Advertising Age interviewed DIRECTV SVP of Advertising and Communications Jon Gieselman, and the discussion included examining the controversies surrounding recent commercials. Read the full interview to understand the statements in context. MultiCultClassics is dissecting key quotes.
Mr. Gieselman: [The commercials] definitely have broken through. The Russian character was the first in the campaign. Everybody absolutely loved him so we created a new set of characters, the banker, the Whale and “Tommy the Truth.” They are larger-than-life characters but have some twist in them that make it fun to watch. They are intended to be entertaining, over-the-top characters that no one would ever take literally.
Ad Age: Why, then, did you take “Tommy the Truth” off the web?
Mr. Gieselman: The debate ensued with a string of dialog that was completely inappropriate and had nothing to do with the spot or DirectTV and we didn’t want to have anything to do with it.
Okey-doke, let’s begin by identifying the issue that seems to escape Gieselman—and much of the public as well. The majority of the spots in this campaign feature characters displaying cultural/racial/ethnic stereotypes. Now, folks will rightly argue that comedy often requires using stereotypes. Yet as DIRECTV is seeing, cultural/racial/ethnic stereotypes can lead to trouble, especially when utilized for sales messages hawking trivial shit like TV services.
Perhaps the most stereotypical spots in the batch are the ones starring the rich Russian guy—Opulence, I Has It and I Am Epic Win. While sources have indicated the guy was inspired by the billionaire owner of the New Jersey Nets, Mikhail D. Prokhorov, it’s hard to deny the cultural stereotyping. The tiny-giraffe enthusiast appears to have gained his fortune illegally—Hey, all wealthy Russians are crooks with mob ties, right?—as evidenced by the bodyguards, harem of hooker-like women wearing fur coats and extravagant over-spending. The accent and broken English are ultra-exaggerated (and delivered by an Irishman!). Indeed, he shows nearly every cartoonish quality that Americans have concocted about Russians since The Cold War. This is the guy regularly appearing as a villain in James Bond movies and episodes of 24. The only reason these spots have not drawn criticism is that it’s politically OK to bash Russians. Or it’s not as explosive as bashing other racial and ethnic minorities at least.
Tommy the Truth and The Whale tap stereotypes that cross the line of political correctness, despite reflecting the popularity of comedians such as the Wayans brothers, Dave Chappelle and Ken Jeong.
Gieselman doesn’t get it when declaring, “They are intended to be entertaining, over-the-top characters that no one would ever take literally.” Not sure anyone is taking these characters literally. Rather, they are responding to the negative and over-the-top characteristics consistently attached to specific cultural/racial/ethnic groups. In short, DIRECTV is perpetuating bigoted stereotypes.
Gieselman also doesn’t get it when remarking, “The debate [attached to Tommy the Truth] ensued with a string of dialog that was completely inappropriate and had nothing to do with the spot or DirectTV and we didn’t want to have anything to do with it.” Dude, you have everything to do with it. DIRECTV approved the stereotyping that led to the heated and racially-charged conversations.
Ad Age: Do you have a sense if those offended are a vocal few or something bigger?
Mr. Gieselman: We’ve been getting the same amount of feedback [as prior spots]—no more, no less. We get feedback on all our creative; people share their opinions and that is great. You just have to be careful with that and when there is a very vocal minority, you have to keep that in perspective. We run close to 20 to 30 different spots during the year so we have a baseline for what’s typical. You know pretty quickly if it’s something that’s causing a negative reaction more intense than something has in the past, so this is not unusual. Some of the commentary … it’s amazing what people take away sometimes.
Love the line, “You just have to be careful with that and when there is a very vocal minority, you have to keep that in perspective.” A very vocal minority? You mean like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton? Another gem is, “Some of the commentary … it’s amazing what people take away sometimes.” Which “people” does Gieselman refer to here? What’s truly amazing is how some people (usually White people) remain insensitive and ignorant about other people (usually non-White people).
Ad Age: Do you think the critics have a point or are they just missing the point?
Mr. Gieselman: In my judgment these are farcical characters. It’s altered reality. If some people take it literally and don’t like it I apologize for that. Sorry, you didn’t like it; that’s not what it was intended to do. Everybody’s measure for what’s appropriate is different and there is no way to reconcile everyone’s yardstick. What you don’t hear are the 99% of people who either didn’t have a reaction or liked it and chose not to take the time to write an email.
Again, Gieselman doesn’t get it. In his judgment, the characters are farcical and the reality is altered. For the offended, the characters are negative stereotypes and the reality is, well, the same damned reality that Whites have historically altered. To say, “Sorry, you didn’t like it; that’s not what it was intended to do,” doesn’t cut it for responsible advertisers. Unintentional insults are not significantly less insulting, and the lack of intention does not absolve the insult maker. Gieselman believes “there is no way to reconcile everyone’s yardstick.” Perhaps. But the root problem resides in Madison Avenue’s inability and unwillingness to simply acknowledge the existence of any yardstick that doesn’t belong to a White man.
Gieselman should admit, “Cultural cluelessness, I has it.”
No comments:
Post a Comment