Fur For Animals - Past 'anti' campaigns

Looking at a range of 'anti' campaigns will help identify the look associated with them and how to avoid it.

WWF

WWF's advertising campaign all communicate a central message of saving the environment. They use high impact photography that dominate the viewer to make it harder for the viewer to look away. The type of imagery also exploits the guilty consciousness of the viewer to effectively communicate their point across. The imagery consistently highlight man's impact on the environment and cruelty towards animals. A serious tone of voice is thus created for the campaigns.

Meat Free Week

Meat Free Week's illustrative typography, bright colours and conversational tone of voice creates a more approachable campaign for people to join in. The overall result is less confrontational and daunting than the Fur For Animals campaign. The campaign should reflect a level of 'friendliness' in order to achieve shareability and to get people behind the movement.

Anti Smoking adverts

The anti-smoking movement shares similarity in the tone of voice and look for the campaign. Both use graphic imagery to shock people into the harsh reality of the acts. Both use large high impact photography to prevent people from looking away.

The difference between the two however is that the anti smoking adverts are also seen on cigarette packaging as well. So not only are viewers educated on the reality of smoking through billboard adverts but they carry these adverts with them, serving as a constant reminder.

However these do not represent the current anti smoking advertising for cigarette packets. As of 20th May 2016 the UK initiated a plain packaging scheme that removes much of the branding and attractive colours cigarette boxes used to have.

The cigarette packs are found in a single colour - ‘Pantone 448 C opaque couché’ which according to research is the ‘world’s ugliest colour', and the brand name will be written in a standard font, size and location. New health warnings cover 60% of the pack. Tobacco companies use branding to market and to maintain brand loyalty in order to encourage people to smoke. This allowed 'premium' brands to ask for premium prices, which most consumers were willing to pay. The removal of the branding reduces this appeal.
Plain packaging's success has been documented in Australia, where the change was launched in 2012 and figures suggest that the prevalence of smoking has dropped. Furthermore the price of cigarettes have increased, making it harder for certain demographics to afford it. 

Having the adverts be placed onto the products themselves could be a possible route to take for the Fur for Animals campaign. The idea would be to have the clothes include another tag that spreads awareness of the fur farming trade. Even if the piece of clothing uses fake fur. Through this way, it uses the spending habits of consumers and uses it to gain exposure for the movement. But rather than using a shock tactic like WWF and the NHS smoking campaigns, the tag could have a more positive tone of voice that thanks the user in not buying real fur. This way the buyer feels good about not buying real fur. 

Anti Drink driving campaigns

Anti Drink Driving campaigns have used various tactics since the 1960s to lessen the number of cases. The campaign, which is most associated with THINK!, have targeted the various areas drink driving affects. What it does to the victim, the victim's family, the consequences of getting caught and how easy it is to forget your alcohol limits. As a campaign, the diverse perspectives the viewer is exposed to about the reality of drink driving means that they are better informed on the issue of drink driving, and as a result, can be more effective in deterring people from committing the act. Drink driving is a predominant issue in society which has an impact on nearly every aspect on ones life after committing. Throughout the various approaches however, THINK! maintains a serious tone of voice, which reflects the seriousness of the crime as well as bring a form of consistency across the campaign. Furthermore, this is yet another campaign that uses professional photography to communicate its message across. 

Car companies such as Fiat have also commented on the issue. In this advert, the message is a lot more implicit. Letting the viewer infer the consequences of drink driving through a clever visual metaphor. It a tactic that hits on the common notion that people don’t like to be told what to do, but rather, prefer to be enabled and helped. Having constantly told to not drink drive may not be effective as the constant reminder may lose its effect. Letting people decide for themselves can be a more effective approach as they viewer themselves make a conscious effort to prevent drink driving. 

This could be a tone of voice to use in the campaign, letting people decide for themselves to boycott the fur trade. This can only be done through more implicit communication of the main message. 

Another factor to consider is when these adverts are shown. For example, drink driving adverts are usually shown during the festive periods where drinking habits are increased. This can be evidenced through Budweiser's recent anti drink driving message using Dame Helen Mirren to slander drink drivers, which was originally intended for Super Bowl coverage.

The significance of this is that by targeting a specific period during the calendar that coincides with the fur trade for example the Copenhagen Fur Auction, it maximises exposure and relevance for he campaign. By doing so, the campaign could be retained in peoples minds better, and to an extent become an association. Just like how we are supposed to be mindful of drinking habits during festive periods.

Another campaign that is usually seen during the festive periods are the commonly seen charity adverts that ask viewers to donate a small amount to help the lives of the unfortunate. These are usually seen during Christmas as t is inferred that people are in a"giving" mood and thus more likely to donate.

However according to Co-founder of Regarding Humanity, Linda Raftree believes that adverts viewers are used to seeing of hopeless people in poverty aren’t effective in solving the issues charities are seeking to address. They don’t empower or create sustainable change, she says.
“We know that organisations need to raise funds for their work, but when it comes to such advertising and campaign imagery, they’re often acting detrimentally to their long-term goals,” says Raftree.

Therefore, the fur for Animals campaign is an opportunity to create a campaign that distances itself from the overused and associated high impact imagery of other anti campaigns. This associated aesthetic could also be detrimental to the campaign as it may make it easier for the viewer to look away. It must be noted however that these campaigns have yet to take advantage of online sharable content. Therefore the adverts seen here are specific in its look and tone of voice because of the platforms the are presented on.