Hmm. Let’s see if we can drag this “OMG, it’s gay bashing” Snickers kerfuffle out just a bit longer and try to snag a few more vociferous comments. Hey, Advertising Age is doing it. Why not Adrants? Rather than move on, much like the rest of the non-ad world has..if they even heard the whining in the first place, Advertising Age decided to do…yes…a trend piece on banned ads adding to Snickers the Verizon Pit Bull ad and the swearing Churchill Insurance dog.
Is this really what the industry needs to spend its time debating? Oh wait, of course it does. That’s all this industry does; bitch about the work of others’ while inflating ego balloons over their own. And that’s before the cause groups enter the debate.
The Snickers ad was funny. The Verizon ad was innocuous. The Churchill ad was…well, it was just weird. They are all all over the internet and there’s nothing any brand, cause group or Bob Garfield can do about it.
There is something, though, the offended can do in similar situations if their goal is to make sure people don’t see these ads. Nothing. Yes, nothing. Do nothing. Say nothing. Ignore the ads. But no, the cause groups (and critics) have to pump these things up by fanning the flame (we know, we’ve done it here) which insures an inverse result: everyone talks about them and everyone sees them.
And guess what…the brands who paid for these commercials and the agencies which created them are popping champagne bottles in the conference and laughing their way way to the bank in celebration of all the free publicity these “banned ads” bring.
And the hand full of people who swear never to buy a Mars or Verizon product EVAR again? Inconsequential. An unregistered blip on these brands’ P&Ls.
Of course, half this stuff is purposefully planned in the first place to incite negative reaction with full knowledge critics and cause groups won’t be able to keep their panties untwisted or their mouths shut.
And so the cycle continues.
UPDATE: Kathy Bauch from the Humane Society responds in Comments.
