In another disasterous marketing move, PETA further uses its non-inclusive brand strategy to alienate people who eat fish. Although those people might very well support other causes PETA fights for, they’re not welcome. You can check out this post to learn more about that issue, but today, let’s talk about PETA’s idea to rebrand fish as “sea kittens” with the hope that a cute name for a species lower on the food chain will cause fewer people to eat it.
Why not? Tuna is already known as Chicken of the Sea.
I couldn’t help but think of that line from Seinfeld when I heard about this one, “It’s gold, Jerry. Gold.”
Of course, you know I’m being sarcastic.
I do wonder though why PETA stopped with sea kittens. Why not sea gerbil for shrimp or sea bunny for lobster?
Your thoughts? Oh, and if you want to read about PETA’s reasoning and defense of its rebranding attempt, and read some really amusing comments from children and members of the fish and wildlife industry, you can follow the link to read the full article on NPR.org. It’s worth a laugh, but I don’t think it’s going to help PETA very much, and I say that as a person who doesn’t eat fish.
By the way, do you think if the bird and snake in the above pictures knew they were eating sea kittens they’d still eat those fish in their respective claws and mouth?
Scott says
I about spit out my coffee when I read this and the original NPR article. Are they insane?!? Good one on the sea gerbils and sea bunnies…
I’m reminded of a scene in the movie “Notting Hill” where Hugh Grant is hving dinner with different women to meet someone suitable. One of them proclaims to be a “fruitarian”; she only eats fruits & vegetables that have fallen to the ground and are considered “dead”. Hugh Grant points to the boiled carrots at the dinner table and says “So these carrots…?”, “Murdered” she says, “How ghastly” he comments.
I think PeTA should branch out to other living things.