The Effectiveness of Violent Ads Towards Wildlife - Research Paper Example

? Wildlife violence ads Lecturer This paper seeks to present the effectiveness of violent ads towards wildlife and their buy in idea. The ad tries to convey the message to the perpetrators of wildlife violence and the pain it causes to the owner of the animals. Violence can be defined as an intentional use of physical power or force, actual or threatened, against a group, person or community resulting into death, injury, psychological harm, deprivation, or mal-development. The intentionality of committing violence is associated with the act itself without regarding the resultant outcome. The use of power or physical force in the description of violence widens its nature and broadens its conventional mastery to include acts that result from intimidation, power relationship and threats. The inclusion of power in the definition also includes acts of omission or neglect, as well acts of commission. Thus, physical force in this definition should be used and understood to cover aspects of sexual, physical, psychological abuse, and neglect as well as acts of abuse and suicide. Violence adverts are often classified into broad categories depending on the target group. Some of the famous classifications include: gender violence, where a fight involves a male and a female party; sexual violence, where either male or female is forced to have sexual advances with either of the parties; domestic violence, where there is a fight at family level involving husband and wife or children (Jones, 1996). This paper hence seeks to criticize violence ads involving the mentioned classifications. In this ad, the tiger is at gun point. This shows how people kill the animals without any cause. However, sometimes the killings result from personal defense which is not effectively presented in this ad of wildlife violence. Human beings are depicted as the aggressors. They are often implicated in assigning an violent actions to the wildlife. This is what this ad presents. It shows that the person holding the tiger at gun point is doing so without a proximate cause. Its like that was his main aim. On the other hand, the wildlife violence ad presents tiger as a humble animal without any harm or scare. It is like the tiger was not concerned with the person, and therefore it it’s the person’s fault to shoot a tiger that is innocent and not interested in attacking him at any point. These adverts mostly read “people kill animals.” Other people have even associated wildlife violence with masculinity in various studies involving popular culture. Other scholars have suggested in such ads that the substitution of desire with violence has become a predominant aspect of pleasure construction. The adverts also connect aggression with violence against wildlife. It is difficult to find fair wildlife ads without human beings being implicated as the aggressors. Violence is generalized in most ads and indicates that animals are the ones targeted with bane and killing. Ads have been associated with shock due to the claims by some people that products are sold best in saturated markets with shock. Therefore majority of wildlife violence ads are a mere reflection of consumer shock desire. This makes the wildlife activists shocked that the actions in the ads really exist. They also indicate animals to be the ones targeted in the violence ads by human beings, they fails to consider that in most cases, the killing may be out of fear or defense. Hence, the ad seeks sympathy for the tiger from consumers (Kellerman, 2005). In this ad of wildlife violence, the tiger seems to be in its own business in the jungle, but the person is implicated as the perpetrator. The message to human beings in this ad is to “take an active role to protecting wildlife and creating a good human wildlife relationship without violence.” People are also urged in this ad to observe the need for respect in relationships with the wildlife. The ad effectively presents how the wildlife are targeted by human beings without any cause. In fact the ad appeals emotionally to people to stop the act and embrace wildlife preservation. A definitive aim of wildlife violence free society is to change the landscape of media and do away with ads that implicate animals as strict carnivores that will attack human beings on sight. This will ensure that the ad alters specifically both the physical and psychological approach to wildlife. The ad does not even give a cause and effect relationship of the wildlife violence. There is nothing mentioned about the images in the ads on the lives and relationships between the tiger and the person holding the gun. These are things that the ad could ideally put into considerations, however, it assumed that the target group of consumers would infer. The ads that are currently present in the society have a great impact on our psychological mastery of wildlife violence. Some films have also indicated a bad image on the ads. Some of these films indicate that it is alright to kill an animal. This is not alright in a democratic society where animals are also subjected to some fundamental rights. However, marketers and advertisers believe that shocking images make products sell more than those less shocking products. The image in the ad is shocking enough and this will make it sell among consumers as everyone would feel that the tiger is at risk of losing its life with no proximate cause and that the person is on the wrong side and do not have any sympathy (Jones, 1996). Anti wildlife violence ads is another point of interest. It appears in the ad that the person has a personal interest in killing the tiger. Today a group of wildlife rights activists are protesting towards killing of animals. Most of the wildlife violence ads do encourage the target audience to always provide protection to the wildlife due to their presumed benefits to the society. The ads discourage animal killing and raises awareness of wildlife preservation among people. In the majority of cases, wildlife activists only place ads of human beings killing animals. At no instance do we see an ad that encourages people to protect fellow human beings from animals.. Therefore, the resources of wildlife violence ads should be made clearly available in the ads to both human beings and animals since human beings are also attacked by these animals in most cases which are assumed by the wildlife rights activists. Therefore, the ads should be placed in such a way that both animals and human beings are seen as victims and no particular species dominates a side of victim or perpetrator (Kellerman, 2005). In summary, the ads involving wildlife violence have always implicated human beings as the aggressors and perpetrators of such violence. For instance in this ad, the person is presented as one who aims to shoot and innocent tiger without cause. Who knows, maybe it could be a defense mechanism or something. This should never be the case because today animals attack people and feast on them and this is not featured in any wildlife violence ads, therefore all ads should focus on eliminating the vice and not implication one particular species as the victim or perpetrator. References Jones, M. (2005). Wildlife Preservation, Geneva: WHO Kellerman, J. (1996). Violence against wildlife and its causes. London: Prentice Hall. Read More