If celebs influence consumers, is influencing (um, bashing!) celebs a smart strategy?

So these twin toddlers got this gig on a show and they were cute--they were toddlers, after all. And then, some twenty years later--with approximately the exact same level of acting skill as when they were toddlers--they're now not only actresses but they've launched a fashion line.

And PETA is not happy.

In fact, due to the fury over how much fur they wear--and how much fur is featured in their fashion line--the animal rights activists have launched a full-on assault, 2.0 style. You can...

• dress up the "Trollsen Twins" (instead of the Olsen Twins) in all sorts of bloody garb. Like, everything you dress them in bleeds.
• watch a video that I couldn't spend the time sitting through but I guess some heads roll.
• You can attach bloody banners to your MySpace page, or blog, bashing the beauties (like the above example).
• Or, you can take part in an email assault on their publicist.

While I wish these types of celebs would just go away (and we'd have more healthy female stars like Kate Winslet), it does beg the question (which I've not yet answered for myself):

If celebs influence consumers--and their purchasing decisions--does influencing, by way of bashing, these celebs offer a good strategy to meet objectives? Said another way, does advocacy sometimes need to get ugly...in order to get it done?

In this case, "getting it done" for PETA would mean that the twins would take fur out of their clothing line--and, I gather, stop parading around in fur in public.

From the site: "Not only is killing animals in the name of fashion cruel, it's uuugly. Some say that Hairy-Kate and Trashley are guilty of offending their fans with some major fashion boo-boos, but here at peta2, we think that's the understatement of the year! The twins' heartless decision to wear fur and include it in their new fashion line, The Row (more like "Death Row"), is worse than a fashion no-no—it's cruelty to animals. The Trollsens have ignored our pleas to stop wearing fur—and have since added horribly ugly fur items to their new clothing line. It's obvious that we need your help to convince them that wearing fur is wrong and hideous!"

I will say this, the creative is excellent, engaging consumers is smart and I was engaged with the site for at least 10 minutes (and it's a far better use of funds than the Alicia Silverstone ads PETA just ran).

Oh, I'll also say this...I never want to be on PETA's bad side.

PS: And PETA keeps it coming! To customize a snow globe holiday e-card featuring Michael Vick, The Trollsens, Kate Moss and more just go here.

Comments

[Nedra]

Shaming can be really effective if the celebrities care about maintaining a particular image, but it can also totally backfire if their fans feel like you are attacking their favorite people unfairly. I think a better approach than juvenile name-calling and put-downs is to take the tack of "you're a better person than this, and we expect more from you" (guess my inner mom is coming out here!).

A great example of going this route is the "Green my Apple" campaign that Greenpeace did to try to convince Apple to be more environmentally friendly (http://www.greenmyapple.org/). The first few lines from the website say, "We love Apple. Apple knows more about "clean" design than anybody, right? So why do Macs, iPods, iBooks and the rest of their product range contain hazardous substances that other companies have abandoned?"

Having their fans appeal to the Olsen twins' consciences and desire to be seen as good people would go a lot further than encouraging PETA members (who may already dislike them) to make them the objects of scorn and derision. But then, that's PETA's style and a kinder, gentler approach might not fit with their brand. Doesn't mean it will be effective in bringing about a change, but at least PETA will please its own fanbase with this campaign.

[Gavin Heaton]

Nedra is spot on. This sort of stuff appeals to friends of PETA but is unlikely to extend further. This is one of the challenges faced by NFPs ... how to please and rally your loyal supporters while also garnering a wider audience of sympathisers. I guess its like all marketing -- do you want to hit your KPIs or do you want to effect change? It seems that in most cases you can't do both (even when you are on the "good" side.

[Nicholas Gill]

In the celeb obsessed world I'm absolutely surprised that the "handlers" of the "Trollsen Twins" even allowed the decision to go with fur in these PC times. Good on PETA for this and for using the power of social media. And if it makes 1 person refuse to buy their fashion line then a good job is done. I though people were smarter about animal cruelty these days. Unless of course it's a great PR scam to get them into the headlines because their acting ability is truly horrendous. After anorexia, maybe a stint in rehab is next?

[Mario Vellandi]

I'm indifferent on the whole campaign - although this is very action-oriented (great!) something is missing. perhaps the channel has too many messages, the website has too many tabs...?? kill the video though

[RyanB]

I just don't think the character assault in particular adds anything to the cause... in fact, I think that will win PETA more enemies than friends. Such a no-no. This site totally feels like it was made JUST for PETA employees and volunteers, not the general public.

[CK]

Wow, great feedback. I would have a hard time unleashing such a vicious--if engaging--campaign, but it's in line with PETA.

Will it engage more support, or just make PETA's fan base more loyal? Not sure. But...I ask you to think about this, as I'm pondering it myself:

I'm understanding that this campaign is to come down hard on the Olsen's so that:

a. they stop promoting fur
b. OTHER celebs think twice about wearing fur

You see, and this is very sad, but in the U.S. we are obsessed with celebs. Fact is,their fashion decisions do start trends/influence what we wear. So, if PETA's campaign "influences" the Olsen's to stop promoting fur, perhaps, other fashion items (that don't involve fur) will be featured on celebs--and thusly fur-less trends will take hold.

I think "celebs" (all celebs, not just the Olsens) are the true "target" of PETA's campaign. They are, in essence, influencing the influencers.

It's certainly vicious but it might be effective for the target (celebs) they're targeting. Hey, I'm no celeb and I don't ever want to be on their bad side!

[David Reich]

PETA got famous by splashing red paint on people's expensive fur coats. They make their point, although they do it by destroying some else's property.

I don't have a problem with this campaign from PETA. The only thing they're damaging is an already seriously damaged reputation of these two once-adorable twins who have become terrible role models for young women.

In this case, the brand potentially being damaged is the Olsen girls' own. But it points out the big danger in aligning your product or brand with a celebrity. Risky business.

[CK]

Yeah, PETA has spilled its share of "blood". I wonder, though, if these scare tactics might make OTHER celebs think twice about their fashion choices (meaning no fur).

After all, celebs influence so much fashion with consumers. This is where I want to see if it's effective in 'influencing the influencers' (influencing meaning 'scaring' them).

As for me, I still eat meat. I don't wear fur, but I do wear leather shoes and leather briefcases.

PS: love Nedra's GreenPeace example above. Very interesting campaign and likely more where I'd go. But the PETA Trollsen site is very well done creatively.

[Lewis Green]

In defense of the Olsen twins, they actually shun celebrity status. Their current wealth comes from their business ventures. In fact, I wasn't aware they pursue acting as a career any longer.

As for PETA, I detest mean no matter the cause and believe that PETA does more harm to the animal rights and welfare cause than good.

[Tangerine Toad]

Agree with Lewis: PETA does more harm than good with these goofy campaigns.
If your message is "don't be cruel to animals" then being cruel to humans is not the answer.
Hence my favorite bumper sticker of all time:
I Support PETA. People Eating Tasty Animals.

They've set the cause of animal rights back by setting themselves up as the punch line of countless jokes.

[Edwin]

If someone is interested in this topic just go to;and let me know what you think. Your honest feedback would be greatly appreciated.