Essay 1701

Newspaper reports about advertising-related issues are usually idiotic. This piece from the New York Post is no exception. Check it out. A brief MultiCultClassics commentary immediately follows…

-------------------------------

OFFENSIVE FOULS CALLED OVER SUPER BOWL SPOTS

By HOLLY M. SANDERS

REJECTED: Snickers’ mechanics ad drew fire from gay rights groups.

This year’s Super Bowl ads managed to offend fast-food workers, gays and the depressed and suicidal.

General Motors’ spot depicting a sad robot that dreams of jumping off a bridge was the latest ad to come under fire, this time from a suicide-prevention group that deemed it insensitive. Thousands of Detroit autoworkers who have been laid off from their jobs weren’t amused, either.

Other ads that hit a hot button included a Snickers’ commercial in which two male mechanics end up locking lips and freaking out — angering gay and lesbian advocates — and a Nationwide insurance ad starring Kevin Federline as a fry cook that burned a restaurant trade group.

Ad execs said it’s tough to anticipate what will be a hit or a miss, and the chances of pleasing all 90 million people who tune in to watch the big game is next to impossible.

“Any time you do something that reaches that large an audience, you’re going to ruffle some feathers,” said Ari Merkin, founding partner and creative director at New York agency Toy. “It’s hard to predict what will and what won’t rub people the wrong way.”

Marketing experts said while some ads are truly offensive, others seem outright benign. “There are organizations out there looking for attention in the same way these advertisers are,” Merkin said.

-------------------------------

First, it’s incorrect, insensitive and downright ignorant to write, “This year’s Super Bowl ads managed to offend fast-food workers, gays and the depressed and suicidal.” The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention — as well as countless people who lost friends and family to suicide — expressed unhappiness over the GM spot. To refer to them as “the depressed and suicidal” is just plain dumb.

Another gem: “Ad execs said it’s tough to anticipate what will be a hit or a miss, and the chances of pleasing all 90 million people who tune in to watch the big game is next to impossible.” Gee, let’s admit that adpeople have no idea whether their big ideas are breakthrough or bullshit. And the goal has never been to please all 90 million people. But it sure isn’t necessary to offend a large number of them.

Ari Merkin continues the stupidity by remarking, “Any time you do something that reaches that large an audience, you’re going to ruffle some feathers. … It’s hard to predict what will and what won’t rub people the wrong way.” Why is it a given that feathers will be ruffled? Has anyone heard public outcry over the work from Coca-Cola, Blockbuster or Emerald Nuts with Robert Goulet? Mr. Merkin, it really is hard to predict what will and what won’t rub people the wrong way — when you’re completely clueless about the sensibilities of anyone not sharing your personal culture and perspective.

Merkin solidifies his silliness by opining, “There are organizations out there looking for attention in the same way these advertisers are.” Right, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention is desperately seeking to place itself in the spotlight. What an arrogant and asinine viewpoint.

Old school adpeople like to proclaim, “A good idea is a good idea.” The same equation applies to a bad idea.

The New York Post needs to focus its journalistic skills on topics where they may actually have expertise — like the tawdry affairs of Isiah Thomas and the New York Knicks.