As advocates for animal rights and the vegan lifestyle, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) takes a wide variety of rhetorical approaches, including (but not limited to) stationing women alternately dressed in lettuce bikinis or bloodied in cages in public places, staging protests of circuses that use animals, investigative undercover journalism resulting in often gruesome exposés of the factory farming system, sexually charged or humorous celebrity endorsements, and portrayals of cute baby animals bearing slogans like “Friends, not food.”
Rather than looking at PETA as a whole, I have chosen to examine the current lead campaign on their website, “BWVAKTBOOM.” The titular acronym, which stands for “Boyfriend Went Vegan and Knocked the Bottom Out of Me,” refers to “a painful condition that occurs when boyfriends go vegan and can suddenly bring it like a tantric porn star.”
The campaign microsite discusses “a dramatic increase in [men’s] wang power and sexual stamina” that can lead to such injuries for women as “whiplash, pulled muscles, rug burn, and even a dislocated hip.” The centerpiece of the site and the campaign is a short video, narrated by Kevin Nealon, which uses shocking domestic-abuse imagery to demonstrate the dangerous effects of a boyfriend’s veganism on unprepared girlfriends (including, as represented in the video, ending up in a neck brace, covered in bruises, and wandering the streets in their underwear, toting grocery bags of leafy vegetables). Along with the video, the site provides a gallery of (staged) video testimonials, satirical “tips for playing it safe” (for instance, “headboard hydration,” “sex helmet,” and “industrial strength condoms”), and a “go vegan” link, which leads to a sign-up form for PETA’s e-mail list to receive a vegan starter kit.
PETA’s website touts the campaign’s viral success, claiming, “When boyfriends go vegan, sexy videos go viral.” But PETA doesn’t seem to equate virality with rhetorical effectiveness (perhaps a problem at the core of most criticism of the organization’s tactics overall); as of January 12, 2013, the YouTube video had 2,977,015 views since its upload on February 6, 2012, but a quick glance at the top comments include such dissenting remarks as “I think peta is showing they’re [sic] own stupidness again” (2307kid), and “I do like what they do for animals.. but this commercial makes light of sexual violence. not cool” (Savannah White), as well as the usual pro-carnivore remarks.
Who is PETA’s audience here? On the surface, the campaign’s rhetoric seems to be aimed at young women, but if this is the case, why does it portray sex as such a damaging, violent, aggressive enterprise? Is better sex necessarily more violent sex? Or, is the audience young men who want to increase their “wang power and sexual stamina”? With so many performance enhancing supplements and prescription drugs on the market today, it seems like a reasonable attempt for PETA to get involved in a discussion that is already taking place (to re-appropriate Burke’s parlor metaphor), but it is perhaps a useful thought experiment to consider the potential effects on marketing for such drugs as Viagra and Cialis if their rhetoric portrayed the abused and damaged girlfriends and wives left in the wake of men with a newfound sexual stamina.
On one level, this is perhaps a logical appeal: According to research (linked from the microsite here) that cites “One Danish study” and calls on the credibility of such vegetarian supermen as Carl Lewis, Scott Jurek, and Ricky Williams, it is perhaps statistically possible that a meat-free diet may result in cleaner blood vessels (the blockage of which is cited as a cause for erectile dysfunction). On another level, it is clearly a pathetic appeal (and, to insert a bit of bias here, I mean that in both possible senses of the word). There is an emotional weight to seeing a woman stumble around brutalized the way “Jessica” does in the video, and while it does not necessarily appeal to male emotions in the same way, the campaign does appeal to some base instinct in men that has nothing to do with logic.
Most notably, I think it is interesting that this campaign is free of the usual factory-farming and friends-not-food rhetoric of PETA’s ad campaigns, so in that sense it is a departure. But, in its treatment of women (who are routinely used as objects in PETA’s campaigns, which often tout veganism as a way to lose weight), the BWVAKTBOOM campaign is classic PETA, and while the exigence is the same here as it is in any of their campaigns, the apparent lack of clarity of audience and the overall weakness of its appeals (at least as they apply to veganism), coupled with the apparent outrage and/or dismissal of those viewers who commented on social media, I would argue that this ad—while potentially shocking and conversation-starting—is not rhetorically effective. At the very least, I don't feel like this is what Bitzer would call a fitting response to it rhetorical situation in that while attempting to persuade young men to go vegan, it seems to forget that domestic and sexual abuse are very real situations with their own set of exigences.
I agree Andrew that this advertising campaign seems really bizarre and would seemingly shock people instead of gain appeal. What I can conclude for their reasoning is that the stereotypes commonly attached to vegetarian or vegan lifestyles are yoga-practicing, super sensitive, tree-huggers. Meat eaters, on the other hand, are thought to be strong and masculine. PETA may be trying to reverse that stereotype and convince men that they can still be masculine while eating a vegetarian diet.
ReplyDeleteAndrew,
ReplyDeleteI really like your analysis of this ad campaign. I had never heard of it before, which is surprising, because I feel like there should have been a lot of criticism leveled against it.
From what I have seen from PETA's ad campaigns, they never really attempt to utilize appeals to ethos or logos, and instead they rely only on pathos. They mostly rely on shocking viewers, and making them irate, depressed, or aroused. Some of their major ad campaigns that I can think of include images of elephants being beaten by their trainers, images of chickens/cows/pigs being slaughtered one after another in a factory, and naked celebrities talking about not wearing fur.
This campaign, as you pointed out, though clearly meant to be a joke, relies on a halfhearted attempt at a logical appeal, and a whole lot of pathos. I like that you pointed out the double entendre of the word "pathetic." It seems like PETA is trying to the same people that Dr. Pepper was trying to reach in their Dr. Pepper 10 campaign: the everyman, who thinks that diet soda, and ostensibly veganism, is for ladies, and pansy-men. As a man, I find this ad campaign, and the Dr. Pepper one, kind of offensive. I don't like the idea of sexually abusing women with my increased "wang power."
I also find it kind of ironic that PETA talks so much about not hurting animals, but are ok with beating women with your penis. Are women below animals in PETA's hierarchy? Are they just objects?