Verizon Wireless pit-bull ad unleashes flurry of complaints
Humane Society, ASPCA say dogs depicted unfairly in LG Dare spots; marketer will keep airing them
July 22 2008 - 11:29 am ET | Sherry Mazzochi | Advertising Age
Comment on this story
Animal-rights groups protest pits' portrayal in ad.
Verizon Wireless has stepped into a steaming pile of complaints from animal lovers over commercials for its LG Electronics Co. Ltd. Dare phone, but the marketer is sticking with the 30-second spot.
The commercial shows a young man trying to obtain the phone by climbing a junkyard fence, when he is instantly greeted by two pit bulls. The dogs, with cropped ears and metal choke collars, bark ferociously and lunge at the intruder. They are just a hair's breadth away from the phone because their heavy metal chains do not quite extend far enough.
The spot has infuriated groups from the Humane Society of the U.S. — which has asked Verizon to pull the ad — to PETA, the ASPCA and dozens of pet-related Web sites, which have posted petitions and message boards on the web protesting the ad with slogans like "Can They Hear Us Now?"
'Despicable'
Veterinarian Susan Ralston sent Advertising Age her letter of complaint to Verizon, which says, in part: "I don't know what your company was thinking. I don't know how much money was wasted on this despicable ad. Perhaps you should donate the million or so spent on that 'creative' to pit-bull rescue in an attempt to undo the damage. I switched my BlackBerry to T-Mobile. Maybe if enough folks do the same, it'll get your attention."
Brenda Raney, a spokesperson for Verizon Wireless, said the ads were never intended to offend. There are two ads that focus on the Dare, she said; the other depicts a woman on a ledge. "These are fictional ads, designed to be over-the-top, to break through the clutter and get our message across." Verizon is not pulling the spots, she said. Interpublic Group of Cos.' McCann Erickson, New York, is Verizon's agency and created the ad.
Inappropriate and inaccurate
Kathy Bauch, senior director-corporate relations and promotion at the Humane Society, said the ad could further inflame an already outstanding prejudice against pit bulls. "We understand why advertisers use stereotypes. It resonates and people get the point," she said. "But this perpetuates the idea that it is OK to chain dogs and it is OK to have guard dogs."
Mary Harwelik, founder and director of The Real Pit Bull, an education and advocacy organization, said, "This is big news in the pit-bull world. People are outraged." Describing the ad as inappropriate and inaccurate, she said, "Pit bulls are not guard dogs and they were never meant to be guard dogs."
A statement released by the ASPCA in response to the ads says, "These dogs can make wonderful additions to a family. The public also showed their support for the evaluation and rehabilitation of the pit bulls rescued from the Michael Vick case, suggesting that they are ahead of the corporate world in their understanding of pit bulls."
Pit bulls often victims
Vick, former quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons, was convicted last year on counts of illegal dog-fighting. When authorities raided his home, they found 66 dogs, including 50 pit bulls. While two of the dogs were eventually euthanized, many have been rehabilitated and adopted. Vick is serving a 23-month sentence at the United States Penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kan., and still faces gambling charges upon his release.
"These dogs are often the victims of abuse," said Adam Goldfarb, animal-companion-issues specialist at the Humane Society.
Bauch said the Humane Society only rarely asks companies to pull ads. The last time was in 2004, when Energizer ran a spot that depicted a mother expressing displeasure at finding a cat in the dryer that had been put there by her son. Energizer complied and replaced the scene.
Sherry Mazzochi is a reporter for Advertising Age, a sister publication to RCR Wireless News. Both publications are owned by Crain Communications Inc.
Advertising Age
August 16, 2008 06:23 am
I've removed everything from LG from my website http://www.videophone.nu
July 29, 2008 06:00 am
Ashley shouldn't be comparing blacks to dogs. There's your real racism. Dogs are not people, they have instinctual behavior people don't. That's why you don't have to raise or train a pit bull to fight and kill, it's in the genes. So let's recap: Ashley the Vet Tech and Pit Bull Owner (is it just me or does every pit bull owner claim to be a vet tech?) is a racist who doesn't know the finer points about her own dog. That's why pit bulls need restrictions Ashley, so we can be protected from your lack of knowledge and your dog.
July 26, 2008 06:00 am
Ok, Here is the problem I have with all of this. Yes, it would only be right for them to pull that commercial. If it was depicting a black person in a negative way the whole world would be in an uproar. It is racism. Doesn't matter if you like pits or don't like pits. Racism is wrong...period. In my years as a vet tech, I have been bitten by 2 poodles, a cocker spaniel, I have been growled at by a black lab, and the other day my in-laws golden retriever was ready to rip my 1 year olds face off. Never once have I been shown aggression by a pit bull. But I won't argue on one point. As calm, sweet, and submissive as my pit bull is to ANY person or animal, I would highly doubt he would have thought twice about ripping that golden retriever in two if he would have saw him try to harm my son. Another thing I HALF agree on is there needs to be regulations on pit bulls. Not only for peoples sake, but for the dogs sake. If you take two aggressive goldens, what are you probably going to create? More aggressive goldens. That is the problem. It's not pit bulls themselves. It's who's breeding them and what they're breeding. There are PLEANTY of nice goldens out there, as there are pit bulls also. But due to the fact that pit bulls are used for fighting, and people ARE trying to breed them to be mean, there should be a law where pit bull owners must have their dogs registered, and breeders of pits must have a special license complete with random inspections. The dogs being bred should be at least 3 years old, and have been professionally temperment tested. It should be mandatory that all are spayed/neutered by 6 months unless you have this license. Otherwise you get a nice sized fine and possibly the removal of your pet to be placed in a rescue. But seeing there are SO many people BREEDING them to be mean, it says something for the pit bull that there are so many that are great family pets. AND STAY THAT WAY UNTIL THEY DIE. As for the person who said "pain excites them". Yes, I suppose if that's how they were raised. If they know they have to prepare to fight...it would excite them. Maybe not because they like it, but it's a survival instinct. All I know is if my pit bull accidentally gets hurt somehow, he will sulk in a corner for at least a good hour. He does not get excited and go on a rampage. So please think of alternatives if you want to put restrictions on pit bulls. Don't cause someone to loose what may be a HUGE part of their family. But think of ways to help both yourselves AND the dogs. It's not their fault people have done this. Don't ask to have them banned.
July 25, 2008 06:52 am
I am switching to Verizon out of distain of Peta. Keep the add!!!!!!! Eat meat!!!!!!! Be Happpy. Wear Fur!!!! I personally eat bacon cheeseburger, just to eat 2 animals.
July 25, 2008 06:52 am
How many takes did it take for Verizon to get the Pitbulls to chase like that. I'm guessing 1.
July 25, 2008 06:52 am
Peta should protest the Chicago Bears for the abuse handed to them every Sunday in the fall. Then Lions, then panthers. Then people can protest mascot names more. What a crazy pathetic society we live in. Boo freaking whoooo.
July 25, 2008 06:52 am
Why would people portray the pit bull as a dangerous creature.... Maybe the 5 times a year their local news has a story where the nicest pitbull ever, kills a child or adult. Grow up people it's a stereotype that exists for a reason. I think you should be able to own them, but if it kills someone you lose your life too. Moronic. Everyone thinks theirs Pit is different, then you see them on the news looking like an absolute idiot.
July 25, 2008 06:04 am
I see both sides of the story and I don't oppose one or the other, but I do have opinions on both of them. To start lets talk about the reasons why Verizon posted this ad. One of the reasons I believe is that the advertisement of the new phone. Who wouldn't want a new phone? But do you want it bad enough to get bitten by dogs? The reason for this ad is to emulate that the phone is hot enough that your willing to get bitten by dogs. Which comes to my mind the I-Phone... People were in line for hours and were willing to stand the heat and weather just for a simple phone. Regardless of what the torture is people are willing to risk something to get that phone. I believe that this is the reason for the advertisement. Secondly, I don't believe that the animal was tortured for this ad. Every company has a legal department and I believe that every advertisement needs to be approved before it can be seen through TV. So, I don't believe that animal torture was the main cause of this ad, on the other hand, I don't believe that animals should be tortured, but I do believe that animals can be trained to be agressive only when commanded to. In other words, the argument you guys are making is that if an animal is agressive towards a human and has a leash does it resemble torture to the animal? No. Not just because the animal has a leash on it and trying to attack a human does it resemble torture to the animal. Regardless, if the animal had a leash on it or not, the animal could be trained to do the same thing. Hello people we are talking about professionals not people who are not aware of legal issues. The organizations created to protect the animals are ment to punish the people who are abusing and torturing their animals... I don't know but I don't believe that the animals was tortured in this ad.
July 24, 2008 10:17 pm
Holy fleabite, Batman!A well-bred pit is by nature exciteable, submissive to humans, pain-insensitive. When he does feel pain, it excites him rather than worries him. These qualities can certainly lead to a dangerous animal, if not handled well, although they can also make for an incredibly playful, loyal pet.Now consider a haphazardly-bred pit, who may have had dog-agro bred in over and over. Of course ya got a recipe for problems, especially to other dogs and kids small enough to be taken for canid-like beings.I kinda like the slobbery critters. Obnoxious as they are, it's hard not to when you meet 'em. And I really don't think it's fair to 'em to just condemn 'em outta hand. I think we should neuter anyone caught breeding fighters or abusing 'em. Especially if they sell 'em as 'pets.'