Misha Sillifant
Last Chance for Animals
The LCA (Last Chance for Animals) was founded in 1984 by actor Chris DeRose and they work for fighting and exposing the cruelty of animals. They create campaigns about lab animal transport, banning puppy mills, banning live export, fur and many more. They are funded by making donations and one donation can be made or a monthly donation of $25.00 or $35.00 or $50.00 or $100.00 can be made.
The campaign that I have decided to analyse is called ‘Fur Trade Facts’ and this title itself is a play on words being associated to Fair Trade which is an organisation which tries to make sure that everyone and everything is fair. This then suggests that the campaign that has been written isn’t about fair factors and is going to be an argument against fur and how it is collected as the word ‘fair’ has been replaced with ‘fur’. In the first sentence there has already been a fact and figure added in “Each year, approximately 50 million animals raised on fur farms around the world, which account for the majority of the world’s fur production, will be killed for their pelts”. This then gives the audience a visual and clear understanding of how exactly how many of the animals will be killed and allowed them to have something to compare it to, to know exactly how many. It also shows an accurate fact. The word “pelts”, which is another word for the fur from a skinned animal, isn’t commonly known to children suggesting that this campaign is then targeted at an adult audience.
These opening facts and figures are then followed by the visual campaigns that the LCA have produced for the Fur Trade Facts campaign. The first visual poster shows a woman lying down showing off a lot of skin with the caption saying ‘be proud of your skin’ which could allow the auidence to imagine if they were in that same position as the animals are in. The poster is trying to promote that fur is just the same as skin and if skin isn’t taken then neither should fur. The sheet that is covering the woman lying down is red which could suggest blood from when the animal has been skinned for its fur as it hasn’t just been used to cover her as it also trails along the floor beside her. She is made to be the main image and is looking directly at the audience to draw them in but the main text that stands out beside her says ‘NO 2 FUR’ in block capitals and is bold in white writing. This text is very bias as it’s saying directly ‘NO’ which shows they stand for not skinning animals for their fur, creating an argument against it. The white writing then stands out over the top of the red sheet, but has little black elements to it suggesting a grunge feeling. All the writing on this visual campaign is very clear, short and precise allowing it to be easy to understand by the short amount of text that has been used.
One of the other visual campaigns that has been included has a little more text than the other. The picture in the background is a close-up shot of an animal which is staring directly at the audience to gage attention. The visual poster is enforcing the victory at which West Hollywood CA had at being the first city in the word to: “BAN the SALE of FUR APPAREL”. The poster is a lot more subtle as it only uses black and white, however the black text on a white background stands out. This campaign is clear and it is easily known that it is going to be about an animal even before reading text. After reading the text it then becomes even more clear with the little amount of information it gives. It allows people to know that they are a campaign which want to ban the sales made from fur and what they are call for if they want to get involved. As at the bottom of the visual poster the name 'Last Chance for Animals and Animal Alliance has been writen, so they know who to visit to get involoved.
The LCA’s logo looks like a cage but with two bars bent which could be an indication of supporting this campaign and donating could help set the animals free. The reoccurring black and white is very plain and could suggest that it isn’t a happy campaign as the colours don’t suggest that. The background of the cage is black suggesting that it is a dark place for the animals, but there is a white background behind ‘LCA’ suggesting that there can be light and life for the animals after donating. The 'LCA' text is written in a bold black text which really stands out on the white background. The text of each letter are joined together which also could suggest the joining of people on this campaign. The colours are also the same colours that are used on the yin yang symbol which represents a perfect balance and peace which the LCA want to achive.
The campaign is written very informally and uses a variety of vocabulary suggesting that the article is aimed at an older audience and with the pictures it shows at the bottom of the page not being pleasant to look at also suggests it is not for children. The first and second paragraph use facts and figures to describe the size of the cage and the area that the animals kept in the farm have to move around in before they are taken to be skinned. This has been included so the audience can again visualise how small the cage actually is and how bad the conditions are. The campaign then continues to describe the conditions and leads to saying what can happen due to this confined space that they are in. This is keeping the article concise and on topic. Already by these first two paragraphs about the conditions it is obvious that it is a clear argument against and is bias.
Like I previously stated at the bottom of the page there is pictures showing what the farm looks like after the animals have been skinned and how they have been left. This is used to surprise people into understanding what the conditions are actually like. It could also be used in an emotional way as people may find the picture upsetting and be more likely to get involved and donate. Under one of the pictures it says “These helpless animals live in misery and die a horrible death. Their skinned remains are forgotten by everyone.” Which makes the audience think and the word ‘everyone’ suggests that no one is helping so they need all the help they can get.
Also in the beginning of the third paragraph it says 'Another risk to life in captivity includes' this is another reason which shows that the campaign is bias as it is only giving reasons for one side of the argument. It is including many points but they are only one sided.