I chose this because of the way that it really tried to hit home on the fact that we are cruel to animals. This advertisement tried to take something, a human, and use it’s life to show that animals have lives also. It shows that we are eating something that is alive just like you and I. They try to control social behavior by getting people to not eat meat. They took many people and stuck them in these containers and slapped stickers that read “Human Meat” on them so that people would realize what they are actually eating. We could be eaten also and animals are just like us and we should not kill them. This is not a personal belief but the advertisement would make one think this way. There are also statistics of how many animals are killed on the label.
This advertisement tells a story of animals being killed because of the sticker that was placed on it and they take the human within the package to an extreme using blood and a very “dead-looking” position. This interactive participant is representing how meat looks when it is packaged and ready to be sold. I think that it is a good approach for this advertisement but in my opinion I think it has downsides, also. I know that I would never eat a human and I like meat, and for me it didn’t hit home as hard because I couldn’t compare the two, but for many they see animals as precious things that should not be slaughtered and this ad would work perfect for them. The way they use a human to show that animals are the same as us is a good strategy.


March 2, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Hi Brian. I am confused as to who actually designed and distributed this flag. Also, how can you offer a semiotic analysis of it by discussing the ad in terms of participants, modality, composition, etc…