In my PR 104: Case Studies class this past week a girl in my class did the whole PETA comparing the treatment to animals to treatment of some of the victims of the Holocaust. Since I wrote a post about the museum that is now at Auschwitz, I found this case study particularly interesting.
In 2003 PETA developed a campaign that would travel to different cities featuring large (6x10ft) panels of images of animal cruelty juxtaposed against images of Holocaust victims. Clearly an emotional site I’m sure. As the case study goes on, it is apparent that PETA, while their cause is perfectly outlined, fights for animal rights at the expense of humans.
Clearly you all know that there was considerable backlash from this campaign from not only Jewish organizations but other human rights organizations. I wont get into all the nitty gritty details but in 2005 the president of PETA sent out an apology email (an email people, not a statement) to these organizations. She did make a point in the email to mention that “most” of the feed back was positive. I have a hard time believe that but still. Then a few months later PETA turned around and released another campaign similarly comparing slave trades and animal cruelty.
So, I pose the thought, does PETA spare no expenses in order to get their name out there? Is all press, good press?
Filed under: Uncategorized
monster PR 
This is a great question because they just seem to continue on the same disrespectful path. It seems that they are trying too hard to relate, which is clearly hurting them in the long run. I do not agree that all press is good press because in today’s age, there is too much at stake. A brand can always recover, but I wouldn’t take that risk.
I was not a fan of any of the PETA campaigns, and while these campaigns did get the company’s name out there, it made many people angry. So I don’t think that all press is good press. Especially in this instance where it made everyone angry at them. It is hard to recover from something as big as this.