The fight against fur was at its peak when supermodels such as Naomi Campbell and Cindy Crawford posed with an "I'd rather go naked than wear fur" placard in 1994. Their influence as megastars in pop culture meant wide exposure and it became socially taboo to wear fur.
According to the article, Britain's fur trade is back and thriving. Serving a new generation of customers.
An investigation by The Independent on Sunday has revealed that more than a thousand tons of fur worth £41m came into Britain last year. The British Fur Trade Association claims that retail sales of fur have risen by a third in two years. In London, one furrier, Hockley, is reporting a 45 per cent increase in business. Global sales of fur reached a record £6.6bn in 2005, according to the International Fur Trade Federation.
The Independent also highlights a future anti-fur campaign from RSPCA. This would be a good area to research to understand different perspectives on the matter and to help the fur for animals campaign to stand out.
A quote by an RSPCA spokesperson shed light on what customers buy the fur for, "Although full mink coats may be still ethically out of bounds, the fur industry is going for trim and trinkets." The act of buying smaller smaller pieces of fur reduces the guilt consciousness of the consumer.
Animal activist groups often blame the fashion industry for keeping the fur trade relevant. Major General Peter Davies, The World Society for the Protection of Animals director general, is calling for a boycott of fur, blaming the fashion industry for fuelling a rise in sales "by flaunting it all over the catwalk".
However, not all designers share the same sentiment. Stella McCartney, in an interview with this newspaper, said, "There's nothing fashionable about a dead animal that has been cruelly killed just because some people think it looks cool to wear. The continuing use of fur is still a real problem in the fashion industry and there is an issue with people out there assuming that fur trim is fake when most of it is real." Using high profile fashion designers to criticise the fur trade can help influence the younger generation to not buy into the allure of wearing fur.
Despite this, high profile designers such as Jean Paul Gaultier, Prada, and Roberto Cavalli regularly celebrate fur in their catwalk shows and defy the attentions of animal rights activists. As a result the new generation has grown up without being exposed to the mass-media shock advertising campaigns that helped launch the anti-fur movement in the 80s.
The article also highlights one of the main problems to the rising fur trade. issues like climate change and global poverty have taken centre stage and have left fighting for fur to dwindle in exposure. This lack of exposure has allowed the fur trade to slowly rise again. "I think there has been a fall-off in consciousness and fur has crept back insidiously," said the style commentator Peter York. "Fur trim is just a texture; it is not a pelt or mass of pelts, and simply does not look like fur." Therefore the shareability of the campaign is crucial as worldwide exposure of the message will help bring back anti-fur into everyday consciousness.
From an undercover investigators view, the wire cages impact the minks the most. They are small and offer no real movement for the mink. They become slower than their wild counterparts and as a result a direct link to their poor living conditions. This could possibly be a motif to use in the ad campaign to communicate the living conditions of these animals everyday.
An article by National Geographic on why the fur trade is rising
Similarly to The Independent's article, Nat Geo state that "In truth, getting past the killing doesn’t seem like much of an issue anymore." This agrees with the point of how anti-fur messages are losing exposure in pop culture. Fashion designers who were “afraid to touch it” 15 or 20 years ago have also “gotten past that taboo,” said Dan Mullen, a mink farmer in Nova Scotia.
The article also targets the audience fur caters to now, "fur has gone hip-hop and Generation Z. It turns up now in all seasons and on throw pillows, purses, high heels, key chains, sweatshirts, scarves, furniture, and lampshades." and "increased demand from the newly wealthy in China, South Korea, and Russia." "Chinese consumers now buy almost half the world’s fur products."
The article does however lack in a biased opinion on the anti-fur movement. Rather than give two side of the coin, the article only illustrates the improved conditions of these animals face from new breeders due to new regulations. It creates a skewed view of the topic that makes the actual reality of these animals 'easier to swallow'. The main message Fur For Animals want to communicate is that ethical fur does not exist, no matter the improvement in the living conditions.
The article suggests another way the fur trade has risen, stating that the industry has specifically attracted designers when the anti-fur movement was at its peak. That way, each has experience with the material. "The ambition was for all designers to have 'flirted with the material' early in their careers, said Julie Maria Iversen of Kopenhagen Fur. The aim has always been to move beyond furrier shops and fur departments, and make fur just another fine fabric, available wherever clothes are sold." By offering new and alternative ways to sell fur, the associated "fur fatwa" of wearing large pieces of fur is lost in the new generation of customers. It becomes a way for people to be introduced into buying fur and subsequently start a trend that leads them to buying larger pieces. “We start with the young consumer buying a fur key ring, then maybe a little later she has more money for a fur bag,” she said. “Eventually she buys a full coat.” It’s “all part of the agenda, to inspire the upcoming generation of women.”
Lastly, the author suggests that the banning of fur does not effectively stop the industry from producing nor stop people from buying. It merely shifts to areas where rules don't apply. Therefore the campaign could take a more preventive tone of voice rather than try to provide a cure. To educate the new generation of the unethical practices of fur farming than to try and prevent it from reaching consumers.
No comments:
Post a Comment