...but the brand died. So if advertising is supposed to be about only one thing – getting attention at all costs - what went wrong here? Forget the subject matter for a sec and just gauge the reaction. (This could even be Bob Parsons and his first GoDaddy Super Bowl spot we’re talking about for all I care.)It got attention. It polarized. It got pulled. In Europe, I bet this spot flies. Here though? No way. (On a side note, why didn’t the brand stick up for the spot they approved?)
So clue me in. If you have your own option, leave it in the comments section.
(Update: Apparently the NFL review committee board thing whatever, never saw the spot ahead of time. Probably would’ve pulled it, even though they let Prince’s ‘symbol’ show, something they claim would take a leap of the imagination to even think was more than it was. Whatever.)
Free polls from Pollhost.com
Tags: Snickers, brands
16 comments:
do you really need to take a survey? snickers was wrong. period. their pr department was pretty arrogant in their statements, claiming the spot tested well with the target. but they're full of shit.
makes one think of bill bernbach's statement:
“Be provocative. But be sure your provocativeness stems from your product. You are not right if in your ad you stand a man on his head just to get attention. You are right if you have him on his head to show how your product keeps things from falling out of his pockets.”
I know my answer, (the second) but there are a lot of 'change' agencies out there who might opt for the first, and based on some of their recent work, proved the point.
;-p
The adage of 'any PR is good PR' doesn't hold anymore in a community driven by negative attention. A brand is a covenant and TV spots like this have become entertainment for entertainment's sake.
Where's the entertainment, WC?
I winced. At all the wrong parts.
"Do something manly?"
This was a "what else ya got?" script, a "who else you got?" director, and an "ooooo-kay?" spot for the most expensive media buy in television.
I give it a "whatever."
And "whatever" ain't good for a brand.
Dude-- the controversy here was not about the spot. It was about the web site that went along with the spot. Even Stuart Elliott wasn't offended by the spot.
Did you see the website? (It's down now)
It had a bunch of different endings for the spot and then 2 Colts & 2 Bears talking about which ending they preferred. Only 3 of the 4 guys just focused on how "disgusting" and "sick" two guys kissing was. (Rex Grossman, to his credit, didn't go there.)
That's what got everyone bent out of shape. Not the spot itself.
PS- See you're on the "Snap" bandwagon. Still not sure about it, but added it to Toad Stool today.
The post kicked off the campaign though. Nobody goes to that website if they're not seeing that spot first. Regardless, we're getting caught up in the specifics of this campaign, and that's not the point.
The focus is on the net effect it had: is advertising supposed to get attention or not? This did for sure. Alice from the brand even says so below. Negative, positive, whatever. It did.
But, it got pulled (I include the site in that) so you have to say that it's not just the attention it got, but how it got that attention which now takes center stage.
If Mars had the same amount of nuts a Snickers bar has, they would've defended the spot as irreverent. Even maybe milk the PR angle further by saying that people need to be more tolerant. I bet their employment applications say they don't discriminate based on race, gender, etc. Why should their advertising?
I didn't see gay and lesbian groups protesting when two girls fought over a beer, but now? If this is two girls in this spot, I doubt very much the Heterosexual Association of America (HAA), of which I am a proud member, is up in arms.
Yet, two guys kiss and the gay and lesbian coalition freak. Puh-leeeeeze.
Mars had the chance to really put their nuts in more mouths after this ran, but they caved. Instead, here's what we get:
"Masterfoods spokeswoman Alice Nathanson issued a statement in which she said the company would stop running the ad on television and the Web site.
“As with all of our Snickers advertising, our goal was to capture the attention of our core Snickers consumer,” Nathanson wrote.
“Feedback from our target consumers has been positive. In addition, many media and Web site commentators of this year’s Super Bowl commercial line-up ranked the commercial among this year’s top 10 best." She noted that USA Today ranked it No. 9.
“We know that humor is highly subjective and understand that some people may have found the ad offensive. Clearly that was not our intent,” she wrote."
Alice, you were doing fine until... Look, USA Today's rankings are HIGHLY suspect, since they're based ONLY on less than 260 or so volunteers from Houston and McLean VA. Hardly a diverse sampling for a broad range of spots that we saw Sunday.
(Sidenote: to say this spot was one of the best is the old bullshit Quantity = quality argument from idiots in Ad Age who review ads or fans of Britney Spears: "Well, it sold a lot so it must be good.")
I also think they caved for another reason not many would know. Mars parent company Masterfoods is located here in rural NW Jersey, less than 15 from me actually, in a small industrial, blue collar town that must be giving them crap over that spot. So much that I bet they had no choice but to respond. (That's no implication that zero gays live in industrial towns either, so coalition lurkers, back the hell off). I'm just saying.
No, I think the Snickers spot — and especially the subsequent website material — crossed the line. It was demeaning and insulting to gays. With all the violence and negativity directed at gays, society does not need more shit like the Snickers spot fueling the fire. Hey, if Steve and Zagar from Bud Light got pulled for offending Native Americans, Snickers has gotta go too. It all points to the cultural cluelessness so prevalent in the business. The jerk-offs behind the Snickers work weren’t appealing to any target — they were amusing themselves. The ad agency completely screwed a brand that people loved and respected. We have always expected to be entertained by Snickers. An all-time classic Snickers spot featured the end zone painter who spelled Chefs on the Chiefs’ field. Hilarious. Breakthrough. No one is insulted or offended. It’s not impossible to do breakthrough work that doesn’t offend.
Women-on-women has always received a different reaction from society. Besides, the catfight girls were demeaning to women in general, from a sexist perspective. The spot probably did not fuel any anti-lesbian feelings. In fact, the updated catfight spot with the dueling fat guys was more homoerotic than the Snickers spot. But the Snickers spot, on subtle and blatant levels, communicated that gay behavior is bad and terrible and deserves to be punished. Why the hell should messages like this be incorporated in candy bar advertising?
Not sure it’s right to say Masterfoods caved. They were publicly spanked, and rightfully so. Their response shows some arrogance and insincerity, which will ultimately compound the negative feelings the spot generated.
You miss the point MTLB: The reason GLAAD et al. got involved (as per Stuart Elliot) was the content on the website. I saw it, it was pretty hardcore gay-bashing.
Let me repeat: THE WEBSITE FEATURED HARDCORE GAY-BASHING COMMENTS FROM NFL PLAYERS
Without it, I thing GLAAD might have winced a little, but let it go. I am no liberal, but my jaw dropped when I saw the videos- could not believe that Chiat let that get on the air.
Personally thought the TV commercial was kinda dumb but I'm not a fan of "Jackass" humor.
But the spot is not why there's a controversy. The website it. And if you'd seen it, there was no grey area, no "get a sense of humor." It was "2 guys kissing, that's just disgusting" and similar.
1) Should advertising get attention at all costs.
2) Is America too homophobic to accept two guys kissing.
3) Gaybashing.
No.1 is the point of the original post. (I mentioned you could swap GoDaddy for the Snickers if you want. Even the original Outpost.com spots where they fired mice at a wall. Whatever generates controversey.)
No. 2 is up for debate in this post as well as primetime TV.
No. 3 is unacceptable. (I know GLAAD was pissed at the bashing theme.)
Somehow all three are getting mixed together though. If the guys stop at the moment they realize what happened with the candy bar and simply say "this stays between us, right?“ then fade to logo/black, Mars may be heralded as breaking new ground when it comes No.2, and as hj referenced, the line of No. 3 ain't even an issue, let alone crossed.
While I agree that there are serious issues at play here, let's not lose focus on what the original point here was: No. 1.
And apparently based on the poll so far, everyone who voted except the one person from CP+B seems to agree the ends don’t justify the means.
you're right, that if the guys had simply said, "this stays between us, right?" there would have been no problem. in fact, it might have been funnier. but they didn't. they went into a homophobic terror. even if the website material never existed, the original spot would have ultimately received the same reviews and gotten pulled on its own.
all three points are being mixed because all three points apply to everything, including the original point of the post.
lol, no I know, that's what I'm saying. I probably shouldn't have used Snickers. Take Orville Deadenbacher, no other issues other than the creep factor, but the spot polarized opinion just the same.
(And as for having no website component, I could live with that as long as they amended the creative in the example/way I showed, otherwise, I agree, the spot is very problematic.
Damn! Spot was so bad it's got everybody crazy now. It's Julie Roehm to my George.
;-p
One of the 4 possible endings to the spot, which were up on the ill-fated website, had a third guy coming over at the end and asking "can I get in on this party?" (or something to that effect)
So obviously some faction at Chiat and/or Snickers was militating for a less homophobic ending.
Unfortunately, discussing that ending is what took the NFL players (and I wish I could remember who they were) over the edge.
the player reactions are on youtube. couldn't find the alternate endings, although at least one person posted a parody already.
Oh this is ripe for a spoof with the GM spot. Lonely Snickers bar is replaced by another candy bar, goes to a bridge and jumps.
IT WAS ALL A DREAM. Sike.
Damn- those NFL player videos are causing a storm of reaction on YouTube
Post a Comment