Clark 1
Gordon Clark
Stephanie Rountree
English 1101
28 October 2014
PETA’s “Save the Whales” Ad: Offensive and Effective
In early August of 2009, US-based animal rights organization PETA (People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals) erected a billboard off of a popular highway in Jacksonville,
Florida that raised such a negative backlash that it was replaced in less than a month. The
billboard, like many of PETA’s past attempts, showed a lot of skin; instead of nudity, this ad
focused on obesity by portraying the back and shoulders of an illustrated obese woman in a
swimsuit. The drawing was tame compared to PETA’s past campaigns; however the text next to
the drawing of the woman changes the mood completely: “Save the Whales! Lose the blubber:
become vegetarian.”
PETA has a history of controversial advertisements. Since its establishment in 1980 by
Ingrid Newirk, it gained national attention a year later when it won a lawsuit against an animal
testing center in Virginia (“PETA’s History”). Since then, its media campaigns have been
“eighty percent outrage, ten percent each of celebrity and truth,” and have insured controversy
and outrage with each new ad (Specter). PETA’s marketing team has juxtaposed images of
animals in slaughterhouses with images of Jews in WWII-era concentration camps (“Group
Blasts”). It has promoted alcoholism over milk-drinking on college campuses (Specter). PETA
has, most famously, published nude images of celebrities with the captions, “I’d rather go naked
than wear fur” (PETA’s History). The naked celebrity images in particular have come under fire
from feminist organizations because of the objectification of the women featured in the ads, and
Clark 2
the use of their bodies to promote an unrelated cause (Specter). Newkirk, PETA’s founder, revels
in the media attention, good or bad, and has stated that “We would be worthless if we were just
polite and didn’t make any waves” (Specter).
The “Save the Whales” campaign was launched late into the summer beach season in
Jacksonville, Florida. According to Newkirk, “America’s obesity epidemic calls for tough love,”
and this billboard is certainly tough on obese Americans (Goldstein). PETA, however, has just
the remedy for getting rid of one’s excess weight: vegetarianism. They have it written plainly
underneath the main text of the billboard: “lose the blubber: go vegetarian.” On PETA’s web
page promoting the launch of the campaign, it accurately states that vegetarians are “20 to 30
percent leaner than meat-eaters” (Graffeo). The billboard targets the middle-class residents of
Jacksonville who have a high percentage of overweight citizens; people with low incomes are
likely unable to take vacations to Jacksonville Beach during the summer beach-going season.
Middle class people also have more choices when it comes to diet because they are not required
by their budgets to walk past the organic fruit and vegetable displays in the grocery stores.
The argument that the billboard makes is quite logical. People on a vegetarian diet are
less likely to develop heart disease, breast cancer, diabetes, and other diseases related to obesity
(“Being Vegetarian”). Vegetarian and vegan diets are often low in fat and high in fiber and
whole grains, which further decrease the risk of obesity. Becoming vegetarian to lose weight is
something that PETA touts in numerous places on its website because it makes sense that cutting
out meat, which can be high in fats and cholesterol, can result in weight loss. What they do not
consider are people with genetic conditions that make it incredibly difficult to maintain a healthy
weight, even with a vegetarian or vegan diet.
The ethos PETA has is utilized by putting its logo in the lower right-hand corner.
Clark 3
Depending who you ask, however, putting its name on something can either be a significant
boost or a kiss of death because PETA’s advertizing strategy has proven polarizing to the public.
After PETA supporters have thrown red paint on the furs of models at high-end fashion shows,
audience members are screened even with even more scrutiny than before; PETA specifically
does not sponsor any bills in government because even the rumor of their support will elicit an
opposing majority no matter how good its intentions are (Specter). However, PETA still pulls in
millions of dollars in donations from millions of supporters worldwide each year, so the
organization must be speaking effectively to some demographic (“Our History”). It is debatable
though if that supporting demographic would support the visual and textual rhetoric this
particular billboard in Jacksonville, FL.
PETA’s advertisements and marketing campaigns historically use shock tactics to fuel
pathetic arguments, and this billboard is no exception: it appeals to one’s sense of guilt. They
aim to take that guilt that people feel each time they step on the scale and see a number too high
and apply it towards vegetarianism. By using words like “Whale” and “Blubber” PETA aims to
make the audience feel guilty and ashamed about their weight. The second set of text, “lose the
blubber: become vegetarian,” implies that a better person is not only healthier (and consequently
has no blubber) but does not eat meat either. For people insecure about their weight and body
image, this argument can be extremely effective.
While offensive, the argument is valid: a diet that cuts out the fats and cholesterol found
in meat can help people lose weight. However, PETA subverts that argument by using its logo in
the ad and by using offensive language. Because of its history, many people disregard and ignore
PETA no matter what subject they are rallying for or against. If PETA wanted to avoid this ethos
issue, it could have simply provided a website link (that was not peta.com) or made a different
Clark 4
logo that is not obviously associated with PETA. The offensive language could have also been
avoided. An ad hominem attack – calling your target audience whales – is not only an invalid
argument, but it also puts your audience on defense and makes them less open to your message
regardless of its truthfulness. For all we know, some of the “whales” the ad speaks of could be
nutritionists, or people suffering from a medical condition that are on strict, prescribed diets. A
better billboard could have said something along the lines of: “Thinking of losing weight?
Vegetables can help!”
Because PETA’s billboard does not use gentle language, its logical argument is much
more likely to get lost in a sea of hurt feelings and communicate unintended messages. When
overweight or obese people see the ad, they probably feel embarrassed and ashamed to the
extend they will not consider vegetarianism, but instead mull over their shame at their weight
and their anger at PETA for making them feel this way (Goldstein). Suddenly the argument
transforms from one between a meat-eating and a vegetarian diet into an argument about the
morality around putting up a billboard with offensive language on the side of a popular highway
(Goldstein). The lash-backs and debates about the morality surrounding the billboard caused
PETA to enact a “billboard swap” where they replaced the “Save the Whales” ad with a far less
offensive version.
In an interview with Michael Specter, Ingrid Newkirk said that PETA’s goal was to
protect animals and ensure their ethical treatment, not to gain supporters (Specter). With this
mission statement, every ad that brings its websites views or generates a news article is a
successful one. In that same interview, Newkirk claims that a vegetarian will not become a meateater merely because of a PETA ad that offends them—a vegetarian may criticize and speak
against PETA, but they will continue to eschew meat. So if the “Save the Whales” ad would not
Clark 5
be turning away current vegetarians, the only place to go would be up. Newkirk’s relentless
pursuit to help animals through means of embarrassment, shaming, and downright name-calling
have made her one of the most controversial women in America, but it has also advanced the
cause of animal rights at an astounding pace. People are generally more inclined to reach a
middle ground, and extremist groups like PETA make moderate groups like the SPCA look more
reasonable and mainstream. PETA’s “Save the Whales” billboard is not ethical, gentle, or kind,
but in the schema of advancing animal rights, it is effective.
Clark 6
Works Cited
Bandi, Brittany. “New PETA Vegetarian Anti-Obesity Campaign Asks Us to ‘Save the
Whales’.” CalorieLab. CalorieLab, inc. 10 Aug. 2009. Web. 23 Oct. 2014.
“Being a Vegetarian.” Brown. Brown University. N.d. Web. 25 Oct. 2014.
Goldstein, Katherine. “PETA's New "Save The Whales" Billboard Takes Aim At Fat Women
(UPDATED).” Huffington Post. Huffington Post. 26 Sep. 2009. Web. 21 Oct. 2014.
Graffeo, Liz. “Lose the Blubber: Go Vegetarian.” PETA. People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals. 17 Aug. 2009. Web. 21 Oct. 2014.
“Group Blasts PETA ‘Holocaust’ Project”. CNN. Cable News Network. 28 Feb. 2003. Web. 25
Oct. 2014.
Mullins, Alisa. “Controversial ‘Save the Whales’ Billboard Swap.” PETA. People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals. 24 Aug. 2009. Web. 23 Oct. 2014.
“PETA’s History: Compassion in Action.” PETA. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
N.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2014.
Specter, Michael. “The Extremist: The Women behind the most Radical Group in America.” The
New Yorker 4 Apr. 2003. Web 23 Oct. 2014.