Vegetable Foreplay?

Let me begin this post by saying publicly that I do not now, nor have I ever, had any personal animosity toward vegetarians. Some of my friends and several members of my (extended) family don’t eat meat for various reasons; some because of the undoubted social, environmental and medical benefits of a vegetarian diet and others because they just don’t like it very much. As with most other forms of personal conviction, I am more than happy to respect anyone’s beliefs on the sole condition that they return the favor. Which is probably why I’m so amused by NBC’s refusal to air the most recent PETA ads because they fail to meet FCC guidelines – or the Network’s own standards…

A story being reported in the New York Post states that NBC has refused to air the commercial message PETA wanted to run during the Super Bowl, which extolled the sexual benefits of a meat-free diet, because the television spot included scantily-clad females being “too intimate” with various vegetables and fruits. Quite apart from the obvious First Amendment issues raised by this story (exactly what is protected speech, and at what point should legislated morality take priority?), I was immediately struck by two other burning questions: Who, exactly is this ad targeting, and why on Earth would anyone convert to a vegetarian lifestyle because of a television spot featuring (presumably) comely women and produce?

One assumes that ads featuring scantily-clad women are aimed primarily at men (and a specific group of women), and that these people would be the targets of this particular appeal. I can’t speak for the women, of course, but for the most part, the primary concern that (heterosexual) men have on viewing a woman in revealing costume is not whether she eats meat. I supposed it is possible that a very small number of viewers might actually be attracted to a woman based on her eating habits, but I can’t imagine that element of our society is large enough to justify the cost of a Super Bowl ad. As to the content of the spot, we all know that sex sells, but it seems far-fetched to expect anyone to accept the premise that “if you stop eating meat, women like these will want to sleep with you,” which is the presumptive message in this case. It actually seems more likely that some of the flashy cars and/or personal grooming products that are advertised in this fashion would improve your chances more than a dietary change – and none of those claims seems particularly likely…

Which leaves only a few other possible explanations. One is that PETA has been using this same marketing approach on-line for several years now, presumably with some measure of success, and they believe that expanding their audience in this fashion will pay off. Unless they can specifically identify increases in membership (or at least in vegetarian lifestyles) as being associated with this form of advertising, however, it still seems like a waste of money and time…

A much more likely explanation is that PETA was hoping for precisely the chain of events which has actually happened: that their television spot would be rejected by the network censors, the story would be picked up by news agencies all over the Internet, and their message would be viewed by millions of people – and best of all, that they would never have to shell out the huge cost of a Super Bowl ad. If so, then we must conclude that the PETA people are much smarter than we had previously believed…

But if they think this is going to generate any mass conversions to their cause OR their lifestyle, they’re still likely to be disappointed…