I found it amusing that there were also a bunch of comments left here from gay-haters who were mad at Snickers for depicting a gay kiss on TV for -- eek! -- the kids to see. All I can say about that is whoever the genius is at the ad agency that developed and tested these ads is amazing: Gays and gay-haters rarely ever agree on anything, but this campaign created something both parties could hate together. Now that's what I call reaching across demo.
Back to my first point though about "benefit of the doubt." I say that because I think -- I hope -- that most people who commented that they were not offended were reacting to the ad that ran on TV during the Super Bowl, and that ad only. On that one ad alone, I doubt the tremendous public outcry that took place yesterday would have happened. But that one ad isn't what got people swearing off chocolate -- or at least chocolate made by the Mars company.
To be clear, Snickers had four ad endings posted on their Web site. They wanted people to vote on which of them should run during the Daytona 500. Aside from the one that aired during the Super Bowl, there was another sort of neutral ad ending which hinted at a man-on-man-on-man three-way. It wasn't necessarily homophobic on its face, nor was it gay positive. In other words, it was almost irrelevant.
But the other two were clearly offensive to many who watched them. How anyone who viewed the depiction of violence motivated by a "gay" kiss as a joke, or something gays shouldn't take seriously, is beyond me. The message these ads send is that gay panic is a license to gay bash. Worse, the ads were developed to specifically reach 18-24-year-old males, the same group most likely to commit anti-gay hate crimes. About the campaign, Matthew Shepard's mother said, "This campaign encourages the same type of hate that led to the death of my son Matthew."
Sadly, the idiocy of the Snickers campaign got even worse than that. Also posted on their microsite were these videos of NFL players watching and reacting to the gay-bashing Snickers ads:
NFL Players React to Snickers Kiss Ads (1 of 2)
NFL Players React to Snickers Kiss Ads (2 of 2)
By the end of the day yesterday, Snickers had removed all traces of the ads from their site. In today's New York Times, a spokesman for the company says:
"As with all of our Snickers advertising, our goal was to capture the attention of our core Snickers consumer, primarily 18-to-24-year-old adult males," said a spokeswoman for Masterfoods, Alice Nathanson. "Feedback from our target consumers has been positive, and many media and Web site commentators on this year's Super Bowl lineup ranked the commercial among this year’s best."
"We know that humor is highly subjective and we understand that some consumers have found the commercial offensive," Ms. Nathanson said, adding: "Clearly that was not our intent. We do not plan to continue the ad on television or on our Web site."
I wouldn't exactly call that an apology, but it clearly signals that Mars/Snickers deeply regrets that so much damage to their highly-valued brand name can happen in a mere 30 seconds. At least they didn't announce that Isaiah Washington was coming on board as a celebrity spokesperson, or that they were sending their PR hack to inpatient homophobia counseling. In fact, it was pretty impressive that they reacted so quickly to an online outrage largely driven by gay bloggers.
Snickers certainly wasn't reacting to our community's media watch dog, GLAAD, who didn't utter a peep all day. At 8:00 PM Eastern last night, GLAAD finally issued a statement. What did GLAAD do all day Monday? I mean that seriously. What, if not this, was their staff working on?
So what were the lessons of the day? One is that advertisers still think that homophobic humor sells -- a probable falsehood and an issue about which the Commercial Closet Association is hoping to learn more about through a quantitative research study, they told me today.
But perhaps the biggest lessons were two I already knew: 1) Gay men and lesbians still have a long fight ahead before we get to the point that we aren't fodder for anti-gay jokes and harassment; and 2) We, along with our allies and our laptops, are up to the fight.
8 comments:
Kenneth, I'm a little disappointed that your approach to posting this is a somewhat implied assumption that gay people are an entity who all or largely agree on various issues - especially when it comes to things as subjective as taste, humor, and offense.
We don't. Looking around yesterday, I saw gay people divided on whether or not the ads really were as offensive as advertised. I saw a lot of gay people who thought the bloggers and organizations were over-reacting.
Just because the major gay blogs went along with it and the major gay organizations went along with it, does not mean gay people felt a certain way or that a victory has been achieved, or even that the ads were in fact homophobic.
Many of us found the ads offensive. Many of us did not. The words I'd use to describe the ads are sophomoric and subversive.
It's not as simple as gay vs. straight, homophobia vs tolerance, and it's very myopic to present the issue in that kind of black and white way. Sometimes it's more important to be fair and thoughtful and objective, rather than be outraged and go along with everyone else is saying.
This total over-reaction by the gay leadership is definitely one of those times. Snickers offensive? Not nearly as offensive as the marriage amendments. It's a pity gay organizations couldn't be bothered using their bullhorns to fight <i>those</i>. When it came time to fight the FMA, Joe Solmonese said we had better things to talk about. When states voted on them at the ballot box this year, the HRC sent their money to state senate races in New Hampshire.
After that kind of basic, fundamental failure from the gay leadership, I don't give a fig about what they think of a candy bar's ad campaign.
Respectfully,
Robbie from Malcontent
Robbie, I respect your viewpoint and agree with you that not all gays think in one big gay-think. However, the fact that not all gays found the ad campaign to be homophobic doesn't negate the feelings of the many who did, including me.
I find it a little hard to swallow that any gay person seeing the guy take it in the gut with a wrench -- and the accompanying Mystery Science Theater-style asinine commentary by NFL players -- wouldn't be offended, but I'm willing to suspend my assumptions if you say otherwise.
I agree, too, that "sometimes it's more important to be fair and thoughtful and objective, rather than be outraged and go along with everyone else is saying" ... except that sometimes outrageous events call for outrage.
I, along with millions of people, saw that ad. After seeing the Web site, I was outraged, so I wrote about it. These are my opinions, as yours are on The Malcontent. Not sure why that gets me labeled as a herd-mentality blogger? (If I read your comment correctly.)
As for marriage amendments vs. candy bar ads, obviously they aren't at the same priority level. That doesn't necessarily mean that we should ignore smaller battles because the big ones are more important. They go hand in hand in my view.
Thanks for reading/commenting.
Kenneth
I'm tryig to find out what Don Wildmon thinks.
What you refer to so fervidly as "anti-gay" and "gay bashing" is actually just humor in reference to something that is just naturally funny: homosexuality. People don't laugh at jokes out of spite; they laugh because they are funny. You are so closed-minded and immature that, rather than ever admit you might have something wrong with you, you want to dictate that rational people can't laugh at it because the reason it is funny is that it's abnormal behavior (which you already know). Your tirades are just one example (out of countless ones throughout the media) of how totalitarian, intolerant and irrational the liberal mindset is. Did I mention extremely hypocritical (you no doubt constantly tout the virtues of free speech and tolerance, yet the moment someone says something you don't agree with, do everything passively-aggressive you can to silence that person)? The fact that "all traces of the ads" were removed from the face of the earth and that a link to your blog was prominently featured on AOL's People Connection home page, which is how I came across it (and the very fact a commercial was shown depicting homosexuals kissing in the first place, for that matter!), exemplify the obscene amount of pandering and favoritism being shown to your ilk by the media. In other words, you're in no position to complain.
Mptiz: Our "ilk" still get bashed on a regular basis in big cities and small towns simply for being gay. For what is, to you, "naturally funny" is to us a sense of great joy and pride, but also a source of danger when you're always just one lunatic away from a trip to the E.R.
I've never been bashed, but I've been threatened -- and I know people who have been beaten by supposedly heterosexual men so insecure about their own sexuality that they feel the need to inflict physical harm on someone they perceive to be "less than" themselves.
It's not that Kenneth and I were "offended" by the ads (like Kenneth, I'm talking principally about the "alternate endings" on the Snickers website). They didn't disturb our delicate senses of decorum. They were DANGEROUS. Seeing two men beat each other with a wrench and the hood of a large truck isn't funny to me, and I don't see how it sells a candy bar.
And the fact that the young straight males of the country thought it was funny isn't an excuse; it just makes the ads more dangerous. In the future, I'd advise you not to expound on things of which you know little. And in the meantime, count yourself lucky that you don't know what it is to be gay in America; something tells me you wouldn't be man enough to handle it.
I did got to the wedsite and veiwed all 4 ads, or versions of the same ad, and set to Snikers my thoughts and how they crosswed a line with at least 2 of their ads. this is the response i recieved just this afternoon:
"In response to your email regarding SNICKERS BRAND .
As with all of our SNICKERS Brand advertising, our goal was to capture the
attention of our core SNICKERS consumer.
Feedback from our target consumers has been positive. In addition, many media
and website commentators of this year's Super Bowl commercial line-up ranked the commercial among this year's top ten best. USA Today ranked it #9 of its top ten
pick.
We know that humor is highly subjective and understand that some people may have found the ad offensive. Clearly that was not our intent. Consequently, we do not plan to continue to air the ad on television or on our SNICKERS Brand
website.
Please be assured that we appreciate your feedback and value you as a consumer.
We will continue to forward your comments on to our Marketing Managers.
Sincerely,
Consumer Care
Masterfoods USA
A Division of Mars, Incorporated"
do they truely believe that people would not find those offensive? and yes, were is the apology?
Slap stick humour is funny to most, or at least when they're in their teens, but using the same humour over a very sensitive issue is just wrong.
If the ad had stopped before they started smacking each other, I wouldn't have a problem. I'm in the UK and have only seen this ad on this site. I didn't even know about this, but I'm sure that's just 'cos I've been preoccupied lately.
Top and bottom (no pun intended) of this is, they wanted to advertise and create attention to Snickers....Well they certainly accomplished that, but for all the wrong reasons!
I'd like to see a commercial about gay guys who laugh and 'Ewwww' at a heterosexual kiss. I'm SURE there'd be outrage!! Heaven forbid the shoe be on the other foot!
Stevie
You along with your laptops are up to the fight? That's good, more power to you.
Too bad you're all showing up at the wrong fights.
Post a Comment