Snickers ad pulled after complaints

Prada's Meadow

Prada's Meadow

Member
Jan 23, 2006
15,831
24
#1
capt.ny12602062241.super_bowl_snickers_ny126.jpg

, N.J. - A commercial for Snickers candy bars launched in the Super Bowl broadcast was benched after its maker got complaints that it was homophobic.
b

The ad showed two auto mechanics accidentally kissing while eating the same candy bar and then ripping out some chest hair to do something "manly." One of the alternate endings on the Snickers Web site showed the men attacking each other.
The Human Rights Campaign and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation complained to the maker of Snickers, Hackettstown-based Masterfoods USA, a division of Mars Inc., which also makes M&M's and other candies.

The Web site also featured video of players from the Super Bowl teams reacting to the kiss.
"This type of jeering from professional sports figures at the sight of two men kissing fuels the kind of anti-gay bullying that haunts countless gay and lesbian school children on playgrounds all across the country," Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese said in a statement.
GLAAD spokesman Marc McCarthy said Tuesday the group believed "this kind of prejudice was inexcusable."

Masterfoods spokeswoman Alice Nathanson issued a statement in which she said the company would stop running the ad on television and the Web site.
"As with all of our Snickers advertising, our goal was to capture the attention of our core Snickers consumer," Nathanson wrote.

"Feedback from our target consumers has been positive. In addition, many media and website commentators of this year's Super Bowl commercial line-up ranked the commercial among this year's top ten best. USA Today ranked it 9 of its top ten picks," she continued.

"We know that humor is highly subjective and understand that some people may have found the ad offensive. Clearly that was not our intent," she wrote.
Masterfoods brands include Uncle Ben's rice, Pedigree dog food and Whiskas cat food. It is part of Mars Inc., a family-owned company.

Are They Over Reacting ?
 
#6
This article isn't exactly correct. GLAAD didn't have a problem with the ad as it originally ran. The problem was that on the website you could vote for an alternate ending including one where the one guy slams the other guy's head between the car and closes the hood on his head.

That ending was violent, and I agree that that one should have been pulled. GLAAD believed that it encouraged violence against the gay and lesbian community and was reminiscent of what happened to Matthew Sheppard and sending the message that if a gay person hits on you, it's okay to physically hurt them.
 
#7
i think that these days people are just overreacting too much... it makes the big things seem so normal as they overreact to the little things too ( if that mkes sense)
 
#8
jillybean307 said:
This article isn't exactly correct. GLAAD didn't have a problem with the ad as it originally ran. The problem was that on the website you could vote for an alternate ending including one where the one guy slams the other guy's head between the car and closes the hood on his head.

That ending was violent, and I agree that that one should have been pulled. GLAAD believed that it encouraged violence against the gay and lesbian community and was reminiscent of what happened to Matthew Sheppard and sending the message that if a gay person hits on you, it's okay to physically hurt them.
Click to expand...

Gotta love skewed stories!

Thanks for the info :yes:
 
#9
Here's what I was talking about if anyone wants to read the article.


By Ross von Metzke

A Snickers bar so scrumptious is brings two men into a full blown lip lock: A step forward for the gay community on television, until you see the reaction that follows.

Snickers fiends can go to SNICKERS® Brand and vote on alternative endings to a commercial that finds two auto mechanics munching through opposite ends of a Snickers bar until they meet in a passionate kiss, a la those two pups in Lady and the Tramp.

Their reaction? Disgust as they rip all of the hair from their chest.

Or, as you find from watching the alternate endings, downing a jug of motor oil after one says “Quick, do something manly.” The ending that has gay bloggers in an uproar? One of the mechanics smashing the other’s head under the hood of a car.

John in D.C., a blogger for AmericaBlog.com, discussed the ending in a blog this morning, saying, “Yes, the appropriate reaction to a guy kissing you is to beat the crap out of the guy who kissed you. Maybe Snickers should rename this ad “Matthew Shepard.”

The sticking point among bloggers and gay activists is that on the Web site, visitors can watch real players from the Bears and the Colts watching and reacting to the ad. “That ain’t right,” one says, while another crinkles his face in disgust.

In fact, not one player has an even remotely positive reaction to the thought of two men kissing.

Blogger Andy Towle, who alerted John in D.C. to the ad and discussed it on his blog Towleroad, a premium site for modern gay men is up in arms, saying the Snickers Web site is outright condoning violence against the gay community.
 
#11
I can see how the alternate ending would be a bit too far. I have a lot of gay friends, so I've been in situations where men have come on to me. Some simply ask if I'm gay, some have actually tried to kiss me (and one, bite my chest!). I'm not a pushover, by any means, but there's really no point in acting like an ass when you can solve the problem with a simple statement "Sorry bro, I'm not gay, but thanks for the flattery". There's absolutely no need to assault someone for a slip up like that. So I can see how people would be upset with such a reaction in a commercial.
 
#12
i hate when journalists get it wrong, because it makes the rest of us look like hacks! but i'll get off my journalism school soapbox...

i agree that the commercial as it ran was funny and harmless, because it's skewers homophobia and makes people laugh at how silly it is. the alternate ending, which i have not seen, seems over the line, and glaad has a point because it does make violence seem like a valid response to gay people.

i just wish the original journalist had gotten it right, because articles like the first one are the way that controversy crops up over nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Back