Not Fit for Dinner: The Shock Value of Cain Solutions’ Animal Ads

Last updated on: April 6, 2012 at 7:00 am by C. Ryan Knight

Not Fit for Dinner: The Shock Value of Cain Solutions’ Animal Ads 2012-04-06T07:00:16-06:00 C. Ryan Knight

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Each Friday in Not Fit for Dinner, C. Ryan Knight explores political issues and the preconceptions guiding our understanding of and responses to them.

I’m beginning to wonder if Herman Cain has been studying shock art recently. If you’ve seen the recent commercials Cain Solutions has released (with more, alas, on the way), you know what I mean.

Take a look at the first commercial:

Many were upset by the commercial. It was a preview of what’s to come.

The follow-up video provoked a critical backlash. Here’s the second commercial, released last week:

The fish suffered a distasteful death, but the rabbit’s gory death was simply too much for many viewers.

Much is awry with these Cain Solutions commercials. For one, no solution is given in either ad, despite the organization’s name. In both commercials, a young girl is our appointed economist. The idea is probably that children don’t get caught up in politicking. Instead, this girl makes simplistic statements that somehow are meant to convey economic truths experts overlook. As if the “explanations” were clear enough, the girl asks—or yells—at the end of each, “Any questions?”

What is more, the “story” in each commercial does not coincide well with what the girl says. In the goldfish commercial, the girl says that the writhing fish is “the economy.” This, however, is said only after the fish and its water have both been dumped out. But the economy was still the economy before the 2008 meltdown. So who did the dumping? The girl? An invisible hand?

The rabbit commercial also lacks a clear story. From the way the girl caresses and holds the rabbit, we’re led to believe the creature is tender and innocent. This prepares us to be shocked by its brutal death. Rabbits, however, are a mixed bag, complicating the metaphor paralleling rabbits with small businesses. Rabbits are well-known for the speed at which they reproduce, but Australians and gardeners will tell you this can be a parasitic curse rather than a blessing.

The most bothersome aspect of these commercials—and what has primarily triggered the backlash against them—is the offensive portrayal of animals dying. Frankly, there are scores of more effective ways to communicate frustration about stimulus, tax codes, and other issues than showing animals die. (I suspect elephants are safe from these commercials, but you never know.)

Cain’s defense of these commercials is that you have to depict provocative things in order to grab people’s attention in this “24/7 information overload society.” Otherwise, he says, no one would pay attention.

There is some truth in Cain’s defense of his commercials, but he neglects the fact that commercials can be effective in captivating audiences without upsetting them. Because of the girl’s underdeveloped economic explanations and her problematic metaphors, the Cain Solutions commercials strike most viewers as being grotesque simply to trouble viewers.

When a message is lost or inadequately conveyed, audiences are left to make sense of what’s before them based solely on the content. The content of these commercials is merely a bullheaded girl, settings reminiscent of Samuel Beckett’s bleak plays, and violent ends to animals’ lives. The animal cruelty in these commercials subverts the intended points and distracts viewers from what Cain Solutions attempts to address.

These commercials are far from the principles found in I Peter 3 of interacting with others of a different persuasion. Peter calls for believers to interact with others with “gentleness and reverence, and keep a good conscience” (3.15). We are hard-pressed, however, to locate signs of gentleness and reverence in these commercials. Also, considering Paul’s injunction not to offend weaker brothers (Romans 14), the commercial rather blatantly offends Christians (and non-believing viewers, too, for that matter) who value animal rights as cohabiters of the created world.

Eco-journalist Russell McLendon rather unsubtly suggests that we “should be worried about Cain himself.” Let’s not be equivocal: we should be worried about him. USA Today reports that Cain wants his Twitter followers to say if they think the rabbit commercial is offensive. Fortunately, you don’t have to follow people on Twitter to directly share your concerns.

Asides

Politics

Not Fit for Dinner

Previous Post

April 5, 2012

The Moviegoer: Jeff, Who Needs to Leave Home

Next Post

April 6, 2012 Sacred Space: Easter Breakthrough

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Asides Elsewhere Featured Film Games General Culture Headline Literature Music Of the Moment Podcast Politics RetroPost Sports Technology Television Uncategorized Viral

Select a Month February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz