Ad Age columnist Bob Garfield sent an open letter in his column to the CEO of one of the top agency holding companies, accusing the network of homophobia in several campaigns. He wrote:
"Stop the dehumanizing stereotypes. Stop the jokey violence. There is no place in advertising for cruelty. Pull the campaign. Do it now."
Strong language. And I have to say, the Snickers campaign, which was roundly pilloried when it broke during the Super Bowl (a ritual of homo erotic masculinity that requires homophobic expression to distract us from the obvious), continues to be abhorrent. It glorifies homophobic violence, and Garfield says of the newest addition to the campaign that:
"your commercial is just a cartoonish recapitulation of {Matthew Shepard's] brutal murder"
Strong words. It is heartening to see heterosexual columnists take offense and speak up. Of course, to pin this on the CEO of the holding company seems a little too much. The CEO of the offending agencies? Sure. They are responsible. And bringing to the attention of the holding company isn't a bad thing. Pressure from the outside to an agency is one thing. Pressure from the holding company — that's serious.
Perhaps even more fascinating are the reader comments — there are lots. If you're interested in reading real opinions from people in the ad biz on the subject of homophobia in media, this is a goldmine of information. 
But let's stop for a minute to analyze just what is going on in this new Snicker's spot. First we see a blond man with soft features speed walking down a suburban street. The camera cuts to a rear view and rests for a few precious TV seconds on his wiggling butt.
Next, a vehicle with Mr. T. crashes through a house and follows the walker while Mr. T harangues him for being a "disgrace to the man race." Visually we see the machine gun from
the POV of the shooter (very video game, because of course this is targeted at insecure teen boys and young men who need to be reassured about their masculinity — after all, there is nothing more masculine
than playing with a computer right?) pointed directly at aforesaid butt.
Uhhhh, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. But in this case? Not. Just more subconscious homosexual desire expressed in violence.
But this is where Garfield is dead on the money — the spot makes a violent response to inner desires that are unacceptable, acceptable. And that's unacceptable. One commenter points out that regardless of the agency, the clients bought off on this. So as much as I may love chocolate, Mars doesn't get any of my money. And I'm sure GLAAD will consider some action around this:
Yep, that's pretty damn bad. So while the holding company Mr. Garfield accuses does in fact treat its gay employees very well, this is seriously uncool. There are different opinions in the business classically about our influence.
One of my heroes, Bill Bernbach, one said:
"All of us who professionally use the mass media are the shapers of society. We can vulgarize that society. We can brutalize it. Or we can help lift it onto a higher level."
David Ogilvy, who believed that humor in advertising was a mistake, said:
"Advertising reflects the mores of society, but it does not influence them."
The truth lies somewhere in between. Nevertheless, I hold with Bernbach.
Comments