Have a break: Greenpeace vs KitKat

KitKats, gotta love em. Each bar consists of fingers composed of three layers of crème-filled wafer, covered in an outer layer of chocolate. Each finger can be snapped from the bar one at a time. It is not just a chocolate bar; it is a way of living. Who did not ‘have a break’ eating a KitKat?

Apparently the orangutans in the rainforests of Indonesia are not that fond of the chocolate treats. Greenpeace holds Nestlé – the producer of KitKat - responsible for destroying rainforests to get cheap palm oil, a key ingredient of the chocolate bar. The rainforests are also the natural habitat of the orangutan and having a break while your own home is destructed is pretty difficult.

Today Greenpeace released a commercial in the typical KitKat style in order to raise awareness among the consumers of KitKat and to ask them to give the orangutan his well deserved break. It is a pretty in-your-face video in which the chocolate fingers of the KitKat turn out to be the fingers of the orangutan and the crème-filling is its blood. Bon appétit!

In general I am not a fan of the use of shock advertising in the social sector, because it seems to have lost its effect a long time ago. In this case I do like the video, because the message is not only direct, but it also takes away your appetite. The association of the orangutan’s hairy and bloody finger with this chocolate bar will make me think twice when I need a break.
Besides that the video’s direct style fits an organization like Greenpeace and the fact that it is a spoof on a KitKat commercial gives it an interesting mix of humor and seriousness.

Don’t just give the orangutan a break, but stop Nestlé from destroying rainforests for palm oil. You can read more and take action by clicking here.

Update 19.30u: It seems the campaign has certain effect and the PR machine of Nestlé started to work as well. This afternoon they released a press message stating:

“Nestlé has replaced the Indonesian company Sinar Mas as a supplier of palm oil with another supplier for further shipments. We confirm that Nestlé has only bought from Sinar Mas for manufacturing in Indonesia, and no palm oil bought from Sinar Mas has been used by Nestlé for manufacturing in any other country. We have also joined other major purchasers of palm oil in making sure that companies, such as Cargill, understand our demands for palm oil which is not sourced from suppliers which destroy rainforests.”

YouTube deleted the video after complaints of Nestlé and has now been uploaded to Vimeo. Greenpeace continues its actions, because according to them Nestlé only stopped working with small suppliers of palm oil. To be continued.

Twitter

Digg

del.icio.us

Stumble It!

Facebook

Comments on Twitter

Comments

The Greenpeace protest seems to be succesfull, because Nestlé immediately took action. The company states in a press release:

“Nestlé has replaced the Indonesian company Sinar Mas as a supplier of palm oil with another supplier for further shipments. We confirm that Nestlé has only bought from Sinar Mas for manufacturing in Indonesia, and no palm oil bought from Sinar Mas has been used by Nestlé for manufacturing in any other country. We have also joined other major purchasers of palm oil in making sure that companies, such as Cargill, understand our demands for palm oil which is not sourced from suppliers which destroy rainforests.”

(via http://bit.ly/dod3Zc )

Thanks Jeroen, I updated the post.

Great spoof on KitKat commercials. Very effective video to raise some awareness among the viewers. The best thing is that it even had great effect on Nestle, the big company itself.

blog: http://www.viralinvestigation.com

Nestle certainly are learning a painfull lesson over this little social media trainwreck, but what about their PR gurus?

Agencies of the calibre of JWT, Ogilvy and Mather, Publicis Group and Nielsen Buzzmetrics have all happily worked on the company’s account, despite mounting evidence that Nestle has no interest in a sustainable business model.

They must know that full well, and yet continue to use their skills for ill. It’s about time that they were called to account in my view.

This is why I stopped sending GP money ages ago, I got fed up with their counterproductive attitude, their vituperative polemics. When activists wax polemic they are just as likely (than not) to alienate a far-more important segment of the public, the uncommitted middle.

These types of marketing methods are outwardly cynical, since they not interested in convincing anyone sitting on the fence (much less an opposing viewpoint) they want to incite and provoke those most likely to contribute money. A great deal of what I see coming from GP & PETA isn’t much different in terms of marketeering than race-baiting in Republican political campaigns - the use of aggressive fear-tactics.

It’s a great advert. Leebert misses the point - most people are not convinced by information alone - but much more subjective factors. If it makes people think twice about buying a Nestle product while Nestle continue to contribute to the destruction of the rainforest it succeeded.

From the Osocio archive

See this campaign from the Osocio archive