Comments on: Offensive Shoe Ad Involving Tied Up Dog

By: pheephee35

pheephee35 — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:16:23 +0000

Guthrie — I like that antisocial morons moniker.

Their apology letter is quite thorough, and they say sorry several times. That is much better than what I got from Carl’s Jr. several years ago when they ran ads showing a guy in the laundromat putting all his clothes (he was wearing) in the machine because he thought the girl was doing the same thing. The ad ended with an upclose of his nakedness covered only by his Carl’s Jr. sack of food. Blech blech blech.

The female exec at Carl’s Jr. told me how competitive “the industry” is, and that they did the ad to get people’s attention. It was not an apology at all. I say boycott those who are so offensive.

I will likely never be able to afford their shoes any way, but if it says Exit Urban shoes, or seems to be connected in anyway, I will go barefoot before I buy them! (see my post on the cat in the luggage!)

I have gotten in the habit of writing protest e-mails to offensive companies. Our only power is the pen/keyboard!

By: Hazel Chambers

Hazel Chambers — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 21:34:27 +0000

Nell

Are you by any chance a member of Center for Consumer Freedom. They are very anti- animal welfare, animal rights, organic farming, MADD etc.

They are a front for tobacco, liquor companies, factory farms, fast food….and anyone else who object animal being treated like objects.

And they feed off people who are willing to automatically assume wrong doing and a “plot” anytime concerned people speak out about something like the Exit Urban ads.

By: Hazel Chambers

Hazel Chambers — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 21:22:19 +0000

The ad is real and offensive. Equally offensive is the knee-jerk response of Nell that is this was just another plot by “animal rights” people.

A very simple internet search would have shown that the ads were very real.

There are people who go over the line in evey field of interest…and that includes animals…and this inclues animal welfare and animal rights.

This does not mean;however, that the issues they are concerned with are not real.

By: shibadiva

shibadiva — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 15:35:27 +0000

Angela, thanks for the Snopes link. That and the pigeon ad also crossed the line. What’s going on in the dungeons of Ogilvy & Mather?

Maybe Jan Van Aken should take a closer look at some of his creatives. Where do they get their ideas for this “cutting edge competitive” garbage?

Oh and pulleeeeaze, Ford, don’t blame it on an internet leak.

By: Angela

Angela — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 03:05:22 +0000

Not sure if anyone else commented about this, but they also had a tv ad a while ago in Europe that showed a cat being decapitated by the sunroof of the car they were advertising. They intended it to be funny, but I think it was completely over the line.

I think I’ll also be writing to Ford to tell them that I don’t appreciate their choice of ad agencies

I found it on snopes.com: http://www.snopes.com/photos/a.....portka.asp

By: shibadiva

shibadiva — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 00:59:38 +0000

If anyone cares to pursue this with the advertising regulatory board in Belgium (even though the case is old, it could improve standards), their email is info@jepbelgium.be

By: Denise

Denise — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:56:00 +0000

Lisamin I don’t get it either you are not the only one. it just looks terrible for the poor dog what’s wrong with people.

By: lisamin

lisamin — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 01:01:04 +0000

I guess I’m slow, but I don’t understand what the gist of the ad is…I don’t mean that I think it’s acceptable, I just mean I don’t know what it’s trying to convey. So, it’s incomprehensible AND offensive, how smart!

By: Denise

Denise — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:52:40 +0000

I am at work but I will write tomorrow. this is abuse at its finest. good job everyone and thanks for the information. Denise

By: mittens

mittens — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:18:36 +0000

of course fashion photographers for years have been placing women in the exact same position to allegedly sell clothing . and they’re ‘artists’ and ‘ visionaries’ and they now get retrospectives at the whitney.

By: l.g.

l.g. — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:03:32 +0000

Not only is it a horrible photo, but I just don’t get it. What’s the connection? How’d they come up with this and who in their right mind would approve it to be circulated???

By: Carolyn & Maggie

Carolyn & Maggie — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:37:39 +0000

If that were a baby, a child, a human of any kind, it would be considered a sick sick ad. Why did they think using an animal is acceptable, even witty? The idea that this would SELL their product is beyond me. It is still a sick sick ad.

By: Guthrie

Guthrie — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:06:03 +0000

I am also sending e-mails to clients of Ogilvy, such as Coke, Ford, Dove, Nestle!, etc. I don’t think they should be using such an agency. I don’t want the money I spend on those products supporting such antisocial morons.

By: Claudia

Claudia — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:46:11 +0000

As a graphic designer in the business for 10 years, I seriously don’t know what possessed the ad company to create this offensive ad other than it gets your attention and created controversy. Even though this might not have been an actual dog that was used in the photograph, the mere idea reinforces the “it’s just an animal” attitude among many and sets us animal lovers back decades. Sad.

By: shibadiva

shibadiva — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:27:03 +0000

Here’s the Ad Krispies link.

http://adkrispies.blogspot.com.....shoes.html