27 and you think «My God, we've built this resource that very few people have. We've got this presence in the busiest places. And we should be using it, and we should be using those windows». As we started building websites: «We should be using these websites where all this traffic, all these human beings are coming to us». And we didn't just want to talk about our cosmetics. We wanted to tell them the other things that weren't getting through to them via mainstream media: charities, NGO's and campaign groups. So, we looked at it like that, like putting in the voices of people that didn't have that kind of resource. To lend them that resource for a week or two, to tell their story in their way. And that's why Lush campaigns are other people's voices. It's their hashtags. It's their websites. It's their QR codes, and Lush takes a step back. And when does Lush step forward, instead? When it comes to animal testing, we're willing to talk about that without a partner. Because we feel we should use our own voice. It's industry doing this, and it's industry that should be ashamed of itself for all the years testing products on animals. And we should speak up, and we should have a voice on that, and say: «No, here's a company that isn't willing to do it». We've built a business full of products, whole product ranges, from the very first day not tested on animals. So, if we can fill a shop with products, nobody can come to us and say «It has to be done like this». To try and pretend that there's no alternative. Because we've proved it can be done. So, we will use our voice on that, because it makes us really damn angry that people hide behind industries saying it's necessary. It isn't necessary. It is disgusting. And where did the first idea of your Fighting Animal Testing logo come from? It just changed the game of branding products, identifying Lush even without the Lush brand. We were having a discussion. There's a difficulty in some countries to say “not tested on animals”. Some countries challenge that, because if some ingredients have been tested in the 1960s and we're using them nowadays, some countries may say: «Well, you can't say it's not tested on animals, because at some point, in that ingredient’s history, testing has been done». So, we were discussing all of these different terminologies, and I said: «But we're not against it! We're fighting it!». You know, it's easy to say: «Oh, I don't like that». Or «I'm against that, but…». We're not merely against it, we're damn fighting it! And we're fighting it to death – until our death or its death, whichever comes first. And that's what we've pledged to do as individuals and as a company. I just said that, and then everyone was just like: «Well, that's it. Then let's call it Fighting Animal Testing». And the famous boxing hares logo? Right after, our designers went off and did the boxing hares. That same day. Within hours of me saying Fighting Animal Testing. it was literally like a rapid fire. And it’s ever since unchanged. Because, you know, rabbits are used so much in testing that they've become the symbol of testing. They are passive recipients of cruelty, but we wanted to talk about the fight back, so that's why we use boxing hares. We're fighting back – and they would fight back if they could, too. So, we're going to fight back on their behalf, and we wanted to depict them as fighting in their own right, with their own needs, and their own identity. They are fighting with us. In the same years, you launched your first “shocking” campaigns… The reason why we've done those so-called “shocking” stuff is, linearly, because they shouldn't be shocking. Because if we're willing to do those things, we are nothing but speciesists. If we're willing to catch sharks on hooks and cut off their fins, why should it be unacceptable to do it to a human? And if we're willing to inject animals with chemicals, and to shave their skin, and scratch it, and rub products on it, why shouldn’t we? Why does it become shocking when we do it to humans? We have the same pain receptors as a rabbit. Or a guinea pig. It's horrible to die of poisoning either if you're a rat or a human. Then why isn't it shocking when it happens to an animal, but it is so when it happens to a person? Sometimes you have to make that connection for people, to make them truly stop and think: «Why should this be acceptable? Why have we been told that it's ok, and we've all just gone along with our lives and we never questioned it?». So, when we do those shocking campaigns, we're just trying to ask people to question it. And to do this, sometimes you have to push it down the route of Imagine if this was a human being. May I ask you what was the short and long term reaction of the people? I can figure you also had a lot of bad publicity from that. Yeah, we get attacked. We've had attacks in our shops. We've had them vandalised. We've had our staff threatened. You can figure it out, we've had it happened. I myself have been threatened, and we've even had anonymous phone calls to our shops saying: «We know what time your shop shuts. Be
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NDUzNDc=