Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way.

Which Fish Billboard Is Better?

Written by PETA | August 7, 2007

PETA Files reader Nancy Winebarger just sent me her own version of the Mercury Poisoning fish billboard I wrote about last week. Here’s what she said:

“I saw the blog today about the Mercury Poisoning billboard being rejected based on the image used, so I thought I’d pass along an idea for something that might be a bit more palatable to the squeamish.”

I think both concepts do a great job of alerting people to the issue in a way that grabs your attention in a different way. I’ve posted both Nancy’s and PETA’s version below—which one do you like better?

Drain_Bamage.jpg
Brain_damage.jpg

Related Posts

Respond

Comments

Post a Comment

If your comment doesn't appear right away, please be patient as it may take some time to publish or may require moderation.

By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our collection, storage, use, and disclosure of your personal info in accordance with our privacy policy as well as to receiving e-mails from us.

  • heather says:

    Good arguments have been made for both banners. Emmy and Katie make good points for the second one. And the first one is so clever and stark. Use them both. I also think that if the second one offends anyone then it’s only making its case. What’s being done to our environment is offensive.

  • Katie says:

    deffo the second! its much more shocking

  • KathyF says:

    Hey! I just noticed the play on words! It says “drain bamage!” I read it as brain damage first time around! Goes to show I ate too much fish in my misguided youth! Also it’s far funnier now that I get the joke! Definitely prefer this one!

  • Anonymous says:

    Why should that guy be your posterboy? Jesus what is wrong with you people?

  • Lucas Solowey says:

    though I find both statements powerful and important…I would encourage you to push the “Got Drain Bamage” add as I feel it will be accepted by mainstream media more and reach many people…plus you folks in the writerscomms department are pretty clever with your wording on that one. loves it! regardless…even if this new version gets rejected seems that peta gets great media each time ads get rejected..and we play the violation of freedom of speech and controversy card. keep up the great work and clever ads. for the animals Lucas Solowey

  • Emmy Thi says:

    personally i like the second one better. i didn’t quite understand and grasp the idea of the first one. the second one seems much more serious and straight to the point. and it’s understandable for many ages.

  • Michele Vieira says:

    The first one

  • Anonymous says:

    i can’t decide they both look so tasty

  • rojo says:

    Daliyveg I don’t quite see the obvious connection an obese onlooker would make seeing a thin braindamaged kid and “murder”.

  • Sarah says:

    I like the top one Got drian bamage?

  • Jessica says:

    I like both but the first time I saw the second one it actually prompted me to go to the website to learn about that boy’s story. When after scouring the site I never found it did find a lot of other interesting things and enjoyed the site I was fairly disappointed. It seems odd to have an individual brain damaged kid on a billboard and not have any info about who he is or how his case was individually linked to fish consumption. Or did I just miss it somehow?

  • Mayra says:

    I love Nancy’s it is sooooo funny but delivers the message right away.

  • Nancy says:

    Thanks everyone for your comments and critiques and Jack for posting! Stasya asked why the URLs are different. That was my error and no it’s not because of the mercury P. I just misread the original. A Freudian slip perhaps…

  • Susannah says:

    I like “got drain bamage?” It’s witty but it makes the grim point without exploiting anyone. The one with the picture could be interpreted as exploitive and if it was my relative’s picture up there I might feel that way.

  • DaliyVeg Editor says:

    Put up both. Personally I like the second one more because it’s really offensive to people who choose to be offended by everything except the countless murders committed daily to keep them on the wrong side of a healthy weight they’ll have a hard time ignoring it. But then again I’m not a very nice person.

  • rojo says:

    httpwww.csa.comdiscoveryguidesmercuryreview.pdf Shark and swordfish has around 70 times more mercury than salmon or sardines. Shrimp and oysters are lower still. The benefits from eating fish for the developing brain outweigh the negative effects of mercury. It is still best to choose fish with lower concentrations especially during pregnancy.

  • Ariel says:

    ONLY my thoughts The one with the picture has the most obvious impact and I think it would bring stronger awareness to the public to become more concerned about mercury in fish…and I don’t think that they would or should have any reason to find any humor in this horrible diagnosis. If some billboard viewers would think of it as being exploitive perhaps it would be more like they would be denying or fearing the seriousness of this factual potential. However it needs to be considered if the picture was obtained with approval. I think Nancy’s would be thoughtprovoking for the seriousminded people but unfortunately there is that potential for the jokers to laugh it off and never get a clue. However that’s their problem. Conclusion either one depends on the mindset of the individual viewer.

  • Mel says:

    I also like Nancy’s better.

  • yuri says:

    the first one by far… the second one is a tad bit exploitative and could offend people. plus the first one is much easier to read and such.

  • prad says:

    i like the first because i understand it. i can’t really say the same for the second.

  • Scarlett says:

    I like the first one mostly because it won’t invoke the antipeta stuff from press. Like how they say peta is a cult of extremist. Yes idiots there is a cult trying to brainwash your children into loving animals. That’s right. No no no cults aren’t out for money anymore or power they are out to make your children do good and that is bad.

  • hawley says:

    i don’t like nancy’s. i am not offended by peta’s and am more compelled by it. i think with nancy’s you concentrate more on the “wit” i would be much more likely to think about fish with peta’s original

  • Brianna Fritchey says:

    I like them both equally. Different people react to different things. The original shows what can happen and doesn’t sugarcoat anything Which some of the more hardened people will react to and Nancy’s is rather funny so it will appeal to the younger crowd.

  • Maya says:

    PETA should ask people who eat fish what they think of both ads. That way you’re not preaching to the choir. Or ask a psychologist. I still think a scientific chart from a neutral source would be good too. Good luck. Fishes rule!

  • Canaduck says:

    I think Nancy’s is better because it’s less likely to offend people…plus it cracks me up. I would say that you should DEFININTELY use it.

  • keith says:

    Sorry Nancy. your idea is fine..but does not hammer the point home about the ultimate fate of eating mercury contaminated fish.

  • KathyF says:

    Sorry but I much prefer Nancy’s. The image in the photo doesn’t look like a child it looks like a grownup who’s being exploited. It’s offensive regardless of the reason the poor person developed brain damage.

  • Jaclyn says:

    I like the “Got Brain Damage?” because Peta is not associated with it meaning that people who would otherwise not visit a peta site may just visit fishmakesmesick.com.

  • Michele says:

    I like both ideas for different reasons. I think the “rejected” billboard is good simply because it is disturbing and controversial and should not be avoided just because it does not look “nice”. However Nancy’s version is thought provoking due to its simplicity. You will get people looking at it just because it will remind them of the “Got Milk?” ads but when they try to decipher it they will really have to think about what they are seeing. In order to raise awareness of such an issue I do not think you have to limit yourselves to one particular billboard I think both have their place in this campaign.

  • stasya berber says:

    I like the first one. the second example strikes me as insensitive and exploitative though others will think it purveys the seriousness of the issue. also both of the ideas have different website addresses is there a reason for this?

  • Jason Levy says:

    Both do do a good job but…I’m going to have to go with the second one.

  • Adam Lonsdale says:

    I think the first one is the best but they are both good. It is simplistic and delivers the information without any distractions. Love it

  • rojo says:

    Excellent work Nancy much more effective than the other ‘attempt’. A little humour connects the reader rather than being repulsed. let’s get the message out that pregnant women and young children should limit their intake of shark swordfish and other fish high in the food chain. Shrimp and salmon are low mercury alternatives. After all fish is good for the brain. Even better if low in mercury.

  • jojo says:

    how can i choose. I like them both SOO much!

  • BullyDawg says:

    I actually like both of them…the original goes for the visceral gut reaction while Nancy’s succeeds with a rapier wit! Different people react to different approaches so I don’t see why you shouldn’t use both! I sure hope you guys will compensate Nancy for her hard work wink wink!