[GhostUser]

hello!

I just saw an ad for a Parmalat (the producing company) soy beverage called Soy Delicious. The ad involved a man grabbing a rabbit from a cage, rubbing it against his head and then sticking it to the wall like a balloon.

Is this supposed to have comic value? I wrote to Parmalat and explained that a lot of soy product consumers would be alienated by this advert.

Has anyone else seen this ad? I live in canada, and don't know if this product is available in the Unites States.

Does anyone else think this ad sounds awful?

 

[Miss Meg]

I have not seen it, but that does sound kind of stupid. Was there a point to the rabbit??

 

[epski]

I've heard of that brand, but have never their products or commercials. I'm tired of the way animals are portrayed in commercials. It trivializes them in a way that inures humans to the idea that they are not sentient, independent beings.

 

[Michael]

That is pretty stupid. They're alienating a significant portion of their target audience.

 

[GhostUser]

As opposed to the thousands of commercials that make humans look like idiots?

Was the rabbit hurt? Prolly not.

I don't see the big deal.

 

[GhostUser]

Miss meg,

I'm not sure abouththe rabbit really having a point. All i remeber is the guy rubbing that rabbit on his head saying how amazing he thought it was, and the soy beverage drinking girl sipped her drink, sighed and left the room. I think the point is suppoed to be that the drink is so amazing that not even sticking a rabbit to a wall would make you blink.

well i blinked, then i wrote the company!

 

[4EverGrounded]

parmalat - don't they produce milk and tomato sauce and stuff like that? I haven't seen anything like that on US tv or on CBC (the only Canadian channel we get), but it already sounds like a really stupid commercial. I agree with LF - was there a point to the rabbit or the rabbit being against the wall?

Now, if the rabbit rubbed a man on its head and stuck him to the wall.... that would be funny.

 

[epski]

Quote:

Originally posted by Gruntled Sheep

I don't see the big deal.

Allow me to explain again why it's a big deal:

The way animals are portrayed in commercials trivializes them in a way that inures humans to the idea that they are not sentient, independent beings. This desensitization leads to animal abuse. That's a big deal to me.

 

[GhostUser]

anything that uses animals for humans' personal use or enjoyment should be banned.

 

[dk_art]

"soy beverage called Soy Delicious"

----------------------------------------------

I believe it is Sensational Soy drink

http://www.saveonfoods.com/1/brightl...sensations.htm

or something with "sensation" in the title .... not Soy delicious (pretty sure) ... (the woman said ... it's not 'sensational' to the rabbit on wall )

And yes I did see it and was a little bothered by it really.

Who are these marketting "geniuses" anyway. Many of the people drinking this stuff will be vegans or vegetarians (I assume) who don't like seeing imagery of mistreating animals (I know it's probably trick computer work or whatever but I didn't like the imagery )

As you can see by the "Maple lodge farms" chicken as part of that company, they are not concerned with veggie issues which explains the stupid ad (almost as bad as the Maple Leaf chicken ad with the 'dog show' like scenario of judging chickens and running them around on a leash just like a dog show !! ....man that ad frigging annoys me!)

I won't be buying any from that company

 

[4EverGrounded]

Quote:

Originally posted by epski

Allow me to explain again why it's a big deal:

The way animals are portrayed in commercials trivializes them in a way that inures humans to the idea that they are not sentient, independent beings. This desensitization leads to animal abuse. That's a big deal to me.

I believe I disagree. What "leads to animal abuse" is people that will abuse anything or anyone. When someone abuses, it's a form of trying to assert "authority" over a lesser being (wheather the lesser being is a female, child, animal...whatever). It's not commericals involving animals that does it - it's humans that abuse that does it. Blaming a :30 commercial is the same as blaming rock and roll for a sueside. It was not the music that did the damage - it was the damage already present that manifested itself to this form. For those that were raised in abuse or taught to believe that abuse is acceptable, they can recognize the pattern and change but that person has to see the need for change and want the change. Otherwise, the abuse continues. The abuse problem is not something caused by or led to from commercials, it is something caused by a line of abuse that stem sometimes 5 and 6 generations back -- long before Parmalot aired a stupid spot about a man rubbing a rabbit on his head and sticking it to a wall.

 

[epski]

Quote:

Originally posted by DeeYahMK

What "leads to animal abuse" is people that will abuse anything or anyone. When someone abuses, it's a form of trying to assert "authority" over a lesser being (wheather the lesser being is a female, child, animal...whatever). It's not commericals involving animals that does it - it's humans that abuse that does it. Blaming a :30 commercial is the same as blaming rock and roll for a sueside. It was not the music that did the damage - it was the damage already present that manifested itself to this form. For those that were raised in abuse or taught to believe that abuse is acceptable, they can recognize the pattern and change but that person has to see the need for change and want the change. Otherwise, the abuse continues. The abuse problem is not something caused by or led to from commercials, it is something caused by a line of abuse that stem sometimes 5 and 6 generations back -- long before Parmalot aired a stupid spot about a man rubbing a rabbit on his head and sticking it to a wall.

I agree that you are aware of one facet of this problem, but I think it is the argument of a more independent thinker to DENY that the pervasive imagery denigrating animals (not to mention women) as objects DOES have an impact on viewers, especially as those images accumulate in young, impressionable minds and are pounded in there after years and years of advertising.

Advertisers spend millions of dollars (billions, really) for one good reason: to make images stick in people's minds. It works. There's no substitute for good parenting but, as a filmmaker, I am quite aware of the power of images, and I will certainly endeavor to keep that in mind as I make films that will be seen by the general public.

 

[4EverGrounded]

Quote:

Originally posted by epski

There's no substitute for good parenting but, as a filmmaker, I am quite aware of the power of images, and I will certainly endeavor to keep that in mind as I make films that will be seen by the general public.

Please do (in the filmmaking end, I mean). As a former director of a TV station, I'm also aware of the power of images (to tell a story, sell a product, whatever) and know that the advertisers we had were paying me for a service and that service was to make the thing they're trying to sell stick in the public mind, however good, however bad. I believe the exact nail was hit on the head when you said "there is no substitution for good parenting". The media can only do so much, but if the parent does not teach the basic right from wrongs, then the media is forced to be the parent and we all know where that leads to... The young, impressionable minds should be taught by their parents and need to be taught by their parents. The schools can't do it, the media can't do it (nor does it want the job, I might add), music can't do it and even the arts and sports figure "role models" fail. It all comes back to the parent. As a filmmaker, you can only do so much but until the individual parent takes the time to teach their kids, those images that you or anyone else present will be misconstrued and twisted to fit the improper reality.

 

[GhostUser]

Quote:

The way animals are portrayed in commercials trivializes them in a way that inures humans to the idea that they are not sentient, independent beings. This desensitization leads to animal abuse. That's a big deal to me.

hahahaha!

I tend to give people a little more credit. But maybe that's just me.

 

[epski]

Quote:

Originally posted by Gruntled Sheep

hahahaha!

I tend to give people a little more credit. But maybe that's just me.

That is sweet of you, really. I used to also, but I gave that up long ago. I'm still optimistic, but I've seen too many ignorant people that believe whatever they see and read. It's depressing sometimes.

I had to bite my tongue in the lunch room at my "temp" job today. Bunch of racists...

 

[4EverGrounded]

Quote:

Originally posted by majake

hmm so all those thousands upon thousands of blind people who do not use seeing eye dogs can't do anything for themselves? interesting, and here i thought they were getting along just fine.

I didn't say anything about the "thousands upon thousands". I only mentioned one person. My cousin. Blind AND disabled, so his dog has to "pull double-duty". I've only met him once, just briefly, and don't know the story behind why he's this way (it's not from birth, that much I do know). There are some blind people that need and use seeing eye dogs, some that don't but just like everything else, you can't lump them all in one collective group.

Besides, we're not talking about seeing eye dogs here, we're talking about commecials. Dumb commercials. Commercials that stick an animal in there for the cute factor tie-in for their product.

 

[GhostUser]

Ok, lets get one thing straight. When we talk about not using animals for ourselves we mean in a HARMFUL way. Seeing eye dogs are not harmful, the dogs get a companion, love and a job. We don't kill the dogs, and we don't keep them in horrible conditions. unless someone can prove me wrong.... In any case, that was totally twisting the post around. Of course, I could be completely off track but as far as I know, what I have said is true.

 

[epski]

I don't include myself entirely in this group, but some people don't believe animals are for us to use in any way, including as seeing eye dogs. Personally, I think seeing eye dogs are just about the mildest form of domestic animal "impressment" (don't think this is a real word, but it's meant to convey "pressing into service"). I'm not a fan of breeding these animals to exist, if other options are available. If I was blind, I'd certainly want my companion animal to be a rescue, not bred.

 

[GhostUser]

interesting discussion...

the parmalat people sent me an e-mail, saying they have forwarded my concerns to the marketing department.

I still stand firmly behind my opinion that this commercial is alienating to a large consumer group. perhaps the company will think twice about using foolish animal images in their advertising.

 

[GhostUser]

Oh i forgot to mention....dk_art is correct about the brand name...it is not soy delicious, it is sensational soy...ooops. how ineffective to complain about a product when you don't even have the name right!!!

DUH