Peta ‘dead cat’ advert not in breach of marketing code, guard dog guidelines

In the world of politics, a ‘dead cat’ is a technique utilized by political leaders to direct attention far from a concern by providing something a lot more stunning. But in the eyes of questionable animal rights charity Peta, a dead cat is a method of motivating more individuals to go vegan – obviously.

Back in April, the organisation revealed it had actually installed a signboard ad in the seaside town of Cleethorpes, in Lincolnshire. The post revealing the advert featured a heading that made the argument that “eating a fish is like eating a cat”.

The charity composed: “From one angle, you may see a smiling fishmonger holding a dead fish, but from another, she is holding a dead cat.

“This unsettling sight has been erected by Peta to provide locals with food for thought.

“Fish – like cats and other animals – are intelligent, sensitive individuals. If you wouldn’t eat your animal companion, go vegan and don’t eat sea life.”

At the time, the campaign was mocked by users online – not least since cats… well… consume fish:

And while some believed the advert was silly, others believed it was traumatic, to the degree that 10 grievances were made to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) about the nature of the advertisement and whether it was “excessively distressing” and most likely to “cause serious and widespread offence”.

The plaintiffs likewise questioned whether the advertisement was “responsibly targeted”, provided it remained in a public location – near a fish and chip shop – where “children could see it”.

When approached by the ASA for an action as part of its examination, Peta said the advertisement planned to “promote veganism by challenging the societal tendency to treat animals merely as a means of fulfilling human desires”, which it looked for to “question the widespread assumption that certain species were more deserving of compassion than others”.

The judgment continues: “[Peta] felt that those preconceptions were evident from the complaints themselves, given the ad had featured two dead animals, while only the cat’s depiction had been seen as having the potential to cause distress.

“They said that the cat’s portrayal was not graphic and had been carefully designed to minimise any risk of distress. It was not depicted with any external wounds, or other outward indicators of injury or suffering.

“They said that the ad’s portrayal of dead animals was justified by the urgency with which society ought to address the moral and environmental harms linked to commercial fishing.”

The charity likewise argued that kids “frequently encountered dead animals in everyday contexts”, providing the grocery store as an example.

Meanwhile Global, the business which owns the signboard, said they had actually looked for assistance from the copy suggestions group at the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) – the organisation which prepares the marketing code marketers are anticipated to follow.

The CAP discovered it was not likely to breach the Code, and Global included it did not break their own standards, they didn’t receive a problem themselves, and the signboard was no longer on display screen.

In their evaluation, the ASA said: “[We] acknowledged that some viewers would find the ad unsettling or distasteful. However, we considered that viewers would understand that the ad was for an animal justice charity, promoting the vegan diet, and that it aimed to challenge societal norms regarding the moral significance of meat consumption.

“We considered that the cat’s depiction was neither gruesome, nor shocking, and was unlikely to be considered particularly realistic by most viewers. On that basis, we considered that viewers, including children, were unlikely to regard the image as relatively mild.

“For that reason. We concluded that the ad was not excessively distressing, or likely to cause serious or widespread offence, and had not been irresponsibly targeted.”

Sign up to our totally free Indy100 weekly newsletter