The Vodafone Pug Controversy: What’s your take?
Firstly, here’s the complete ad. Take a look at it, and then read on.
Hutch did well, but the high point of its popularity was not how good its service was, but a dog… specifically a pug. The dog first showed up a few years back in Hutch ads, where it was shown as a constant companion of a little boy. There were various editions of the ad featuring the duo. The message was much the same… “Wherever you go, our network follows”.
The ads became a craze, and within weeks, every child every where wanted to own a pug. The breed began to cost more than 100% the price than it was before the ads aired. The dog became the brand mascot.
Then Vodafone acquired Hutch, and rebranded it. But they decided to keep the dog, as a reminder of what the service really stood for. Recently, Vodafone, one of the major sponsors of the much touted Indian Premier League (IPL) launched a series of ads featuring the dog, to go with the tournament.
The focus of the ad was Vodafone’s customer service, and the message: “Happy to help”. You have already seen that in the video.
Now comes the clincher. Nearly a month after the ad was launched, the Animal Welfare Board of India sent a show cause notice to Vodafone and the advertising agency who created the ads. By the way, they were shot in South Africa.
The AWBI alleges that the ad was negligent towards the health of a pug (which it refers to as a “couture dog”) when they made him run behind a school bus on a busy road. Moreover, the heat could have been damaging to the dog.
The ad agency shot back saying that there was a licensed vet at hand when the ad was shot and the dog was never in danger.
So far the argument on both sides represented valid points. But then, PETA decided to step in, and all hell broke loose. The issue was all over the news channels yesterday, and the PETA spokesperson did a poor job (IMO) of defending their stance. At the end of the day it looked like PETA sided with the AWBI because the ad makers did not get clearance from the AWBI before the ad was first aired.
The ad agency have released a statement saying that they had offered to arrange for a screening of the ad before the AWBI at their own cost, since they had to air it before the IPL started, but the AWBI did not respond. They also allege that the AWBI is being strong armed by PETA to air its own view. The matter of concern here is that the AWBI is a government organization, and PETA is a very powerful NGO, with controversial modus operandi.
What’s your take on this? Do you think this dog was put through torture to shoot for this ad?
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
This post has 3 comments
May 11th, 2008
In this day and age, it is easy to make commercials without putting animals in danger. You don’t even need expensive CGI graphics or a million dollar budget. Basic, blue screen or green screen technology which has been around for decades can suffice to make a dog look like its running in traffic. Or better yet, close off the street. I think the people making the commercial didn’t intend to harm the dog, but just weren’t thinking, unfortunately.
While i don’t think it is something to be shoved under the rug, I do think PETA tends to escalate situations for its own publicity, forgetting the matter at hand. Instead of turning it into a golden opportunity to educate film makers on safer methods, and to teach the public that a pug is not for everyone and think carefully about pet ownership, that they will surely go after the wrong fish.
I just hope there are not thousands of pugs in shelters now there because people got them because of the commercials and got sick of them, poor things.
May 19th, 2008
I’ve had one of my dogs in a movie where the dog got “hit” by a car. I was on set during the entire filming of the scene and while it sure looked like that car hit my dog, the car never even came close. I would never have allowed my dog to be put in any danger and she never was. It is way too easy to fool the human eye with a camera. I don’t have a very high opinion of PETA for lots of other things they have done and I tend to take the opposite side of any issue they are on. In this case it’s hard to say. Unless you were on set and saw exactly how the dog was treated I don’t see how you can say one way or the other. This is a tough one.
May 23rd, 2008
Chris, Flo,
I agree with both of you. I do think PETA blew this incident way out of proportion, and in this day and age, special effects make amply sure that animals are not put in harm’s way.
However, I do have a concern. I have generally observed that when it comes to expenses, Indian firms (including ad agencies) will take the cheaper way out. In this case, I do not think they used special effects.
The creative head of the agency in question in fact remarked on television: “What’s the big deal? Dogs chase everything that moves!”
Not very sensitive, or very responsible.
As far as the pug craze goes… India does not have shelters for abandoned pets. Most dogs will be allowed to stay in the house simply because they cost people an enormous amount of money.