Comments:Animal rights activists demand British coffee chain withdraw advertising campaign

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

And this is the exact point where people abandon common sense for hysteria. First of all making generalisations such as "appearance of animals in the media" is simplistic to say the least. How do you compare Finding Nemo, a (very well made) full blown animation feature film meant primarily for children, which are of course prone to wanting a little fish as a pet, compare to a coffee chain ad with monkeys lasting mere seconds? By this token, animals should be banned from all and any appearance in the media up to and including documentaries. In my opinion any documentary showing cute baby chimps hopping around is far more likely to spark interest in primates as pets than said TV ad. Oh and let´s not forget films with Tarzan.

Furthermore, if animal rights groups really want to get to the bottom of this then they should press more for banning this kind of animal trade altogether. Putting pressure on companies which are trying to build an environment and fair trade friendly profile, without any real reasons, is a very bad idea in my opinion. It will mostly serve to convince corporate people that their customers are a hysterical bunch of witch-hunters who will jump at the slightest excuse of an infraction to threaten with boycots. In the end those "green" companies might well decide that their customer base is way too fickle and just abandon green practises, cut their costs and go with the flow.

Start a new discussion

Contents

Thread titleRepliesLast modified
PG Tips321:50, 21 October 2010
A knee-jerk reaction?221:48, 21 October 2010
Comments from feedback form - "So Costa has been closed iz Za..."010:56, 12 October 2010

Why is there so much fuss being made about this? We had those PG Tips adverts with monkeys in them a while ago and no-one was complaining.

Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions)06:20, 14 October 2010

Exactly... Animals, humans, babies, etc. are being used for ads all the time. So what? Maybe we shouldn't use animals or humans at all for anything because appearing anywhere may seriously hurt our value as living beings ... oh, come on! We have plenty of real issues to worry about, so get real.

80.242.16.1 (talk)13:51, 14 October 2010

The monkeys have already been used for the commercial, its not like the creatures are enduring an ongoing torture. If the groups are so worried about animals, they should focus their efforts elsewhere.

209.124.126.18 (talk)22:54, 14 October 2010
 

Notice that the PG Tips adverts - which features chimpanzees, which are not monkeys - are no longer in use. the practice of using primates as performers is increasingly recognised as cruel and unnecessary, not to mention tacky, by the general public.

Spidersflies (talk)21:50, 21 October 2010
 

A knee-jerk reaction?

It sounds to me like the animal rights groups are having a knee-jerk reaction. Their logic seems to be: in the past, some animals appearing in commercials have been abused; animals are appearing in this commercial; therefore animals are being abused. This logic is flawed. Any group adhering to this logic should be sent back to school.

Divad271812 (talk)21:16, 15 October 2010

Apart from that last sentence this is a sensible evaluation. The last comment has its comedical merits though. Personally, I just want the use of any actor to be transparent.

91.109.208.30 (talk)10:40, 16 October 2010
 

The groups protesting this advertisement have based their argument on sound fact.

To be used as perfomers, primates are often permanently removed from their mothers long before weaning age - which is not only acutely distressing to both mother and infant, but which is known to hinder normal brain development, and can result in psychological and physiological abnormalities and lasting behavioural difficulties. Performing primates can be subject to hours confined in traveling crates en route to and from the brightly lit and potentially frightening studio. A number of scientific papers indicate that transport is highly stressful to primates and should be avoided wherever possible. Nearly fifty percent of primate species are threatened with extinction in the wild. The use of primates as entertainers in film and television exacerbates public misconceptions about their being pliable, fun and pet-like, and often leads to an increased demand for pet monkeys, which negatively affects both the welfare of individual monkeys and conservation efforts in primate habitat areas. Respected professional societies such as the International Primatological Society oppose the use of primate "actors" in the media.

All of the above points, paired with the fact that it is totally unnecessary to indicate that it is inappropriate to use primates as actors as Costa Coffee has done. Where is the flaw in this reasoning?

Spidersflies (talk)21:48, 21 October 2010
 

Comments from feedback form - "So Costa has been closed iz Za..."

So Costa has been closed iz Zagreb-Croatia. Not a good sign? They should not use any animal at all.

82.193.201.134 (talk)10:56, 12 October 2010