Primate Patrol

A few hours after CareerBuilder announced its $3.5 million Super Bowl ad will again feature chimpanzees this year, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) charged that the price of those 30-second spots to the chimps is "a lifetime of abuse."

PETA released a letter Thursday afternoon from actress Anjelica Huston to CareerBuilder CEO Matt Ferguson, urging that the company switch to animatronics or computer-generated imagery if it wants to uses ape characters in its ads.

"I am distraught," Huston wrote, "that CareerBuilder has decided once again to feature infant chimpanzees. . . despite the public outcry and the condemnation of every well-known primatologist."

In releasing the Huston letter, PETA charged that "great-ape 'actors,' without exception, are torn from their mothers as babies, violently trained and then left to languish in cramped cages after they grow too large to control.

CareerBuilder ads, among the most recognizable on recent Super Bowl telecasts, place chimpanzees in office situations, suggesting the human employee they are befuddling should go to CareerBuilder and find a better job.

This year's spot has a businessman on the road with a chimpanzee entourage that does things like put embarrassing items in his luggage.

Jennifer Grasz, a spokesperson for CareerBuilder, told Forbes earlier this week that the company is sensitive to past criticism about the use of chimpanzees.

"CareerBuilder supports the fair and humane treatment of all animals," she said. "During the production of our ad, we followed the strictest guidelines to ensure our chimpanzee stars were treated well and not harmed. We hired top trainers known to provide the highest standard of care. We had a member of the American Humane Association on set during the entire filming to ensure the chimpanzees were treated with respect."

CareerBuilder vice president of marketing and communications Cynthia McIntyre told Forbes the spots "present an experience that almost anyone can relate to: not being in an ideal work situation," and that chimps are ideal for making a humorous ad because "they are the animal with which people would most readily identify."

Ferguson told Forbes the chimp ads have helped dramatically increase CareerBuilder's market share since they began running in 2005.

They are worth the price, he said, which this year averages $3.5 million for a 30-second spot.
Huston says the price is even higher for the stars.

"Those chimpanzees are set to endure a lifetime of abuse for your 30-second spot," she wrote to Ferguson, "a point that no thinking person will find funny in the least."

A television commercial for Chicago-based CareerBuilder featuring costumed chimpanzees will debut during Super Bowl XLVI, but not if Lincoln Park Zoo animal experts have anything so say about it.

They said Thursday that the ad is highly insensitive to the animals and exploits them, and if CareerBuilder is going to keep using chimpanzees in this way, the ads should stop.

"There is ample scientific evidence demonstrating the long-term negative impacts that the use of chimpanzees in commercials has on species conservation and welfare," Dr. Steve Ross, assistant director of the Fisher Center for the Study and Conservation of Apes at Lincoln Park Zoo, said in a statement.

According to the zoo, people who view chimpanzees in human settings and wearing clothes are less inclined to think they are endangered and to support conservation efforts.

The chimpanzees first appeared in CareerBuilder's ads during the company's Super Bowl debut in 2005. In last year's 30-second commercial, the chimps worked at Yeknom Industries - monkey spelled backward - and created chaos for the only human employee in the firm, CareerBuilder said in a statement.

"From a business trip gone awry to an unorthodox fire safety meeting to a 'car sandwich' in the company parking lot, the chimpanzees are all about monkey business," the statement said. CareerBuilder could not be reached for comment about zoo officials' statements Thursday.

CareerBuilder released their newest advertisement this weekend during the Super Bowl - a parking lot scene with a frustrated employee surrounded by bumbling colleagues (played by chimpanzees). Like many Super Bowl commercials, the 30-second spot has generated plenty of post-game buzz rating its cleverness, humor, and impact. But this ad has also brought on plenty of outrage, and rightly so.

I have a special interest in this situation. The chimpanzee youngsters (Ellie, Mowgli, Bella, and Koda) used in CareerBuilder's first round of comic commercials shown during the 2005 Super Bowl, Emmy Awards, and Academy Awards were retired from acting and are all here now at the Center for Great Apes, as rescued primates needing sanctuary care for the rest of their lives - some 40 years or more.

What happens after short working life?

Chimpanzees used in commercials are mostly infants and juveniles who were taken away from their mothers (a traumatic act for mother and infant) so they can be trained to perform for entertainment and advertising. This changes their futures forever. Since they usually only have a working "shelf life" of about 6 to 8 years (while still juveniles), they rarely can be handled and worked as adolescents and adults, and most often end up discarded out of show business.

Accredited zoos won't usually accept performing or human-raised chimpanzees because they are difficult to mix with the zoos' more naturally behaving groups. Many of these former "stars" end up in roadside zoos, backyard cages, or breeder compounds. Those lucky enough to end up in an established sanctuary have to be supported for the rest of their lives by donations from people who don't know them, but care about them.

The public is more aware today than six years ago of what the cost is to these intelligent great apes used as pets and entertainers (simply to make us laugh or pitch sales for a company). Today, at least 15 advertising agencies, including ten of the top 15 agencies in the world, and the top three agencies in this country (McCann Erickson, BBDO, and Young & Rubicam) have pledged not to use great apes in commercials and advertisements any longer. And the list is growing.
Portraying chimpanzees as silly hurts wild population

CareerBuilder has said in a press release that its business has not been as good as when they used chimpanzees for their ads. Richard Castellini, the Chief Marketing Officer for CareerBuilder, said people ask, "When are the monkeys coming back?" Chimpanzees are not monkeys (they are great apes), as the ad would have the public believe. CareerBuilder has created an image that is inaccurate and uneducated. Chimpanzees are highly intelligent & gifted, in fact. The premise of the television commercial is a hapless drone whose co-workers are chimpanzees, thus likening a bad job to working with idiots. Characterizing chimpanzees as idiots is simply incorrect.
CareerBuilder's misinformation and equating chimpanzees with "monkeys" is bad enough, but disseminating such an image actually has a real and devastating impact on the chimpanzee population. Does the company realize that promoting its business is negatively affecting the status of chimpanzees in the wild?

Studies and surveys have shown that when the public sees chimpanzees dressed up and acting in movies, TV shows, and advertisements, they don't really perceive that these great apes are "endangered" in the wild in Africa. A recent article in Science Magazine by primate researchers, including Jane Goodall, affirms: “Depictions of chimpanzees as caricatures can lead people to think these animals are not endangered, and this is a problem for conservation and welfare efforts."

If the public doesn't see chimpanzees as needing help (and on the brink of extinction, which they are), then they are less likely to send donations to groups working to save them or to take steps to protect them.

Treated well during filming, but after?

Mr. Castellini also said in a press release that the company “thought this was good timing to bring the chimpanzees out of retirement.” Well, the chimpanzees won’t be coming out of retirement! The original CareerBuilder chimpanzees from the first series of ads in the CareerBuilder campaign are now adolescents and too big and dangerous to work around people. So CareerBuilder probably had to find a new generation of youngsters, pulled again from mothers and trained to perform in these ads.
CareerBuilder’s Facebook page says that the chimpanzees were treated well in the making of the commercials. That’s good, but that’s also not the only issue. How will these chimpanzees – and the entire wild chimpanzee population – be treated afterward? Actor chimpanzees have a short working life as juveniles, but a very long adult life, where they will need safe and enriching care for decades.

Consider, too, the fact that portrayals of chimpanzees in this manner (as funny or cute) affect the overall efforts to protect chimpanzees in the wild. Such a situation should be of concern to everyone, not just "animal advocates."

Caring for these retired chimpanzees doesn't come cheaply. Even if corporations like CareerBuilder make a donation during the filming of commercials to help with the future care of the chimpanzees they use, it in no way covers what the future costs to care for these great apes will actually be. Seven North American sanctuaries for retired entertainment, pet, and research chimpanzees today all find the costs of care range between $14,000 to $19,000 a year for each ape.

When the first four chimpanzees were used in CareerBuilder's 2005 ads, they were 2 years (Koda), 4 years (Mowgli), 6 years (Bella), and 7 years old (Ellie). Since they could all live to the age of 50 or more, you can do the math and see that it could take millions of dollars to provide care for the actors that sold CareerBuilder to the public.

A better way to pitch products

In this day and age, computer graphic imaging (CGI) is an amazing way to tell a story and show comic antics without affecting the lives of these baby chimpanzees used as actors. C'mon CareerBuilder! Please join with the responsible corporations and advertising agencies that can find ways to pitch products and services without exploiting great apes. Please use your talent, wealth, and success to produce entertaining commercials that don’t have such a sad impact on chimpanzees.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the company chose to donate some of the millions of dollars it pays for TV Super Bowl advertising time to wildlife protection projects in Africa that are struggling so desperately to save chimpanzees in the wild? It should at least provide a real retirement fund for the first four chimpanzees that made them so famous.

Now that would make me want to call CareerBuilder for services.

Patti Ragan is the founder of the Center for Great Apes.

Over the past few years, you may have noticed fewer and fewer commercials featuring apes -- chimpanzees, in particular. That's a positive development, but the fact is there should be none.

At the moment, we've seen two spots in circulation: One is an ad for Robitussin featuring a digital chimp in a green scarf, the other is a CareerBuilder Super Bowl spot featuring the real thing.

The first spot should be pulled. Even with digital technology being what it is, the ape looks fake. In fact, it's because of chimps' resemblance to humans that it reminds us of the infamous Orville Redenbacher zombie Crispin resurrected in 2007. And we'd argue the humor inherent in using monkeys and apes is because you're taking a wild animal -- a real one -- and training it to dress and act like a human. You can make a digital thing do anything; the humor loses its comedic impact.

Which brings us to the CareerBuilder spot. Ad Age is a fan of humor and, on the surface, monkey commercials are funny and number among our favorites over the years. We bet the CareerBuilder spot does extremely well with consumers in the USA Today Ad Meter.

But this is a case in which we'll side with the animal-rights activists. It's not just the training of these animals -- CareerBuilder has assured everyone that the chimps used are being treated humanely. For us, the bigger issue comes down to the procurement and retirement of these animals. You've got to get young apes somewhere -- and chances are it isn't a pet store or a zoo that stole an infant from its mother. And, after a couple of years on the ad circuit, apes are left in animal sanctuaries and struggle to survive or, worse, are dumped on people who'll cage them for sideshow attractions.

It's time to stop using them for the sake of selling product.

We're not the only ones to take this position. Ten of the biggest ad agencies in the country have pledged not to work with apes again.

Finally, if marketers don't see this from an ethical standpoint, then perhaps they should see it from a business one. Consider the expense of using these animals and trainers. Consider the expense (and time) required to find a shop that will shoot such campaigns. And, finally, consider the possibility of public backlash as groups such as PETA gain more and more support for their causes in the wider population. The aforementioned Robitussin spot originally included an actual orangutan, which was swapped out due to such pressure. So not only did the marketer spend money to make a spot with an actual primate, it then had to spend again to redo it.

Just a wild guess: animals do not want to be movie stars.

And after watching a report on the fifth estate (CBC, 9 tonight) that is both maddening and saddening, who could possibly blame them?

But let's start at the beginning.

On May 5, 1982, the investigative series broadcast a landmark story titled "Cruel Camera." In that piece, reporter Bob McKeown unleashed some devastating truths about the mistreatment and outright cruelty animals suffered while "working" in showbiz.

You may be familiar with a few notorious examples from the early-to-mid 20th century: the nearly 100 horses that were killed during the climactic chariot race in Ben-Hur; the horse that perished after a stuntman rode it over a 70-foot cliff in Jesse James; the lion that was stabbed to death in Tarzan.

For years, animals were treated with cavalier disregard for the most frivolous and revolting reason: our amusement.

As McKeown now discovers 25 years after his original report, Hollywood is still no place for inhabitants of the natural world.

During filming of Flicka in 2005, for example, one horse died an "agonizing death" after it was kicked in the head during a rodeo scene that spiralled out of control, turning into a stampede.

This despite the fact that monitors from the American Humane Association (AHA), which in the past year alone has collaborated on more than 1,000 productions, were on set to ensure safety.

That organization issues its now widely recognized closing credits approval, "No animals were harmed in the making of this film." Yet, curiously, Flicka did not receive an "unacceptable" rating because the AHA concluded the tragedy was an accident.

The implication made by some, including horseman Roland Vincent, an extra in Flicka and eyewitness to the commotion that preceded the gruesome death, is the AHA is simply too close to the studios.

Another startling revelation: the manipulation and lies contained within many wildlife documentaries and nature films.

Consider the classic White Wilderness, which ran under Disney's Tru-Life Adventures brand. The film, which won an Academy Award and is still available on DVD, contains a scene in which a polar bear cub struggles to ascend a snowy mountain. Before long, it careens helplessly, perilously, down the steep slope as cameras are rolling.

Viewers believed the cub was a wild animal in its natural Arctic habitat. But the cub was actually placed on a film set built specifically for the harrowing sequence.

In another scene, lemmings are shown committing "mass suicide," which of course is a popular myth. Like the bear, they were not filmed in the Arctic, but in Calgary, where they were catapulted off a cliff from an unseen turntable.

From the Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom to a scene in Sir David Attenborough's Polar Bear: The Arctic Warrior, tonight's documentary uncovers deceptions, then and now, that will make you question the entire wildlife canon.

Some of tonight's most heartbreaking scenes involve chimpanzees and the grim fate that awaits when the cameras stop rolling. The fifth estate obtained police footage that showed the chimps from Race to Space and a certain Seinfeld episode being hunted down and shot to death after escaping from unlocked cages at a roadside zoo in Nebraska.

"I got him," one of the shooters can be heard saying calmly as the poor animal shrieks in agony.

"Cruel Camera" should not be missed. But be warned: it's not an easy program to watch.

Because to watch a caged baby chimp clutch a red ball and rock impassively with dead-eyed anguish is to feel a blinding shame only humans can know.

On Wednesday, January 16, The Fifth Estate on CBC is airing a piece on animals used in entertainment. It features the use and cruel treatment of chimpanzees and other animals. It is a must to watch!

Wednesday January 16th
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/
CRUEL Camera

Twenty-five years ago, Bob Mckeown and a fifth estate crew stunned the country with an investigative report that showed that many of the wildlife documentaries we'd grown up watching on television (remember the famous footage of the lemmings going off the cliff or some of the memorable moments from shows like Wild Kingdom?) were staged for the television cameras.  As well, they revealed that animals often died during the making of movies; all for the sake of the entertainment value.

Now, Bob McKeown and an investigative team have returned to the subject to find out what has changed since the fifth estate's first Cruel Camera documentary.  What they found may astonish you.

Los Angeles - Christina Ricci's latest film has sparked outrage following allegations that a chimpanzee was beaten on set.

The chimp is said to have bitten an actor on the set of Speed Racer, which reportedly resulted in the animal being hit.

PETA has written to producer Joel Silver urging him to stop using live animals in his movies.

The animal rights campaign group said in a statement: "We've received several troubling complaints from people who have been on the Speed Racer set and report the main chimpanzee "actor" has been beaten and has bitten one of the human actors. We urge you to stop using live animals and switch to animatronics."

However, movie studio Warner Bros insists they will continue to use live animals wherever necessary.

"Animals have not been abused on set"

A spokesperson said: "We appreciate the concerns of PETA. We also respect the vision and choices of the filmmakers with which we work.

"Every option on a film is carefully weighed, and for this production, the decision was made to use live animals."

The spokesperson admitted the chimpanzee did bite a young actor, but denied the animal was beaten and instead was allowed to rest and calm down.

She was also adamant that no animals have been abused on the set.

PETA remains unconvinced, stating: "No humane representative is closely monitoring those animals while off-set or during pre-production training, the very places where abuse is most likely to occur. So, we regret to say the assurances offered are meaningless."