August 8, 2008
BrainTrust Query: Is it OK for advertisers to have fun with gay themes?
By David Morse, President and CEO, New American Dimensions, LLC
Mars, Inc. has decided once again to pull a Snicker’s ad as a result of an outcry from the gay community. This time, it was an ad aired in the U.K., featuring of all people, Mr. T.
The ad begins with a close-up of a speed-walker’s behind as he wiggles his way down a suburban street. Out of nowhere, A-Team style, Mr. T explodes through the wall of a neighboring house in a pick-up truck equipped with a huge machine gun. “You’re a disgrace to the man race,” he exclaims. “It’s time to run like a real man!” He pelts the walker with Snickers bars fired from his machine gun, as the tagline reads “Snickers – Get Some Nuts.”
It’s not the first time Mars has retracted an ad after taking heat for running alleged homophobic content. During the 2007 Super Bowl, the company pulled an ad featuring two mechanics who accidentally kiss after sharing a Snicker’s bar a la “Lady and the Tramp.” The company also pulled some spin-off spots off its website that garnered the wrath of gay groups due to its violent content.
Nor is Mars the only American company to pull an ad in the U.K. involving a man-to-man kiss after getting heat from the U.S. In another case, however, it was not gay rights groups doing the complaining, but rather the American Family Association, a powerful American Christian group.
The ad in question was for Heinz Deli Mayo and was not intended to air in the U.S. The ad features a New York style deli clerk, Brooklyn accent and all, playing the role of “Mum,” handing out lunches to his two British children and “husband.” As “Dad” hastily walks out, Mum asks De Niro style, “Hey, ain’t you forgettin’ something?!” The two kiss, and Mum tenderly shouts out, “Love you!”
Interestingly, both ads were created by the UK agency AMV BBDO. And in neither case did the ads seem to ruffle feathers in the UK.
Discussion Questions: Should advertisers refrain from airing ads with any kind of “gay edge” to them? Are Americans too sensitive about what gets put on TV?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
I guess the question is what is “gay edge?” Olivia Newton John’s “shocking” video for Physical would seem tame today. What is wrong with just showing that families, partners, people are gay, it is no big deal and isn’t something to be made fun of, corrected or shied away from.
Bravo network seems to understand this and is reaping market share from other cable channels. It’s called being inclusive; something the far right will fight tooth and nail–especially in an election year with marriage initiatives.
This is a tough one and I see this happen all the time. We could be having a similar discussion about Christmas trees. As for the retailer, I would go a different direction. Our culture has not made a decision on this issue and I don’t see the value in stirring it up over candy. Let politicians and leaders debate. Just focus on selling the product.
To a certain extent, commercials that poke fun can be entertaining. Remember when the AARP was upset with the “Where’s the Beef” commercial from Wendy’s claiming it was insulting to the elderly? I do believe Americans can be too sensitive, but I think producers flame the fire when they try to push their own personal and political agendas via commercials, movies and TV programs.
Alexis de Tocqueville believed the two biggest challenges our (then) young nation faced was the notion that “bigger is better” and the tyranny of the majority. He was pretty darned prescient.
American business has awakened to the fact that gay people have a lot of disposable income. Good for them. Sell to gay people. Sell to Buddhists. Sell to whoever you want. It’s a customer segment, and I say, go for it.
As RetailWire’s token UK resident (albeit a bona fide American outta NYC), I can tell you what I thought about the Heinz ad. I haven’t seen reaction or comment to the Snickers one but have a hunch the reaction would be the same–little or none. If anything, knowing that the ads were pulled because of pressure form a bunch of Americans who should maybe stick their noses out of our business, having enough lunatic fringe issues of their own to whinge about, would just get my dander up.
There are different cultural sensitivities all over the world and people do not always know what will upset anyone outside of their own country. Maybe British people would have found those ads homophobic. Maybe if they didn’t it’s because they didn’t know that they should have. If they didn’t mind, then maybe they were wrong. Either way, I really don’t think it’s right for someone else to be telling us what we should think and feel about issues that bother them but not us. If gay people in Britain found the ads offensive I don’t think they would have been backward in coming forward.
As for the Snickers ad itself, I’ve just seen it and now really do think this was an outrageous over-reaction. Speedwalkers walk the way the guy walked. If anyone sees that as effeminate, then I think they are possibly homophobic themselves. The way I understood the ad, Mr T was saying that speedwalking isn’t as tough as running and that’s why he pelts the guy with candy bars (candy assed implication maybe?). As for getting some nuts, then perhaps he’s saying that walking rather than running is just nuts. It’s all about perception, folks. Prejudice is usually in the mind of the bigot.
Not sure all of the above commenters actually saw the commercial we’re talking about, some of the comments seem directed toward supporting the use of gay characters in advertising as a sign of healthy respect for diversity. That’s not what happened in this case. The commercial in question, just to reiterate, showed a “macho” Mr. T. gunning down an effeminate man. This is about whether humorous, but mean-spirited, advertising at the expense of a particular group of people should be acceptable.
Many issues are raised here, but the one relevant to this forum is whether it’s good marketing. We had a similar situation with a recent campaign, where we thought poking a bit of fun at the image of newspaper coupon clippers as little old ladies would be taken in the spirit in which it was intended, to just differentiate our younger audience from a traditional competitor. It was effective and most people found it funny, but we got some negative feedback, and we immediately changed the campaign. There are innumerable ways to cut through the clutter without offending people, and it’s just not worth offending any potential customers.
In the case of the Mars commercial, maybe had the Mr. T commercial not followed the “kiss” commercial the reaction would have been different. Maybe they should have anticipated the heightened sensitivity and maybe not. But they were probably wise to pull it; there’s no reason to continue to lose further goodwill in the gay community and alienate a large consumer group. There’s no “principle” to be defended here; ads are designed to sell product. They’ll find another clever way to sell Snickers.
People just get so twisted up in knots over these things! I remember when black people were just being accepted for roles on television shows, and were always cast as good guys. We really crossed the color barrier when Hollywood accepted them as bad guys, too.
The sooner society lightens up and accepts people for who they are, the better. Kudos to Mars for making the ads.
I haven’t seen the ad, but what seems to be the kernel of offensiveness is the violence of Mr. T coming after someone for being effeminate. It doesn’t appear as if the walker is gay necessarily, but it is offensive to me that he is assumed to be gay because he is effeminate and that his effeminacy is portrayed as requiring violence to get him back in line.
Personally, I really liked the ad where the mechanics kiss.
The real shame is any gay themed ad seems to offend some group or another. If it’s homophobic, then gay rights activists are up in arms. If it’s too gay some religious group will want it pulled. As much as we like to think of ourselves as growing as a society, there is still too much hatred, ignorance and insecurity everywhere. It’s a shame we can’t take a hint from our brethren in the UK and just get over it.
Prior to putting an ad on the air, advertisers should avoid wasting time and money by testing reactions from a large cross section of consumers, to include those from communities that, from a practical, common, sensible sense might possibly be offended. This is not really a matter of what’s right or wrong; it’s a matter of spending money and time wisely so that ads don’t have to be recalled.
It all depends on how it’s portrayed. I recall a few years ago there was a TV show called Will & Grace that had some underlying gay theme to it. In fact, it was quite obvious that a couple of the characters were gay. Not only did the show not get immediately canceled, I still see the reruns now and then.
If the commercials are in good taste and not making fun of the fringe of gay society, then I would think most people would be tolerant. The best way not to offend any certain group is to simply never put them in a commercial.
Some extremist Christian groups object to the gay and lesbian days at Disney parks. Doesn’t seem to have hurt Disney’s business. Best thing about American Christian extremists: not much economic power, certainly nothing significant to major national brands like Heinz or Mars.
More Discussions
As Boomers ‘Age Out of Peak Purchasing,’ How Can National Brands Retain Interest With Gen Z?
According to a recent First Insight study titled “Is Gen Z Still Choosing Your Brand,” while…Is Supply Chain Volatility Here To Stay?
Can we expect an ongoing volatility to remain in terms of retail supply chain?Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?
I guess the question is what is “gay edge?” Olivia Newton John’s “shocking” video for Physical would seem tame today. What is wrong with just showing that families, partners, people are gay, it is no big deal and isn’t something to be made fun of, corrected or shied away from.
Bravo network seems to understand this and is reaping market share from other cable channels. It’s called being inclusive; something the far right will fight tooth and nail–especially in an election year with marriage initiatives.
This is a tough one and I see this happen all the time. We could be having a similar discussion about Christmas trees. As for the retailer, I would go a different direction. Our culture has not made a decision on this issue and I don’t see the value in stirring it up over candy. Let politicians and leaders debate. Just focus on selling the product.
To a certain extent, commercials that poke fun can be entertaining. Remember when the AARP was upset with the “Where’s the Beef” commercial from Wendy’s claiming it was insulting to the elderly? I do believe Americans can be too sensitive, but I think producers flame the fire when they try to push their own personal and political agendas via commercials, movies and TV programs.
Alexis de Tocqueville believed the two biggest challenges our (then) young nation faced was the notion that “bigger is better” and the tyranny of the majority. He was pretty darned prescient.
American business has awakened to the fact that gay people have a lot of disposable income. Good for them. Sell to gay people. Sell to Buddhists. Sell to whoever you want. It’s a customer segment, and I say, go for it.
As RetailWire’s token UK resident (albeit a bona fide American outta NYC), I can tell you what I thought about the Heinz ad. I haven’t seen reaction or comment to the Snickers one but have a hunch the reaction would be the same–little or none. If anything, knowing that the ads were pulled because of pressure form a bunch of Americans who should maybe stick their noses out of our business, having enough lunatic fringe issues of their own to whinge about, would just get my dander up.
There are different cultural sensitivities all over the world and people do not always know what will upset anyone outside of their own country. Maybe British people would have found those ads homophobic. Maybe if they didn’t it’s because they didn’t know that they should have. If they didn’t mind, then maybe they were wrong. Either way, I really don’t think it’s right for someone else to be telling us what we should think and feel about issues that bother them but not us. If gay people in Britain found the ads offensive I don’t think they would have been backward in coming forward.
As for the Snickers ad itself, I’ve just seen it and now really do think this was an outrageous over-reaction. Speedwalkers walk the way the guy walked. If anyone sees that as effeminate, then I think they are possibly homophobic themselves. The way I understood the ad, Mr T was saying that speedwalking isn’t as tough as running and that’s why he pelts the guy with candy bars (candy assed implication maybe?). As for getting some nuts, then perhaps he’s saying that walking rather than running is just nuts. It’s all about perception, folks. Prejudice is usually in the mind of the bigot.
Not sure all of the above commenters actually saw the commercial we’re talking about, some of the comments seem directed toward supporting the use of gay characters in advertising as a sign of healthy respect for diversity. That’s not what happened in this case. The commercial in question, just to reiterate, showed a “macho” Mr. T. gunning down an effeminate man. This is about whether humorous, but mean-spirited, advertising at the expense of a particular group of people should be acceptable.
Many issues are raised here, but the one relevant to this forum is whether it’s good marketing. We had a similar situation with a recent campaign, where we thought poking a bit of fun at the image of newspaper coupon clippers as little old ladies would be taken in the spirit in which it was intended, to just differentiate our younger audience from a traditional competitor. It was effective and most people found it funny, but we got some negative feedback, and we immediately changed the campaign. There are innumerable ways to cut through the clutter without offending people, and it’s just not worth offending any potential customers.
In the case of the Mars commercial, maybe had the Mr. T commercial not followed the “kiss” commercial the reaction would have been different. Maybe they should have anticipated the heightened sensitivity and maybe not. But they were probably wise to pull it; there’s no reason to continue to lose further goodwill in the gay community and alienate a large consumer group. There’s no “principle” to be defended here; ads are designed to sell product. They’ll find another clever way to sell Snickers.
People just get so twisted up in knots over these things! I remember when black people were just being accepted for roles on television shows, and were always cast as good guys. We really crossed the color barrier when Hollywood accepted them as bad guys, too.
The sooner society lightens up and accepts people for who they are, the better. Kudos to Mars for making the ads.
I haven’t seen the ad, but what seems to be the kernel of offensiveness is the violence of Mr. T coming after someone for being effeminate. It doesn’t appear as if the walker is gay necessarily, but it is offensive to me that he is assumed to be gay because he is effeminate and that his effeminacy is portrayed as requiring violence to get him back in line.
Personally, I really liked the ad where the mechanics kiss.
The real shame is any gay themed ad seems to offend some group or another. If it’s homophobic, then gay rights activists are up in arms. If it’s too gay some religious group will want it pulled. As much as we like to think of ourselves as growing as a society, there is still too much hatred, ignorance and insecurity everywhere. It’s a shame we can’t take a hint from our brethren in the UK and just get over it.
Prior to putting an ad on the air, advertisers should avoid wasting time and money by testing reactions from a large cross section of consumers, to include those from communities that, from a practical, common, sensible sense might possibly be offended. This is not really a matter of what’s right or wrong; it’s a matter of spending money and time wisely so that ads don’t have to be recalled.
It all depends on how it’s portrayed. I recall a few years ago there was a TV show called Will & Grace that had some underlying gay theme to it. In fact, it was quite obvious that a couple of the characters were gay. Not only did the show not get immediately canceled, I still see the reruns now and then.
If the commercials are in good taste and not making fun of the fringe of gay society, then I would think most people would be tolerant. The best way not to offend any certain group is to simply never put them in a commercial.
Some extremist Christian groups object to the gay and lesbian days at Disney parks. Doesn’t seem to have hurt Disney’s business. Best thing about American Christian extremists: not much economic power, certainly nothing significant to major national brands like Heinz or Mars.