Friday, August 31, 2007

Using sex to sell conservation

Is it ok to use sexy images to promote conservation? Wildcoast has an ad campaign designed to save turtles by going where most groups are afraid to go.

Check out the sexy pitch person in this ad, noting that her man doesn't need turtle eggs. Turtle eggs are eaten as an aphrodisiac, and the campaing hopes to reduce poaching, such as this large arrest in Mexico of poachers with 57,000 turtle eggs.

Feminists are not happy with the campaign because they believe it disrespects women.

Does it work? The ads are certainly getting publicity for turtle conservation. But is that kind of publicity helpful? Or does it do more harm than good, even if it saves turtles? Now about that ad promoting marine protected areas...

5 comments:

Nazurith said...

"Or does it do more harm than good, even if it saves turtles?"

lol, saving turtles?! of course it does more harm than good!

SC Sustainable said...

Wow, I totally disagree. I think it does way more good than harm. It's a phenomenal ad campaign that takes the issue mainstream and gets people talking. I don't think they've gone too far. As a woman, and one who knows a woman that works for Wildcoast, I love it! Now I'm racking my brain for new sustainable seafood ad campaign ideas...

Tim Yang said...

The campaign was run two years ago. According to Wildcoast, it did more good than harm.

Quote:
"The campaign reached a global audience of 300 million and resulted in the decrease in the consumption of sea turtle meat and eggs."

But I couldn't find any follow-up news item to support that.

Mark Powell said...

Thanks for the comments. With the large global audience, I think it was probably worth it overall, especially for reaching the turtle-consuming public that was the target. It's all about who's the audience.

Jason said...

"How many people must poach turtle eggs/
before they see that they still can't please their women"

The answer is swimming in the sea:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIctmQY9sa4