WSPA who?

The World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) has launched a rebranding in an attempt to stop confusion over the charities name and to increase awareness, globally.


Despite 50 years of charitable experience with animal protection, research involving nearly 6,800 people revealed fewer than 7% thought of the charity when asked to think of an animal protection organisation. The rebranding efforts consist of the charities name being changed to World Animal Protection.  International director of comms at World Animal Protection, Pippa Rodger said the purpose of the charity, which worked with consultancy Wolff Olins for the rebrand, was “not clear” and the acronym WSPA “was meaningless in many languages”. Rodger added, “World Animal Protection is clear, distinct and memorable. Changing the name to World Animal Protection brings our name in line with what we are trying to achieve – protecting the world’s animals.”

The aim of the rebranding is to create a clear and easily-understood strategy worldwide that allows people anywhere in the world to understand the charities core aims. The rebrand will roll out across the organisation’s 15 offices worldwide by the end of June.

0_414_0_http___offlinehbpl_hbpl_co_uk_galleries_ORP_WPA_picWhilst reading through the latest news this morning on, I found the article ‘The World Society for the Protection of Animals tackles “great confusion” with rebrand’ quite engaging; as I am a PR student who is interested in environmental charity work and campaigns. I personally think that the new name for the charity works a lot better and as the saying goes, it rolls of the tongue a lot better. I also like the logo change (pictured above) that incorporates the brands iconic orange colour but also introduces a compass style design that embeds the charities global strategies. The statistics mentioned above show the lack of awareness that people have of WSPA making it clear that change needed to happen. The new design gives a more confident and globally-appealing theme to the charity, making their presence within animal protection charities stronger and smarter. There are currently two separate websites running throughout the transition but World Animal Protection should be in full swing by the end of June.

Images found here

‘Degrading’ Pot Noodle Post

Whilst reading through the latest issue of PRWeek (6th September) it got me thinking about how much people love to complain. This thought was provoked by the article ‘Pot Noodle Facebook post banned by ASA’ written by Amy Sandiford-Watts. In short, Pot Noodle posted a photo to its Facebook page of a women half-naked provocatively posing alongside the ‘Bombay Bad Boy’ flavour Pot Noodle with the caption, ‘Phwarr is it me or is it getting hot in here? HOT OFF. Which one gets you hotter?’

Pot Noodle Banned Image

After receiving complaints about the ‘degrading’ comparison between women and food products the ASA stated it was a ‘blunt comparrison’ and was ‘crass and degrading’, resulting in the post being banned. (However, just because the photo was banned from the Facebook page doesn’t mean it’s not still floating around on the internet for the likes of me to find.) My argument here isn’t that it wasn’t ‘degrading’ to women, on some level it is, but on a larger level it’s merely a cheeky innuendo which follows Pot Noodles standard tongue-in-cheek humorous approach.

Of course some people will be offended by it, but as degrading women in the media goes it’s really not that bigger deal (especially when compared to how women are objectified in the fashion and sport industries). And of course, I’m not saying that showing women off in the media is OK as long as it’s in small doses but that’s what sells, right? Sexiness, humour and the ability to get people talking. Unilever (owners of Pot Noodle) argued that it was a ‘lighthearted innuendo’ and that they ‘believed the word [hottie] would not cause widespread offence’. Objectifying women in the media, or men for that matter (I think we can all remember the Diet Cola advert), is wrong and causes strings and strings of backlash for both sexes, especially the younger generations but in my opinion this seems to be just a case of ‘moany-mouths’ finding any cheeky or controversial piece to have a whine about.

You can find the MediaWeek powered article in the latest edition of PRWeek. (Which, is sadly the last weekly printed edition as it’s gone digitial. HURRAY!)