LOOK! NAKED CELEBRITIES!

Did it work? Did I hook you? Don’t worry, I’m not fishing for attention; I have a genuine naked-celebs story here, and it involves large amounts of fish. Just in time for Good Friday.

Today’s stripping-stars saga comes to you courtesy of Fishlove and its photo campaign aimed at raising awareness of overfishing.

We are thrilled to announce the J Sheekey Fishlove Theatre Series calling for greater marine protection in UK waters pic.twitter.com/FlEM9wdWyP — J Sheekey (@JSheekeyRest) March 22, 2016

Launched in 2009, the annual initiative features artsy portraits in which nude celebs cover their famous flesh with fish. This year’s campaign features Mark Rylance, Emma Thompson and that guy Emma Thompson’s married to, whoever he is. Rylance has a smoothhound shark on his shoulder; the Thompsons have a pair of black scabbardfish in their hands.

For those of you wondering how many fish were hurt in the making of this campaign the answer is: all of them. I mean, they’re dead. However, as the campaign website explains, the fish were already destined for the great fridge-freezer in the sky. The website also stresses that, once they were peeled off various bodies at the end of the shoot, most of the fish got eaten. Somewhere out there, somebody has scoffed a conger eel that was once wrapped around Gillian Anderson’s breasts.

But Anderson’s breasts aren’t the point. Nor are Rylance’s buttocks. Although you’d be forgiven for thinking otherwise: after all, the ads don’t exactly scream “Unsustainable fishing is a problem”. No, they scream “Naked celebrities love fish so you should too”. Indeed, a seafood supermarket in Ukraine even nicked a Fishlove campaign off the internet last year to use as its own ad campaign.

Somewhere out there, somebody has scoffed a conger eel that was once wrapped around Gillian Anderson’s breasts

According to Fishlove, over the past seven years its campaign has “succeeded in bringing the subject of overfishing to the front covers and pages of the world’s media many times over”. And it’s certainly true that the photos always get a lot of attention: a naked Helena Bonham Carter cuddling a 27kg tuna went viral last year. And this year Fishlove has already been the subject of spreads in major media outlets.



Naked celebrities and weird-looking fish get people’s attention: you don’t need to be a brain sturgeon (sorry) to work that one out. However, focusing minds on the message behind that photo and getting people to make more responsible choices about the food they eat … that’s a whole other kettle of fish.

There’s a lot to like about the Fishlove campaign: the photos are mesmerising, and Mark Rylance is involved; he is a genius who can do no wrong. So I don’t want this to sound angry. Because I’m not angry – I’m just disappointed. Because it’s all just so predictable. You have this really important cause and all these insanely brilliant people who are willing to donate their time and talent to support it. And what do you do with it all? You ask them to take their kit off.

There is a time and place for strategic nudity in public-service advertising. However, flashing the flesh has become a lazy and ubiquitous way of grabbing eyeballs, with celebrities seemingly stripping off any old time in any old plaice. Miley Cyrus posed naked for Marc Jacobs’ skin cancer campaign. Adam Levine from Maroon 5 bared all for a Cosmopolitan magazine shoot designed to raise awareness of prostate and testicular cancer. And celebrities including Khloe Kardashian, Naomi Campbell, and Eva Mendes stripped off for Peta’s “I’d rather go naked than wear fur” campaign. It’s almost harder to find a celebrity who hasn’t got naked for charity.

Despite the ubiquity of the strip-to-sell strategy, there is plenty of research that shows nudity, sexual imagery or shock tactics do not actually make for effective advertising. Sure they’ll get momentary attention, but they won’t change opinions or behaviour.

David Ogilvy, one of the late, great Mad Men, said this better than any research. In his book Ogilvy on Advertising, he wrote: “Some copywriters ... try to inveigle [consumers] into their ads with pictures of babies, beagles and bosoms. This is a mistake. A buyer of flexible pipe for offshore oil rigs is more interested in pipe than anything else in the world. So play it straight.”

Playing it straight doesn’t mean being boring. Rather, it means treating the public like intelligent beings, rather than morons who need to be bribed with nudity to pay attention to a message. Because, while it’s great to see celebrities get behind a good cause, we don’t always need to see their behinds while they do so. Much as I admire Fishlove, I feel like the campaign has reached its sellby date.