinforce the idea that harming animals is comedic and desirable.

[Pinkerton]

I think that fake violence for the sake of comedy is fine. From "The Three Stooges" to "National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation", it's funny. I think there is some form of violence in all my favorite comedies. I have to admit I did not watch the video this thread is based on though. I hate ads, that's why I bought DVR.

[sallyomally]

Not funny.

[ponypartner]

Whatever. That's not even a better way to send a parcel, since IT DIDN'T WORK. Yeah. Morons.

[annieadmer]

I think the line actually was...there IS a better way to send a parcel...meaning Parcel2Go, they're not actaully encouraging people to tie rope to birds, if anything they're saying DON'T do this and use us instead. So its like a lesson against animal cruelty.

[Scythe]

So its like a lesson against animal cruelty.

More like inefficiency.

[soilman]

It is not a lesson agains animal cruelty. It is a lesson against depending on natural animals instead of a petrochemically-driven parcel service.

[annieadmer]

Ok, I dont think I made my point very well, I agree its not a lesson against animal cruelty. It was just my way of saying its clearly not the intention of the advert to promote it either.

I notice nobdy seems to be bothered if anybody was hurt in the crash...do you know why? Because its not real and we all know the crash just part of an over the top/commical advert! Its an advert about a parcel company saying don't use other methods, use us and to imply there are other agendas in the advert is an over-reaction in my opinion.

[froggythefrog]

I see the humor in the failed experiment. However, I am also a freedom of speech person. However, if someone really DID this to a pigeon, I would object.

People are killed in movies all the time. Going out and killing someone is yet another matter.

[panthera]

People are killed in movies all the time. Going out and killing someone is yet another matter.
But we don't find anything amusing about the portrayed killing of humans. There shouldn't be anything amusing about the portrayed killing of non-humans, either. If the ad had shown the package strapped to a child (another non-consenting individual, like the pigeon), would it not have been offensive?

Gratuitous representations of violence are bad news, whether aimed at humans or non-humans.
:stinkeye:

[London Down]

I didn't mind the commercial, except the end where it showed the company parcel falling on the bird. That was just completely tasteless. It was actually a shot at birds, as weird as that sounds.