Snickers is promoting violence against gays

[Rick Munroe]

Guys, it's a busy day for me so I don't have time to add my thoughts so just read this (please): http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/snickers-superbowl-web-site-promotes.html

[Louis]

It appears their add is successful..you have made mention of their add... and that is what commercials are all about...getting people to talk about a company or product.

If I see an and that I don't care about... I don't talk about it to anyone, but that's just me, and how I deal with adds.

[R-Sportsguy]

Wow! The alternate endings are disturbing as well as the players reactions. I don't blame the players, Snickers should not show their reactons. Louis- you might remember the ad, but I don't think I will have the urge or desire to buy a Snickers or Mars product for awhile.

[Lookin]

> I don't think I will have the urge or desire to buy a Snickers or Mars product for awhile . . .

 

 

Me either. And they’ve got lots of products to stay away from:

 

 

UNCLE BEN'S

 

PEDIGREE

 

SHEBA

 

WHISKAS

 

3 MUSKETEERS

 

CELEBRATIONS

 

COMBOS

 

DOVE

 

ETHEL-M

 

KUDOS

 

M&M'S

 

MARS

 

MILKY WAY

 

SKITTLES

 

SNICKERS

 

STARBURST

 

TWIX

 

 

Their VP of marketing thought it would be "fun" to get player reactions:

 

 

"The players never get the opportunity to see the ads because they're on the field," said Michele Kessler, vice president of marketing at Masterfoods (parent company of Mars) in Hackettstown, N.J. "So we thought it would be fun to preview the spot and the endings with some of them. Their reaction was exactly what we anticipate on game night - lots of laughs and a lot of people seeking the satisfaction of a Snickers bar!" Added Gerry Graf, executive creative director at TBWA\Chiat\Day (advertising agency for Snickers) in New York: "We wanted something that would get people talking during - and after - the game."

 

 

He might also have added, "And if we've got to tickle their latent homophobia to do it, well - hey - that's just the fun kind of business we're in!" :-)

 

 

Mars is a family-owned company, and they HATE publicity! Time they get some.

[Louis]

Also don't forget the players were being recorded, so its hard to say how they would have reacted if they were just hanging around, watching the comercial with friends.

Now if they left the players sitting in a room by themselves and had a hidden camera... then we would actually know what they thought....

Also I would have liked to have seen them use Brett Mathers and Scott Sadler for the role of the mechanics.

[RockHard]

Yawn.

 

I thought the ad was funny, very funny. Some people are way too sensitive (read: un-manly). :-)

[Lookin]

"I thought the ad was funny, very funny."

 

"Sharing anecdotes from my life is the easiest way for you to get to know me better."

 

 

. . . and each revelation more telling than the last . . .

[Rick Munroe]

Joe Solomonese, President of Human Rights Campaign: “This type of jeering from professional sports figures at the sight of two men kissing fuels the kind of anti-gay bullying that haunts countless gay and lesbian school children on playgrounds all across the country. Eighty-four percent of GLBT students report being verbally harassed at school, and this type of ad only reinforces that.”

 

“Is Snickers suggesting that people who eat their candy bars are cavemen? It’s an odd market to court, particularly after the Isaiah Washington flap a couple weeks ago, which clearly showed that there’s a strong distaste out there for people who portray themselves as anti-gay or holding on to old prejudices and stereotypes.”

 

Judy Shepard, Executive Director of the Matthew Shepard Foundation: "I am outraged that Mars, the NFL and these players would promote such an anti-gay message. This campaign encourages the same type of hate that lead to the death of my son Matthew. It essentially gives ‘permission’ to our society to verbally or physically harass individuals who are gay, lesbian or bi-sexual. In particular, I am dismayed that these players, who are role models to our young people, would participate in perpetuating such discrimination and prejudice."

[Guest novabear22031]

I personally liked the spot when I first saw it.

 

It gave credence to the feeling of :"just how drunk was I" in some of the encounters of of my STR8 buds when I was cumming out.

 

I found no offense, just a validation. just imagine how this would have all played out if it were two women in a similar situation....

[seaboy4hire]

I didn't see the extras when I first saw this since I was on my phone at work but after getting home Mars had taken the video off line. Thank G-d for youtube. Saw the video minus the extras and the football players. Now while this could be considered gay bashing it could at least for me be considered a silly way straight guys act towards each other. Just like art it can be interpreted a few different ways.

 

Hugs,

Greg

seaboy4hire@yahoo.com

http://seaboy4hire.tripod.com New page for reveiws http://www.daddysreviews.com/newest.php?who=greg_seattle

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/3307/dsc05257be3.jpg[/img][/url]

I get 90 mpg! You?

CHICAGO FEBRUARY 22-25

[Rick Munroe]

>Saw the video minus the

>extras and the football players. Now while this could be

>considered gay bashing it could at least for me be considered

>a silly way straight guys act towards each other. Just like

>art it can be interpreted a few different ways.

 

Greg, yes, the original commercial as aired can be taken different ways...some people see it as mocking the homophobes, and I can possibly agree and even see the humor in it. But it's the football players' reactions and the more violent alternate endings, all of which were on the website which has now been taken down, which were quite offensive and left no wiggle room about the intentions of Mars, Inc. to portray "gay" as "gross."

[Guest PWIT]

I knew you were watching the superbowl

[RockHard]

RE: Snickers provides a crappy chocolate fix.

 

"the original commercial as aired can be taken different ways"

 

I only saw the original commercial and, frankly, the concept of a Snickers bar having the power to bring two macho-looking straight guys together in a kiss is not only funny, but brilliantly charming. I pity the gay guy who doesn't smile at this commercial.

 

Many women bristle at the thought of kissing another woman. This doesn't make them homophobic or Republican. Many gay men bristle at the thought of kissing a certain type of gay guy. I think this is called "having a preference or type" or "being selective."

 

As for the other videos, I did not see them, and it was probably prudent for Mars to shut them down.

 

Homophobia in professional sports? Well you certainly can't blame Mars or the Republicans for that. And if you do, then you're ignorant with an agenda.

 

My son and I discuss this issue often since he is straight and he's a rather vocal sports fan. It will be a very long time before 10% of professional players come out of their closet, if they ever do and IF they exist. The money is SO LARGE and the risks are so great, you'd have to be in career self-destruct mode to make such a choice.

 

The majority of professional teammates, who happen to be straight with high testosterone levels, especially in football, DO NOT want to think about the possibility that one of their teammates has a desire to suck his cock. It may not be sensitive or politically correct but it's a fact of life in the world of professional sports. And given the majority of their audience doesn't want to think about such sexual thoughts, there's no win here for the gay "community" (whatever that word means).

[Lookin]

RE: Snickers provides a crappy chocolate fix.

 

Two guys kissing “ain’t right”.

 

http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/6550/107/400/209811/snickersdisgust.jpg

 

 

I understand that each of us has phobias; it’s as true for us gay men, as it is for testosterone-laden jocks. In fact, it’s hard to think of a group that doesn’t have irrational fears. And it’s hard to think of a group that isn’t - or has not been - irrationally feared.

 

A short list of irrational fears would include: gays kissing, gays marrying, gays serving in the military, gays teaching children, Jews teaching in universities, blacks moving in next store, blacks voting, women voting. Obviously, we could turn it into a much longer list. We humans sometimes laugh at the subjects of these irrational fears, and sometimes we kill them.

 

But I think our finest moments as humans come when we look at these irrational fears, realize that they are irrational, overcome them, and bring those we feared back into the human fold alongside us. This is obviously my own opinion, and I know others may feel differently. But it’s how I’ve chosen to view the world.

 

Mars made a different choice. They thought it would sell some more Snickers to exploit a phobia against two men kissing - a phobia they expected to find in spades among professional football players. I don’t judge the football players, as irrational fears must be worked through at one’s own pace. But I do judge Mars and Chiat/Day for intentionally exploiting an irrational fear, in order to sell a few more candy bars: it stinks.

[RockHard]

RE: Snickers provides a crappy chocolate fix.

 

"But I do judge Mars for intentionally exploiting an irrational fear, in order to sell a few more candy bars: it stinks."

 

We're talking about a stupid candy bar and one that "stinks" of low quality. There are much bigger fish to fry, sweeties.

 

The Mars commercial was not created by Mars. It is the creative product of an ad agency on Madison Avenue in NYC, which employs numerous gay male employees and executives. None of them care about fringe, hyper-sensitive opinion. The threat of a Snicker boycott does not exist.

 

In advertising, the name of the game is NOT sainthood: it's about attracting attention. Unless we see an anti-Mars million-man march in Washington, Mars got what they paid for.

[+ Lucky]

RE: Snickers provides a crappy chocolate

 

Very nicely said, Lookin. Mars candy may be a low quality candy, but it is popular. And to take the time from Super Bowl Sunday to exploit these fears gives them a lot of heft. Rock hard, maybe for once you could look out for the greater interest rather than just your own.

[RockHard]

RE: Lucky provides a crap.

 

"Rockhard, maybe for once you could look out for the greater interest rather than just your own."

 

Well, thank you, Lucky, for your rude and presumptuous judgement. How holy and upstanding of you. I'd like to say, "Fuck you, asshole!," but that would mean I would have to stoop to your level and break one or two of Daddy's board rules. Let me simply say you truly don't know me (and probably never will).

 

I have little patience for the "oh, woe is me (us)" types and prissy homosexuals who whine at every politically incorrect frisbee that's flung their way. Girly-men fag-wimps should be slapped into manhood. Life is unfair, bitches, DEAL WITH IT.

 

For goodness sakes, it's a fucking Snicker's bar. So what if it's popular? So is ignorance and bad taste. I say, let's shoot them all. :-)

 

I don't mean to hijack Rick's thread but far more important news for the gay community is the brain's insula. Smokers finally have hope. Maybe hope for other addicts is around the corner.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/health/psychology/06brain.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1170782137-cNmWSQKovEUo2GYKGKyB4g

[+ Lucky]

RE: Lucky provides a snicker.

 

Your skin is thinner than the layer of chocolate on a Snickers Bar. But, at least it is rock hard!

[RockHard]

RE: A snicker up the ass.

 

"Your skin is thinner than the layer of chocolate on a Snickers Bar."

 

"Let me simply say you truly don't know me (and probably never will)." :-)

[Lookin]

RE: Snickers provides a crappy chocolate fix.

 

Thanks for the tutorial on advertising, it was a big help. My experience in consumer marketing lasted only ten years, all of it on the client side. But I did work with a number of advertising agencies, including Chiat/Day. In those days, since the client controlled the budget, we always had final approval on ad copy, and would have reviewed the agency’s work from start to finish. An ad, especially a $2.6 million Super Bowl ad, would not have made it on air without a couple levels of client approval.

 

(Of course, the ad agency was our partner in developing effective ads, which is why I included Chiat/Day along with Mars in my judgmental rant. I notice you removed Chiat/Day when you reproduced my quote, but I’m not sure why. I expect you had a very good reason.)

 

We had a slightly different view on attracting attention in those days, too. We were strongly biased toward positive attention, the kind that would allow all of our consumers to maintain a long-term brand loyalty. We considered that good business. Heads would have rolled if a strong brand, such as Mars or Snickers, got any bad press. My sense was that the Mars family would feel the same way, given the attention they’ve lavished on building strong, enduring brands, and their desire to avoid bad publicity at any cost. I’m surprised that they are now willing to put their trust in the hands of executives, gay or otherwise, none of whom care about even “fringe, hyper-sensitive” opinion. But it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been wrong.

 

The good news is, it’s a big enough stink that we should see some answers in the media before long. We’ve already seen the reactionary website pulled. If we see the commercial aired again sometime soon, I will, of course, bow to your superior insight. My hunch is we won’t. And I’ll go even further out on a limb and predict some unpleasant fallout for Chiat/Day, for Gerry Graf (Chiat/Day’s executive creative director), and for Michele Kessler (Masterfoods’ vice president of marketing). There’s a lot of dollars in Mars’ brand equity, and it’s not yet clear to me that their value has increased, or that Mars got what they thought they were paying for. We shall see.

 

A separate thanks for reminding me that there are bigger fish to fry. While I happen to believe that exploitation of human fears for commercial purposes is not a trivial issue, there are indeed even scarier issues in our midst - like the exploitation of human fears for political purposes. But that’s another thread.

 

PS: I was intrigued by your calling me “sweeties”. Knowing your oft-stated aversion to anything that smacks of name-calling, I was flattered to think it might be a term of endearment. But that doesn’t seem to ring true with the rest of your post. Tell you what - if you’ll PM me with your mailing address, I’ll send you a bunch of Snickers, and we can take it from there.

[RockHard]

RE: Snickers provides a crappy chocolate fix.

 

"An ad, especially a $2.6 million Super Bowl ad, would not have made it on air without a couple levels of client approval."

 

I agree. I never said Mars is without responsibility. Whoever pays for the creation, owns the creation, typically.

 

"We had a slightly different view on attracting attention in those days, too."

 

Everything changes, especially trends in attitude and what the general public will tolerate. If your market is 10-year-old boys, all bets are off (which may help explain why the Snicker ad got high internet ratings. It played to a kid's mentality.)

 

There's enormous pressure on creative people, regardless of sexual orientation or political party, to up the ante in the "attracting attention" department. Too bad Janet Jackson's voice and production quality wasn't considered enough, especially by Janet. We had to endure a nipple-pasty and choreography which implied violence against women. I still feel the uproar should have been about her breaking her contract and not about kids seeing nipple. CBS should have sued her but I'm sure they were advised of the PR disaster that would follow such action.

 

"I’m surprised that they are now willing to put their trust in the hands of executives, gay or otherwise, none of whom care about even “fringe, hyper-sensitive” opinion."

 

Decision-makers change, especially within old companies. Eventually someone with clout comes along and suggests "let's get modern, let's go edgy." I've seen the groundswell a hundred times. The commercial by itself was fun and funny and edgy in a stupid, juvenile tradition—the kind of funny that appeals to the American Pie audience. Again, I did not see the optional endings and/or any video that followed and, based on what I read, the Snicker site deserved to be shut down. The company took a chance and may have gone too far. This, too, happens all the time. Attracting attention is risky business.

 

"If we see the commercial aired again sometime soon, I will, of course, bow to your superior insight."

 

I would laugh if someone bowed at me (unless he/she were Asian) and I would not characterize my insight as "superior." I have opinions that happen to be grounded in years of experience, not terribly unlike yourself. I happen to consider myself fortunate because I still view life through a child's eyes.

 

"While I happen to believe that exploitation of human fears for commercial purposes is not a trivial issue"

 

The commercial WAS A JOKE. Give us a break, please.

 

"I was intrigued by your calling me “sweeties”."

 

Actually, "sweeties" was a reference to the ""oh, woe is me (us)" types and prissy homosexuals who whine at every politically incorrect frisbee that's flung their way." I had no one specific in mind when I wrote both.

 

"I’ll send you a bunch of Snickers"

 

Never touch the stuff. If you're going to send me chocolates, send me Pierre Hermé (please).

 

ps I don't know one homosexual who eats candy from Mars, Inc.

[Lookin]

RE: Snickers through a child's eyes . . .

 

" I happen to consider myself fortunate because I still view life through a child's eyes. "

 

 

http://images.allmoviephoto.com/2004_Seed_of_Chucky/2004_seed_of_chucky_0200.jpg

 

 

"Sharing anecdotes from my life is the easiest way for you to get to know me better."

[+ Lucky]

RE: A licker up the ass.

 

"Let me simply say you truly don't know me (and probably never will)."

 

Thanks for the comforting words.

[Guest novabear22031]

I don't think that they are promoting violence against gays.

 

I am Gay [sHOCK], I did not find offense to the ad that aired. I guess it comes from having dealt with STR8's that had issues dealing with us having a tumble together. The ripping out of chest hair is a violent act - and that seemed to be in keeping with violent nature of many of the Superbowl ads this year

 

I wonder how the Gay community would have responded if the "Loveboat" version of the ad aired?

 

As to the reaction clips that was on the Snickers site. How do we expect STR'8's - in particular football players - to react to men "kissing"? But their other comments seemed to be "supportive".

 

I applaud both ads at trying to be daring. And trying to make us laugh at ourelves.

[Rick Munroe]

>I knew you were watching the superbowl

 

I just wanted to see Prince's big cock!

 

http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/6550/107/400/811506/princesuperbowl.jpg