In a statement released this afternoon, Wednesday, 8 June 2011, You magazine editor Linda Pietersen has said that, as editor, she is just as upset as readers about the Shoe City advertisement in the issue of 26 May. "We've spoken to the advertisers and conveyed our shocked and disappointment in their advertisement," she says.
You magazine editor Linda Pietersen
Pietersen also points out that she's a cat lover and would never support or endorse any form of animal abuse.
She continues: "We have also asked them to post an official statement on our Facebook page, www.facebook.com/YOUmagazineSA. We are also reassessing the process of our screening ads, as the current system is not satisfactory.
"To our readers: thank you for taking the time to show your support against the abuse of animals."
The magazine will also be donating R15 000 to animal welfare organisations.
LEGAL DISCLAIMER: This Message Board accepts no liability of legal consequences that arise from the Message Boards (e.g. defamation, slander, or other such crimes). All posted messages are the sole property of their respective authors. The maintainer does retain the right to remove any message posts for whatever reasons. People that post messages to this forum are not to libel/slander nor in any other way depict a company, entity, individual(s), or service in a false light; should they do so, the legal consequences are theirs alone. Bizcommunity.com will disclose authors' IP addresses to authorities if compelled to do so by a court of law.
Although, she probably thought it was ok (as do I) and let it through. After the backlash, she's trying to appease the masses.It really doesn't scream "animal cruelty", it screams "possible everyday scenarios". People should get over themselves. There are more important things to worry about. Like lunch. Maybe thinking Chinese today. Hmmm...
I agree, all mags need to be approved before going to print. the problem comes in when ad revenue exceeds moral standards. the editor should take full responsibility for running the ad, instead of putting the blame on the advertiser. there is clearly no integrity as far as content goes.
Being an animal lover myself and hating any type of abuse toward them, my first reaction to the ad was total recoil.. BUT, it had the effect of a car accident where you "have to look/read further" at the end of the ad, I came away with the whole retail therapy gist that I am guessing was the original intention, but perhaps not the creative team's smartest day. As a creative person myself, it left a sour taste, what will your average tannie suzie you mag reader think of it all? A clever concept, but botched in execution and totally wrong target market.