We often hear the term Mass communication. What exactly is it? Mass communication is a form of communication through which instituitional sources address large, diverse audiences whose members are physically separated from one another. It is a powerful and pervasive mode of communication, and in modern societies, the media are important social instituitions that reflect and affect the values and behaviours of large segments of population.
PETA (People for the ethical treatment of animals) is the largest animal rights organization in the world. Below is a campaign poster by PETA, featuring Jonna Krupa posing nude to show that she rather go naked than to wear fur.
This is one of the mass media that PETA uses in its campaign against the fur industry, where animals are unethically and ruthlessly killed. Do you think it is effective ? How powerful are such mass media approaches to inform the masses? What are your thoughts after seeing this poster?
9 comments:
hahahaa.. that's really gimmicky..
it may work a few decades ago .. but looking at it now,when the female body is so sexualized. it didn't really promote peta's message more then it is showing off her perfect figure and beautiful face.
i don't think any man would notice the wordings. =x
In my opinion, PETA has really tasteless advertisements.
It is just a sad desperate excuse to use sexuality, or a huge lack of creativity on their part.
I do identify with their causes but certainly not with their low class image.
In Superbowl 2008, they had very controversial advertisements involving women "playing" with fruits. PETA could well have hired pornographic directors for their advertising department.
hmmm Eddie, being associated with media had me updated daily with "how the world is feeling today" and yea, its all possible because of mass communication. no doubt, mass communication takes up a large part of our lives. oh, it is even offered not as a module, but a course in some universities locally and internationally. this trade is not a declining industry, because its already imperative- a lifestyle in society.
i have read up a fair share on views of PETA and these 2 cents are my humble opinions....
i had never wholeheartedly supported PETA as the message they are sending out seem too extreme. i don't understand how can PETA possibly think, what they do actually help animals.
though the lobby group does good work, its crazy that PETA focuses on so many different animal rights. (eradicate domestic animals; etc) YET at the same time, PETA has the highest euthanasia rates among all animal shelters. it's contradicting, their tactics are just... out there. the thought of it makes me upset, they aren't animal loving as they appear to be.
i also feel that their way of advertising is a tad obnoxious. (or am i being too traditional?) i do agree that, sex sells in advertising but, not in the case of PETA to stoop to such levels. to a certain extent its ridiculous. i don't see how human sexuality can be associated with animal love.
but then again are WE responsible for PETA'S Advertising? i strongly think we had a part to play.
looking into the purpose of mass communication, its to reach out to mass audiences.
but today, we humans, are so 'fast-paced' and extremely selfish with our time, advertisers have to resort to ANY marketing gimmick to capture even one bit of our attention (eg: naked woman on PETA advertisment)
i'll take a step back and review the entire situation again. tasteless advertisers? or tasteless humans? something for you to ponder, Eddie. did mass communication make us have more short comings?
well.. whether the ads will work or not really depends on which country you are going to put this ads. If it is in America or Europe, the ads might work and people might think that the ads is interesting. On the other hand, if the ads is put in Asian country, especially Indonesia and Malaysia, they will probably banned the ads even before the campaign even started. Hence the cultural background of each country is certainly different. Therefore, we have to be really careful on what to advertise and what not to advertise.
ads informing public= ads achieving their intended agendas?
while i do think that some ads do and does keep the public informed, many are actually one-sided and tend to be more of a persuasive nature than a informative nature.
like this peta adv.. how does it serves to inform about the consequences of wearing fur? it mostly uses the idol effect.. which does not adequently informs the audience but edges them to follow due to the intrinsic charm of the idol.
but i guess if it is to deepen the message of not wearing fur across senseless male masses.. den it did get its point across. :P
A nice thought about going fur-less to save animals being tortured but i feel the poster is a bit too exaggerated. haha.
In reply to Kevin's comment: Well most advertisements today use the female body to promote products..not just PETA.
But I do agree that this is not the best way to convey the message, although it does get many people to read what is written on the ad. I guess it does achieve its purpose.
woww... wowww... wowww... looks like this post of mine is very very constroversial looking at the tone and long comments on the advertisement by PETA. Also looks like there is more people against this advertisement and its intended purpose then the people who support this advertisement. Even Lovell who says its is thoughful, ultimately ends by saying that this advertisement is exaggerated. well, I don't really know why they use such exaggerated means to advertise this. Also it is true that Kevin mentioned that they have super pornographic video clips for for meat-eaters, to encourage people being vegetarian. They screen women using vegetables as sex toys! My gosh... I was disgusted after watching it.
Post a Comment