5772: Banish Bias From Madison Avenue…?

CV Harquail, PhD—an independent scholar and consultant in Montclair, New Jersey—presents an interesting perspective on Omnicom and homophobia, along with ideas for banishing bias from advertising agencies.

5770: Gay Mission Accomplished, Bob Garfield?

Technically, the image above was published by Bob Garfield to declare victory in his jihad with Comcast. But it’s being reissued here to illustrate a few (hopefully) final thoughts surrounding An Open Letter to Omnicom President-CEO John Wren. We’ll elaborate on the image shortly.

In Garfield’s follow-up post connecting a Tennessee truck driver’s killing rampage with the Snickers commercial, the columnist was still sparring with critics. Garfield remained condescendingly adamant in his position, although it would be nice if he refrained from continued gratuitous use of a certain slur.

Yet one can’t help but wonder if Garfield considers himself successful in the Snickers scenario. It’s pretty likely, given his humungous ego. But take a closer look at the realities. For starters, the commercial was pulled after the Human Rights Campaign Foundation directly confronted Mars Inc. Word of the spot had already worked its way through the GLBT grapevine, even before Garfield addressed his letter to Wren. So it’s tough to say if Garfield played any role at all in the decision to yank the offensive message.

As previously noted, Omnicom and John Wren never publicly acknowledged anything. Not to be too presumptuous, but we’ll bet the responsible ad agency, London-based AMV BBDO, doesn’t feel guilty of wrongdoing. In fact, they probably view themselves as victims of a PC mob. Has Wren spoken to his agencies’ leaders about the topic? Or reprimanded anyone for the mess? Those who urge that corporations strive for authenticity and responsibility might hope so, but we’ll bet against the possibility. A related Advertising Age story quoted Gary Graf, the creative director behind the homophobic Super Bowl Snickers spot, and the man showed zero signs of regret. “It’s silly,” said Graf. “At the end of the day, take the stupid commercial off the air. It’s on the internet anyway. Millions have already seen it, and now millions more are going to track it down.”

And what about Garfield? When presented with typically lousy customer service from his cable company, the man went to war, launching an elaborate online attack and negotiating with Comcast officials. In contrast, a human rights incident—which Garfield tied to murders—only inspired nasty volleys with blog visitors.

Is Garfield announcing, “Mission Accomplished” in this controversy? If so, he kinda looks like President Bush aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln.

5742: Snickering At Progress…?

Let’s close out the week with random thoughts on the story filling too many entries at this blog.

Bob Garfield posted additional notes, engaging directly with visitors at An Open Letter To Omnicom President-CEO John Wren. When one person questioned Garfield’s argument that the scenario was “not about gay or not gay,” the columnist snapped:

Julian,
Sigh. This is so simple. You don’t have to be gay to be the target of macho aggression. If you are slight, or weak, or meek or odd. If you don’t like football or groove on Liza. If you read books. If you drive a Neon. If for any reason you don’t fulfill the masculinity expectations of the bully, you are therefore a faggot and: ridiculed, berated, laughed at, marginalized, stuffed into a locker, beaten up, murdered. Ass-wiggling speedwalker = faggot. It’s code. Likewise sweater-draped poodle walkers who squeal “oooooooh!” This kind of ad, which normalizes and even incites contempt or worse for the supposed faggots, is therefore homophobic whether the runner is gay or not. QED.
(BTW, sorry about dropping the N. Yours, Bo) —Bob Garfield, Anytown

After expressing such outrage over the offenses presented in the Snickers spot, it’s disconcerting to see Garfield toss around a slur with reckless abandon—although he’ll undoubtedly have some defense for his use of the word. Whatever. When the person being schooled by Garfield complained, “…There really is no need for the patronizing ‘Sigh. This is so simple,’” the columnist shot back:

Julian,
I reject your characterization. It was NOT patronizing. It was condescending.

Sorry about that; it’s frustrating when the point I feel I made so clearly in the original text doesn’t register with, or make sense to, the entire world.

Alas, I think your Nazi propaganda example -- as I mentioned earlier in this thread -- is not so hyperbolic after all. The business of caricaturing an “other” is a slippery slope whose natural bottom is violence. Hence the Matthew Shepard analogy. Shooting candy bars at a sissy speedwalker is different from bludgeoning an effeminate college student only in degree. —Bob Garfield, Anytown

Well, yeah, the scenarios are different only in degree—first-degree murder. Does Garfield really believe the Omnicom creative team behind the Snickers spot deserves being compared to hate-crime killers? This is indeed a slippery slope, like when people accuse others of resembling Hitler. Garfield sorta did that too.

Garfield confessed to displaying condescension, as well as frustration when his points weren’t making sense to the entire world. Heaven forbid the man might consider the possibility that he’s unclear.

An offline commentator wondered about MultiCultClassics relating Garfield to Jesse Jackson in an earlier post. It’s admittedly a winding stretch, prompted by a recent perspective from syndicated columnist Clarence Page. Responding to Jackson’s infamous gripe that Barack Obama was “talking down” to Blacks, Page disagreed with the statement. He contended Obama and the critical Bill Cosby are successful because “they don’t talk down to their audiences. They enlist their audiences as partners.” Garfield could benefit from trying to do likewise.

While Garfield exchanged online volleys with assorted characters, the Human Rights Campaign Foundation took its case straight to Snickers parent company Mars Inc., and the candy maker decided to pull the commercial. While the outcome is hardly unexpected, it leaves unresolved and peculiar elements too.

For starters, Garfield’s original rant remains unanswered. That is, Omnicom and John Wren appear to walk away scot-free. The company’s worst-case scenario would be losing the Snickers account. Or watching Garfield launch an Omnicom Must Die blog.

Additionally, the stereotypical angry mob that assembled to shoot down Garfield’s basic premise likely still harbors animosity over the entire incident. Do these people represent the industry’s majority? It’s tough to tell. But they certainly provide ammunition for those seeking proof that our industry has a long way to go on the journey toward progress.

Finally, the Human Rights Campaign Foundation revealed that after the homophobic Super Bowl Snickers commercial aired in 2007, “HRC began a constructive dialogue with Mars on workplace inclusion for GLBT employees.” Somebody tell HRC they missed the real target: the advertising industry creating offensive messages and pooh-poohing diversity. It would be interesting to see Madison Avenue face another organization with Human Rights in its title.

5740: Mr. T Gunned Down.

From The Human Rights Campaign Foundation…

After Discussions with Human Rights Campaign, Mars Inc. Pulls Controversial Ad

WASHINGTON – The Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the nation’s largest gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, learned today that Mars Inc. will pull a controversial television advertisement for Snickers following communication between the HRC Workplace Project and Mars, the parent company. The ad features a man whose appearance and actions – speed walking in an exaggerated manner – conjure up stereotypes of gay men. The man is then ridiculed by Mr. T who appears shooting Snickers bars out of a gun and admonishing the jogger to be a “real man.”

Statement from HRC Workplace Director Daryl Herrschaft:

“Following conversations between the Human Rights Campaign and senior Mars representatives, the company has agreed to pull its most recent ad using stereotypes of gay men to sell its Snickers product line. HRC applauds Mars for taking swift and appropriate action.

In 2007, another distasteful Snickers advertisement was aired during Super Bowl XLI. The company subsequently pulled the ad. Following that, HRC began a constructive dialogue with Mars on workplace inclusion for GLBT employees. We were of course surprised to see the company return to the same practice it had just recently rejected.

These kinds of ads perpetuate the notion that the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community is a group of second class citizens and that violence against GLBT people is not only acceptable, but humorous.

We are hopeful that Mars will make the necessary changes in their organization to ensure this does not happen yet again.”

The Human Rights Campaign Foundation is America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality. By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against GLBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all.