02/06/2007
Masterfoods Pulls Offensive Snickers Ads and Website
The Snickers ads and the offensive reactions to them from NFL Super Bowl players have been pulled.
Alice Nathanson, a spokesman for Masterfoods, told Stuart Elliott of the NYT: "As with all of our Snickers advertising, our goal was to capture the attention of our core Snickers consumer, primarily 18-to-24-year-old adult males. Feedback from our target consumers has been positive, and many media and Web site commentators on this year’s Super Bowl lineup ranked the commercial among this year’s best. We know that humor is highly subjective and we understand that some consumers have found the commercial offensive. Clearly that was not our intent. We do not plan to continue the ad on television or on our Web site."
It would be nice to hear that the company understands exactly why showing Super Bowl athletes reacting with disgust to images of men kissing is so patently offensive (homophobia is a learned behavior), but at least the correct action has been taken. Good work, folks.
Posted 3:30 PM EST by Andy Towle in Advertising, Football (American), News, Sports | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Aww...I like the commercial. The only thing that was offense was the players reactions and that was only on their site. They should have just removed the reactions. I swear we are so afraid to offend someone in this country it is getting pathetic. It's a joke people. Soon we are going to be so politically correct we are going to be known as homosexual-americans and heterosexual americans.
Posted by: Matt | Feb 6, 2007 3:37:47 PM
Apparently they don't get it...or are playing (very) dumb. One of the "alternate endings" to the commercial on the website showed the two guys bashing the crap out of each other with a wrench and crowbar(don't remember which tools exactly) upon one of them stating "do something manly!" I believe one blogger aptly coined this the "Matthew Shepherd" spot.
Posted by: burnssuit | Feb 6, 2007 3:44:32 PM
Well most redneck males who this ad is targeted at thinks fighting is a manly thing. I'm sure a ton of money and focus groups went into this.
Posted by: Matt | Feb 6, 2007 3:54:31 PM
I'm sure that these ads can be perceived as anything by anyone. I saw it as two dumb men who were not comfortable with their sexuality trying to overcompensate with things that are preceived as manly. Others saw it as gay bashing. It's kind of like Happy Feet. Some people saw them as gay while others just thought it was a kids penguin movie.
Posted by: Matt | Feb 6, 2007 3:58:30 PM
I think the ad (and all it's alternate endings) was hilarious and "Boo" to Snickers for caving in to pressure on this one. If they had just gotten those offensive players off of their website I'd have been happy. How often do you get to see two straight guys kissing on TV? And their "gay panic" reactions were appropriate for the garage types guys they were playing. Like Rosie says "I'm getting tired of being the "Gay Police!" Please, let's all take a breath and move on with a chuckle.
Posted by: Bob | Feb 6, 2007 4:01:21 PM
They did the right thing, unlike ABC. They took action to correct their mistake in propagating homophobia.
I'm going to go buy a snickers..weight gain be dam*ed.
Posted by: John | Feb 6, 2007 4:08:04 PM
I thought the ads were funny, and not the least bit homophobic. The ads showed how moronic men can be..."do something manly" so they rip out their chest hair and hit themselves with tools. Frekin hilarious. What I did find homophobic and offensive were the players comments and faces, as they just backed up the sterotype of homophobia in sports and even more so, homophobia in the black community.
Posted by: JJ | Feb 6, 2007 4:08:19 PM
The players' reactions to the ads were completely offensive...the ads themselves were not as offensive EXCEPT the ad which showed the guys hitting each other with tools which tread much too close to fag bashing for my taste. I'm glad Masterfoods, M&M Mars, etc...chose to remove the ads.
Posted by: peterparker | Feb 6, 2007 4:20:33 PM
The ads are still playing as of last night, so don't know what they meant when they said they were no longer showing them.
I saw one on Comedy Central. HOWEVER, the commercial ended with the kiss and the realization. The aftermath was no shown.
Posted by: Kevin | Feb 6, 2007 4:29:00 PM
"as they just backed up the sterotype of homophobia in sports and even more so, homophobia in the black community."
More 'those bad blacks!' fingerwaving again.
When Paris and Nikki Hilton are filmed using the word "faggot" several times, it says nothing about homophobia in the white community.
When two white sons of a wealthy white real estate seller on "The Real Housewives of Orange County" use the word "faggot" and their white mother doesn't bat an eye, it says nothing about homophobia in the white community.
Ted Haggard's white Evangelical flock's homophobia says nothing about the white community.
The Pope's stance on homosexuality says nothing about the white community.
The homophobic white ad execs (and they are white) who came up with that ad say nothing about the white community.
It's only when black football players or a black actor who acts in a homophobic manner that some idiot--take a bow, JJ--has to comment on homophobia in "the black community."
Posted by: SGR | Feb 6, 2007 4:35:01 PM
The answer to offensive speech isn't censorship, but more speech. What the busybodies protesting this should have demanded, and what Mars Incorporated/Masterfoods should've done is to post another ending showing the two mechanics coming to grips with their latent homosexual fudge loving tendencies, and making out in a vat of chocolate.
Seriously, folks, it's far more important whether or not Masterfoods/Mars offers the same benefits to same-sex partners, and protect their employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation, than what some ad campaign says. Actions > Words.
Posted by: Perceive | Feb 6, 2007 4:39:39 PM
Showing two guys kissing and then saying they have to do something manly, suggesting that being gay isn't manly, isn't offensive? Sorry, but it is. I don't care if that's the mentality of "rednecks and garage-types." We should not just roll over and ignore this type of ignorance and homophobia.
I'll guarantee you that if it had been a white woman and a black man kissing by accident, and the white woman pulled away and said, "Oh my god! I just kissed a black man! I have to pour anti-freeze down my throat to get rid of the nasty germs!!!" people would be up in arms about it. Why should this be any different?
And furthermore, the spokesperson from Mars says the ad was never meant to be offensive or homophobic. You can't tell me that a room full of marketing executives, while discussing the concept for this ad, didn't ever think it might be offensive or viewed as homophobic. Not ONE of them brought it up? It never even crossed their minds? Give me a break! They knew exactly what they were doing, and it's time we (gays) start making our voices heard and stop allowing crap like this!
It makes me so sad/mad to hear gay people say we should just get over things like this. No the hell wonder we don't have equal rights! It seems that half of the gay population doesn't WANT them or think we deserve them. I'm beginning to think the far-right isn't the problem; we are our OWN enemy!
Posted by: JohnnyB | Feb 6, 2007 4:44:28 PM
Acting disgusting while watching 2 men (especially ugly men like those) kiss is not homophobic. If it had been 2 chicks making out, most gay guys probably would be making "eww" faces too.
Posted by: Chris | Feb 6, 2007 4:44:29 PM
"Feedback from our target consumers has been positive".......... That pretty much repulses me...
I'll remember that comment the next time I'm craving some M&M's. I just think that when you are pouring thousands of dollars into a marketing campaign you should consider all of us viewers, not just the target market. Maybe they could have come up with something a little less divisive.
Posted by: Greg | Feb 6, 2007 4:47:41 PM
Cross posted from the previous thread because some of the trolls have migrated here:
Thanks Zeke and JT for keeping the posters here honest by explaining the slippery slope of homophobia. It begins with a supposedly funny mass market commercial that creates a permissive culture of homophobia, escalates into homophobic slurs in the workplace (a la Isaiah Washington) and too often culminates in physical attacks (like that reported in Iowa where two 19yr olds assaulted a 16 yr. old gay boy).
Rather than posting here I asked several friends and relatives (and I have 85 first cousins on one side of my family) in several states to log on to the Mars website and express their displeasure at this offensive ad.
As you noted, it worked. In fighting the small things (as some have derided us) we have been able to curtail this expression of homophobia at the earliest stages. Do not wait until the ugliest and most physically dangerous expression of homophobia if you can stop it at inception.
I repeat my now standard mantra: I do not give a rat's ass if you like me or my gay brethren but I will not let you disrespect us or denigrate our families.
Zeke, JT, RB, Leland, my brothers, My hundreds of cousins (literally--long, cold nights on the ranch in New Mexico without television until the mid-50s!) and friends were just as incensed at this advert as were we and thankful that I alerted them to the website where they could voice their displeasure. They would not have gone to the site to view the other and even more homophobic alternatives or reaction shots. If the worst thing we are called is whiney for standing up for our right to exist as gay men unthreatened by verbal and physical assualts, then I say wear it with pride. I cannot adequately express how proud I am of you for your untiring willingness to defend yourselves and your families against the Matts (shorthand for ignorant homophobic bigoted cowards)of the world. Namaste.
Posted by: rudy | Feb 6, 2007 4:54:59 PM
>>It's only when black football players or a black actor who acts in a homophobic manner that some idiot--take a bow, JJ--has to comment on homophobia in "the black community."
Actually if you look at public opinion polls you would see that African Americans hold much more conservative views on homosexuality and gay rights than white Americans. Therefore it is not incorrect to say that homophobia is a much larger problem among Blacks in America than whites.
Is it the case that EVERY heterosexual African American is homophobic? No.
But taken as a group, homophobic attitudes are much more prevalent among African Americans than white Americans. This is a fact not racist conjecture.
Posted by: LightningLad | Feb 6, 2007 5:02:13 PM
Too bad Matthew Shepard could not move on with a little chuckle when he was attacked and left to die.
Here are some of the brands owned by the wingnut family that owns Mars...goodbye forever to EVER buying those candies, especially at Halloween, and all the other unhealthy JUNK foods which they have to sell with homophobic, violent "jokes."
Here's their list of poisons.
(snip)
The company makes such worldwide favorites as M&M's, Snickers, and the Mars bar. Its other products include 3 Musketeers, Dove, Milky Way, Skittles, Twix, and Starburst sweets; Combos and Kudos snacks; Uncle Ben's rice; and pet food under the names Pedigree, Sheba, and Whiskas. Mars also makes drink vending equipment and electronic automated payment systems. The Mars family (including siblings and retired company CEO Forrest Mars Jr., chairman John Franklyn Mars, and VP Jacqueline Badger Mars) owns the highly secretive firm, making the family one of the richest in the US.
Posted by: bambambam | Feb 6, 2007 5:10:12 PM
It's astonishing to me that anybody could think these moronic and nihilistic ads were in any way funny.
Posted by: Joseph | Feb 6, 2007 5:10:36 PM
Posted by: SGR |
That was a brilliant comeback answer to JJ's statement. Bravo.
And aww at the ads being pulled..but I must give it to you guys! Hopefully this will demonstrate just how much power we have individually, and together as a community. use it wisely..and let's go get em.
Posted by: Da | Feb 6, 2007 5:12:27 PM
Interestingly the ad producers contacted GLAAD a few weeks back and set up a meeting with them to get feed back on these ads. They set a date but then the producers cancelled the meeting a day or two before it was to take place.
They knew the ad was going to cause a lot of controversy and they knew it would be offensive to a lot of gay people. That's why they originally sought out GLAAD's opinion and also why the subsequently decided against getting it.
They obviously weighed their options and decided that offending the gay community in order to humor 18-24 year old straight males was an acceptable trade off.
Peceive, I agree with your first sentence 100%. However, I don't understand why you refer to people who did just that, and offered "more speech" as "busy body protestors".
Is protesting and speaking one's mind NOT "more speech"?
Do you find protest to be an unacceptable form of speech?
It seems to me that consumers protesting the public statements of a corporation, that depends upon them for their existence, is the epitome of challenging speech with more speech.
In my opinion this ad could have been much more funny, much more effective and much less offensive with just a little bit more thought being put into what happened after their lips came together.
For example, their wives/girlfriends could have walked in on them in mid lip lock and they would have been left to explain that they weren't cheating on them, they were JUST sharing a Snickers.
I have no doubt that that would have appealed to the 18-24 straight male crowd just as effectively but without offending a sizeable portion of their gay customers.
Would that not have been a win/win situation for them? And isn't THAT the real goal of such an ad?
I know if I was spending a couple million dollars for a 60 second Superbowl spot, I'd make damn sure that I made an ad that appealed to as many people as possible while at the same time striving to offend as few potential customers as possible.
Regardless of if someone gives a flip about being labeled homophobic or not, that just seems to make good business sense.
Even the most homophobic of ad designers should understand that.
Posted by: Zeke | Feb 6, 2007 5:27:33 PM
I agree completely with JohnnyB.
Posted by: Fernando | Feb 6, 2007 5:39:37 PM
These are the reps at the ad company that made the ads:
https://www.tbwachiat.com/NewYork/index.html
Business Development: david.jenkins@tbwachiat.com
Public Relations: jeremy.miller@tbwaworld.com
Tell them how you feel about their work
Posted by: matt | Feb 6, 2007 5:49:21 PM
Acting disgusting while watching 2 men (especially ugly men like those) kiss is not homophobic. If it had been 2 chicks making out, most gay guys probably would be making "eww" faces too.
Posted by: Chris | Feb 6, 2007 4:44:29 PM
Dude, you are so damn wrong. I have never met a gay man who was grossed or freaked out by seeing 2 girls kiss. To a gay guy, it's nothing really. And I do know some straight guys who truly are not bothered by seeing 2 guys kiss either. It just does nothing for them. I think it has a lot to do with what you're exposed to and what you're taught. I think many "straight" guys feel they HAVE to be grossed out or else they would be perceived as gay, and you can't tell me homophobia has nothing to do with that. Imagine if those football players' reactions were totally different, like seeing the 2 guys kiss was no big deal to them. I guarantee many of their fans would be puzzled by their more "gay-friendly" reactions, and a lot of rumors and crap would start. I mean let's face it, I think football/sports fans are as or even more homophobic than then players themselves.
Posted by: _____ | Feb 6, 2007 5:59:37 PM
AND GLAAD BLEW IT AGAIN!!
Anyone catch the lame ED of GLAAD Neil Log Cabin G. on CNN today around 3:55 pm EST he was lobbed a question if he found the ad campaign homophobic "as some have called it"...and he couldn't answer...he didn't know!!! Now one can argue that the ad that was aired certainly was dancing close to homophobia but the rest of the web site--HELL YEAH
NEIL WHO PAYS YOUR SALARY?
Posted by: MCnNYC | Feb 6, 2007 6:12:32 PM
SGR | Feb 6, 2007 4:35:01 PM
LOL. perfectly said.
Posted by: johnosahon | Feb 6, 2007 6:18:31 PM