In class we were shown the video made by Greenpeace about KitKat chocolate bars using palm oil and disrupting the homes of the orangutan. When the man in the advertisement opened the package I knew that something like the finger of a orangutan would appear, but never did I though “blood” would spew out when he ate it. I don’t consider myself to be easily disturbed, but that was really gross and distrubing. Of course, seeing how Nestle was forced to make a statement of how they would change their ways shows how successful this advertisement was.
My point of view: Yes, these types of commercials are extremely effective, but should groups like Greenpeace make these advertisements? I have mixed feelings about this question. I consider myself as a environmentally-conscious and animal-conscious person. I care about the environment and how animals are being treated. On one hand, I am very happy that the marketing campaign was very successful and forced Nestle to stop what they’re doing, but on the other hand, I don’t think it was necessary to create such an extreme advertisement. It was wrong to replace the KitKat bar with a finger and especially with fake blood inside it. I think morally, it was wrong to do so, but I can also see how people can argue that it was because of these two factors that made the campaign so successful. In conclusion, advertisements like these do draw a lot of people’s attentions, but those who were already involved would’ve been aware of these types of problems long before. If these groups could spend more time educating the public, then they would have more long-term support than those one time marketing advertisement successes.
