Advertising and the Fur Trade.
One of the benefits of an austerity period is the reduction in advertising in newspapers and magazines which during a boom period seems to increase exponentially.
I’d have no problem with advertising if it was all neatly packaged into a supplement or put together in such a way that it could be removed from the middle of the newspaper or magazine to be read later or thrown away.
Clearly the print media and especially the publishing companies rely on advertising for a major part of their income which in many cases is also needed for them to remain solvent.
Which means of course that what I and I guess many others would like to see isn’t practical for the simple reason that advertisers want and pay for their adverts to be placed against any and preferably a major story or feature.
What amazes me is the preponderance of fashion, and especially men’s fashion that has suddenly started to appear in magazines.
Where an earth has that come from?
As a teenager of the sixties men’s fashion was either, or at least to my recollection, found out about from the sleeves of LP’s, that’s Long Playing Records on vinyl for the teenagers of today, or from films.
Today it’s everywhere but why I or any man would be impressed and influenced by seeing sportsmen and celebrities posing in their underwear to the extent that I’d buy them is beyond me.
What is disturbing for those of us who opposed and continue to oppose the fur trade is the recent increase in advertising which is usually, as it was in the past a beautiful long-legged female model draped in whatever animal fur they’re trying to sell.
Given the outcry in the past whenever the fur trade was brought up it is strange that the return of the fur trade has gone by relatively unnoticed.
The other night when flicking through the numerous and I have to say mostly rubbish television channels I came across one all about a community of very rich foreign nationals who are now living in London.
OK they were Russians.
What struck me in the brief time I watched the programme was the ostentatious and unashamed display of fur coats the women were wearing the reality being of course that the fur trade has never gone away.
I wonder when the anti-fur animal activists will also re-emerge.
The argument of course by those who trade in fur is that we breed, nurture and slaughter animals for food and wear their skins in the form of leather or sheepskin so what’s the difference.
In purely practical terms there is probably no difference.
After all it is what animals are for isn’t it?
To be utilised by the humans race?
The issue then becomes a moral one and as everyone who shows the slightest interest in how society, communities and people work know that once an issue takes on a moral dimension it becomes increasingly polarised and acrimonious.
The fur trade is back.
We’ll have to wait and see what the reaction from the anti-fur activists will be but what is certain is that advertising will continue across the whole spectrum of the media but especially in the written media.