If an ad like this motivates a selfish person to become more selfless with the issue of preservation, then I don't see the harm.

that is a nice ad. Simple message, yet very efficient.

This is actually really interesting, given I just finished reading the amazing Generation A by Douglas Coupland, which is (partially, as much as any Coupland novel is about anything)about bees vanishing and the after-effects of that. It's definitely a good read, and I recommend you guys check it out.
Not so much from a sociological point, obviously, but from a good literature point.

I'm so annoyed by the use of women in bathtubs to represent selfishness, vanity, obliviousness, etc.

Going to the webpage of the aquarium to see if this was one in a line of images that they were using, I eventually discovered that this was something used for an exhibit they were doing in 2008. Since that time, however, frog species have continued to go extinct and more have gotten closer to the verge of extinction. It's true that most of these lived in places from which the majority of the readership doesn't hail, but their demise is still something that is -- in my own biased opinion -- something that should be taken with as much import as gender politics (something that is a mainstay of this site).

The ethical questions surrounding the dead-end of extinction far outweigh (again, in my own biased opinion) the question of one more use of a well-used image of Western luxury/decadence.

Of course, the framing of the issue itself -- extinction -- is done in a manner of how inconvenient it will be for us, as opposed to any non-anthropocentric point-of-view. For example, instead of showing how it will be bad for us in the West, why not ask questions about what sorts of ecosystem-wide damages will result from newly opened niches that can be exploited -- or left unfilled? Or frame it in a way that will be more relevant in an anthropocentric manner -- to show the suffering of those peoples in tropical and subtropical areas that will be more prone to insect-borne diseases (amphibian declines are the most severe in tropical and subtropical areas)? Is it because we (in the West) can't easily empathize with niches or that our image of tropical countries already includes the idea that they are disease-wracked?

Is this akin to the Swedish (or US) clean water ads that depict white people giving dirty water to their kids (presumably to drive home the message of what a world would be like if you didn't have access to the clean water to which we are so accustomed in the West)? I would argue that it is: show a picture of a disease-wracked South Asian, central African, or Central/South American, and pose the same question, and I would say that there wouldn't be such a powerful message. (Which is -- undoubtedly -- a serious statement about our own prejudiced images of the world.) However, make it an attractive White woman in a luxurious bubble bath, and suddenly, the image's message -- we should care about extinction -- becomes more strong.

Okay, I'm starting to walk in circles now. I'm done.

i'm a little unclear, are you criticizing the ad or the people the ad is targeted at? because environmentalists have been trying everything for decades to get people to pay attention and the less myopic approach didn't seem to amount to a hill of beans, so i can't really blame them for saying fuck it, we'll appeal to your vanity

The difference between an ad saying "Do XXX responsible thing because it directly benefits YOU" and an ad saying "Do XXX responsible thing because it benefits others/society" is pretty glaring when you actually find an example of the latter.

I remember a series of Japanese anti-smoking ads that used the latter tactic. In America at least, most (though not all) anti-smoking ads say that you will smell/be unhealthy/nobody will like you, but these Japanese ads (of which there were several) focused on the danger of burning other people in a crowded environment with your cigarette, the smoke being harmful to babies/seniors and, I kid you not, a semiserious one comparing your "used once, then thrown away" cigarette to a one-night stand. This last ad was structured to make you feel sympathy for your cigarette, for using it so callously. (And while I was boggling over that, my Japanese partner came up and read the ad and went "Awww, that's sad!")

Not that I think the "do it for YOURSELF!" ad is necessarily bad or wrong -- it just highlights a culture that doesn't really think in terms of community. The anti-smoking ad I mentioned worked in Japan because the culture is deeply ingrained with the notion of "If you will burden/inconvenience society and others by doing X, Y or Z, don't do it."

Well, I don't think we really should care about extinction except to the extent that it affects humans. On Earth, the majority of species that have ever existed are already extinct, and the majority that ever will have yet to evolve. The present biosphere is no more special than humanity itself.

On another point, I've never thought of individualism as being about what people's goals are, but rather about who has ultimate decision making authority in a person's life. Individualistic societies place that power in the hands of the individual in question; collectivist societies do not.

It is possible to be individualistically selfless. That would just mean that the decision to be selfless would be your own, and that you are selfless with your own life and wealth rather than other people's, which is really the only genuine kind of selflessness anyway.

Modern Western cultures are argued to be individualistic. That is, most of us in these countries are presumed to prioritize our own or our immediate family’s goals, as opposed to more widely communal ones, and be motivated to support policies and initiatives that help ourselves, as opposed to others or, even, everyone.

This is an interesting way to start this post. First, it leans toward negatively characterizing an individual self-construal and implying that an interdependent self-construal is "better," despite the fact that both have their advantages and disadvantages. Second, it implies that in those places with an interdependent self-construal, that would extend to other species. I don't think there's much, if any, evidence of this. Japan is generally an interdependent society - that hasn't helped the whales much.

Not sure self-construal was the right construct to use in framing this.

The main problem I see with this ad is that it doesn't point to a solution. This ad is one of a few hundred I might pass by in a day. Am I likely to make a mental note to visit the aquarium (if I wasn't already planning on it)? No. Am I likely even to remember who made the ad? No. All that's going to register as I walk by this ad is "frogs are going extinct." This ad does not help me understand why or what to do about it.

Granted, the causes are probably too complex to fully elucidate on an eye-catching ad. But the kind of ad that would stick in my head would say something like, 'Not recycling kills frogs,' or 'Pesticides kill frogs. Buy organic produce.' People generally do not become environmental activists because they see a disturbing ad in the subway. But you can use an ad get them to think about aspects their own behavior and change it (like 'secondhand smoke hurts children - don't smoke indoors') if you identify something practical they can do to help.

I may be wrong, but I thought the major culprit in frog extinction was industrial chemical waste polluting water, causing mutations and inhibiting their ability to reproduce. In this case the most effective campaign would probably be calling out the individual corporate offenders and telling people where else they can shop.

Frankly, it's pretty telling that the mosquitoes in this ad are presented as a 'nuisance' that'll introduce your bubble bath, rather than of the vectors of Dengue Fever (2.5 billion people at risk), Malaria (500 million cases each year, 3 million deaths, primarily in children), Encephalitis (30,000 - 50,000 people at risk; West Nile Virus is a member of this family) and Yellow Fever (200,000 illnesses per year, 30,000 deaths). Now that's a reason to care about frogs.

I don't see how individuality equates with selfishness, particularly, selfishness as being caustic to others in society (siblings) or the eco-system (Mommy)

In all reality, there are no "communal goals" because goals are generated by the individual, and are relative to their genetic programming and experience. They people whom you share your goals with are your family. Society at large is not your family.

And nothing says that being an individual and pursuing your own goals has to be caustic to others. There is selfishness, and selflessness, which are both destructive, but then there is mutualism, and mutuality IS individual.

This kind of advertising is lowest common denominator, it is scare tactic, it is intended to threaten the viewer and shame them into accepting it's message. That is childish.