A controversial PETA ad that compared eating fish to eating cats has been cleared by the ASA despite concerns over its ‘gruesome’ and ‘graphic’ nature.
The animal rights group’s out-of-home billboard featured a traditional supermarket sea food counter scene, with an image of a dead cat superimposed into a smiling fishmonger’s hands.
Elisa Allen, a PETA vice president, explained that although fish are “animals with feelings who can experience pain just as much as our animal companions can”, they get awful treatment, as “fishers haul them out of the ocean, causing them to suffocate, and gut them while they’re still conscious”.
The campaign aimed to serve as a reminder that “sea animals all have a will to live and don’t want to die for human dinners”.
Repulsed by the prospect of eating cat flesh?
Extend that compassion to fish and ALL other animals 🐟#endspeciesism #govegan pic.twitter.com/Rt1nd1GlIG
— PETA UK (@PETAUK) April 26, 2023
Even though the ad was the subject of ten complaints, it was eventually cleared as the ASA did not believe the portrayal of the dead cat was gruesome and suggested the image is unlikely to be interpreted as ‘realistic’ by members of the public.
The ASA recognised that while some might find the ad distressing and offensive, its context as part of an animal justice charity’s awareness campaign and its promotion of veganism was reasonable.
Subscribe to Marketing Beat for free
Sign up here to get the latest marketing news sent straight to your inbox each morning
An ASA spokesperson said: “The ASA 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 likely 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.”
