Why McDonald's couldn't accept Burger King's peace offering #McWhopper

I wrote early yesterday about Burger King's brilliant PR coup for Peace One Day: A challenge to arch(es) rival McDonald's to build a combination of their two classic burgers as a symbol for peace.

The ploy worked, not just because it picked up endless press, but because the response from McDonald's was cold and patronizing.

But while the wording of the response was a PR failure, there are several reasons that McDonald's basically had to turn BK down.


1. When you're #1, you don't acknowledge competition

McDonald's has been faltering lately, but they still own the category of fast food burgers. By making this proposal to the Golden Arches, Burger King was putting the two brands of equal footing. This would be unacceptable to the traditional top dog brand strategy, which is to not acknowledge the competition. There might be some exceptions, but in general McDonald's expresses its #1 status by pretending it has no competitors, just as Coke doesn't talk about Pepsi. It's up to the competitors to take down the kind of the hill.


2. The McWhopper makes one seem better than the other.

Watch this video from the campaign microsite:

Note the subtleties. BK didn't call the Big Mac/Whopper blend the "Big Whopper." That's because the very name Whopper is a reminder that the burger, introduced in 1957 (10 years before the Big Mac) is about "bigger."

Now look at the proposed burger:

The Big Mac upper half is dwarfed by the Whopper bottom half. This is a shot at the Big Mac brand.

Now, look at how the ingredients are described:

By using only one of the "two all beef patties" and 2/3 of the 3-layer bun, they almost yell out Wendy's old line of "Where's The Beef?" The Whopper ingredients, however, focus on fresh toppings and "flame grilled" patty.


3. Even the packaging is skewed

Who gets the most real estate on the box?

4. There's already been a "McWhopper" 

Thirty years ago, McDonald's genuinely tried to imitate the Whopper with the utter failure of the McDLT.

I was only 15 at the time, but I distinctly recall referring to the obvious imitation as a "McWhopper." Maybe it was just me, but even the proposed mashup burger brought back memories of that disaster.


So, to accept this challenge as stated, McDonald's would have to first acknowledge Burger King as an equal rival, then deal with the various slights that BK made against their signature brand.

The stunt, which according to AdFreak was a collaborative effort between Y&R in New Zealand, Code & Theory, Alison Brod Public Relations, The David Agency, Rock Orange, Turner Duckworth and Horizon, was pure brilliance. It was also designed to "fail" in getting McDonald's onboard. However, I'm not sure that the agencies and the BK fold could have anticipated how poorly MCDonald's would fumble the response.

Regardless, it was a huge success in building up Burger King's cool, as well as making Peace One Day a topic of conversation.

Similac makes fun of the "Mommy Wars" and it's pretty apalling

So, Similac, a company that stands to benefit from as few women breastfeeding (and breastfeeding women doing it as little as possible) has decided to position itself as the great peacemaker in the angry crossfire of deeply personal judgements of other peoples' parenting choices known as the "Mommy Wars."

I'm a big advocate of breastfeeding, when it works for the mother. But I also believe that women's bodies are theirs to do with as they choose. If they choose not to nurse, nobody gets to police them.

The problem I have with this ad is that by stereotyping the various conflicts between parent trends (including stay-at-home dads), then resolving with a message that none of it really matters, they are negating the very real and important discussions happening about these issues. The nursers feeling forced to cover up, working women with inadequate maternal leave or work flexibility, the challenges faced by lesbian moms? These are presented as no different than the arguments about diapers, baby wearing, and yoga for moms.

By positioning itself as the teller of this tale, Similac very sneakily invalidates lactivist criticisms of its product and marketing. Yeah, I saw what you did there!

But, you know, it's an American commercial. So the warring parties rally around a really bad example of parental neglect and hug it out.

H/T Adfreak

IKEA interactive mirror wants you to feel good about yourself... shopping

Adfreak featured a new PR stunt by IKEA in the UK that consists of a mirror that compliments the appearance of people who look into it. Cute, eh?

Adfreak's Tim Nudd compared it to Dove's strategy of building confidence by celebrating "real beauty." But what is a machine that doles out automated compliments really doing?

This is just a fun little story, but I wonder if such obviously fake compliments do more harm than good. IKEA says that this project is trying to address the problem that half of British people don't get complimented by anyone in an average week. But are people really so easily flattered that they respond positively to a robot?

Apparently so:


Self-esteem is a wonderful thing. But the automatic compliment-generator reminded me of something Peggy Drexler, Ph.D, wrote a couple of years ago in Psychology Today. She revealed that the current generation of parents is damaging their children's ability to succeed by over-complimenting them:

Research with children and families has indeed told us that praise has the opposite intended effect. It does not make children work harder, or do better. In fact, kids who are told they’re bright and talented are easily discouraged when something is “too difficult;” those who are not praised in such a manner are more motivated to work harder and take on greater challenges. The unpraised, in turn, show higher levels of confidence, while overpraised are more likely to lie to make their performances sound better. Praise becomes like a drug: once they get it, they need it, want it, are unable to function without it.

The compliments referenced are about academic or athletic achievement. Another school of thought says that more superficial compliments — specifically, when adults endlessly tell girls how pretty they look — actually adds to body image anxiety by programming them to believe that attractiveness is the main standard by which their worth is judged.

Adults are smart enough to know that the IKEA mirror is just a toy.  But adults are not immune to the more subtle effects of false ego-boosting in advertising. Elaine Chan and Jaideep Sengupta at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology published research that demonstrated how consumers' behaviour was motivated by flattery in marketing, even when they were fully aware that the advertising was insincere:

participants in the study were asked to evaluate the merits of a new department store opening in the area based on one of the store’s advertisements. In addition to describing the new store’s offerings, the ad lauded readers for their impeccable sense of style and eye for high fashion. While participants overwhelmingly categorized the pamphlet as flattery with the ulterior motive of pushing blouses, the experimenters were more interested in how their attitudes would be influenced at the implicit level. Might participants develop a non-conscious positive association with the department store, even after rejecting the ad as meaningless puffery? And if so, would this implicit reaction be a better predictor of decisions and behavior down the road? Will even the people who are wise to advertising tricks end up at the register, credit card in hand? 

It turns out that implicit attitudes towards the store were more positive than explicit attitudes. They were also better predictors of reported likelihood of making future purchases, as well as likelihood of joining the store’s club. So it seems that while participants quickly dismissed these ads at the explicit level, the flattery was exerting an important effect outside their awareness.

So, is IKEA making its UK customers more confident about their bodies? Or is it just giving them a quick hit of artificial self-esteem to boost sales, at the expense of creating an even more compliment-addicted, superficial and narcissistic culture?

Let's go back and look at Dove. I've criticized the brand quite a bit for some of its stunts, but here in Canada the Dove Self-Esteem Project is taking a very different direction from the IKEA mirror. It states: "The pressure on girls to be beautiful impacts their self-esteem and can hold them back from fulfilling their potential in life." But rather than insincerely telling all girls that they are meeting a common beauty standard, the program tries to shift girls' self-esteem away from simple appearance.

The IKEA mirror is just a silly little stunt to get earned media. But it also says a lot about where we're going as a society. Or rather, how far we haven't come.

Italy would rather not have its Renaissance masterpieces used to sell American guns

AdFreak reports:

Italy's culture minister, the Historical Heritage and Fine Arts Board curator, and the director of Florence’s Accademia Gallery (where "David" is currently on display) have all denounced the ad, and ArmaLite has been issued a legal notice to retract the image because the statue is considered government property and can't be used commercially without the proper rights and fees.

But as the author, David Kiefaber, points out, would Italy have been so upset if the ad hadn't been for a big American gun?  (Note also the difference in cultural sensitivities, as the America company censors David's penis.)

Here are a couple of other examples of Michelangelo's David in advertising:

Via Ads of The World

AOTW

A message from the False Advertising Industry about "natural" foods

Adfreak just shared this hilarious takedown of weasel words in food advertising:



The irony here is that, worldwide, "Organic" is a certification that is not as absolute as you might think. And the health benefits of organic foods are always in question. (In our household, we're more concerned about farmers' exposure to toxins.) But it's still a fun bit of advocacy.

Is this really "redefining beauty"?

There's a quite a bit of backlash against excessive Photoshopping of models over the past few years. From snarky comments by subjects who don't recognize themselves post-PS and anti-Photoshop marketing campaigns to outright bans on excessive photo alteration, retouching has never been more in the public eye. In some cases, the backlash can even be accused of going too far.

Some magazines, like Seventeen have responded to public pressure by promising to stop airbrushing models to death. And of course some fashion brands are jumping onboard.

Which brings us to this:

The "all natural" approach by aerie, the lingerie brand associated with American Eagle, is understandably getting noticed. AdFreak's Roo Ciambriello calls them "Simple, Revolutionary Lingerie Ads." But as Adrants' ever-subtle Steve Hall points out, "Of course we're never going to see girls in these campaigns that aren't already naturally hot."

While it's laudable that the models don't have artificial thigh gaps or plasticized skin, they are not exactly ordinary people. Not that we should entirely expect them to be, I suppose. Models are hired based on their looks. But attempting to take the higher ground by saying the brand represents "the real you" can expose it to greater scrutiny as well.

Remember when a Dove "Real Beauty" casting call was leaked? It specified "BEAUTIFUL ARMS AND LEGS AND FACE WILL BE SHOWN! MUST HAVE FLAWLESS SKIN, NO TATTOOS OR SCARS! Well groomed and clean...Nice Bodies..NATURALLY, FIT Not too Curvy Not too Athletic." (Caps theirs.)

Underwear models, like swimsuit models, tend to have pretty "flawless" appearance to begin with. I get it. Fashion is aspirational, and people want to believe that the clothes will make them seem sexy, or beautiful, or powerful, or cool, or whatever the brand promises. It always has, even long before Photoshop existed.

However, the question for me is whether a lingerie brand that features beautiful young women lounging around provocatively in underwear should be celebrated for not gilding the lily (so to speak) by altering them to remove their few "flaws."

Maybe just a little bit, but not too much. It's still feeding into female stereotypes of what acceptably sexy bodies look like, and how their sexuality is presented to the world.

Pantene attacks the sexist double standard for confident women

This Pantene ad from the Philippines reminded me of a recent conversation with a woman colleague. She was saying that people tell her she's "aggressive" and "pushy." I told her they had a name for men who are like her: "Sir."



This double standard, unfortunately, is still with us. We see it everyday. Confidence and aggression are celebrated when men display them, but women who do the same are put down by women and men alike.

Perhaps a shampoo ad can't end it, but it's at least good that we're talking about it.

Via Adfreak

Catholic girls' school promotes a spiritual "feminism"

AdFreak's Rebecca Cullers shared this nifty campaign from Mercy Academy, "a tiny, all-female Catholic college-prep academy in Kentucky."

She writes,

What's most remarkable is that a Catholic preparatory school is taking a view of women's education that doesn't end in a prince. Lord have mercy, but Mercy Academy has a progressive view on women's role in the world.

Perhaps this shouldn't be so shocking. Despite continuing to officially refuse women in its priestly ranks, or to allow them to use medical methods of reproductive choice, the Catholic Church does have a radical side.

Pope Francis, in particular, has been outspoken in his insistence that the Church serve the poor and not waste its time worrying about gay people — and maybe some of its other policies as well.

The school is run by the Sisters of Mercy of America.

Mercy Academy believes that, "the prime responsibility of each student is to learn how to learn and think critically" Their goal is "a self-motivated learner who is interested in expanding her knowledge and who is capable of applying what she knows to human problems."

Sounds pretty good to me, in principle, no matter what you believe.

Advertising people are abnormal

They say the worst mistake a marketer can make is to think he or she is just like the target audience. That's mostly because we can't look at ads without deconstructing them, we think that social media buzz is way more important than it really is, and we value breakthrough ideas over easy results.

Here are some other weird things about my people, via Lowe Roche in Toronto:



In this case, ad people are the target audience, landing this agency video on Adfreak where we'll all see it. Some of the stats hit pretty close to home.

It's just too bad they screwed up their poutine:

Shredded cheese? Abomination.

Is this ad really controversial?

AdFreak's Roo Ciambriello quips, "Political statement? Plea for tolerance? Maybe in part, but this recently posted Los Angeles billboard featuring a U.S. soldier and a Muslim woman embracing is mostly just an ad for a sleep aid."

That's how I feel, too. The brand wanted to show "couples that you normally don't see in advertising,"t their spokesperson explained, and that diversity follows through in the Snorestop web site:

The funny thing about this, for me, is that it's hard to find concrete examples of this "controversy".

CBC Los Angeles quotes the company spokesperson saying "“People feel that we are trying to misuse the image of military servicemen" but the only person the article interviewed about it was ambivalent.  World Bulletin ran the headline, "LA billboard ad to stay despite offending Muslims" without any specific examples, stating "...the image of a Muslim woman embracing a US soldier in such a way may be upsetting for the Muslim community in LA." An article in 10 News San Diego mentions negative Facebook messages. I can't seem to find any on their page. Nor on Twitter.

As a matter of fact, the "controversy" seems to be entirely a manufactured one, with media accepting whatever the brand says about public reaction to its campaign. An Instagram post of the billboard by stephanianne, who claims to be one of the people behind the campaign, reads "if we can keep this couple together, with their religious and social obstacles, we can keep anyone together."

My first thought was, why would anyone assume the husband does not also follow Islam?
There are thousands of Americans serving in the military who are practicing Muslims. 

The News 10 article identifies the couple as "veteran Jamie Sutton and his wife Aleah, who is Muslim" with no reference to Mr. Sutton's religious views. (Because in America, I guess being Christian is the default faith.) But who cares, really?

I'd love to believe that Snorestop really is committed to treating all couples as, well, just couples. But the lengths they have gone to, to make sure their campaign gets PR for being "controversial",  shows that they are just part of the problem.

Hanes tries to hijack a cancer meme, fails

Remember those silly slacktivist things where women were writing the colour of their bra or panties on Facebook to "raise awareness" of associated cancers? So does someone working for Hanes.

AdFreak's Rebecca Cullers writes:

Hanes is asking women to overshare on social media by telling the world the color of their undies. They're pretending that revealing your panty color is some sort of slightly salacious act, and they're willing to offer you free undies if you do it, though it's pretty clear that the whole thing is cleverly disguised market research into preferred panty colors. 

The interactive site over at undercovercolor.com is not super exciting. It asks you to choose a colour from a colour wheel (that oddly includes neither white nor black nor "nude" options)

There's not much else to say about this campaign except that stealing an (old) idea from grassroots social media memes is rather cynical. And pretending talking about panty colour is edgy, in our present age of fetish porn and commando wardrobe malfunctions, is beyond disingenuous.

Even the ASA has a soft spot for silly IRN-BRU ads

According to AdFreak, one of the latest entries in IRN-BRU's always-cheeky "Gets you through" campaign provoked 176 complaints to the UK Advertising Standards Authority:



Specifically:

1. Most complainants challenged whether the ads were offensive and irresponsible, because they considered that the scenario between the mother and young men was sexual and inappropriate. 

2. Some complainants challenged whether the ads were sexist and demeaning to women. 

3. Some viewers challenged whether ad (a) was inappropriately scheduled at a time when children could have been viewing.

Here is the advertiser's defence:

AG Barr plc (AG Barr) stated that the premise of the campaign was using IRN-BRU to cope with awkward situations and the ads under investigation dealt with how parents could unwittingly embarrass their teenage children.  AG Barr said they had been conscious that the ads should stay true to the traditionally cheeky and irreverent sense of humour of IRN-BRU ads, but should not objectify women, carry any tone of a sexual nature or cause offence.  They said they did not consider that the scene between the mum and young men was sexual or inappropriate and felt there was no lasciviousness or flirting between the mum and the boys.  They stated that the friends were simply reacting to the mum's new clothing in the way you would expect them to and that the mum was completely oblivious to the reaction she was drawing from her son's friends.  They said the central focus of the ad was the son's embarrassment and the comedic and surreal concept that IRN-BRU would help him deal with such an awkward situation, and that humour relied on the mum's innocence.  They added that the young men were not reacting in a way that portrayed sexuality, nor were they colluding in a salacious fashion, but were rather transfixed by the mum's appearance.  They said all three male actors were aged 19 to 21 years.   

They considered that the mum was dressed in a way which did not display a gratuitous amount of cleavage, this they felt reinforced the lack of sexual undertone and pointed out that the mum was very matter of fact when she delivered the line "New push up bra - amazing, eh?".  They said the line was delivered as a straightforward observation about the new addition to her wardrobe, in the same way she would announce that she was wearing new shoes, and, similarly, the delivery of the line "Group hug?" was also in a light-hearted and friendly tone with no hint of flirtation.

The ASA is notoriously skittish about sex in advertising, so you might expect that an ad with teenage boys ogling a mom's cleavage would get pulled pretty quickly. But in a surprise ruling, the standards body cleared the ad.

From The Guardian:

In its ruling, the ASA noted that the interaction between the mum and the two boys did not constitute irresponsible behaviour. 

"Although we noted that some complainants had interpreted the action in the ads as portraying an inappropriate relationship between the mum and the son's friends, we did not consider that their interaction was a portrayal of irresponsible behaviour," it said. 

"We considered that the action relied on the mum being confident and attractive, but not consciously or overtly behaving in a sexualised or flirtatious way. We also considered that the focus of the ads was the son's embarrassment at the effect his mum's appearance was having on his friends. 

"Therefore, and particularly in the context of ads intended to portray a surreal and light-hearted comedic approach, we did not consider that the action or depiction of the female protagonist was sexist or demeaning and concluded that the ads were not in breach of the code."

Interesting development.

Grumpy Cat meme hijacked for anti-teen-drinking billboard

Add caption

According to AdFreak's Rebecca Cullers, this ad is up in Elizabeth, Pennsylvania:

The ad is one of a kind and was paid for by Elizabeth Forward High School, which held a design competition for students and chose four winning boards. JT DeMarco, a junior, created the Grumpy Cat design with some great concepting and a poor grasp of copyright law. 

Grumpy Cat, AKA Tardar Sauce, is a bona-fide internet celebrity with a permanent frown "due to feline dwarfism and an under bite". No word yet as to whether the school has been asked to take the board down.

Cute Cheerios ad incites racist flamewar

There was a time, a few years ago, when it was common casting procedure on our Canadian government ads to cast families of different ethnic backgrounds. This was an easy way to show population diversity even when the action took place in a single household. The challenge was always to avoid making it look forced, or turning it into a cliché. We just wanted to show families that more people could identify with, and not feel excluded by.

So it was interesting for me to open up Gawker and read about the controversy surrounding a new Cheerios spot from the United States:



Apparently, Cheerios had to shut down the comments thread in its YouTube post of the ad was flooded with racist hate speech. I can't give you a firsthand account, but AdFreak Editor Tim Nudd describes it as "devolved into an endless flame war, with references to Nazis, 'troglodytes' and 'racial genocide'."

But almost as surprising, to me, is what a huge (positive) deal people on Cheerios' Facebook Page are making, as if depicting families that don't all have the same complexion is some kind of marketing revolution.

I guess both the bad and the good show how far American culture has to go when it comes to getting over its obsession with "race" (whatever that means). When everyone can look at an ad like this and just see a family, then we'll know there's been progress.

By the way, to circle back to my first point, congratulations to Saatchi & Saatchi NYC for achieving an effortless realism in what was apparently a very momentous casting choice.

#FML = "Fun My Life"?!?

JELL-O is having some fun with Twitter, responding to #FML ("Fuck My Life") Tweets with little shots of sunshine:

While this kind of sugary cheerfulness could get annoying, the little unexpected gifts are really cute.

According to AdFreak, the work is by CP+B (who else) and "between now and June 14, everyone who tweets the #FML hashtag is entered into a pool, from which a certain number will win 'Fun My Life' prize packs 'specially created to get their life back on track.'"

LMF(un)AO....

This is how you do sex in advertising

It can be done. Just watch:



I was a little worried at first, with the lesbian fetish cliché of the two women kissing, but when bethonged spokesman Brandon Allen gets in bed with the threesome, the ad achieves a kind of self-deprecating charm and irony.

The point is that sex in advertising isn't bad by itself. The problem is when the sex is all about objectifying women's bodies and sexuality for men's viewing pleasure. Sexual humour that treats everyone equally isn't a problem when the context and the audience are appropriate.

There are two other ads in the series. One deals with BDSM:



The other, dope:



These ads are all about brand over product. It's the sort of unpretentious marketing that goes over well with the growing numbers of undemanding new wine drinkers.

Tip via AdFreak

Radio Shack tries to sex-up its brand, fails

Radio Shack? Really?



The Wall Street Journal reports that the approach is moving product:

The ad, which has been out for about a week, has already gotten more than 600,000 hits on YouTube and the stores allegedly can’t keep the product in stock, according to a research note today from David Strasser, retail analyst at Janney Montgomery Scott.

“This shows a management team willing to take risk, and a desire to think outside the RadioShack box,” Mr. Strasser said of the new ad campaign. “It’s more like a beer commercial than a [consumer electronics] commercial, but that is what this company needs to attract certain target customer groups.”

Creatively, it's kind of sad. The ad is a direct lift from the original Robin Thicke (ft. T.I., Pharrell) video, "Blurred Lines":



This is borrowed interest taken to the extreme. The difference is, sexual objectification of women in music videos — ethics aside — is still a different thing than the same sexual exploitation perpetrated by a brand. One has a certain amount of artistic licence. The other is at the mercy of its customers, stockholders and partners. The lines between the music business and retail may be blurring, but there is still a difference when it comes to what they have to lose.

Radio Shack may be getting some renewed interest from this lazy marketing, but long-term they risk alienating customers. Including some who buy Beats by Dre.

AdFreak's David Gianatasio lays it out pretty succinctly:

Yes, the clip has quickly amassed 700,000 YouTube views. But RadioShack shouldn't get too excited about that, because I'm betting the numbers say more about the tune's smooth mojo and the sexy imagery on display than any renewed excitement about the retail brand. RadioShack comes off like an unhip, balding, middle-aged dude desperately trying to prove he's down with the kids—and failing badly. (Being unhip, balding and middle-aged myself, I should know!) The dying chain's desire for reinvention is understandable, but how tossing off quick-buzz pop-culture crap like this is supposed to help it survive over the long haul beats me.

LEGO suffers another PR setback over street harassment sticker

Oh, LEGO... You used to be so cool. You sometimes still are. But too often now,  you're just so far behind the times it's sad.

This puffy sticker set was, according to AdFreak's David Gianatasio, released in 2010 by defunct licensee Creative Imagination. So they had a convenient player to throw under the bus.

But they still screwed it up. At first.

The whole PR nightmare began a little over a week ago when journalist and press freedom organizer Josh Stearns posted a photo of it on his Tumblr bog, Talking To Strangers:

I was stunned. Maybe it’s the fact that I just saw the team at Hollaback speak this month, or maybe it is that this is Sexual Assault Awareness Month, or maybe it is just that street harassment sucks. But chances are it was all three of these things that made me so mad to see a brand I love pushing this sort of thing. 

The Hollaback website notes that street harassment is the most prevalent form of sexual violence for both men and women in the United States. Internationally, they point out, “studies show that between 70-99% of women experience street harassment at some point during their lives.”

The issue was picked up by Slate and championed by the group Stop Street Harassment. That got LEGO's attention.

First, Charlotte Simonsen, Senior Director at LEGO’s corporate communications office, told Josh “To communicate the LEGO experience to children we typically use humor and we are sorry that you were unhappy with the way a minifigure was portrayed here.”

That's what we in the communication industry refer to as a "non-apology". So Josh wrote back and got the following reply from Andrea Ryder, the head of the LEGO Group’s Outbound Licensing Department, who said she was "truly sorry" that Josh "had a negative experience" with a LEGO product. She refered him to LEGO's brand values, including the line "Caring is about the desire to make a positive difference in the lives of children, for our partners, colleagues and the world we find ourselves in, and considering their perspective in everything we do." And she concluded, "we would not approve such a product again."

This is progress in brand responsibility, but it does not happen unless people are willing to speak up about the little things that reveal big problems in our society.


Laura Northrup from Consumerist wrote, "Street harassment isn’t the most pressing issue facing women today, but it can be a problem, and certainly isn’t appropriate for a children’s product."

I beg to differ on how serious this "one little picture" really is.

Just recently, I was having a conversation with someone from Hollaback about street harassment and rape culture. When you look at the big picture, the normalization of sexual harassment through bystander apathy is just one end of a continuum that ends with the dehumanization of women as targets of sexual violence.

Is this NZ beer billboard the right way to welcome equal marriage?

Now that New Zealand has equal marriage, this ad brings up the question of whether the advertiser is taking a cheap shot at same-sex marriage or simply "normalizing" it by including gay people in some rusty old step-parent humour.

According to the brewer:

‘‘Our intention with the current Tui Yeah Right billboard ‘Dad’s new husband seems nice’ was to highlight the common situation or uncertainty experienced when someone’s parent remarries. 

‘‘Given the recent passing of the Same Sex Marriage Bill in Parliament, this ‘Yeah Right’ line is a topical spin at the age-old situation of a parent's new partner.’’

Tui's Facebook page is hosting an impassioned discussion of the ad's intentions, including the (regrettably) inevitable homophobic comments.

Adfreak's David Kiefaber concludes, "I don't think Tui meant any actual harm here, but the delivery was crap. If you have to explain a joke, that's proof that it bombed. That's not something you can blame on the audience."

Low-fat cheese brand makes fun of diet industry clichés aimed at women

More and more brands are realizing that the best way to reach women is to make fun of the way everyone else tries to reach women.

The menstruation products industry has been doing this for years. Fashion, too. So low-cal foods might as well get into the action. And who knows cheese better than a cheese manufacturer?



Adfreak's Rebecca Cullers writes,

...the truly subversive content is in the jingle which asks, "How many clichés are we gonna stand?" There is more than a passing jibe toward Special K, whose red and white color pallet and blue-jean obsession is mocked. And the spot ends with a furious montage of women measuring and weighing themselves as the jingle sings, "They know they bring us down, but it's for our own good, cause we gotta keep you girls all feeling bad about food."

You can follow the campaign on Facebook, where you can make your own "bad ad".