February 14, 2007
BrainTrust Query: Funny or homophobic? Do advertisers need sensitivity training?
By David Morse, President & CEO, New American Dimensions, LLC
Super Bowl Madness used to apply to the game of football and the craziness of watching a good football game. These days, some feel it’s a more apt term for the hullabaloo that ensues the following week, when the injured start to voice their aches and pains. The injured parties are not players, however, but spectators claiming to be hurt or offended by Super Bowl commercials.
This year, the biggest fuss was made by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) and the Human Rights Campaign about a Snickers commercial that featured an accidental kiss, Lady and the Tramp style, by two macho mechanics working head to head under the roof a car.
In the ad, the two lock lips after one mechanic is unable to resist taking a bite of the Snicker’s bar that his buddy is enjoying. After the kiss, the guys are so mortified that they each pull out a handful of chest hair to reaffirm their manliness, i.e. their heterosexuality.
“It was never our intent to offend anyone,” a spokesperson said from Masterfoods USA, Mars’ parent company. “We know that humor is highly subjective and understand that some people may have found the ad offensive.” Gerry Graf, executive director of Omnicom’s TBWAChiatDay, the company that produced the ad, said, “We wanted something that would get people talking during – and after – the game.”
Talk people did. “That Snickers, Mars and the NFL would promote and endorse this kind of prejudice is simply inexcusable,” GLAAD President Neil Giuliani said in a press statement. “Mars needs to apologize for the deplorable actions of its Snickers brand,” he said.
Mars had been planning to build a whole campaign around the ad, which included an invitation to visit a website and vote on three alternative endings. One ending shows a third mechanic joining them and asking, “Is there room for three on this love boat?” The other endings show the two guzzling motor oil and getting into a brawl with wrenches. Visit the website, afterthekiss.com, today and you’ll find yourself routed to the Snickers’ home page, where no mention of the campaign can be seen or heard.
The Masterfood spokesperson told USA Today, “We’ve done what we can. We always look at lessons learned. We’ll be doing that with this.”
Discussion Questions: Do advocacy groups take things too far? Do companies need to be more sensitive? Or should they stand their ground?
Snickers nixed the campaign. But they weren’t the only ones to get kicked around for Super Bowl shenanigans.
General Motors agreed to edit a commercial featuring a depressed robot who, after getting fired by the company for shoddy work, jumps off a bridge to the music of Eric Carmen singing “All By Myself,” only to wake up inside the factory to discover that he’d been dreaming. The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention found the ads offensive. Its executive director, Robert Gebbia, said that GM was “very responsive” and that all references to suicide would be removed.
So what to make of all this? Personally, I thought the General Motors ad was hilarious, devoid of even a trace of bad taste. I also thought the Mars’ kiss was funny, but it did touch a nerve in the gay community.
As Commercial Closet creater Michael Wilke points out, it’s not the first time that Mars has used a gay theme in its commercials. A 2004 spot for M&M’s and Shrek 2 had Shrek telling two “male” M&M candies that they would have to kiss to break a magic spell. One of the candy men walks away saying, “That’s not gonna happen.”
But Mars isn’t the only culprit. Wilke’s website features scores of commercials that try to get a laugh by using themes with gay overtones and then showing a “horrific reaction by someone straight.” It’s a hackneyed stereotype that drives gays crazy.
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
There’s an infinite number of ways to humorously market a brand. Commercials are planned in advance, and they should reflect a brand’s market positioning. Screening out offensive material can be done at minimal cost in the early planning stages. It’s not hard to choose alternate, inoffensive messages that are very catchy. So why take the risk?
You know your advertising is successful when advocacy groups complain. Snickers could not ask for better free advertising that to have some extremist advocacy group whine about it. I doubt Snickers wanted to offend anyone but obviously they wanted some controversy. So good for them. When advocacy groups complain, even when justified, it shows a lack of class on their part. People with class don’t complain and whine, they just ignore and don’t patronize companies that offend them.
Unfortunately, too many people forget this is a free country. All advertisements are directed towards a target market, not everyone who sees them. Clearly the minority and fringe groups in this country are getting much more press than they deserve. If you don’t like the ad, don’t buy the product, but don’t try to tell the majority what we can and cannot see. The growth in press by these minority groups reminds me of what happened in Russia. The Communist Party only had membership of 5% of the people and of these 75% joined only to get a job. America’s free market economy should be allowed to handle these issues, not fringe groups.
First of all, Gene has nailed it. Super Bowl mania has clearly just gone too far. In a world like ours there must be better things to focus our collective attention on. One of these, of course, is prejudice.
The ad is only “funny” if you accept the underlying bigotry. If you find it offensive for two (“Macho” since we all know there can’t be any gay mechanics out there!) men to kiss, even accidentally, then the fact that they do is probably knee slappin’ funny to the Pat Robertson set.
Oh, wait, they’d be angry that there was any suggestion that mechanics–or anybody else–was gay. So, I guess it’s just a knee slapper for the liberals.
The point here is that the humor is triggered by a repressed taboo–these guys accidentally do the unthinkable! No wonder gay groups are upset. So, if gay activists didn’t like the spot and the red staters didn’t like it, exactly who did the agency think would get it?
Ah, yes, the closet bigots who are, of course, the biggest audience of them all.
A long time ago somebody told me that prejudice was the belief that somebody is different because of their color and racism was the desire to believe that somebody is different because of their color. The same holds true for sexism and obviously for discrimination against gays.
There’s nothing funny about living in a country where, as Race points out, these desires to believe in difference end up in gay bashing and loss of life. We should be ashamed of ourselves for not having the courage to decry anything that plays into the hands of those who attack without thinking, just because somebody is seen as “different.”
Oh, and for the people out there that will say, “Hey it was just a joke,” I offer this: We laugh when somebody in a cartoon slips on a banana peel, but if that happened in real life they could break their neck. Would we still laugh? People used to laugh at Amos and Andy too, but of course that’s when they couldn’t marry white women.
Freud used to argue we laughed to mask our guilt. Maybe the old guy did get one thing right after all.
The Snickers bar ad probably made a lot of people squirm, precisely because it juxtaposed a taboo behavior with an unattractive heterosexual stereotype. Was the commercial tasteful? Not very, in my opinion. Should gay rights activists question Mars’ decision to run this ad? Why not? It’s an opportunity to re-engage the dialog about homophobia and raise consciousnesses a little bit.
Should we be concerned that this particular commercial will somehow propagate or justify intolerance–that is, will it harm gay people or our culture? I don’t think so. Portrayal of gay stereotypes was far more blatant on the hit TV sitcom “Will and Grace” which earned a following from a broad mainstream audience. As our culture is exposed to these alternative behaviors in the media I believe their strangeness tends to fade.
In the end, the issue for Mars is whether this commercial improved brand equity. It sure got people talking, but speaking just for myself, it didn’t make me hungry for a Snickers.
Any sensitivity training the advertisers need will be administered by the market place. These groups can avoid purchasing products if they find their advertising offensive. We don’t need a national debate on this issue.
Sensitive is as sensitive does. I reference GLAAD here, not Mars. GLAAD complainants seem to have enough sensitivity bubbling over to supply Mars (the company and, if need be, the Red Planet) and most of the rest of us. To some, that qualifies as being oversensitive.
Have you seen the motor oil commercial where a guy is standing in his garage preparing to pour the favored lubricant into his car when three “macho men” suddenly appear at his elbow to endorse the product? As I recall, one is a cowboy, one a fireman, and one a different heterosexual stereotype (that I’ve forgotten). No groups are in the business of “fussing” about or being offended by a perceived misuse of typically heterosexual male role models, so the motor oil ad is still running. If such a group did exist, however, they should probably begin by getting The Village People’s “YMCA” song banned. Gay humor created by poking fun at such macho stereotypes as a policeman, a cowboy, a construction worker, a motorcycle rider and, (gasp!) a Native American? Sounds like a class action lawsuit waiting to happen.
Offending statements or actions are rarely intended to offend (ask Joe Biden). Unfortunately, various people or groups of like-minded people seem to enjoy being generally and consistently offended, annoyed, insulted, and disrespected. It’s a lifestyle choice, and they believe the perceived offenses are always intentional. Many people, on the other hand, have discovered it’s more fun to chase happiness than misery.
I also believe that Mars knew exactly what they were doing and the amount of conversation and publicity that has surrounded this has had an incredible value for them. The brand has been discussed over many water coolers as of late. Do I find the ad offensive? Not at all. Even if we dissect the ad, it is not about saying homosexualty is bad; it is about heterosexuals wanting to be seen as macho heterosexuals. What is wrong with them wanting to be seen as who they are and not being seen as who they are not? Isn’t this the point of most of these groups–for people to have the right to be who they are?
Will the federation of autoworkers be offended? They probably have more to be offended about then anyone.
Everybody is so concerned with being politically correct–not offending any of the multitude of groups out there–that humor will disappear. One of the most effective advertising tools will not be acceptable anymore.
Remember, the Kevin Federline commercial also ruffled feathers–it truly is getting out of hand. We all need to be able to laugh at ourselves and distinguish between dangerous offensive material and humorous material created to make people laugh.
You can’t do anything these days without worrying about being politically incorrect because no matter what you do, you are ultimately going to offend someone. If people are going to be so repulsed by commercials then they should turn off the TV.
Advertisers do not need sensitivity training. However they do need to use some more common sense when targeting their audience. There are some things which don’t add value to a product or message and providing these in a commercial at a key time slot like the Super Bowl only exacerbates the issue. There is something to be said about using good taste and some of the advertisers clearly are pushing the limit on this. With that, there is the school of thought that bad commercials do have a shock factor and provide for a more memorable impact.
I’m gay and I saw the ad. I think it’s probably more stupid than offensive. Insensitive? Perhaps. Homophobic? No. It just reflects the clueless nature of Americans. You can run an ad like that in the United States because many people will recognize someone they know who’s like the guys in the ad. You couldn’t run the same ad in a country like Holland because no one would get it. So while I’m not offended by the ad, I do believe there are better ways to market Snickers. Try using babies or dogs. Straight people eat that stuff up! LOL
I’m in agreement with Gene Hoffman that the Super Bowl has become a 10 day orgy of excess and sensationalism sandwiched around 3 hrs of football. The half-time show is designed to be provocative and intentionally or not, “wardrobe malfunctions,” half naked sexy dancers, bleeped lyrics and Prince’s rear end all fit the over-the-top hype. Not surprisingly, given this backdrop, marketers who are paying a couple of million for a :30 sec spot, are going to be pushing the envelope and debuting commercials that attract maximum eyeballs. To achieve this, they sometimes walk a fine line between humor and offensiveness. I personally didn’t find the Mars commercial offensive and I especially didn’t see any issue with GM’s robot spot. However, in this age of political correctness, I believe advocacy groups see the Super Bowl as a forum to raise awareness, obtain valuable PR and solicit donations to their various causes. So they’re poised to pounce on any hint of bigotry, homophobia, cruelty to animals, global warming, hate, you name it…. Kind’a makes you long for the good old days when a football game featured–guess what–football. And of course, the marching band at half time.
I think the Mars spot made fun of homophobics, not homosexuals, so I’m not sure why GLAAD was so sad.
It does seem to me that some folks have way too much time on their hands to look for things to get offended about and then raise a stink.
Why is it that jokes are funnier when they’re about someone else?
As advertising professionals, we like to think we’re smarter than most people and on the cutting edge of what’s new, trendy, hip and cool…all so we can help change the way people think and interact with brands. So can’t we do that without demeaning millions of others…with the brand stuck (in this case literally) right in the middle? Why shouldn’t others challenge us?
As in the case of GM…I don’t believe their faux pas was intentional, but again, it’s not so funny when you’re one of the 35,000 recently laid off auto workers or thousands of Delphi employee’s who lost most of their retirement.
It just seems like the world would be a better place if we all walked in the other guy’s shoes for a while. Or in our quest to be so “intelligent” have we lost the need for “compassion?”
Obviously, there are many issues involved here. This is not simple. Laughing at yourself is wonderful, but if you have been part of a sometimes heavily brutalized minority, it may be asking too much for us to say, just laugh at yourself. Remember, there are incidents in even the last seven years of men who have been murdered for being gay. I completely sympathize with the groups that feel the ad was tasteless.
On the other hand, I have had the opportunity to see that I could change my view of something and turn it from a negative into a positive. Globally, it is my very personal and data-less view that ads like the Snickers ad are very good for us, because it makes us talk openly about important former taboos, like homosexuality. I think it helps us “normalize” this issue–maybe not in a perfect way, or in the best way, but it helps. Twenty years ago, I don’t believe you would EVER have seen something like that ad, and given all the high-profile and vocal and popular gay role models now, I think this is a very good thing. An ad that offends some is better than where we were twenty years ago. It isn’t where I want us to be, but it is good progress.
Yes, advocacy groups take things too far. Advertisers will also not be able to resist the buzz they are getting from this type of controversy. The Mars hit rate on their web site was higher than ever, even after they took down the alternative endings to the “mechanics” spot. I’m not convinced that the creative folks and the client who sat in a conference room and approved this spot did not know exactly what would happen. The advocacy groups should get a commission from the client for turning up the heat and the awareness of these brands/companies.
We should step back and ask ourselves, “What has the Super Bowl, pre and post, become?” Money, glitz, hype, coarseness, bright lights, and a variety of ever-increasing excesses with some good football and some gridiron implosions mixed in.
The race to accelerate excesses and to see who can outdo, out earn, out “extreme” everyone else surges forward. It is not so much the sport itself anymore as much as the money, various awards, publicity, cultural variances and 15-minutes of fame. No wonder we had that Snickers commercial. It seems that in today’s society, right or wrong, whenever one has anything unpleasant to say or do, they feel they should be candid and excessive. Perhaps, just perhaps, that trend is affecting advocacy groups too. Our society might now pause and ask “What’s it all about Alfie?”
The answer to both is YES! Unfortunately alternative and minority groups in this country have much more influence than the mainstream community. If you can’t laugh at yourself (no matter your race, color, creed, sexual preference, etc.) then there is something missing in your make-up! That being said the reality of business is that companies have to be very careful for commercial reasons because a boycott or protest by a group, no matter the size, can negatively affect your company or product image and eventually the bottom line!
Gee, perhaps we contributers to this site should unite to rail against Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert. Through the pointy-haired boss character, he’s been insulting and making all us marketing management types look like moronic incompetent idiots for decades, now.
Frank Dell makes a good point that I think is lost so often. Advertisers are targeting a specific audience. Therefore, if it is the heterosexual male who comprises the majority of the Super Bowl audience (not to say that they have the market on the event), then it stands to reason that Mars, along with other advertisers, would target them. This is the same reason why we see beer and trucks advertised during football games, not feminine hygiene products, diapers, or toys. What Mars did was good advertising for the target audience.
My colleague, Julio Arreaga, had an interesting comment about this whole business. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
There was another ad, a great one in my opinion, with Carlos Mencia as an English instructor, which was voted the top super bowl ad on many polls including the Wall Street Journal.
It makes fun of every accent in the book, from Southern to New York and even East LA. Interestingly, it features two East Indians, one trying to say “Give me a Bud Light Holmes” a la Cheech Marin, the other struggling to say “Bud Light.”
It’s another stereotype we all find funny–the Asian, as perpetual foreigner, trying to speak English. It’s got a long history, dating back at least to Charlie Chan’s “Number One Son” effortlessly rattling off 1930’s “yous guys” slang in flawless unaccented English.
The ad perpetuates a stereotype that is not all that funny to many Asian Americans, many of whom have been asked at what time or another why their English is so good or where they come from. Victor Chin was killed in 1982 for looking like a foreigner; in his case for being a Chinese who looked Japanese in Detroit at that time.
I’m not saying that the Asian community should be complaining. I thought the ad was brilliant. I salute LatinWorks, the Hispanic advertising agency that produced it, for pulling off such a successful General Market ad. And I’d hate to see Budweiser have to pull this campaign.
But why is one campaign funny and the other offensive? I’m not sure of the answer. But Julio is right–the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Michael, aren’t offending statements, by their nature, intended to offend? By the way, if you look at Joe Biden’s record you’ll find a guy who once apologized for his state being trapped in the North and therefore being geographically denied the pleasure of being a slave state during the Civil War.
Moving away from Biden, you are right. Are some people overly sensitive? No doubt! Do some people see attacks when none are present? Everyday! But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t malice present just because somebody complained. We haven’t raised the level of public discussion high enough.
The bottom line is–it isn’t what we laugh at, it’s why we laugh that ought to be the metric here.
To answer Ryan’s question about the banana peel, the answer is yes, people still find it funny in real life. See Jackass 1 & 2.
Advocacy groups exist in part to get offended and let others know they are offended. It’s their job, and they usually do it well. I’m not being facetious; it is a vital role. I’m Jewish and we’ve been doing it for longer than most! Groups that face prejudice and oppression need that voice, and others need to hear it.
That said, organizations tend to ultimately justify their own existence, and there is a tendency to start to reach further and further to find offense. The mechanic commercial is not a good example of something that should be offensive to gay people. There, I’ve said it. It’s just not, regardless of whether some were in fact offended. There are no gay people in the ad, it’s two non-gay people who do something that is personally distasteful to them, and react. Does that say gay people who kiss are gross? No. If the ad showed a brother and sister doing the same thing and reacting the same way would it be offensive? No. If it showed a gay man and a gay woman doing the same thing would it be offensive to straight people? No.
My point, if I have one, is that sometimes our advocacy groups go looking for offense when none should be taken. There should be a two day moratorium on being offended; if you’re still offended after thinking about it for two days and hearing from your constituencies, have at it.
The lesson for advertisers? I wouldn’t try to read too much into it. Ads are a form of art, commercial art yes, but art nonetheless, and art has always taken risks and pushed people out of their comfort zones. Advertisers will win sometimes and lose others, but if all they think of is whether they might offend someone somewhere, they’ll never do anything great. They might take their lumps sometimes, and need to apologize at times, and those apologies should be sincere.
For once, I don’t agree at all with David: among other things, an ad is a success only if keeps the sponsor’s brand in the (potential) customer’s mind…that isn’t the case here.
Final score: Controversy 1, Mars 0
Ah, what the heck, I’ll get my two-cents worth in. Actually the ad itself could be considered insensitive to heterosexuals who might cringe at the site of these two “macho men.”
I find the commercial just plain awful and it’s too bad we and everyone else gave it the immense time and coverage it’s received. Whether a politician or even a celebrity says or does something foolish doesn’t matter here (although words DO mean things). Although football is generally a specific base, the Super Bowl is a much more broadly watched “event”…but you know what? We’re over analyzing….
What is next? This is a commercial with humor; emphasizing the wanting of Snickers…no reflection on gays! Maybe Mars should have used an elephant and a donkey kissing at the end–make it political! Do we need positive intervention and results by our Parties, pronto?
Shall we now have a Board of Review for all commercials prior to being produced, to air on TV, cable, and/or internet? Gee, it is tough enough to get legal approval!
Why are people so difficault? Or is it their time to be heard, or shine? Hmmmmmmmmm
More Discussions
Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?Should IKEA Be Flattening Management?
Should IKEA be trimming down its management headcount?Is Legislation the Answer on Visa, Mastercard Swipe Fees as ~$200 Billion Record Is Set?
Is lawmaking the way forward on swipe fees?
There’s an infinite number of ways to humorously market a brand. Commercials are planned in advance, and they should reflect a brand’s market positioning. Screening out offensive material can be done at minimal cost in the early planning stages. It’s not hard to choose alternate, inoffensive messages that are very catchy. So why take the risk?
You know your advertising is successful when advocacy groups complain. Snickers could not ask for better free advertising that to have some extremist advocacy group whine about it. I doubt Snickers wanted to offend anyone but obviously they wanted some controversy. So good for them. When advocacy groups complain, even when justified, it shows a lack of class on their part. People with class don’t complain and whine, they just ignore and don’t patronize companies that offend them.
Unfortunately, too many people forget this is a free country. All advertisements are directed towards a target market, not everyone who sees them. Clearly the minority and fringe groups in this country are getting much more press than they deserve. If you don’t like the ad, don’t buy the product, but don’t try to tell the majority what we can and cannot see. The growth in press by these minority groups reminds me of what happened in Russia. The Communist Party only had membership of 5% of the people and of these 75% joined only to get a job. America’s free market economy should be allowed to handle these issues, not fringe groups.
First of all, Gene has nailed it. Super Bowl mania has clearly just gone too far. In a world like ours there must be better things to focus our collective attention on. One of these, of course, is prejudice.
The ad is only “funny” if you accept the underlying bigotry. If you find it offensive for two (“Macho” since we all know there can’t be any gay mechanics out there!) men to kiss, even accidentally, then the fact that they do is probably knee slappin’ funny to the Pat Robertson set.
Oh, wait, they’d be angry that there was any suggestion that mechanics–or anybody else–was gay. So, I guess it’s just a knee slapper for the liberals.
The point here is that the humor is triggered by a repressed taboo–these guys accidentally do the unthinkable! No wonder gay groups are upset. So, if gay activists didn’t like the spot and the red staters didn’t like it, exactly who did the agency think would get it?
Ah, yes, the closet bigots who are, of course, the biggest audience of them all.
A long time ago somebody told me that prejudice was the belief that somebody is different because of their color and racism was the desire to believe that somebody is different because of their color. The same holds true for sexism and obviously for discrimination against gays.
There’s nothing funny about living in a country where, as Race points out, these desires to believe in difference end up in gay bashing and loss of life. We should be ashamed of ourselves for not having the courage to decry anything that plays into the hands of those who attack without thinking, just because somebody is seen as “different.”
Oh, and for the people out there that will say, “Hey it was just a joke,” I offer this: We laugh when somebody in a cartoon slips on a banana peel, but if that happened in real life they could break their neck. Would we still laugh? People used to laugh at Amos and Andy too, but of course that’s when they couldn’t marry white women.
Freud used to argue we laughed to mask our guilt. Maybe the old guy did get one thing right after all.
The Snickers bar ad probably made a lot of people squirm, precisely because it juxtaposed a taboo behavior with an unattractive heterosexual stereotype. Was the commercial tasteful? Not very, in my opinion. Should gay rights activists question Mars’ decision to run this ad? Why not? It’s an opportunity to re-engage the dialog about homophobia and raise consciousnesses a little bit.
Should we be concerned that this particular commercial will somehow propagate or justify intolerance–that is, will it harm gay people or our culture? I don’t think so. Portrayal of gay stereotypes was far more blatant on the hit TV sitcom “Will and Grace” which earned a following from a broad mainstream audience. As our culture is exposed to these alternative behaviors in the media I believe their strangeness tends to fade.
In the end, the issue for Mars is whether this commercial improved brand equity. It sure got people talking, but speaking just for myself, it didn’t make me hungry for a Snickers.
Any sensitivity training the advertisers need will be administered by the market place. These groups can avoid purchasing products if they find their advertising offensive. We don’t need a national debate on this issue.
Sensitive is as sensitive does. I reference GLAAD here, not Mars. GLAAD complainants seem to have enough sensitivity bubbling over to supply Mars (the company and, if need be, the Red Planet) and most of the rest of us. To some, that qualifies as being oversensitive.
Have you seen the motor oil commercial where a guy is standing in his garage preparing to pour the favored lubricant into his car when three “macho men” suddenly appear at his elbow to endorse the product? As I recall, one is a cowboy, one a fireman, and one a different heterosexual stereotype (that I’ve forgotten). No groups are in the business of “fussing” about or being offended by a perceived misuse of typically heterosexual male role models, so the motor oil ad is still running. If such a group did exist, however, they should probably begin by getting The Village People’s “YMCA” song banned. Gay humor created by poking fun at such macho stereotypes as a policeman, a cowboy, a construction worker, a motorcycle rider and, (gasp!) a Native American? Sounds like a class action lawsuit waiting to happen.
Offending statements or actions are rarely intended to offend (ask Joe Biden). Unfortunately, various people or groups of like-minded people seem to enjoy being generally and consistently offended, annoyed, insulted, and disrespected. It’s a lifestyle choice, and they believe the perceived offenses are always intentional. Many people, on the other hand, have discovered it’s more fun to chase happiness than misery.
I also believe that Mars knew exactly what they were doing and the amount of conversation and publicity that has surrounded this has had an incredible value for them. The brand has been discussed over many water coolers as of late. Do I find the ad offensive? Not at all. Even if we dissect the ad, it is not about saying homosexualty is bad; it is about heterosexuals wanting to be seen as macho heterosexuals. What is wrong with them wanting to be seen as who they are and not being seen as who they are not? Isn’t this the point of most of these groups–for people to have the right to be who they are?
Will the federation of autoworkers be offended? They probably have more to be offended about then anyone.
Everybody is so concerned with being politically correct–not offending any of the multitude of groups out there–that humor will disappear. One of the most effective advertising tools will not be acceptable anymore.
Remember, the Kevin Federline commercial also ruffled feathers–it truly is getting out of hand. We all need to be able to laugh at ourselves and distinguish between dangerous offensive material and humorous material created to make people laugh.
You can’t do anything these days without worrying about being politically incorrect because no matter what you do, you are ultimately going to offend someone. If people are going to be so repulsed by commercials then they should turn off the TV.
Advertisers do not need sensitivity training. However they do need to use some more common sense when targeting their audience. There are some things which don’t add value to a product or message and providing these in a commercial at a key time slot like the Super Bowl only exacerbates the issue. There is something to be said about using good taste and some of the advertisers clearly are pushing the limit on this. With that, there is the school of thought that bad commercials do have a shock factor and provide for a more memorable impact.
I’m gay and I saw the ad. I think it’s probably more stupid than offensive. Insensitive? Perhaps. Homophobic? No. It just reflects the clueless nature of Americans. You can run an ad like that in the United States because many people will recognize someone they know who’s like the guys in the ad. You couldn’t run the same ad in a country like Holland because no one would get it. So while I’m not offended by the ad, I do believe there are better ways to market Snickers. Try using babies or dogs. Straight people eat that stuff up! LOL
I’m in agreement with Gene Hoffman that the Super Bowl has become a 10 day orgy of excess and sensationalism sandwiched around 3 hrs of football. The half-time show is designed to be provocative and intentionally or not, “wardrobe malfunctions,” half naked sexy dancers, bleeped lyrics and Prince’s rear end all fit the over-the-top hype. Not surprisingly, given this backdrop, marketers who are paying a couple of million for a :30 sec spot, are going to be pushing the envelope and debuting commercials that attract maximum eyeballs. To achieve this, they sometimes walk a fine line between humor and offensiveness. I personally didn’t find the Mars commercial offensive and I especially didn’t see any issue with GM’s robot spot. However, in this age of political correctness, I believe advocacy groups see the Super Bowl as a forum to raise awareness, obtain valuable PR and solicit donations to their various causes. So they’re poised to pounce on any hint of bigotry, homophobia, cruelty to animals, global warming, hate, you name it…. Kind’a makes you long for the good old days when a football game featured–guess what–football. And of course, the marching band at half time.
I think the Mars spot made fun of homophobics, not homosexuals, so I’m not sure why GLAAD was so sad.
It does seem to me that some folks have way too much time on their hands to look for things to get offended about and then raise a stink.
Why is it that jokes are funnier when they’re about someone else?
As advertising professionals, we like to think we’re smarter than most people and on the cutting edge of what’s new, trendy, hip and cool…all so we can help change the way people think and interact with brands. So can’t we do that without demeaning millions of others…with the brand stuck (in this case literally) right in the middle? Why shouldn’t others challenge us?
As in the case of GM…I don’t believe their faux pas was intentional, but again, it’s not so funny when you’re one of the 35,000 recently laid off auto workers or thousands of Delphi employee’s who lost most of their retirement.
It just seems like the world would be a better place if we all walked in the other guy’s shoes for a while. Or in our quest to be so “intelligent” have we lost the need for “compassion?”
Obviously, there are many issues involved here. This is not simple. Laughing at yourself is wonderful, but if you have been part of a sometimes heavily brutalized minority, it may be asking too much for us to say, just laugh at yourself. Remember, there are incidents in even the last seven years of men who have been murdered for being gay. I completely sympathize with the groups that feel the ad was tasteless.
On the other hand, I have had the opportunity to see that I could change my view of something and turn it from a negative into a positive. Globally, it is my very personal and data-less view that ads like the Snickers ad are very good for us, because it makes us talk openly about important former taboos, like homosexuality. I think it helps us “normalize” this issue–maybe not in a perfect way, or in the best way, but it helps. Twenty years ago, I don’t believe you would EVER have seen something like that ad, and given all the high-profile and vocal and popular gay role models now, I think this is a very good thing. An ad that offends some is better than where we were twenty years ago. It isn’t where I want us to be, but it is good progress.
Yes, advocacy groups take things too far. Advertisers will also not be able to resist the buzz they are getting from this type of controversy. The Mars hit rate on their web site was higher than ever, even after they took down the alternative endings to the “mechanics” spot. I’m not convinced that the creative folks and the client who sat in a conference room and approved this spot did not know exactly what would happen. The advocacy groups should get a commission from the client for turning up the heat and the awareness of these brands/companies.
We should step back and ask ourselves, “What has the Super Bowl, pre and post, become?” Money, glitz, hype, coarseness, bright lights, and a variety of ever-increasing excesses with some good football and some gridiron implosions mixed in.
The race to accelerate excesses and to see who can outdo, out earn, out “extreme” everyone else surges forward. It is not so much the sport itself anymore as much as the money, various awards, publicity, cultural variances and 15-minutes of fame. No wonder we had that Snickers commercial. It seems that in today’s society, right or wrong, whenever one has anything unpleasant to say or do, they feel they should be candid and excessive. Perhaps, just perhaps, that trend is affecting advocacy groups too. Our society might now pause and ask “What’s it all about Alfie?”
The answer to both is YES! Unfortunately alternative and minority groups in this country have much more influence than the mainstream community. If you can’t laugh at yourself (no matter your race, color, creed, sexual preference, etc.) then there is something missing in your make-up! That being said the reality of business is that companies have to be very careful for commercial reasons because a boycott or protest by a group, no matter the size, can negatively affect your company or product image and eventually the bottom line!
Gee, perhaps we contributers to this site should unite to rail against Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert. Through the pointy-haired boss character, he’s been insulting and making all us marketing management types look like moronic incompetent idiots for decades, now.
Frank Dell makes a good point that I think is lost so often. Advertisers are targeting a specific audience. Therefore, if it is the heterosexual male who comprises the majority of the Super Bowl audience (not to say that they have the market on the event), then it stands to reason that Mars, along with other advertisers, would target them. This is the same reason why we see beer and trucks advertised during football games, not feminine hygiene products, diapers, or toys. What Mars did was good advertising for the target audience.
My colleague, Julio Arreaga, had an interesting comment about this whole business. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
There was another ad, a great one in my opinion, with Carlos Mencia as an English instructor, which was voted the top super bowl ad on many polls including the Wall Street Journal.
It makes fun of every accent in the book, from Southern to New York and even East LA. Interestingly, it features two East Indians, one trying to say “Give me a Bud Light Holmes” a la Cheech Marin, the other struggling to say “Bud Light.”
It’s another stereotype we all find funny–the Asian, as perpetual foreigner, trying to speak English. It’s got a long history, dating back at least to Charlie Chan’s “Number One Son” effortlessly rattling off 1930’s “yous guys” slang in flawless unaccented English.
The ad perpetuates a stereotype that is not all that funny to many Asian Americans, many of whom have been asked at what time or another why their English is so good or where they come from. Victor Chin was killed in 1982 for looking like a foreigner; in his case for being a Chinese who looked Japanese in Detroit at that time.
I’m not saying that the Asian community should be complaining. I thought the ad was brilliant. I salute LatinWorks, the Hispanic advertising agency that produced it, for pulling off such a successful General Market ad. And I’d hate to see Budweiser have to pull this campaign.
But why is one campaign funny and the other offensive? I’m not sure of the answer. But Julio is right–the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Michael, aren’t offending statements, by their nature, intended to offend? By the way, if you look at Joe Biden’s record you’ll find a guy who once apologized for his state being trapped in the North and therefore being geographically denied the pleasure of being a slave state during the Civil War.
Moving away from Biden, you are right. Are some people overly sensitive? No doubt! Do some people see attacks when none are present? Everyday! But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t malice present just because somebody complained. We haven’t raised the level of public discussion high enough.
The bottom line is–it isn’t what we laugh at, it’s why we laugh that ought to be the metric here.
To answer Ryan’s question about the banana peel, the answer is yes, people still find it funny in real life. See Jackass 1 & 2.
Advocacy groups exist in part to get offended and let others know they are offended. It’s their job, and they usually do it well. I’m not being facetious; it is a vital role. I’m Jewish and we’ve been doing it for longer than most! Groups that face prejudice and oppression need that voice, and others need to hear it.
That said, organizations tend to ultimately justify their own existence, and there is a tendency to start to reach further and further to find offense. The mechanic commercial is not a good example of something that should be offensive to gay people. There, I’ve said it. It’s just not, regardless of whether some were in fact offended. There are no gay people in the ad, it’s two non-gay people who do something that is personally distasteful to them, and react. Does that say gay people who kiss are gross? No. If the ad showed a brother and sister doing the same thing and reacting the same way would it be offensive? No. If it showed a gay man and a gay woman doing the same thing would it be offensive to straight people? No.
My point, if I have one, is that sometimes our advocacy groups go looking for offense when none should be taken. There should be a two day moratorium on being offended; if you’re still offended after thinking about it for two days and hearing from your constituencies, have at it.
The lesson for advertisers? I wouldn’t try to read too much into it. Ads are a form of art, commercial art yes, but art nonetheless, and art has always taken risks and pushed people out of their comfort zones. Advertisers will win sometimes and lose others, but if all they think of is whether they might offend someone somewhere, they’ll never do anything great. They might take their lumps sometimes, and need to apologize at times, and those apologies should be sincere.
For once, I don’t agree at all with David: among other things, an ad is a success only if keeps the sponsor’s brand in the (potential) customer’s mind…that isn’t the case here.
Final score: Controversy 1, Mars 0
Ah, what the heck, I’ll get my two-cents worth in. Actually the ad itself could be considered insensitive to heterosexuals who might cringe at the site of these two “macho men.”
I find the commercial just plain awful and it’s too bad we and everyone else gave it the immense time and coverage it’s received. Whether a politician or even a celebrity says or does something foolish doesn’t matter here (although words DO mean things). Although football is generally a specific base, the Super Bowl is a much more broadly watched “event”…but you know what? We’re over analyzing….
What is next? This is a commercial with humor; emphasizing the wanting of Snickers…no reflection on gays! Maybe Mars should have used an elephant and a donkey kissing at the end–make it political! Do we need positive intervention and results by our Parties, pronto?
Shall we now have a Board of Review for all commercials prior to being produced, to air on TV, cable, and/or internet? Gee, it is tough enough to get legal approval!
Why are people so difficault? Or is it their time to be heard, or shine? Hmmmmmmmmm