Ink Not Mink

This week PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of animals published a story about rocker Dave Navarro from the band Jane's Addiction. The story was paired with PETA's latest campaign "Ink not Mink" in which Dave posed completely nude in an effort to reduce the sales of fur. Dave paints a vivid picture, in the article, of the cruel and inhumane ways animals are stripped of their fur for society's desire to look fashionable, "These animals are often still conscious as they have their pelts peeled off their writhing bodies and can be heard screaming in pain." A graphic case is presented against the slaughtering of animals for their fur. One which many already know is inhumane. However does Dave Navarro posing nude get the point across clearer? Only those who visit PETA's website will read Dave's article and hear his reasoning while the rest of us will rely on the shock value of his nude ads.

It may be a good advertising technique but the article made me wonder how likely is it that someone will forgo a new mink jacket because a member of Jane's Addiction bared all for PETA. He isn't the only one either. This month alone, women from the TV show The Real Housewives of New York and Twilight star Kellan Lutz both participated in ads for PETA. I'd like to get your thoughts on how effective you find this type of marketing.

I think it's more of a novelty then anything. So many "celebrities" have posed nude for PETA at this point, that it seems more like a publicity stunt then support for a cause. Take for example, Stephanie Pratt from the TV show The Hills,who recently posed for PETA. Stephanie isn't even a vegetarian. Makes the ad effective right? To look at other celebrities who have bared all for animal rights you can check out http://www.peta.org/.