Behind the Leather

Ogilvy & Mather Advertising Bangkok teamed up with PETA Asia to launch this shocking pop-up shop in one of Bangkok's hippest shopping malls to show consumers the suffering behind every exotic-skins bag, belt, jacket, and pair of gloves or shoes.

Login to rate this video.

You can place this video on your website by inserting the (X)HTML code below:

Embed code:
<iframe src="" width="400" height="330" frameborder="0"></iframe>

You can email this video to your friends by entering their addresses below:

Your information:

add Add another recipient

Human verification:

People who liked this video also liked

Countries With Most Nuclear Warheads 1945 - 2022
bollard test (2006)
Trashcan explosion caught on camera
We WILL Fix Climate Change!
Roman Road-Construction


14 comments posted so far. Login to add a comment.

Expand all comments

Picture of sux2bu67 achievements

+9 1. sux2bu commented 6 years ago

PETA kills over 90% of the animals it takes in.
They have even been known to steal pets off of the porch of a home
to euthanize them. They feel an animal is better off dead than to be
owned by a family.
Picture of roady24 achievements

+10 2. roady commented 6 years ago

Not a big fan of cruelty, but fur and leather are better than plastic. Australia once used 500,000 fox skins a year. Now There are millions out there that only the farmers are trying to kill.
"However, as foxes may kill many animals in a night, yet only consume a small amount of each, this will amount to thousands of mammals, reptiles, birds and insects killed each year by a single fox."

On the other hand plastics, no matter how real they look, are nothing but toxic to the environment from start to finish. They are killing us, and killing animals everywhere. What we really need is to lose is simplistic single minded selfishness.

And yes, PETA has been taken to court for animal cruelty. They don't seem to care about animals, only about pushing their way into peoples lives, pretty much like what we see in this video.
I don't like people who take their mental illness out on animals, any more than I like the ones who take it out on people, like PETA do.
Picture of kirkelicious44 achievements

+6 3. kirkelicious commented 6 years ago

#2 Leather an fur production is not as environmentally friendly as you might assume. Many tanning practices use nasty chemicals in the process and environmental safety standards are very low in many regions of origin (Pakistan which exported leather worth 1 billion dollars last year is notorious in this regard). Very few people would have their problems with real fur if it only were the skins that are left over from pest control. The majority of skins used by the fashion industry are farmed in horrible conditions to meet the demands created by the latest fashion trend for people who want to spend as little money as possible on it.
Picture of Urmensch44 achievements

+2 4. Urmensch commented 6 years ago

#1 Your logical fallacy is Tu Quoque, or appeal to hypocrisy.

Even if everything you say about Peta is true, it would make no difference as to the truth of the charge of cruelty.
This is a classic Red Herring since it is irrelevant whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong.
Picture of sux2bu67 achievements

+1 5. sux2bu commented 6 years ago

#4 Nothing in this video showed or proved the reptile skins displayed in the store had been obtained in a cruel fashion.You can keep your red herring.
Picture of Klemm37 achievements

+4 6. Klemm commented 6 years ago

Cool products. I'd buy one. I wonder why they cut out those customers who wanted to buy.

Note to self: remember to feed the belt and never put edibles in my new man-purse.
Picture of fjwjr62 achievements

+1 7. fjwjr commented 6 years ago

#1 is right.
Here's more;

PETA is a known terrorist organization with a completely warped set of values.
I'm going to go buy some alligator boots and a snake skin belt to match my leather jacket.....just to piss people off.
Picture of roady24 achievements

+2 8. roady commented 6 years ago

#3 I do agree if the manufacture of leather is done in a toxic way it is not so good for us. We used to do it with just tree bark. We have animal protections laws. We could, and probably should, stop doing it overseas to increase profits.
This is my point.
This whole business is not and should not be simplistic or simple minded, pro vs con. And in PETA's case, hurt and hatred as a motivation and a goal. We should not be defining truth based on sides or agendas. We should not support those who enjoy hurt.
Picture of Urmensch44 achievements

+1 9. Urmensch commented 6 years ago

#5 If you had addressed the charge of cruelty made by PETA directly, as in giving evidence that the skins used are not the product of cruelty, then that wouldn't be a red herring.

The link in the description gives information about animals being skinned alive for example. Cruel by most people's standards. You could have possibly debunked that.

But you didn't. You changed the subject to PETA, and gave examples of how PETA themselves could be seen as cruel. This is the very definiton of a Tu Quoque fallacy, the appeal to hypocrisy. And it is a Red Herring, because you deflected away from the issue, cruelty to animals in order to produce leather goods, to the purported actions of the accusers, PETA.

Even if you were correct about these actions of PETA, as I said above, and even if people would judge PETA employees to have acted cruelly, none of this has relevance as to whether or not the charge of cruelty levelled against the producers of these goods is justified.

Put more simply, the accused can be a cruel asshole even if the one accusing him is also a cruel asshole. Saying the accuser is also guilty is no defence.
Picture of sux2bu67 achievements

-2 10. sux2bu commented 6 years ago

#9 My first comment was not a critique of the video or the link in the description ,it was a condemnation of PETA for their domestic terrorism practices and hypocrisy.
Watch #7 's link when you get the chance.
Picture of Urmensch44 achievements

0 11. Urmensch commented 6 years ago

#10 "My first comment was not a critique of the video or the link in the description ,it was a condemnation of PETA for their domestic terrorism practices and hypocrisy."

Exactly. That is why is why the fallacy is called an appeal to hypocrisy. You didn't critique the video or the link, but instead you focused on PETA.

Try to keep up.
Picture of BloodBeast28 achievements

0 12. BloodBeast commented 6 years ago

#1 "They have even been known to steal pets off of the porch"
#2 "Not a big fan of cruelty, but fur and leather are better than plastic."
#7 "PETA is a known terrorist organization"
WTFF is the matter with you people?
I expect this from sux2bu - we've had disagreements before about his vile ideas (I say "his" because I know no women with such repulsive stances), but the others...?
"Not a big fan of cruelty"? Seriously? You post this gem of humanity on a public website? What do you say in private?
Cruelty is disgusting. Killing inhumanely for profit is disgusting. One day our descendants will look back at these obscene practices with the same shame and loathing as we ourselves now look back on slavery. Though I suspect that a few here on Snotr, to judge by their posts, think that slavery wasn't really so bad after all, right?
Picture of sux2bu67 achievements

-2 13. sux2bu commented 6 years ago

#12 Stealing pets off your porch? yep , and here are some news stories about it......

Considered a domestic terror group? yep,that too...

Your support and defense of this vile organization is not surprising
to me because of your previous stance on matters.Break out of your pink bubble
and learn something.
Picture of roady24 achievements

+3 14. roady commented 6 years ago

#12 I think bolt gun killing, which is the official method in the west, can be painful. It is the best we have and it still does not always work. I was trying to acknowledge the views of others and be moderate. But if you wish, I state I specifically do not support the killing of an animal by anything less than a quick, humane method. Quick and humane are qualitative, yes, but we all know we are talking a few seconds and before they are skinned. What ever we do should be done with respect for life.
I apologize for giving any impression to the contrary.
So the question still is, do you see truth or are you just for/against?
In America, PETA was sued for animal cruelty. Are you defending that? Are you defending them by attacking others?
Plastic is toxic. Should we use real life or petroleum for all our needs?
We can be intelligent creatures. Should we instantly take sides and fight, or should we try to understand first, and use our brains?
For me, I will respect life.