There is an illustration of chocolate bunnies being carried to a boiling pot on the plenny shake bottle. Considering that your product markets itself as vegan, this is very strange. I get that it’s supposed to be clever and funny. We are drinking chocolate bunny stew. However, this imagery is hypocritical because it perpetuates the normalization of animal cruelty.
sorry if it came across like this. We did not have the intention to depict animal cruelty, of course, just a melting easter bunny. We thought it was all fun and giggles, a melting piece of chocolate to make the chocolate drinks.
But sorry for that!
I have forwarded it to the marketing team too.
my initial reaction was indeed a laughing emoji, because I did read it as a joke, a funny comment. That’s because I just saw it as chocolate candy, not as animals. I actually got a slap on my wrist for this reply and thus edited it. Sorry.
The team is actually reading this too so they already discussing this issue.
Sorry for the miscommunication.
Can you please stop with the over the top sensitivity ? It’s humour about a chocolate bunny. I’m another customer and I love this sort of humour.
Thank you! I am glad Jimmy Joy is looking into this issue.
I hope Jimmy Joy doesn’t take arnaud.legue’s reply as an affirmation that this kind of imagery is okay for veganism. I am sure some people think the image of chocolate bunnies being melted into hot chocolate is clever (I did - before another vegan explained to me why he stopped ordering Jimmy Joy). The point is that we need to not encourage a culture that thinks jokes made at the expense of animals (or animal-shaped objects) are funny. Speciesism is so deeply ingrained in our culture that even well-intentioned people, like the people at Jimmy Joy, don’t see that we’re actively perpetuating and trivializing animal suffering. Jimmy Joy can start to reduce speciesism by changing the artwork I described earlier.
Thanks for looking into this, bye!
I usually just skim through the forum and am a silent observer, but I felt compelled to make an account just to reply to this thread.
I’d like to preface with the fact that I’m a vegetarian and don’t eat meat (Mainly for ethical reasons) . As if that matters, but for some it does.
I mean this in the most respectful way possible, but this line of thinking is a bit over the top and over sensitive. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having funny imagery on a 100% vegan product.
I would agree with you if they were normalizing animals dying for the consumption of actual meat based foods, but this isn’t the case at all. There isn’t some cute drawing of an Easter chocolate bunny melting, slapped onto the packaging of an actual rabbit in the meat aisle. This is a funny ironic drawing on a plant based product! There is no normalizing of eating animal at all. I’m not sure where you’re seeing this.
I’m not saying that this doesn’t happen at all in the food industry, it does. e.g Milk ads where they make cows talk, etc, to normalize your milk consumption and not make you think about where the milk is coming from.
But this isn’t happening here.
I think it’s amazing how ethical Jimmy Joy as a company is and has been. They should be praised for being able to combine ethics with nutrition, and on top of that, quirky fun drawings on all their products (props to their artists!).
Not only is this entire line of thinking a bit silly, as they’re advertising a 100% vegan product, but I personally feel this line of thinking contributes to giving a negative reputation to all vegans and vegetarians as well as the ethical cause.
Hopefully this message helps in letting Jimmy Joy that the art isn’t seen as offensive to other vegans/vegetarians out there. And to take this kind of thinking with a grain of salt.
Hey, Chalice! Thank you for the thoughtful and respectful reply. I get where you are coming from, but I hope you will reconsider your conclusion and that the people at Jimmy Joy won’t take my feedback “with a grain of salt”, for these reasons:
You say there is nothing wrong with having funny imagery on a 100% vegan product. I agree. I am sure Jimmy Joy could think of a joke not made at the expense of animal imagery.
You say that there is nothing wrong with depicting animal cruelty if no animals are harmed in the making of the product. My concern is about the culture that images like these perpetuate: the normalization of animal cruelty. Ethical and environmental vegans are not living this lifestyle in isolation. We are trying to lead by example and change the culture around animals. We are trying to reduce speciesism. I am asking Jimmy Joy to lead by example. The point is to slowly change norms until even the imagery of hurting animals is something serious and done sparingly rather than something flippant (in this case, an ironic joke).
I agree that Jimmy Joy’s artists are great and, as I said in one of my previous posts, I like Jimmy Joy, thus want it to be the best it can be. I am sure their artists can depict something that doesn’t feature animal shaped food being harmed.
I totally get you being concerned that feedback like mine could harm veganism’s reputation. I was honestly worried before posting this topic that it would make Jimmy Joy feel like they can’t ever please some vegan customers enough. However, I decided that if anyone would understand my feedback and be eager to lead by example by removing flippant references to animal cruelty, it would be a vegan brand like Jimmy Joy. I intentionally posted here rather than social media because I am not trying to #cancel Jimmy Joy. I want them to take note of my feedback and improve. For what it’s worth, I didn’t realize non-employees could see this section of the forum and did not want 65+ people to see my feedback because I am aware it makes veganism look extreme.
You say that it is not offensive to most other vegans and vegetarians. I addressed this before. It is not offensive to many people now because we live in a speciesist culture. It doesn’t matter what the norm is now. What matters is who we want to become. For instance, eating animals is totally acceptable to most people now. But we, as a vegan and a vegetarian, are changing that norm. If we are to live in a world where we fully respect animal lives, we must stop making jokes that rely on the concept of them being hurt. We must become more respectful of animal imagery so that people take animal lives very seriously. I ask Jimmy Joy to continue being forward-thinking by changing the illustration that references rabbit stew with the intention of being funny because it (unintentionally) makes light of animal consumption and perpetuates speciesism.
Animal cruelty is a very sensitive topic among vegans - and JJ promotes itself as a vegan product. So this should be taken into account. Maybe we are far away from a society where animals are viewed as worthy, living beings, but no matter how long the way we still have to go is, it is the only right way. If someone depicted a human minority that way on a package people would protest, too - so why not here? Animals are worthy living beings!
Apart from that I would appreciate a more minimalist, adult style of your packaging, anyway. I am sure you would win lots of new customers that way (I even know people who still refuse to try JJ just because of the “childish” name and packaging).
Drama, drama, drama…
Fragility et over-sensitivity. Poor little and always crying human et hu-woman beings.
First of all, please excuse my poor English. I’ll try to be respectful, but if some word choice is unfortunate, please consider I’m struggling to use correctly a language I’m not expert in.
I agree with Chalice. I never eat animal meat or derivates, but I usually eat product shaped as traditional animal products (i.e. veg burguers, soy milk, etc). I understand that some people can be very sensitive at the very mention of animal use, and if the package would depict actual animals being slaughtered or even cows being milked, I’d understand the reactions. Although I can watch violent movies but be a pacifist in real life, I understand that not every people can separate both worlds (real and representation) so I agree in reject some kind of images. But the pic in this package shows chocolate about to being melted, not actual animales. I mean, it’s not a representation of animal suffering: it’s a representation of a representation being melted. It’s like protesting for a picture of someone ripping a photography of a cow.
That said, I understand that everyone of us likes to buy products we are totally confortable with. So even if I don’t find it offensive at all, if the marketing team decides to ask the artist another image without the bunnies, I won’t find it offensive either. It wouldn’t be fair to call “oversensitive” a persona for complaining about the image, but at the same time complain myself for his/her message.
At the end of the day it’s more important to have a product that is confortable to everyone of us than to protect the integrity of a packaging that anyways have been changed in the past too.
Please excuse me if my English is too inexact and I’m being unclear. Thank you.
This is a storm in a teacup, Zwhitney is probably just a very small subset of vegans who gets triggered at everything as there’s nothing wrong with the design on the package. Sorry, somebody had to say it.
I understand what @Zwhitney is trying to say. I’m glad he feels comfortable enough to address this issue. We will keep the feedback in mind when designing new packaging.
Let’s please try to keep things nice around here and accept that everyone has their own beliefs
Hey, DavidMGarcia! Thank you for being respectful. You did a good job on the English. Props to you for writing in a second language. Based on the negative reactions to my post, you are far better at expressing yourself in English than I .
You use an example of a photograph of a cow being ripped up. I think that actually would be an issue. If a joke was that it is so funny to see an image of a cow being ripped up, that would imply a lack of respect and even malice for cows. If I saw a vegan laughing as they rip up the image of the cow, I’d be pretty concerned. But there is also a difference between the chocolate bunny example and the cow photo example. In the illustration, the chocolate bunnies both are acting like and being treated like real bunnies with the intent of being funny. The picture of a cow getting ripped up in your example is not acting like or being treated like a cow nor is it clear whether it’s supposed to be funny because a context wasn’t given. For a closer comparison, it would be like a picture of a cow that can somehow move within the picture (Harry Potter style) mooing while someone dressed as a slaughterhouse worker proceeds to stun and stick the picture and this whole scenario being part of humorous, lighthearted cartoon ad for a vegan product.
We both agree that some images should be rejected in the media. However, you feel that, because they are supposed to be chocolate bunnies and not real bunnies, that them being melting is not supposed to represent animal suffering. This is where we disagree. The image is showing bunnies being melted into hot chocolate. The label isn’t a randomly generated collection of images. It has a basis in reality. It is supposed to be imitating the actual practice of hunting rabbits for stew. The chocolate rabbits are acting and being treated like real rabbits. The joke relies on the reality of animals being killed. The image wouldn’t make sense without that reality. For the record, I sympathize with subsistence hunting in isolated locations. I also think humor can be a powerful tool for criticizing harmful norms within society, like unnecessary animal consumption. But the chocolate plenny drink artwork doesn’t do that. (I don’t mean to offend the artists. They are super talented.) The joke is made at the expense of the animal. It wouldn’t be okay to make the joke at the expense of the hunters in the image either. The artwork unintentionally makes light of a serious situation without an explicit moral commentary.
People seem to underestimate the power of images. Most people have internalized that animals are inferior. This is a cultural phenomenon that can be changed in part through a change of culture. This requires changing the images in media (big and small). People internalize images in media as the norm. The norm depicted in the media influences the way people see and behave in the world. We are more likely to do what is normal than what is right. For instance, a comedic cartoon of a gingerbread person sexually harassing another gingerbread person without any greater moral lesson (i.e. not using this humor to explicitly criticize harassers) would communicate to the audience that the norm is to find this situation funny and acceptable. Though these are just drawings of cookies in the shape of people, the real-world impacts are real. The same with animals. If vegans set the new norm that even “representations of representations” of animals being hurt aren’t funny, we can begin to reverse speciesism in ourselves and others.
I like that you brought up products that are supposed to imitate animal products as closely as possible. I have wondered about that too. In that case, I think the pros outweigh the cons for now (while veganism is still growing). The con is that it reaffirms that animal products are desirable and normal. However, the pro is that it could help people who are very attached to animal products transition to a more plant-based lifestyle faster than they may have otherwise. I could see these products eventually (once veganism is the norm) being marketed in a way that is completely detached from the concept of animal consumption. In contrast, Jimmy Joy’s chocolate plenny drink label isn’t satisfying some already-existing craving to see chocolate bunnies melting. The product would succeed and spread veganism with different images too. jokes made at the expense of animals.
You expressed very well the hypocrisy of “It wouldn’t be fair to call “oversensitive” a persona for complaining about the image, but at the same time complain myself for his/her message.” It’s kind of like how people rant against PC culture and use “liberal snowflake” as an insult. Thank you for being compassionate and I hope you will consider what I wrote.
I’m glad to hear that, nino!
Yep, so no people have to impose their belief system to others. The case here in fact, with a very radical vegan belief where the view of a chocolate bunny became a problem. There is no animal cruelty here, only some humour. Tolerance must be two ways. This imagery isn’t a direct provocation to animal cruelty, so this can be tolerated, no?
I liked your campaign with the green Old Trademark (Redacted ), and it was based on the use of human as main component… Clearly more provocative, but people seemed to understand the humour, or at least, tolerate it.
The chocolate bunny is just hopping back in real quick because I am worried you might still feel like a belief system has been imposed on you by my post, @arnaud.legue . Please try to see that nothing is being imposed on you unless your belief system is that the only thing that can make you laugh is seeing chocolate rabbits hunted and that the absence of that imagery could have a negative impact on the world. Jimmy Joy could surely satisfy your funny bone in another way that is totally on-brand with their high ethical standards. No humor would be lost and a different label could only have positive impacts for both of us (reduced speciesism). Our goals are not mutually exclusive . Below is an image. The rabbits’ bodies aren’t solid like chocolate and one of them even seems to be expressing emotion. Again, I get how it’s funny but I also think that it’s a problem that we think it’s funny. Isn’t the possibility of helping animals by becoming more sensitive to the images we consume worth more than an certain type of joke? The chocolate bunny is hopping away from the forum now. Bye everyone!
Warning Harsh triggering language below, read with caution and calming medicine in hand.
OH FOR CRYING OUT LOUD STOP BEING SO FREAKING SENSITIVE.
It’s a freaking chocolate bunny! It’s a joke. If you can’t understand humor, don’t ruin it for the rest of us.
If we follow your same train of thought, why not complain about the funny depiction of the tribal people. Do all tribal people look like that? !??!
OMG THEY BE CULTURUALLY APPROPRIATING AND IT’S RACIS CUZ THEY ARE BLUEEEE.
Please find some other issue to be passionate about like actual animal cruelty in farms not a joke depiction of chocolate.
Jimmy Joys, please don’t give in to oppression of your humor because some snowflakes can’t understand humor.
I will close this thread since everything is said and this thread is not leading anywhere.