Just a note about creativity and this ad....Besides offensive, this has to rank as one of the dumbest ads of all time.

In fairness to Omnicom, their business practices are generally offensive to all human beings, not just the GLBT community.

This is one of the most stupid things I've ever read.(or is it maybe a joke) It reminded me of the politically correct freaks that used to roam on campuses accusing every white man to be a racist homophobic rapist. Plus this is a very American view where you may differnet issues with race and gender. The latest ad cited in your criminal anti gay offenses is AMV BBDO and as far as I am concerned an American view on what is acceptable for British society is actally very insulting. Bob I love your articles but this one is pure rubbish. You are strirring S... just like those stupid PC college brats of the 90s . Grow up!

Let's put an end to all ads that can be possibly, in the slightest way, misconstrued to offend anyone and anything. We could probably get a real 1984 thing going. Let's stop every ad that shows men as either being incompetent cooks or at cleaning while the woman has that "I know better" look. Any kids ad where the kids overcome the adults because the adults aren't cool enough.

Seriously- the fairy one? I saw it numerous times on TV and my only thought was storybook fairies. The Snickers one with the mechanics I thought was great, albeit, I knew a lot of people would be turned off by it. Those two guys would exact the same way in that...unlikely Lady and the Tramp scenario. Now I've seen the Mr. T one and I only found the "Get some nuts!" tagline to be a little beyond the line due to how obvious. You say it's unfunny (opinions are cool, but you almost state it as fact). Whenever you pull Mr. T into something, it's bound to be a little funny. Unfunny? Fine. To you. Maybe you're not the target of all these ads- and if you're in the target, maybe you're in the minority of those it won't reach. I feel like for who Snickers probably wants, this will work.

Done ranting...

Bob, I'm with you 1000%. Thanks for stepping up.

Dear Bob, Grow up! Find some other issue to exercise your political correctness. As a geeky runner who speedwalks when the running muscles give out, I find the commercials hilarious. What is really offensive is for you to imply that gays are either sissies or swishies. I failed to notice that any of Mr. T's objects of scorn were gay. They just needed some nuts. What makes the commercials fun is Mr. T's over-the-top energy. Anti-gay? Get a life! Dan Evans, NY

There's a big difference between "homophobia" that has come to mean hatred of gays and "homo-phobia" meaning the fear (of nominally heterosexual males) of being perceived as not being masculine. The latter is not going to go away.

Bob,

I agree with you. Also, I am surprised at the staunch defenders of these ads and their agencies. Whether or not one is personally offended by the ads is beside the point. It is easy to see how someone could be offended. The notion that it doesn't matter because it still appeals to the target audience is quite wrong from an advertising perspective regardless of the political correctness.

Advertisers may have a target or core audience but do not want to exclude or offend other demographics to the detriment of additional sales and profit.

As for the Snickers ads in question, I understand why they didn't garner a Golden Lion at Cannes.

Hoot Communications

What's happened to Snickers sales since this campaign began?

The Mr.T ad is so obviously homophobic that I feel that it is malicious, callous and simply stupid. Not only should Omnicom feel dirty but also Snickers...and there is no need to even say anything about Mr.T, he is punishment enough to himself. Anyhow, thank you for writing this article and bring some attention to the issue.

Great ideas! Lets not offend anyone! There is nothing worse in this world than offending another person. It is a God given right (or Buddah given, Allah given, Science given, or whoever your god may or may not be) to never ever be offended by something.

And it is our civic responsibility to stand up for those who who should be offended by what we think offends them. I'm not gay, but if I were and I saw this ad, I imagine that I would be filled with rage. An uncontrolled, girly, but well-dressed, rage. And I am. So it's my duty, and the duty of Mr. Bob Garfield, to take our nuts (that every male has regardless of sexual orientation) and make sure the people who dared push the envelope in advertising pay for their evil ads that offend a group that should be offended by it.

Only in this way, can we stop the world from hurting (*single tear).

Perhaps the best way to solve this problem is best to have androgynous characters acting in all future ads. All reference of sexuality, masculinity, femininity or race could be omitted.

Remember, you can offend some of the people all of the time.

You can offend all of the people some of the time.

But, you can't offend all of the people all of the time.

Or can you?

Bob, you are not much better than the agencies with your heavy stereotypes concluding that this man is gay. The issue is that the spot is just mean. People just want to live and enjoy life. The man is doing so and causing no harm. There is no reason to pelt him with Snicker bars. It would be interesting to see Snicker's insight that suggests that people like bullies. I find it harmful for the brand to position themselves as one.

Well, I'm half with you here, Bob. Banking in on out-dated and ridiculous stereotypes is juvenile and offensive to me. My guess is that you wouldn't see so many people that were willing to laugh along if they had been exploiting racism in their ads. An uproar would have commenced, and these ads would have disappeared into the anals of "what not to do" historic examples for advertising students everywhere.

However, I think you may also be taking this issue to an unneccessary extreme. "Pull the campaign... or else."??? Seriously? Are we in fifth grade again? "Or else" what, exactly? You won't buy their product? Well, were you going to buy it after seeing those ads anyway? C'mon now. You're letting your emotions get the better of your professional opinion.

Were they homophobic ads? Absolutely. (And for those of you who genuinely defend that "fairy" connotation as if you truly didn't grasp the reference, let's get real here. It doesn't take a genius.) Should the company be more socially responsible? Absolutely. Should the ads be pulled? Definitely. But let's keep it professional, here. On both sides of the table.

What a minute. What the fuck? Homophobic?? I'll be the first one to crap on an ad that is overtly homophobic but WTF?? This is the furthest thing from homophobic. Homophobia NEVER crossed my mind when I reviewed this one.

What did cross my mind was the oddity of speedwalking. I had a high school track coach - who was the furthest thing from anything representing gay - who race walked and we just thought it was funny....because it is! And he knew we knew it was funny and that we laughed at him and he was cooll with it. It's funny because it's odd. It's funny because hardly anyone does it.

OK, so maybe AMV BBDO put a slight gay spin on this but COME ON! Can we not laugh at anything anymore? Are we so politically correct, we can't appreciate a little humor? Do we have to continuously walk on eggshells for fear, OMFG, we might offend some cause group with nothing better to do than over sensitize the world to the point the only commercials acceptable would consist of a white background with the brand's logo...for thirty seconds? Oh wait. We can't do that. The white background will offend blacks!

WTF!

Or else? What are you gonna call them out after gym class to meet you behind the playground after school lets out? Grow up.

I am always freshly amazed how commenters can weigh in without having taken the trouble to a) think, b) carefully read.

This piece isn't about gay bashing; it's about effeminacy bashing, the last refuge in an enlightened/PC world for bigots and bullies.

It's also not about oversensitivity or political correctness. It's about decency - or, put another way, the Golden Rule.

And, just to clarify, the "or else" wasn't some sort of threat from me. I was suggesting that Wren use that phrase with his managers, so they understand there are consequences for fouling the airwaves with this crap.

Why does no one remember all the ads that depict the whole male gender as dumb, insensitive meat heads, or Women that are psycho materialistic house wives, or comedians that essentially have the power to advertise any race, gender, or sexual preference for their stereotype. This is nothing new, just a new target. Advertising has been attacking our fears and our identities for years so as to empathetically connect with us, the consumer.

Advertising has the power to make light of cultural differences and promote acceptance, it has the power of perception, understanding and connection.

It's advertising not public policy.

When I saw these ads I simply thought the ads were making fun of "regular guys" that have started acting "girly". Attacking the "Metro sexual', not the "Homosexual". Making fun of an inner fear that many men have.... modern society has killed the "John Wayne" in us all. (Or maybe I'm over thinking it too.)

But anyway, you're offended..... So what? You have no right to be free of offense.
You could take almost any advertisement and find something offensive to someone.

Originally being from coal fields of Central Appalachia, I'm offended every time I hear Hillbilly used in a derogatory manner. Or everyone from my part of the country characterized as a dumb redneck. You could probably find 10 (100) times the number advertisements that portray that theme. Where's your outrage about that?

It's just a ridiculous thing to lay on the feet of advertising. It is only advertising (and for a candy bar at that).
Should we make sure that movies, TV, and books offend no one as well?

Is it appropriate to be shooting chocolate bars at someone because they are different? No

Is the ad in bad taste? For some

Is it funny? For some

Is it a memorable ad? Yes

It is all about recall and like it or not this ad has it. Now go have a Snickers and get some...well you know.

"With great power comes great responsibility." - Uncle Ben from Spiderman

Advertising of this scale is seen by millions upon millions of open eared, open eyed citizens. The people who create it, inarguably, wield great power.

Maybe the accused were being irresponsible by using a crass gay joke in their ads. Maybe they're being altruistic by pushing the envelope and a public dialogue. It is up to them to determine what being "responsible" is and how to act accordingly in their work; but they should at least be conscious of the power they have and the affects of their actions.

Come on, people! This ad is not just about who is or isn't offended. It's actually suggesting that attacking someone for displaying some behavior outside some narrowly perceived norm is funny!

Aren't we beyond that as a society? Or is pandering to the sickest common denominator acceptable in the name of brand awareness? Does Snickers as a brand want to be known for the intolerance of its consumers? If so, they're well on their way.

Do we live in a society where we are a bunch of pansy's and can't take a 30 second spot, oh wait sorry to be insensitive and offend someone. People are too light skin, If your not offending the TGLC, your offending Greenpeace or the Christian coalition or the atheist. I think you get the point you can't please everyone. Thats why us as marketers choose a demographic and hit it. Let Snickers advertise their product whichever way they want.

I mean really... Shame on you Bob Garfield. I think you need to be the one to stop the dehumanizing sterotypes!

And for you to assert that this commercial is "a cartoonish recapitulation" of Matthew Shepards death is absolutely horrifying!!

This article has made me more disgusted and sick than anything out of Omnicon - Cassi Warren, Omaha, NE

Bob,

You had me until I watched the video. Lighten up! Oh, yes, stop the preaching, it's not your brand...

Rafael A. Cabrera -- San Diego, CA

After watching the Snickers Spot I would not want to be seen eating a snickers bar. I would really like to know more about their marketing research that lead to this. I just don't see how this spot is good for their brand. It will certainly get them a bunch of bad press not mention the direction seems very limiting. Where do they go from here? Will Snickers now be positioned as the candy bar of choice for insecure assholes?

If you're going to weigh in with the "aren't we beyond that as a society" line then band "Family Guy", "John Stewart", "America's Funniest Home Videos" and anything else that exhibits crass or stupid humor.

I am afraid to point out that throughout the argument of whether or not it is politically correct to show Mr. T bullying the speed walking effeminate guy that no one has raised any protest to an African American male portrayed in a "drive by" chocolate bar shooting scenario. Is that not perpetuating a stereotype that is in poor taste? Why has nobody even considered weighing in on that...Bob?

What about the truck? Does this ad suggest that all pick-up drivers are bullies and aggressors, mono-syllabic Neanderthals who drive around antagonizing poor helpless individuals?

You can argue this until the cows come home (no offense to cows) but the fact of the matter is that it is an ad for chocolate and like it or not it is an effective ad. If you don't like it don't buy it. If you are offended by the image change the channel. If you obscure the point of "what makes an effective ad" with pointless rhetoric about whether or not the ad exhibits tasteless homophobic stereotypes then get a job as a columnist for AdAge.

My biggest problem with this spot or many others lately is that they use a mechanism they know will get attention in spite of the fact it has nothing to do with adding to the product's value or story.

Plus it is often completely unmemorable as far as the product is concerned.

As far as picking on specific social attributes goes, the US has gone completely overboard in every possible way including being so overly concerned about everyone's feelings on everything!!

Yet it's OK to show 2 men kissing to get attention, which is something that personally causes me to turn my head the other way, where are feelings of people like me taken onto consideration.

My whole point is lighten up, get a life and start doing advertising that helps the brand grow.

Speed walking and any other physical activity should be clearly supported when a brand is selling more sugar loaded crap to a country full of fat people.

Living in Houston, TX it hasn't been too long ago since gay men were too afraid to walk down the streets in certain neighborhoods for fear of getting struck by flying beer bottles or bats by guys riding by in pickup trucks. Young guys who didn't think they met their standard of what a male should be. The very same young guys this spot is now targeting. The pain and fear is very real and it is what a lot of gay men, their friends and family will think of after watching that commercial.
Is that really any way to sell a candy bar?

Have we really gotten to the Politically-Correct point where we have no sense of humor anymore? Seriously? It's gotten to the point where you can't say *anything* anymore without *someone* getting all bent out of shape. Well *I* am offended that so many people are getting offended.

People, people. Relax. Have a drink. If we can't learn to laugh again, all advertising will be so pointless and so whitewashed that the industry will do nothing but churn out ad after ad of stale, boring, drained-of-all-life schlock. (And there's already too much of that as it is.)

Sorry, Daly, but I refuse to "learn to laugh" at any portrayal of overt hatred and violence. A Gatling gun mounted on the back of a pickup truck for the purpose of drive-by terrorism is wrong, even if the ammo is candy bars.

"Newspapers in Germany, above all Der Stürmer (The Attacker), printed cartoons that used antisemitic caricatures to depict Jews. After the Germans began World War II with the invasion of Poland in September 1939, the Nazi regime employed propaganda to impress upon German civilians and soldiers that the Jews were not only subhuman, but also dangerous enemies of the German Reich."*

The use of "humor" to persuade one audience that the butt of the joke/scapegoat deserves to be demeaned because of his otherness isn't a new tactic--especially in an economic downturn.

Using mass media to reinforce ANY negative stereotype as a means of growing market share and sales is socially irresponsible. The buck doesn't stop with John Wren: the marketers who paid for the Dodge and Snickers work are just as much to blame.

I guess time will show whether the target audience of "real men" will respond by spending their diminishing income to buy more candy bars or relieve Chrysler LLC of its inventory of gas guzzlers. Meanwhile, Robert L. Nardelli? John Franklyn Mars? Do these campaigns REALLY build your brands images?

Karen McBain, Harrison, NJ

*http://www.ushmm.org

There is something to be said about Omnicom's three agencies producing homophobic ads. However, two of the ads being referenced here are for the same product. And, we all know that a client tells their agency what type of message they think will best sell their product. Is Omnicom really to blame to producing crap that their narrow-minded clients asked for? Just a thought...

WOW comparisons to Nazi propaganda is pretty much my breaking point and far from making a valid argument on this particular topic. However, take a look at some of the Warner Brothers cartoons commissioned by the US government in WWII for a point of comparison. You certainly don't need to be a Nazi to have been careless with spreading hatred during that period of world history.

Social responsibility, awareness, and education should be taught at home and in schools. A snickers commercial, regardless of its crass approach to advertising candy bars should not be held to account for the death of a college student. Should they have been a bit more sensitive? Perhaps.

Should the agency in question be compared to German publishers during the Third Reich? Not a chance.

The death of the young man is unfortunate and deplorable. I'd look to UFC or other sources of "hyper-masculine" programming to levy the finger wagging at.

The first snickers ad was better. Mr. T only threw the chocolate bar at the offending soccer player who was exaggerating an injury to draw a penalty. Mr. T could have tossed the bar at the offending character in the second ad and perhaps avoided the overreaction of those who wield the torch of political correctness (when it suits them).

Wow, how 20th Century and not relevant. It's not just homophobic, it's actually more femme-a-phobic. WRONG.

Dusting off Mr. T as a spokesperson? WRONG. Umm, no one under 35 really knows who Mr. T is -- or cares. I pity you fools for that choice.

Power walking? Another throwback wrong for the target. WRONG.

Would the target stop a TiVo to watch this? Nope. That tagline could be used in such clever ways to appeal to the target. Are they aware the female of the species enjoy candy bars too?

How embarrassingly in poor taste, hateful, unmemorable, poorly executed, and a bad representation of such a fun product. Why didn't you just go all the way with stereotypes and make the exercise guy obese? Minority? Wearing a dress? Wow, this creative is LAME.

Drunk frat boys could have come up with something more clever and not hateful.

I think you're taking this too personally, and also ignoring the general trend toward absurdity that is occurring at the moment. Effeminate speedwalkers being chased by Mr. T with a gattling gun-truck is pure nonsense, not veiled hate-speech.

Humor is nothing more than a logical train wreck. It can be accomplished in a higher-minded way (Seinfeld is a good example), or it can be Mr. T shooting candy bars out of a truck.

Watch Cartoon Network's Adult Swim, which I consider to be quite avant garde at times. I know that probably sounds ridiculous to many readers, but they push a lot of boundaries in terms of content and production. And in the process, they insult pretty much everyone, all the time.

Maybe they get away with it because they're obvious with their absurd intent. But in any case, recognize the difference between goofball antics and true hate-speech (which by nature requires actual hate or at least intent behind its production). Real hate speech normally looks more like this:

http://skeptisys.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/protest.jpg

Bob -- I was blown away by your letter. All of these ads are offensive and homophobic. When those of us in the gay community complain, we're called whiners and over-sensitive. Glad to see we've got an ally in the "mainstream."

While I think Garfield tends to overreact and present his perspectives in an outdated fashion, he's basically right here. The latest cover story of Newsweek features the tale of a young man murdered because of intolerance toward gays. It's both typical and shameful that so many people here—especially those in the advertising industry—are commenting that Garfield is too PC. You folks show quite clearly that our industry has a long way to go before it can be considered anything but a biased, discriminatory, culturally clueless Old Boys Club.

Bob, clearly you are either running out of ideas to write about or trying desperately to keep your job by courting controversy. If the ad industry takes your line then we will have nothing to create with. Almost any ad any where will upset some one.

I would suggest you are apply your old views and prejudges to an ad clearly targeted at young consumers. Can't you understand that these people just don't have the built in homophobia of your generation.

Just let the market decide. If people don't like an ad the sales go down, the agency gets dropped and life goes on.

Neil Hardwick,

You wrote, "If the ad industry takes your line then we will have nothing to create with."

Boy, I hope you're not a creative director. That is really some small-minded thinking. After all, this commercial is not the first in the series. There is a soccer spot where a player overreacts to an injury. There is no homophobia in the soccer spot. Mr. T is simply attacking a wimp. Additionally, Snickers has traditionally done outstanding advertising without derogatory stereotypes. As have countless other brands.

Being edgy is one thing. Being insensitive to audiences is just plain ignorant. Nothing more. Let's not hold it up as part of our jobs.

Please refrain from defending clichés that demean people as being acts of creativity. It makes us all look stupid.

We can laugh at the jokes (when they're funny) - we can even handle the name calling if that's what it takes, it's the depiction of violence that is made to look funny, and therefore acceptable, that needs to stop.

These ads are seen by our children. The ads make it seem okay to bully someone for being less manly. The ads make it seem okay to beat someone or shoot someone or hit someone with a wrench because they're a sissy.

To those of you who didn't know - Growing up gay is not the same as growing up hillbilly. People are not killed because they are a hillbilly.

Bob,

Yes, you have a entusiasthic brazilian reader. And I'm felling terrified about this commercial. It's so stupid, violent, uncreative! It makes me sick. Hey! I think people who create this "ad" had some school education, top universities, used to know art, movies, good magazines and so on. It's impossible to imagine that are no creative sense to see that these things cannot be done, simply. In Brazil, UK, China, and, of course, Mars.

JACQUES MEIR, SÃO PAULO, BRAZIL

These commercials do nothing for people and are not even entertaining. They probably hit high on recall testing which got them aired. But dreadful communication no doubt.

It's hard for me to believe these commercials got past round 1 of internal concepting.

I think I will add these potential clients to my contact list.

Hello Snickers, I think I know why you are losing market share.

I applaud Bob for bringing the content of the spots forward and starting the discussion I'm not sure that I would go so far to call the Mr. T spot homophobic, I do, however, agree with the previous commentator regarding the strategic and executional appropriateness of the spot. The star and the setting are completely off target for age and for gender (indeed where are the women). Truly, the most breath-taking thing about the spot is that it was made at all. We all should be ashamed of that, too often we bow to the creatives "talent" and not standing in the way of the process. We let too much work be presented and seen that has no cultural affinity with the target, acts as a dis-service to the product and the marketplace.

John Wren not only needs to step in, but make a public apology for so gross of a hate commercials, attacking gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

Snickers needs to be boycotted by the Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual communities, for an attempt to not only to sell Snickers, but to sell the macho image of the real man, who is so mentally sick, he thinks hating others is the manly thing to do.

I find it funny that people are defending the Mr T spot as if it represents great, thought provoking advertising. Like if someone attacks that particular spot, the are in fact attacking people right to be irreverent.

I am offended by the ad for one reason...it totally sucks. It sucks in every way that lame, rely on celebrity advertising always sucks. It's thin and shallow and truly unoriginal. Is it gay bashing? No. Is it even worthy of a debate. Well, obviously I must think it is, because I am typing this.

I can rattle off about fifty brands that have taken the "we're for REAL men" angle. Some of them have done a half decent job of it. But more often than not it just comes off a little too chest thumping.

For every Axe that taps into some little human truths, there are 49 that just come off like they are hiding something.

John Wren should be made aware of this spot and he should be worried. Not that some of his London based creatives are homophobes ...but that they are small thinkers.

I agree with Bob Garfield's letter to John Wren. To me, the issue with the Mr. T spot is not so much the perpetuation of negative gay stereotypes; some gay guys could easily kick the butts of many straight guys, and most enlightened people already know this. The problem is the perpetuation of prejudice against guys who don't fit society's outdated norms for masculinity. What's the harm in this? Talk to the parents of a high school boy who doesn't meet the current norm and you'll find out. Or talk to someone who volunteers for a teen suicide hotline. Humor is powerful, and advertisers do have the responsibility to not cross certain lines. I don't see any ads lampooning the lynching of black people. - David Botsford, The Botsford Group

What David Botsfied said. With a LONG caveat.

Neal Jago referred to WB's "Looney Tunes" anti-Nazi/Japanese theatrical shorts as being proof that "everyone" was guilty of racist propaganda back in the benighted 1940's.

Neil Hardwick claims that "young consumers" don't have the "old views...and

built-in homophobia of (an older) generation." (Is it too PC to suggest that

condemning an entire generation as homophobic is in itself a form of prejudice?)

We can dance around the ideas that the Snickers spots are poorly targeted, exclude women and other potential purchasers, lack the spark of genius--but Dennis Johnson is right. These ads are MEANT to be seen by and to influence the

behavior of another primary chocolate-eating demographic.

The Looney Tunes shorts were produced for an adult, theatrical audience. The majority were ONLY taken out of distribution 40 years ago--along with others that portrayed blacks as a comic and inferior race--BECAUSE their humor wasn't considered appropriate content for their final broadcast audience: children. I don't recall any lynchings, but I was part of that uncritical, underage audience that was free to absorb pro-white proganda with my breakfast cereal.

Neil Harwick: if your generation isn't homophobic, it doesn't guarantee that children in the generations after you are already sophisticated enough to look at the Dodge and Snickers creative, appreciate the slapstick, and condemn a racist and/or homophobic subtext. But, gee, advertisers and agencies exercising discretion about the messages they choose to put out over a broadcast medium? Isn't that...censorship?

If everyone wasn't so SENSITIVE back in 1968,"Coal Black and De Sebben Dwarfs" (1943), would still be available to help push product. It's like "Family Guy," it sends up EVERYBODY. Black people, Jewish gangstas (Murder, Inc.: Bugsy Siegel's crew, Millenials), the Japanese, chicks and midgets.

Sorry kids: you go look for it on YouTube. I'm going to buy another candy bar. Wait a minute! Doesn't that dwarf have a tail??? Karen McBain, Harrison, NJ

At what point does it stop? At what point have we gone too far? should we punish the agencies doing work for: Budweiser, BMW, FUBU, etc. for perpetuating stereotypes? What about American Apparel? Aren't they just showing women as sex objects?

I guess I don't see how ads are a commentary on policy... Have you ever watched the L Word? Isn't that giant stereotype? How about the Sopranos? Boy, now we're positioning ALL italians as mobsters.

C'mon, it's TV.

Adam Kmiec,

You don't see the difference between advertising and TV shows? I hope you're an intern or mailroom attendant. You shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the making of advertising, dude.

Are these ads anti-gay? Or is the author of this column pro-gay? Can an anti-gay agency produce a pro-gay ad? Or are all Americans just too damn sensitive?

A commercial is just a commercial. The same amount of thought went into the Mr T ad as it did when the old lady fell down and couldn't get up. Was that ad about ageism? Who were those agency jerks to assume that all elderly people are constantly falling down all the time?

The Mars candy company has no agenda, other than "sell everyone candy." If you like the candy, buy the candy. If Mr T magically turned chocolate and caramel and nougat into something that now horrifies you and fills you with rage, then eat a Mr Goodbar instead. But simply invoking a time-honored stereotype to defend a VERY weak argument that you're a fan of doesn't mean that automatically everyone out there has an agenda.

"C'mon. It's TV."

How often I've seen that comment over the years, as a rationale -- or rationalization -- for advertising's excesses? Likewise its rationalization cousin: "It's only an ad. Lighten up!"

Both observations are phenomenally ignorant, revealing a fundamental inability to understand what advertising is. It surely isn't TV. It's ON television, but it's not content that anybody has voted for in any way, shape or form. It just shows up,univited, and as such has not just a responsibility for decorum, but a special responsibility. This is NOT a generational issue. It's a basic ethics issue -- not to mention basic common sense. For God's sake, an advertiser is putting its multibilliondollar brand behind it: shouldn't the joke, at a minimum, not resemble hate speech?

Another common refrain: "just more PC oversensitivity." Wow. That's really clueless, too. Any who thinks objecting to the depiction of violence (however absurd) for the crime of being too effeminate has ANYTHING to do with Political Correctness either a) doesn't know what PC is, b) cannot reason beyond some reflexive, defensive sloganeering, c) is a bigot himself.

Those who contend have so lost our sense of humor that we can't joke about ANYTHING...well, the mind simply reels. For one thing, we CAN joke about everything...or at least everything I can think of...in the right time and place. Even the mass media are awash in hilarious,edgy material. But dehumanizing entire classes of people can be (and certainly is in Snickers' case) a cruel and ugly enterprise. The commenter who found a parallel in anti-Semitic propaganda -- Ha ha! Look at these greedy jews and their big hooked noses! -- understood the phenomenon exactly.

I was amazed and appalled that one holding company could be responsible for so many sissy-bashing commercials. I am even more amazed and appalled that this mean and juvenile crap has so many defenders.

Jeff Candela,

You're simple-minded argument may be as over-reactive as Garfield's perspective. Who is accusing anyone of having an agenda? This is more likely the case of advertising people producing a message without realizing the potential offensive nature of the imagery. It's more an indication that the responsible people are culturally clueless versus deliberately plotting. Should they be condemned for their insensitivity? Probably not. At the same time, it shouldn't be excused as a case of people being too sensitive. Unfortunately, we don't get to decide if others should or shouldn't be offended by something. We do have a responsibility, however, to consider the offended people's point of view and decide whether or not a mistake was made. Dismissing it like your comments suggest demonstrates a real insensitivity, ignorance and arrogance that we should all strive to move beyond, friend.

Bob Garfield (presuming the comment left in this thread actually came from Bob Garfield),

I'm a little surprised that you express such amazement. As a man in your position, you must see tons of advertising. Thus, you must realize this is closer to being the norm than the exception. Additionally, if you paid attention to the issues of exclusivity and discrimination in our industry, all of these comments would be completely familiar to you.

The spots are only symptomatic of a bigger problem. Think the spot makes certain people uncomfortable? Hey, many of them face the same shit regularly and directly in the hallowed halls of Madison Avenue. Perhaps your position shields you from contact with the people actually creating the work. But think about it. A commercial does not hatch in a vacuum. It's seen and produced and commented upon by scores of people. How many individuals do you think saw this commercial during its production process without noticing the potential issues? That's the most disturbing part of all.

The people defending it are reflections of the people who produced it. And they all make up a sizable chunk of our ranks—with many in leadership positions. There continues to be an arrogance and ignorance in our industry that no one wants to admit. Writing a letter to John Wren doesn't begin to address the real problem.

When I was eight years old I watched the A-Team with unbridled euphoria... to imagine I'd be sitting here later in life watching Mr.T belittled in such a manner is an affront in itself.

Having worked with AMV on masterful campaigns like 'Nibble Nobbys Nuts' this battery farmed creative comes as no surprise...


As Mr.T so aptly puts it... "I pity u fools!"

In response to Mr Jones:

"There continues to be an arrogance and ignorance in our industry that no one wants to admit," according to you. How can 3 ads out of 30,000 mean that an entire collection of people are "arrogant"? Not every commercial can be about sunshine and puppy dogs dancing through rainbows. Accusing an entire collection of people of exhibiting conscious displays of arrogance based on so few supporting arguments is, ironically, pretty arrogant when you think about it.

Ohhhh lord. I'm gay and I thought that was funny. Really funny. Perhaps the author of this article is a speed-walker. Haha! Who doesn't laugh at speed walkers? WHO I ASK!

Come on guys, quit being so reactionary.

Mr. Candela,

You're putting words in my comments. I never said there was conscious arrogance. Indeed, most arrogant people are completely unaware of their nature. There is, however, a great deal of ignorance and cluelessness in the industry, particularly when addressing any audience outside of one's own immediate circle. These things are often undetected by the people exhibiting such characteristics too. There's nothing ironic here. It's simply that the issues are complex and contradictory. Even paradoxical. Although I will say that, in my opinion, arrogant minds consistently seek black-and-white positions when considering these issues.

Take a close look at the comments on this thread. Sure, we see people like you dismissing the offenses—and we've even heard from a few gays insisting they weren't offended. Does that mean the offended people are wrong? I doubt it. Have you ever been gay, Mr. Candela? Have you ever been attacked—physically assaulted—because you were gay? If the answers are no, how can you possibly dictate others' feelings and reactions in this matter?

This is not about 3 spots, Mr. Candela. Garfield is not even aware that he's stumbled on a pattern. When the first Snickers spot aired during the Super Bowl, it was accompanied by a spot from GM featuring a suicidal robot that also displayed insensitivity and cluelessness. In recent years, we've seen Asian Americans offended by imagery in spots for Stride Gum, Six Flags, SalesGenie, Hot Pockets and Quiznos. We've seen African Americans offended by ads from Intel and Uncle Ben. We've seen Italian Americans offended by damn near any ad featuring people of Italian descent. Latinos have been offended by Taco Bell and more. Indians, Native Americans, Jews, and Muslims are also faced with questionable communications. Fathers have taken offense to spots from Verizon and Volvo. Women continue to see all sorts of cultural miscues directed toward them. Why, this week we've even heard from people taking offense over the depiction of pit bulls in a Verizon spot. Of course, this entire discussion was launched by ads targeting GLBT audiences. And this is just a short list off the top of my head.

I have no idea what your experience and background is, Mr. Cabela. I have worked—and continue to work—in major agencies servicing Fortune 50 clients. I'm completely aware of the cluelessness from a firsthand perspective. I see planners and creatives and account people and clients scratching their heads when trying to communicate to any audience outside of their own universe. Minorities are called in from the mailroom and janitorial ranks for insights on multicultural work. For an industry charged with communicating to diverse audiences, across the board, we really suck.

I'm not saying every spot should be about sunshine and puppy dogs. And we should probably avoid puppies if they're pit bulls. But I am saying that the industry is not doing a good job of addressing one of our most basic tenets: Know Your Target.

If you need further evidence, I recommend you spend more time visiting Ad Age's The Big Tent blog. Or take a closer look at your own agency's work. I think you'd be surprised that my perspective is hardly unique. Just as your dismissive attitude regarding this issue is completely stereotypical. Otherwise, you'd realize that this thread does not feature a single original comment that hasn't been posted hundreds of times in the past years—including mine. I just wanted to give you a Cliff Notes version to catch you up with the 21st century. Cheers.

Bob,

Nearly 60 comments ago, I thanked you for stepping up with this column. Now I'd like to add: thanks for stirring the pot! The dialogue -- both crazy and thoughtful -- has kept me entertained for three days now!

Dear Bobble,

Observing from the sidelines it's easy to pass judgment. And in your case, it seems even easier to pass ungrounded bias. You're simply a watchman. The thing is, you have an audience. I commend you for that. But I also say that you chew up and degrade what people do for a living. You are a cynic of the very business that keeps your fickle career from shriveling up and rolling into a gutter.

Did you ever think that you should commend someone for getting such a piece of work on-air. I do. Good or Bad, Creative is always hard to sell, produce, and finally put in front of the consumer. (Come on, you know that chief.) You are an ad guy at heart. A living, breathing brand yourself. You're a self-editor of the creative you put to market. So chill-ax with the flippant remarks and personal call-outs. Your welcome to your opinion, but keep it on that level.

Words of wisdom from yours truly,

Andrew Dubois

P.S. A little Al Green might do the trick.

Is there anything in this world that doesn't offend someone at some point? Good Lord, what is happening to people in this country who can't even take an insignificant 30 second commercial about a freakin' candy bar (of all things) without whining and complaining about how offensive it is to them. Why should the majority have to bend over backwards for the demands of the PC-patrolling minority, in turn, ruining things for the majority? I think for all those that find these commercials "offensive" - here's a thought- grow some skin and get over it! It's JUST a commercial! No one is going to care either way 2 days from now. PS- Power-walking is and always will be funny!

I'm getting offended by all the people who obviously haven't read the thread and post comments already made a dozen times.

I pity those fools.

By the by... glad to see Galen peppering his ignorance all over this site... well done!

Bob: This isn't the first time Snickers marketing appeared to be callous. In the past, the company featured the slogan: "Don't Let Hunger Happen to You." Using hunger as a marketing strategy? And suggesting that it can/should be prevented with a candy bar? I looked into the statistics on how many kids (their target market) actually go to bed hungry every night. Staggering. Bottom line: Someone came up with the idea. Then someone had to approve it.

Mr Jones, once again, in response:

My name is Mr Candela, not Cabela, so perhaps YOU YOURSELF should take the time to read THE POSTS YOU ARE ACTUALLY REPLYING TO before you lazily pound your fingers on the keys and simply hack a random stranger's professional credibility to pieces.

Mr. Candela,

Gee, you want to get all offended over a few random typos? C'mon, an online comment is just an online comment. Even Garfield has a few typos in his response. Let's avoid creating a new area for argument. I'm not hacking anyone's professional credibility to pieces. Rather, I believe opinions should be challenged and debated. Did you think everyone here would simply bow and agree with everything you typed? You are free to rebut anything I've offered. Honestly, I'm not here to offend you or anyone else. If I have, I apologize. Cheers.

Mr Jones--

I do not wish for you to believe I am being pugnacious or insincere when I thank you for your apology. I am not easily offended, so that was never the source of my ire--what I am bothered by, though, is the lack of grit that we're allowed to express in this industry on an individual level. It bothers me that something so silly as a misinterpreted candy bar ad can encourage such a heated response over something I still believe to be a non-issue. I am not saying that I do not consider all of the angles when I compose a copy piece for my company, and I do not mean to say I encourage people to ignore their justifiably high standards before releasing a piece that any particular group may find offensive. What I am saying, simply, is that calling the Mr T ad offensive really, really strains credibility, because it's an obvious satire. We should be far past the days of outcry when Swift was telling us all to eat babies, and in this case a strained (very strained) interpretation of an ad, coupled with a hot-button buzz phrase like "anti-gay" does little more than reduce the credibility of the person making this statement. It's simply straining too much to claim this ad contains a message that the creators of this ad did not put nor did they consciously leave in there.

I'm aware that there are existing prejudices in this industry, but what industry is without that stigma? Would you like to sit in on a graduate level educational course, and be asked to passively read a book called "Teaching to Inner City Children: Walking the Thin Line," without forming the same conclusion about our educational system? The point I'm striving towards, whilst haphazardly, is that there's prejudices everywhere, and they're never going to go away completely, but making them all into soapbox issues demeans the impact of ACTUAL prejudice, which is a lot more mean and definitely more focused than anything that anyone has mentioned in this post. "Too reactionary," was one person's comment, and I agree with that wholeheartedly: we're all being too reactionary. We should all just take some time and chill out, relax, and meditate on more important things...

Man, meditating makes me hungry. Think I'll go power walk over to the convenience store down the street and pick up a Snickers Dark (because it's obviously more manly; milk chocolate is for wimps).

Enjoy your Snickers, Mr. Candela.

As I've stated before, I'm completely aware of your position. I also believe you are overreacting to the comments. I never said anyone consciously did anything. And I certainly would completely agree that other industries struggle with arrogance and cultural cluelessness too. There are also greater instances of real prejudice. So should we dismiss offenses because we're no worse than any other industry and we're better than other offenders? Of course not. You think this discussion is silly? Go check out the thread with folks crying over the depiction of pit bulls in a Verizon spot. If you think there are more important things to meditate about, go for it. But you shouldn't think you can drop your opinions here and not get a response. I would urge you to reread this thread. There are plenty of people who expressed their concerns about the Snickers commercial with far greater insight, emotion and eloquence than Candela and Jones. And Garfield too. Many came to this conversation with closed minds, and will apparently leave the same way. But if all of this inspired you to go out for a Snickers bar, then the advertising must be effective. And that's all that matters, right? Kudos to the creators. Cheers.

And ultimately, the lesson is: can't we all just get along?

What is happening to "creatives" when the best they can come up with just incites hatred and anger? In South Africa, a recent column in Sunday Sun by something-of-a-celebrity Jon Qwelane nails gay people to the floor. Now, we have a GLBT population here that laughs at itself often and hard. But people who use their positions of "power" as ad or column creators aren't amusing. Funny, if you were to nail black, Asian or Indian people this way, you'd create global outrage. But bigotry against gay people is okay? I'm seeing double. Standards.

I'm surprised and a little disappointed that so few folks are addressing Garfield's main point and his actual request: that Wren should ensure that the work of the agencies he leads represents the agencies' policy.

Whether or not you think the ads are homophobic, and whether or not you think this is a problem in the industry, what do you think is Wren's responsibility? I think that at the very least, Wren is responsible for making sure that Omnicom and its agencies follow the policies they have set out... more thoughts on this at www.AuthenticOrganizations.com

What makes everyone think this Snickers ad is homophobic? (And yes, Mr. Garfield, this includes you -- look at the subtitle for your article -- "Three of Your Agencies Have Produced Homophobic Spots".) Does everyone believe that "sissy" and "gay" are synonymous? That in itself sounds...homophobic. I know "sissies" who are heterosexual, and I know gay men who are more masculine than pro football players (and some of them are football players). Who someone prefers to sleep with is not necessarily the same as how they present themselves to the public. I'm not going to get into whether this ad is good, bad, or offensive, and I'm not going to touch the debate over whether or not sissy-bashing spells the end of civilization...but I do believe that labeling this particular ad as homophobic generalizes a person's style into a sexual preference, which is very dangerous.

To Julia Cohen (and many others),

As the piece makes very clear (notwithstanding the slightly-too-narrow subheadline, which I did not write) it's not about gay or not gay; it's about the license to ridicule, demean and target a class of people by virtue of being not prototypically masculine enough.

You don't wish to go into whether the ad is good or bad or offensive? Allow me: it IS bad. It IS offensive. It IS wrong. It IS insulting. It IS juvenile. It IS bullying. It IS hate speech. It IS bad conduct. It IS bad business

I don't see it.

Where was all of this outrage when the beer company was dropping giant beer cans on guys for not behaving manly?

We all laughed at man law, although it didn't work.

I am more concern with the assumption that a powerwalker is gay. I didn't know there are gay sports? I saw it, and thought it was telling him to man up. I have no problem with it.


I feel like we are going well past reasonable with our PC demands.

Let the venom fly because to me, this is not offensive.

My opinion.

Derek,

Your last two words clarified it all: My opinion.

This conversation is growing tired, and I apologize for having contributed much of the nonsense.

But I feel compelled to type a couple of things.

1. No one ever said speedwalking is gay. No one ever said the character in this commercial must be gay BECAUSE he is speedwalking. However, a few of us believe the guy is displaying characteristics that are in keeping with gay stereotypes. Garfield has only gone so far as to call him effeminate (although I think Bob tipped his hand by referencing the Matthew Shepard tragedy). But what I find most disturbing are all the people who vehemently deny the character is exhibiting gay stereotypes. Equally appalling are the individuals who blast us for our perceptions here. Garfield was not the first to take note of the stereotypes. Go to Ken Wheaton's AdAges blog, where he linked to a gay man who took offense with the character and the spirit of the message. In the past days, numerous gay individuals, blogs and organizations have spoken out against this spot. Are they all crazy too? Granted, that does not mean ALL gays will find this spot offensive. But, guys, we don't get to decide if someone should or should not be offended by something. To do so displays ignorance and insensitivity in the highest order.

2. I'm disturbed by the people who defend this work as edgy and creative. Why? Take a look at the work that has won Gold Pencils and Cannes Lions over the past years. Few are offensive (in fact, maybe none of them are). Edgy does not require being offensive or demeaning. It never did. I will go so far as to declare that anyone who really believes this spot is superior creative is probably a hack. Sorry. The agency responsible has done better work than this—and so has Snickers.

I will repeat that I do not think the people responsible for this ad were deliberately conspiring to offend anyone. They probably did not see the potential responses the work would generate. While our industry continues to display cultural cluelessness, I do not believe we are deliberately evil, racist or discriminatory. But at some point, if we don't start trying harder to improve and evolve, we may be unable to reverse the perceptions the outside world has about the industry—and about us.

OK, I promise I'm through with this thread. Have a nice weekend.

To Mr. Garfield,

I actually agree with you that this ad IS bad, offensive, etc., for all of the reasons you put forth, and more.

But how can you say your piece is "not about gay or not gay" when you cite as example the Matthew Shepard case? This case was not about his being "beaten to death for being too effeminate to suit his killer" -- it was a hate crime driven by homophobia. The killers posed as gay men to lure him to his death. They killed Matthew Shepard because he was gay, not because he was effeminate.

So I agree with your principles, I really do, and I applaud you for having such a strong opinion. But based on the subhead (written by you or not), and the case you cited, I don't think your piece was as clear as you intended it to be. Just my opinion as a reader of your column.

(And by the way, it's Julian, not Julia. Interesting slip, given the debate...)

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 therefor 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)

Seems to me that we agree in spirit, but not in semantics. I see something far more sinister in this type of advertising, and maybe we're saying the same thing. The sort of stereotyping in these ads is a small step away from the tactics employed in Nazi Germany, where if someone looked Jewish, they were rounded up. Homophobia is indefensible; but if you don't exhibit the signs and styles associated with homosexuality, you're relatively safe (i.e., in the closet). Fear (and condemnation) of a private behavior is, to me, less disturbing than fear of a public behavior. I just take issue with the Matthew Shepard example, which I don't think is the best example to support your argument. This is not about homophobia, as you yourself noted -- it's about attacking the weak, the different, the other. As such, it's much bigger than homophobia. People can justify their homophobia. Society justifies it. Religion justifies it. In other words, most people are comfortable with their homophobia; but tell them they're akin to Nazis, and maybe they'll reconsider their behaviors and attitudes. (Yes, I admit I'm being hyperbolic.)

And there really is no need for the patronizing "Sigh. This is so simple," is there? It's actually not so simple. If it were, you'd have received universal support and adulation for your views, rather than the charged rhetoric below. I say this with all due respect -- again, I think it's good the ad community is engaging in this discussion, and that you have started it, and we should all thank you for that.

(BTW, I just read the ad was pulled, so someone sane is at the helm, somewhere...)

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 –Bob Garfield, Anytown

Mentally masturbate all you like folks.

Homophobia and misogyny are so imbued in our culture it's SOP (standard operating procedure.

So let's talk louder than that bothersome ELEPHANT IN OUR LIVING ROOM.

Joanne Jubert
Little SIlver, NJ

Cry me a river... Advertiser have ther right to express their thoughts and creativeness in any way they see fit. The last thing I would to see happen is a cloud of politically correctness continuely surrounding the advertising world. Is Axe degrading to woman because of their ads? NO, it's not. Simply a creative way to advertise. Mr. Garfield is simply an up-tight individual with no creativity, so the only thing he is able to do is criticize other peoples work.

http://www.hrc.org/10880.htm

It isnt homophobic, those that think it is are all "pc nuts", and yes I am labeling you , so un "Pc" of me i guess. Mainstream america would look at this like any other commercial that they tivo past. Only the "pc nuts" are actually over analyzing them.

Ok. Now the ad is off air, but still online ("loud and proud", says www.getsomenuts.tv). So, Omnicom and every advertiser in the world are entering a new era of hypocrisy: You can say anything offensive, pull the ad off the air with your deep sorrow, and leave it online to all your fellow haters worldwide. I agree with Mr. Garfield: Behave, or else.

Is anyone surprised the ad was pulled? Of course not. Companies will always buckle under the pressure or organizations. I want this ad pulled: http://youtube.com/watch?v=BIWeEFV59d4 How dare Nike give people the idea that it's safe and easy to jump over cars. And what is Warner Brothers thinking showing me that it's ok to dress up and be a vigilante: http://youtube.com/watch?v=WaIR9dAZRR0. I want that pulled to. I mean by 15 month old now clearly believes it's ok to hit people.

The sad fact is that ad got to the point where it did with no one complaining BEFORE the heat....


Corporate politics and Job fears as usual. No one wants to be ostracize by not being one of the guys

I wonder how Bob Garfield and the American people would feel if complains from an ad blogger in China or Pakistan caused an ad running in America that Americans found completely inoffensive to be pulled; simply because it upset these strangers to American taste and cultural styles?

May be American ads showing a woman's leg will be the next target, or ads for bacon?

Well that is how many people in the UK feel after the Snickers ad has now been pulled despite receiving only 2 (yes, that is two) complaints in the UK.

It has been pulled because of Bob Garfield and Bob Garfield only - and his two friends, out of a population of 60 million odd, in the UK.

So, I call on all opinionated people around the world to give Bob a taste of his own medicine - watch a reel of advertising from the US, find one that upsets your unique taste and then blog amongst people in your country with their completely different cultural sensitivities and using extremely biased language until the poor marketer involved crumbles, gives in and pulls the ad.