Reference no: EM132115356

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) uses a wide range of media channels and promotional strategies to reach different demographics. In addition to traditional media, it recently has increased its web presence on popular social media sites. The organization is known for its attention getting, sexually explicit “shock advertising” campaigns.

In 2009, PETA launched a campaign to promote vegan diets. Using billboards, the text of the ads, “Save the Whales, Lose the Blubber,” was accompanied by an overweight woman in a bikini.

It’s anti-fur campaign, “I’d rather go naked than wear fur,” featured international stars who were willing to bare their bodies.

A 2011 Super Bowl ad titled “Veggie Love” featured models with vegetables in compromising positions. It was considered too “risqué” by the networks and rejected.

For World Water Day, 2016, a PETA model spent the day showering naked in public in Miami. This was to support the organization’s pro-vegetarian platform.

Is it ethical for a nonprofit organization like PETA to use provocative “shock advertising” campaigns? Provide a rationale for your answer.

Should PETA move away from “shock” advertising and marketing? Is nudity detracting from the organization’s key message? Use an ethical theory to defend your position.

After being exposed to PETA’s various “shock” promotions, do you think consumers would be more or less knowledgeable and aware of its goals? Or, would they relate more to its controversies?

Please submit your responses in 3-5 page double-spaced, type-written documents excluding title and reference pages. Please be sure to proofread and spell-check your work before turning it in.