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.

Was the politicization of "The Most Interesting Man in the World" intentional?

Dos Equis is facing a veritable shitstorm of social media controversy on the Facebook page, simply because Jonathan Goldsmith, the actor they hired for their hugely popular campaign, "The Most Interesting Man in the World," is hosting a fundraiser for US President Obama:

There are some positive comments too, and both types of posts inspire similar low-level flamewars that degenerate into name-calling and some casual racism. (On a side note, up here in Canada we find the claim that President Obama is a "socialist" to be risible.)

This is probably just a minor headache for the American importer of Dos Equis, Heineken USA. They told Ad Age: "Mr. Goldsmith's opinions and views are strictly his own, and do not represent those of Dos Equis" but don't appear to have made any effort to address the issue on their Facebook page.

Maybe they are just sitting back to see what happens. Other brands have waded in to politics, which is a high-risk strategy. But with risk comes the possibility of above-average rewards. Especially if you know your target audience.

Last August, ABC news reported on the correlation between brand preference and political views on Facebook, as reported by Microstrategy's Wisdom application.

Here is one of the findings:

Dos Equis, the Mexican lager known for its "Most Interesting Man in the World" commercials, may be a better choice if Obama is looking to show camaraderie with his 27 million Facebook fans. 

About 24,000 of Obama's Facebook supporters in the Wisdom database, which represents about 3 percent of all Obama's Facebook fans, are also Dos Equis fans, making Obama supporters about 6 percent more likely to like Dos Equis than the average Wisdom Facebook user. Obama fans are only 4 percent more likely to "like" Bud Light.

Could Heineken USA have secretly condoned the appearance? The Obama/Biden fundraising site actually calls Goldsmith "the actor who portrays The Most Interesting Man in the World." And while Jonathan Goldsmith can do what he wants as a citizen, professional spokespeople are usually contractually obligated to avoid any public behaviour that can bring negative attention to the brand. 

Could this have been a strategic piece of off-the-books political marketing? Now that's an interesting thought.

Thanks to Copyranter for the tip.

Eska in hot water over "Eskan Warriors" ad

Adrants reports that this Eska Water ad, by Toronto's KBS+P, has been permanently removed from TV (but not yet YouTube) with the apology, "Eska Water wishes to apologize to all those who may have found the campaign and its images disrespectful. Certainly, that was never our intention."



The ad uses the typical dry humour that Canadians like, but it was the portrayal of the "Eskan Warriors" that pissed people off. Especially Aboriginal people.



The problem is that times have changed. Twenty years ago, it was considered fair game to create a stereotyped cartoon image of "natives" of any country. Today, it is seen as offensive.

The native American blog, Newspaper Rock, in context of a different campaign five years ago, put it quite eloquently:

"What’s sad is that this isn’t an isolated incident. If anything, the whole Savage vs. Civilized dichotomy is one of the mainstream media’s favorite cliches. It pops up time after time after time.

The underlying message in all of these representations is the smug celebration of the supposedly inherent superiority of whiteness and “Western” culture."

In other words, it's a lazy trope that's got to go.

Shitstorm in a KIA Coupe

The controversy around the "pedo" KIA ad that won a Silver at Cannes just won't go away.

I just read a post at Care2.com, which asked "Do Pedophile Fantasies Belong in Award-Winning Ads?"

They don't belong in any ads, IMHO, but I'm not sure pedo promotion was the intent.

First of all, the ad was a series of two, both of which cut a story into two parallel streams, a childish one and a pornographic one:

The headline, "a different temperature on each side", was presumably written in Portuguese for this Brazilian ad. "Temperature", can I assume, refers to the contrasting tones of the comic?

It looks like an attempt at humour, but it clearly doesn't translate. Like, really doesn't translate.

From Peggy Orenstein:

"Given the global crisis in child prostitution and trafficking, it’s actually more offensive that KIA believes that selling cars via child pornography is no problem as long as they don’t do it in the U.S. What’s more, Moma is located in Sao Paulo, Brazil, a country that is said to have the worst child trafficking record in the world after Thailand. No wonder the agency thought the ad was 'clever.'"

I'm not going to defend this ad on the basis of creativity (because it's creepy) or strategy (because I can't see it fulfilling any business objectives.) But I will hazard a guess that the mostly-male creative team is not made up of pedophiles. Perverts, perhaps, who created a campaign that creeps people out and furthers harmful stereotypes of "sexy" student-teacher fantasies, sure. But I think they really intended to create a thought-provoking sense of contrast.

But it won't matter now. The agency, MoMa, appears to do business with KIA Brazil. They can kiss that goodbye.

According to PR from KIA Motors America:

IRVINE, Calif., June 24, 2011 - Kia Motors America (KMA) has become aware of an offensive piece of advertising material that was created by an ad agency in Brazil that KMA has no business relationship with and has never worked with. This ad was not created in the U.S. by Kia Motors America or any of its marketing partners and does not reflect the opinions or values of KMA or Kia Motors Corporation. The ad is undoubtedly inappropriate, and on behalf of Kia Motors we apologize to those who have been offended by it. We can guarantee this advertisement has never and will never be used in any form in the United States, and our global headquarters in Seoul, South Korea is addressing the issue with the independent Brazilian distributor.

The other weird thing about this is that I cannot find the ad anywhere on MoMa's site, can't find one in Portuguese anywhere. Kia Motors Corp. spokesman Michael Choo is quoted as saying "We have received confirmation that these ads were never published nor were there any plans to run a campaign based on these creatives in Brazil or anywhere else for that matter. We can ensure that these ads have not been run in public other than being submitted for the Cannes Lions competition and that they will not appear in any public forum in the future."

Is it possible the Cannes judges were tricked by a fake ad? And if so, what will happen to MoMa?

I guess this will be one story to watch.

AN UPDATE ALREADY: Adland noticed that the CD on the KIA ads, Rodolfo Sampaio, was also in the credits of DDB Brasil's awful (and fake) WWF/911 ad.

Bordering on controversy

Before I landed my first agency job, I was a freelancer who desperately wanted to break in to travel writing. I suppose that's the dream of every well-travelled young scribe with a romantic streak — which is the reason I didn't make much headway.

To this day, I have a soft spot for travel and tourism ads with a historical angle. Whether it's been a branding campaign for the Bytown Museum, or tourist attractions for AT&T long distance, I've enjoyed every opportunity to get my culture on.

I also follow mistakes, such as when an English tourist ad uses a stock photo of Canada, or a photo collage implies that the Canadian view of Niagara Falls can be seen from upstate New York. These are fairly innocent, or even expedient mistakes. St. Peter's Basilica is not technically in Rome — or even Italy — but it's still on the Roman tour agenda. And a trip to Ottawa often includes a visit across the provincial border to the Museum of Civilization. No harm done, really.

And then there's this ad, which appeared in the UK:



Seems pretty average — even boring — but a more detailed examination has caused public controversy leading to a ban by the British Advertising Standards Authority, and has increased tensions over an already tense issue:



The middle pic is of the Wailing Wall and the Dome of the Rock, and is labelled "Jerusalem". But as the Telegraph points out, the view is of East Jerusalem, part of the disputed Occupied Territories of the West Bank.

"'So what,' you say?" You must not be from there, or know many people who are attached to the region.

According to the Telegraph:

"The ASA said the advert breached truthfulness guidelines and ordered it not to be used again, adding: 'We told the IGTO not to imply that places in the Occupied Territories were part of the State of Israel.'

It added: 'We noted the ad stated 'You can travel the entire length of Israel in six hours - imagine what you can experience in 4 days' and 'visit now for more itineraries in Israel' and considered that readers were likely to understand that the places featured in the itinerary were all within the state of Israel.

'We understood, however, that the status of the Occupied Territory of the West Bank was the subject of much international dispute, and because we considered that the ad implied that the part of East Jerusalem featured in the image was part of the state of Israel, we concluded that the ad was likely to mislead.'"

Oh yes, it's political. And as a Canadian guy who has friends with deeply personal feelings on both sides of this complicated and sometimes bloody issue, I don't want to make a judgemental statement here either way.

What interests me more is what the intent was. Advertisers sometimes make mistakes. Or we overgeneralize. Was this an oversight?

The Israeli Ministry of Tourism says no, but insists it was appropriate. "Had the ad omitted a reference to a visit to the city of Jerusalem, it would have been incorrect and potentially misleading" They add hat Israel "took responsibility to support the religious sites of all denominations, a commitment which also formed part of the obligations of an agreement with the Palestinian Authority signed in 1995".

It is interesting to note that last year, the ASA banned another Israeli tourism ad which implied that The West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights were part of the state of Israel.

I won't dwell on reactions to this issue, except to say that one group of people is angry that it ever ran, and another is angry that it was banned.

I am just reminded what a volatile mix advertising and politics can be. And maybe I won't get so irked the next time the Americans take credit for "our" falls, and just quietly appreciate 150-or-so years of peace on that border.

Australia's war on "dickhead" drivers

Victoria Police have launched a blunt campaign against dangerous driving, telling people who text behind the wheel or fail to put on their seatbelts "don't be a dickhead":







Not surprisingly, the approach has attracted more than its fair share of controversy — including from young drivers themselves:

Leah Meade, 20, said she believed it was unfair for young drivers in particular to be singled out in the campaign ...

“I think we’re targeted because we are younger, but often it’s a lot of the older people doing silly things as well.

“Older people are as guilty as young people of talking on their phones.”

And the Australian Opposition quipped, "I think it’s an appalling message. I think it’s a shocking message, one of the worst I’ve ever heard.”

The backlash has also spawned a Facebook Group called "Don't Be a Dickhead - Worst Campaign Ever!"

So, in short, the campaign is at least successful in getting attention and getting people talking. As the Police Minister said, “Road safety campaigns are designed to confront, and this one confronts people that don’t have respect for other people on and off the road.”

ninemsn claims the campaign cost just $100,000 to make, and the Premier of Victorian and Communications Council are standing behind it as a strong approach to an important issue.

The "dickhead" move has instantly become a popular meme in Australian politics and media. When asked if race driver Lewis Hamilton was a "dickhead" because of a recent dangerous driving charge, Victoria transport minister Tim Dallas replied, OK, I'll say it - he's a dickhead."

Offensive or not, I think these folks are on the right track. If just one Australian teen tells another "don't be a dickhead" for bad driving, and everyone else laughs, the campaign will have succeeded.

**sound of screeching tires**

But wait! Then there's this weirdness:





Ginger hate? Really? Is there something I don't know about Australian culture?



Okay, Emos I'll give them.



And Twitter? Whatever.

So there you have it. Great meme takes a wrong turn into bizarre and even mean-spirited territory. Damn shame too. With those first three lighthearted PSAs, they had me at "dickhead"...

Christmas Spirited

Christmas is a deeply spiritual time for many. Religious or not, they see it as a time to feel closer to other people — family, friends and strangers — and perhaps even to their chosen deity.

But Christmas has a dark side, which anyone who was in a mall last weekend can see. Anxiety, stress, and depression drive some to commit random acts of rudeness that are truly shocking.

It was in this atmosphere of pre-holiday high feelings that a church in Auckland, New Zealand, decided to weigh in on the true meaning of Christmas with the billboard above.

According to Glynn Cardy, admittedly progressive priest at St Matthew in the City Anglican Church, the ad was intended to “lampoon literalism and invite people to think again about what a miracle is.”

“Progressive Christianity is distinctive in that not only does it articulate a clear view, it is also interested in engaging with those who differ. Its vision is one of robust engagement.”

St. Matthew's is known for its cheeky approach to advertising its mission, from an Easter billboard that said "This billboard will rise again. (Next Easter probably.)" to promoting their podcast sermons as "iGod".

The Christmas ad was designed by M&C Saatchi "with the brief that it had to be sufficiently provocative to keep most other churches from allowing it."

And provoke it did.

From Bob McCoskrie, Director of the group Family First New Zealand:

“The church can have its debate on the Virgin birth and its spiritual significance inside the church building, but to confront children and families with the concept as a street billboard is completely irresponsible and unnecessary”

From the The Bishop of the Anglican Diocese of Auckland, the Right Reverend John Paterson:

“Discussion of theological perspectives and diversity is encouraged in a respectful way, but this approach is insensitive to communities across the Anglican Church as well as other denominations.”

And Lyndsay Freer, Spokeswoman for the Auckland Catholic Diocese:

"Our Christian tradition of 2000 years is that Mary remains a virgin and that Jesus is the son of God, not Joseph. Such a poster is inappropriate and disrespectful." (Mrs. Freer also called the billboard "non-Christian".)

As often happens, unfortunately, in matters of faith, the controversy soon erupted into violence as the ad was painted over, stolen, and slashed by angry Aucklanders. The final assault ended in the arrest of an elderly woman, but St Matthew in the City refused to press charges.

Glynn Cardy remained unapologetic over the incident, though, and was proud of his aspproach:

“No doubt on Christmas Eve when papers print the messages of Church leaders most of them will serve up ‘middle mush’. Jesus will be born in a palatial sanitised barn and every king and crook, religious and irreligious, will be surrounding him saying ‘Merry Christmas my friends!’ No reader will be asked to do or think anything risky, no reader will be offended, and no reader will write a critical response. They’ll just yawn and turn the page.”

Regardless, the church says they ran out of money to replace the billboard yet again, and are concerned that things could get even more out of hand. Cardy added that they'd made their point anyway:

"The topic is ... something the church has talked about for centuries, but what is new is that we have the audacity to laugh at something quite so ridiculous as a male god sending sperm down to impregnate Mary. Obviously we can't keep replacing it and there may come a time when we will have to take it down if the vandalism continues. But by then people would have known about it, laughed at it or even be offended by it and the billboard would have served its purpose."

The final destruction of the Mary and Joseph billboard exposed the church's previous billboard, which advertises something a bit less controversial: A Noah's Ark scene encouraging gay couples to come to church.