The normalization of same-sex marriage in brand ads has been well documented over the past few years, with significant statements by Microsoft, Target, Kindle, Mariott, and Honey Maid — among many others.
But at this point, does revealing that a character in a mainstream ad is married to someone of the same gender have any "Shock Value" left?
I'm happy that equal marriage is the new shibboleth for brand hipness. I just wish the creatives would move past using same-sex marriage as the whole point of their ads, and just have it be no big deal. (Some decent scripting would be a bonus.)
Considering the reactionary work of groups like One Million Moms, however, I guess I may have to wait a few years for that.
By the way, SF Bay CBS, my source for this post, points out that Canada was doing "surprise lesbian couple" ads back in 2008:
That's probably the lowlight of this lengthy and bizarre campaign video, in which California Assemblyman Tim Donnelly tells voters he will put a gun in every household and scrap government regulations on business.
According to Think Progress, Mr. Donnelly is a Tea Party faithful who is a founder of anti-immigrant vigilante group, the Minuteman. However, his cunning plan to get Hispanic voters to forget about that includes having the size of his balls endorsed by Cuban-born Venezuelan singer and actress María Conchita Alonso — who is not his "sexy" wife.
Two low-budget health department PSAs promoting water drinking have caused unexpected controversy in Ukiah, California:
According to Daily Journal News, the ads have been rejected for placement in the Regal Ukiah Stadium 6 cinema by its national media placement firm, which is named as National CineMedia — which also serves theaters owned by AMC Entertainment Cinemark Holdings, and others.
The reason? According to the agency that produced the ads, DG Creative Branding, "It conflicts with soda sales in the theater lobby and will upset management and the theater circuit"
As the agency's video points out, bottled water (marketed by Coke and Pepsi) is also sold at cinema concessions. So it seems strange that these PSAs were seen as such a threat. Especially considering their unassuming DYI stock-photo-slideshow style, and the fact that they were sponsored by the CDC.
I doubt there's any vast cola conspiracy here. My guess is that some poorly-trained individual at National CineMedia made a stupid call. The company could not be reached by Daily Journal News for comment.
Adrants just posted this odd ad for the California Milk Processors Board by Goodby, Silverstein & Partners.
That's right. If you drink your milk at bedtime, you will not have your dreams of an Italian sex goddess interrupted by some obnoxious bald guy.
While the ad is certainly attention-getting, it lacks in truthiness. An MIT study determined that the calming properties of milk were purely psychosomatic.
Then there's the "ick" factor, as Steve Hall aptly summarizes:
Drink milk. Get laid. And "finish" your sex dreams. Which, apparently, milk can guarentee if you drink a glass before bed.
As if we didn't have enough unnecessary sex in advertising already.
AdFreak has a story about how a resident of Van Nuys, California, successfully lobbied to have a safer sex billboard in her community taken down from a public thoroughfare.
"Eve Ragsdale worried about having to explain the billboard to her 6-year-old triplets.
...
Ragsdale had contended that her children, who read now and ask questions about everything, were not developmentally ready to have the AIDS-condom relationship explained to them.
'It's just an inappropriate image for all of the children in the neighborhood,' she said."
I am raising a young child in an urban environment, too. He's also a kid who is curious about everything, but he rarely asks awkward questions about the condoms we see on the sidewalk, or the streetwalkers we drive past. It's not that he doesn't notice. He just doesn't care much about those things at his age.
But as a 7-year-old obsessed with nature, he knows what sex is. (He surprised an after school caregiver last year by pointing out two "mating" squirrels.) If he asked me straight out what a condom was for, I'd tell him in an age-appropriate manner. Even though young ones don't yet have those feelings, it won't be long. My belief is that it's better to normalize condom use before the occasion... arises?
But, of course, other parents may have different views. My major concern here is a very important public health massage being stifled by an individual's feeling that it is not appropriate for the public media. And the media company, who decided to take the knee-jerk approach, gave in without so much as a second thought.
"Van Wagner Outdoor Vice Chairman Bill Crabtree told the Daily News that the billboard would be changed on Wednesday or Thursday.
'I told my operations manager to move it,' Crabtree said. 'We listened to (Ragsdale), we don't necessarily agree with her, but if it's offensive to her, the last thing we want to do is offend anyone.'
'We don't put up (ads for) strip clubs, we don't put up anything that is lewd," Crabtree explained. "But the AIDS thing is educational, quite frankly. I know people might look at some of the designs askew, but they're trying to get their point across.'
'We don't put up ads for strip clubs, we don't put up anything that is lewd,' Crabtree said."
Ironically, as AdFreak's David Kiefaber points out, Van Nuys is literally The Porn Capital of The World. And a recent LA law requires all adult performers to wear condoms in their onscreen couplings.
But hey, Ms. Ragsdale. Heaven forbid you should have to explain that billboard to your children.
If I were the AHF, I would not take this lying down.
There's a pic going around showing a "new" McDonald's warning label about cancer-causing ingredients. But here's the kicker: that shit is in most of what you eat.
If you've been paying attention, you've been hearing about acrylamide for years. It's naturally present in ripe olives, and dried plums (prunes) and pears. It's in your coffee. And it gets produced every time you brown many of your favourite foods (like meat, potatoes and bread) at high heat. In short, it's in everything you like.
This picture showed up on Buzzfeed today, but a web search seems to indicate that it is a hoax from 2009, based on conjecture about whether California's strict food safety laws would lead to fast foods being labelled the way cigarettes are. I can't find any evidence that that is actually happening.
Of course, that won't stop this image from going viral, again, with reactionary comments like this:
"It stands to reason that this is a legal/precautionary measure; after reports swirled about fast food wrappers containing cancer causing chemicals that have been found in the fecal matter, blood, and urine of tested subjects, McDonald’s likely placed these notices on their wrappers to save face.
For us, this is a wake up call. Personally I wish I could throw up the Big Mac I ate last night (if it weren’t too digested) but since I can’t, I’m going to be forced to take a brief hiatus from my local Dirt Ronnies. Will you continue to eat McDonald’s without shame or concern, or is a warning like this big enough to scare you away?"
No, it does not "stand to reason". Even the faux label itself admits that the compound is naturally occurring, and that that the FDA has nothing against it. If McDonald's were forced to issue this warning, so would all those other cooked and prepared foods I listed above. It is simply not a "McDonald's issue."
My feeling is, if you're going to trash McDonald's for selling sugary, fatty, overprocessed and marginally nutritious food to kids and other vulnerable groups, then do that. McDonald's is not a nice company (although I do love an Egg McMuffin). But random and ill-informed anti-McDonald's panic is not helping the conversation about nutrition, culture or corporate ethics.
I love everything about this ad. Well, everything except the killing and stuffing of endangered species. But I love everything else about it. Especially the disclaimer "Chuck Testa does not taxidermize pets".
Whatever happens on the political front, what's irking me is that so much Hollywood star power could turn out such a weak PSA. Not that I was expecting them to paint themselves blue and appear in 3-D or anything. But couldn't they have at least put some creativity into it?
In a move that appears not to be fake, California is reported to be considering implementing a technology that would flash electronic ads on cars' rear licence plates when cars are stopped in traffic (which around LA is a lot).
"Sen. Curren Price, a Democrat from the Los Angeles area, said the technology will resemble traditional license plates, with plate numbers visible at all times. However, digital ads and public service announcements would flash on the plate's screen when the vehicle is stopped for more than a few seconds."
California's budget deficit is an estimated $19.1 billion, and this is an attempt to bring in a new revenue stream. While the driver distraction argument is shot down by the fact that the plates only advertise when stopped, this new potential advertising intrusion into our day-to-day raises a number of questions: Can I choose what brands I want my car associated with? What if Honda wants to advertise on my Toyota? Does a major brand really want to be associated with that jerkbag who just cut me off? And... what if someone hacks my plate?
Back in the '70s, when Peter Tosh wrote that lyric, it was literally a pipe dream. But today, as the medical benefits of marijuana for cancer and other patients are becoming increasingly recognized by authorities, ads for legal pot are actually starting to appear.
In Colorado, for example, KUNC reports that ads for medical marijuana clinics are elevating the mood of a struggling advertising and media industry:
"Colorado voters approved the use of marijuana in 2000 for debilitating medical conditions such as HIV/AIDS and cancer. The industry is now blooming with more than 14,000 people statewide approved to use the drug, and that's a 70 percent jump from last year...
Colorado's booming medical marijuana industry is doing more than just benefiting dispensaries that sell the drug for a profit. Some media outlets hit hard by the recession are cashing in on the so called gold rush, collecting thousands of dollars in advertising. Others are taking a wait and see approach to the somewhat controversial revenue stream."
However, the article also quotes a legal expert who states that pot advertisers are still in danger from prosecution because they are breaking federal law.
In Sacramento, California, apparently advertisers are getting around this problem by using vague copy:
"There's no need to suffer in silence, Canna Care is here to help...If you're coping with chronic pain, arthritis, nausea, glaucoma or side effects from chemo, there are reliable alternatives."
Of course, this is just mainstream media. Online communities like "vendormaps.com" actively promotes itself as "a place where medical marijuana vendors and medical marijuana co-ops can legally connect to exchange overgrow."
Then again, there was a time when today's illegal drugs were common medications:
I'm curious to know if anyone can find me an example of a modern Canadian ad. I'm doubtful, though. Medical marijuana here has been mostly decriminalized since 2000, but the dope itself seems to be sold either quietly by the government or through speakeasy "compassion clubs". I doubt either of these sources is eager to advertise.
Are you morally offended by this wine label? According to an article I just caught on Canadian Press, it violated the Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board's rules against displaying "a person posed in an immoral or sensuous manner." (Too bad nobody told the French ad industry over 100 years ago.)
The California vintner, Hahn Family Wines, doesn't mind too much, though. They say sales and interest in less prudish states are really popping.
