I had never heard of the Canadian sandwich chain, Mr. Sub. But my first thought was a kind of teenaged snicker at the name, so reminiscent of the Mr. Slave character in South Park. Perhaps that’s why they felt the need to run the following ad — which led to complaints of homophobia and the ad agency that created the spot getting fired:
Do you think this was homophobic? Boston’s queer paper Edge noted that the spot was in some ways similar to a British commercial for Heinz that goes further than most American television in showing a butcher kissing his partner — another man who is leaving for his day of work at the office. That spot was
pulled because the Brits are too homophobic to see such a thing. The Mr. Sub spot however, treats the “coming out” announcement at the family dinner, something that is most often fraught with fear, as a joke. And it not only makes light of the fears of any queer folk in coming out to the family, it makes light of a family’s response — since when it is a husband or wife with children, the emotional ramifications are nothing to be laughed at. There is real suffering all around. And that’s where I object to this spot — it makes light of emotional suffering of people, gay and straight. Adults and children.
When an agency does this, they think they’re being edgy. And in today’s market, agencies work hard to have their client’s message stand out, be heard, be talked about. Of course, you want this to be related to the product message, and in a good way. Creative people at agencies struggle with what is edgy and what is tasteless. I actually have some work in my portfolio that some people find completely tasteless and others love for what they say as an edgy yet relevant message. I often wonder if I should take that work out. So I understand this struggle from the inside of the business.
However, to fire the agency when in fact it was the client who gave the go ahead to make the spot is shifting blame where it doesn’t belong. An agency shows a client at least 3 storyboards for every commercial that actually gets made. With a large company like Mr. Sub all advertising goes through a corporate hierarchy of decision makers. It is certainly just as much the fault of the Chief Marketing Officer at Mr. Sub as it is anyone at the agency that this spot was made and ran. But of course, an agency is always the whipping boy when something goes wrong. Which makes the people who work at agencies the real masochists — Mr. Sub and Mr. Slave indeed!
Do you think this was homophobic? Boston’s queer paper Edge noted that the spot was in some ways similar to a British commercial for Heinz that goes further than most American television in showing a butcher kissing his partner — another man who is leaving for his day of work at the office. That spot was
When an agency does this, they think they’re being edgy. And in today’s market, agencies work hard to have their client’s message stand out, be heard, be talked about. Of course, you want this to be related to the product message, and in a good way. Creative people at agencies struggle with what is edgy and what is tasteless. I actually have some work in my portfolio that some people find completely tasteless and others love for what they say as an edgy yet relevant message. I often wonder if I should take that work out. So I understand this struggle from the inside of the business.
However, to fire the agency when in fact it was the client who gave the go ahead to make the spot is shifting blame where it doesn’t belong. An agency shows a client at least 3 storyboards for every commercial that actually gets made. With a large company like Mr. Sub all advertising goes through a corporate hierarchy of decision makers. It is certainly just as much the fault of the Chief Marketing Officer at Mr. Sub as it is anyone at the agency that this spot was made and ran. But of course, an agency is always the whipping boy when something goes wrong. Which makes the people who work at agencies the real masochists — Mr. Sub and Mr. Slave indeed!
Comments