« GARMIN: Ultraman | Main | GODADDY.COM: Marketing »
SNICKERS: KissJEFF GOODBY: I liked the Snickers Brokeback Mountain thing, although it evoked howls of disapproval from the crowd. |
|
February 5, 2007 | Permalink |
Comments
This ad is homophobic and promotes intolerance of gays and lesbians. The microsite is even worse. Filmed reactions of football players reacting in disgust as they watch the ads? Does it get any worse than that?
Knee-jerk homophobia might be hilarious to some (including some of the "experts" quoted on this site). But if that is the state of advertising/marketing today, then count me out of it.
Posted by: Toby | Feb 5, 2007 2:01:28 PM
Redeeming the FATASSOPOLIS. Nice
Posted by: whoisrachel | Feb 5, 2007 6:44:34 PM
I agree totally with Toby. I'm a gay man. So this commercial, clearly communicating that kissing a man isn't a manly thing, really pissed me off. Then, when I visited the microsite, it got much worse. The players reactions were sickening. The entire thing is despicable.
Posted by: Steve | Feb 5, 2007 6:53:13 PM
I was watching with my extended family and everyone was grossed out - especially the kids. Then when Prince came on- it all made sense. Gay people really like football.
Posted by: Brian White | Feb 5, 2007 7:24:52 PM
Snickers/Mars Corp. has just pulled the afterthekiss.com and snickerssatisfies.com websites? Could it be that they folded under the pressure of outside influences? There goes our right to vote, what's next!?!?
Posted by: Jorge Santiago | Feb 5, 2007 8:15:27 PM
you all need to calm down. Is it getting so bad in America, that anything and everything has to automatically be offensive now? We are fast becoming the nation of the over sensitive.
Here, how bout I ad fuel. Budweiser is making it seem like all 20something men are walking morons. In result making it further more fine for women to just assume we are all walking morons like they have always believed.
BTW, I was kidding just then. (Stop being so serious Americans).
Let's get real here. If you kissed your coworker, you'd find it disgusting (unless you wanted too). It's a freaking commercial people. If you don't want to be offended by anything move to a country that kills people for doing offensive things (like showing a pectoral, or clevage).
Oh my god, I saw that cheerleaders underwear under her skirt. I am so F'ing offended.
Gerry Graf, I'll work for you. Shoot me an email when you're not doing kick ass (can I say this) spots.
Posted by: Bryan | Feb 5, 2007 9:14:19 PM
You're way off the mark here, Bryan. The commercial itself isn't really offensive. But the microsite is extremely homophobic, given the "alternate endings" that involve the two men senselessly beating each other, and the filmed reactions of football players reacting with absolute disgust at the site of two men kissing.
Clearly you fail to see the larger picture here.
Posted by: Toby | Feb 6, 2007 8:40:45 AM
I saw it coming a mile away - tortured and unfunny.
Posted by: SFGary | Feb 6, 2007 8:17:15 PM
Toby,
I didn't get to see the microsite as it was pulled before I got a chance to check it out. I'm sure it upset some people. Either way, I stand by my original sentiments.
Additionally, people are complaining about Prince's halftime show,which furthermore proves my point about the over-sensitive nature this country is declining into. Let's laugh people instead of picking everything apart until it's toddler approved.
Bryan
Posted by: Bryan | Feb 7, 2007 11:29:50 AM
Sorry, I just find it a little hard to laugh at someone's homophobic reaction to the sight of two men kissing.
Posted by: Toby | Feb 7, 2007 2:07:59 PM
Only freaks would want to see men kissing. This ad disgusted me and my friends so much, we swore off buying snickers for a year.
Posted by: funcple66 | Feb 7, 2007 2:26:02 PM
This gets a 10 on the Appallometer - a close 2nd to "Robots" from GM as the worst ad ever for a Superbowl...
Posted by: CrunchBack | Feb 7, 2007 7:11:00 PM
Why can't we fucking acknowledge that hetero men kissing each other is creepy in a funny way?
The scene that wrote the book on the subject, Steve Martin sleeping with his hand between John Candy's butt cheeks, is that homophobic?
The very important, and completely obvious, distinction here is that the two men in the Snickers spot ARE EXTREMELY NOT GAY.
Posted by: jason | Feb 13, 2007 4:52:25 PM
I'm disturbed by the favorable reviews this spot received from many highly regarded agency leaders. In particular, not one stopped to ask if the image, ideas, associations and values of the spot were consistent with the desired image, ideas, associations and values of the brand.
This reveals the #1 thing broken with advertising – especially TV advertising. It’s not clutter or commercial avoidance.
It’s failure to focus on the right things.
Look, no one can argue the spot executed on what we can easily imagine were its intended goals: "get attention", "build buzz", "lift awareness", “be memorable.” But in pursuing the short-term fool’s gold of awareness and buzz, Snickers and its agency ignored or willingly sacrificed brand integrity, brand identity, and ultimately, brand equity.
Regardless of our intent in constructing a spot, advertising - especially TV advertising - is a multidimensional instrument. Every image, idea, character and symbol in a spot can impact the customer's relationship with the brand. So with every spot, we have to consider the potential impact on our brand identity and brand equity – which is so much more than awareness – by deconstructing it mentally while we’re constructing the spot, and after it’s produced.
What happens when we deconstruct this ad?
This spot creates high levels of attention and anxiety by compelling people to examine their attitudes towards homosexuality. Among straight men (much of the viewing audience), this tension is even higher than in other demos. The humorous payoff - mechanics ripping hair off their chests to relieve the anxiety - is supposed to do what exactly to associate positive emotions with Snickers?
Even if we had a shallow and insensitive laugh about the pain and awkwardness, what message is Snickers sending? "Hey, we recognize society's anxiety and discomfort with homosexuality. And by pointing it out, we're exploring a space that’s relevant to the audience! Oh, and Snickers with chocolate, caramel and peanuts is a great way to relieve anxiety. Even though, umm, the cause of the anxiety was two guys eating a Snickers. But, uhh, go buy a Snickers anyway. Because it satisfies ... even more than ripping your hair off your chest."
Regardless of your feelings about homosexuality, viewers can’t come away from this spot feeling any less anxious about homosexuality – and now they’re going to associate anxiety and any possible negative emotions about homosexuality with the Snickers brand. It’s inconceivable that anyone at the agency or on the client side stopped to ask if the image, ideas and values of the spot are consistent with the desired image, identity and values of the brand?
It’s easy (although often true) to say that TV ads aren’t designed to please viewing audiences, they’re designed to indulge the whims of creative directors and the egos of CEOs. That’s probably true more often than any of us like to admit. But when a brand manager or account team lets that happens, advertising fails to serve the interests of the brand. Serving the interests of a brand means establishing an emotional connection to the brand, building favorable associations, reminding people when and how to consume it, shaping an identity for it, and encouraging people to participate in the brand experience.
When the stakes are raised with polarizing content and a Super Bowl sized audience, the best outcome from bad advertising is wasted ad spend. The worst is consumer alienation and brand defection. I can’t say how much damage was done in this case, but for me, Snickers tumbled to somewhere just slightly above Taco Bell and GM – other brands that will need years and years of reconstruction for me to ever consider consuming.
I hope the industry learns from this valuable lesson.
Posted by: mark | Apr 18, 2007 7:48:02 PM
