Is it Effective or No?

     Overall, I found the Waka Flocka PETA ad to be very effective in the long run.  By reading the comments from my first blog post and combining them with my own impression and thoughts I came up with some major reasons why the ad is a success.  First, Waka Flocka's mass success and wealth display an image of major achievement.  People coming from low income neighborhoods, much like Waka Flocka's neighborhood, are provided with an image to look up to.  One doesn't need to wear fur or abuse animals to exhibit power and wealth.  Furthermore, Waka Flocka's hard image paired with cute puppies and a variety of other animals is very appealing to a large audience, resulting in the fact that anyone from any background can love animals and receive that love from them.  Finally, PETA's collaboration with Waka Flocka is especially effective because Waka Flocka talks about personal experience and exposure to animal abuse, making the situation more personable and relatable to the audience.  The counter argument to the PETA campaign could be that by having Waka Flocka as the only representative, it could generalize the actions of people coming from low income areas.  However, Waka Flocka does a great job of talking about a multitude of examples, not specifically animal cruelty in low income areas.  For example he talks about the slaughter of cows in this video for red meat production.
   















My only suggestion for PETA to improve Waka Flocka's campaigns and ads is to have taken Waka Flocka out to a few venues or schools to publicly express his feelings towards animal cruelty.  By doing so, it not only further proves Waka Flocka's dedication to the campaign, it gets the message out to the public on a more personal level.

Waka Flocka for PETA

 As some of you may know, Waka Flocka Flame is no joke when it comes to business.  He is tall, tattooed head to toe and he has an intimidating presence. (Waka Flocka Music Example).  So what sort of soft spot would this man have?  Turns out Waka Flocka teamed up with PETA in an attempt to launch two campaigns.   His first campaign, Ink Not Mink, displays his strong feelings against real fur clothing.  In his first PETA video, Waka Flocka touches on the fact that in the neighborhood he is from in Atlanta, Georgia, has a strong animal cruelty presence and people have a strong desire to own fur clothing as a sign of wealth and power.  On the other hand, Waka Flocka's second campaign is against animal cruelty in general.  Waka flocka speaks about his love for animals and pets and how he can't begin to understand why people use animals, primarily dogs, to fight.  So in the end, what sort of positive and negative influence does Waka Flocka have on this sort of topic?

These campaigns could have two serious influences that oppose each other.  One being that fact that Waka Flocka has a large influence amongst rough neighborhoods where his music thrives, especially his hometown.  His image is a hard, successful, and wealthy, so if people want to be like him why not mimic him?  Waka Flocka manages to throw out the image that one has to wear fur coats and be dominant amongst anything lesser than a human to display power and wealth.  With a large fan base that ranges from a horizon of economic backgrounds Waka Flocka has the power to express his feelings about cruelty to animals easily.  On the contrary, these campaigns could upset people coming from his background by grouping and possibly stereotyping them.  Ultimately, how would/have people been reacting?