If you didn’t see the ad itself on Sunday, you’ve undoubtedly seen the controversy about the Snickers ad that aired during the Superbowl. From what we’ve seen this week, many of those who only saw the ad, and not the “alternate endings” and additional commentary on the Snickers Web site, are wondering what the fuss is about. They’re not sure what the larger problem with them is or why the fallout prompted the Web site for the Snickers ad to be taken down by the company Monday afternoon.
Although GLAAD and other LGBT advocacy groups condemned the campaign this week, many in our own community – including the three of us who write this blog – have different perspectives on the campaign. And even the openly lesbian ABC talk show host Rosie O’Donnell seemed to equivocate to some extent when she talked about her reaction to the advertisement on “The View” earlier this week.
Those who missed the Web site are probably not aware that it featured three other possible endings to the ad, one of which featured a man being beaten with a wrench and a man being thrown under a car hood and one of which featured the two men drinking motor oil and windshield wiper fluid to “do something manly.” The Web site also featured NFL players reviewing the ads and often reacting – and commenting – with disgust to the sight of the two men kissing.
Although we have differing levels of concern about the alternate ad endings, we all agree that the commentary feature of the Web site (featuring the NFL players) very openly and clearly promotes homophobia. Setting aside for a moment the horror of that message, there is also a question: how does this sell Snickers bars? It certainly creates publicity for the brand – negative publicity. That’s not a good thing for a discretionary product like a candy bar.
So, what should Snickers have done to avoid this situation?
For one, they should have taken a look at the Best Practices on the Commercial Closet Association Web site before they decided to release these ads. These guidelines provide help for marketers before there’s a problem: the idea is to avoid making the kinds of mistakes that apparently led to creation of ads like the Snickers spot. Here’s a quick list of the relevant Best Practices that apply to this advertisement:
• Don’t use GLBT stereotypes, themes or people as devices to elicit shock, humor or titillation.
• Don’t use horrified or violent revulsion to references of homosexuality or transgender people.
• Don’t label or degrade gay men or lesbians as sexual predators.
• Don’t use sexuality in a degrading way to characterize same-sex affection and intimacy – or associate sexual practices with gays and lesbians differently than with heterosexuals.
So, where does that leave the situation? What do we suggest Snickers do to move on and get back to the business of selling candy bars?
Snickers should figure out where they went wrong in allowing these ads to air, reach out to Commercial Closet Association, GLAAD and others, and start a dialogue about how best to move forward. This is a challenge for the Snickers brand, but as other companies have shown there is a way back if the company is open and honest about its mistakes, and is willing to take action to rebuild the confidence of LGBT consumers.
There are also lessons for advertising and PR professionals across the board arising from this situation. Using stereotypes and pandering to intolerance against any minority is unacceptable even if marketers think it will sell products. Doing so will have a long-term impact on the perception of brand, among both gay and straight consumers, which can take a great deal of time and effort to repair. This situation is avoidable by taking the steps outlined above to make sure that advertising and marketing campaigns do not receive the kind of criticism that Snickers has quite rightly received this week.
NOTE: This post was written by Eddy Evans, Ben Finzel and Steve Kauffman.
SUBSCRIBE
That was a great and thoughtful response; it was interesting to see the Best Practices from the Commercial Closet Association. Those guidelines shed a bit of a different light on the issue.
I thought the original commercial was a joke on masculinity, rather than homosexuality. And I thought it was the funniest ad of the Super Bowl ads. But after I saw the players’ comments, I could see how some people can’t see past two guys kissing.
I didn’t watch the Super Bowl, but saw the ad on YouTube. I can see what people are getting up in arms about. However, most of my peer group, gay/straight, male/femaile, 19-26 could care less. There are far more important things in the world to worry about. It was a dumb ad for lack of a better term. I find more times then GLAAD is in the news for bad mouthing this and that…. they need to start getting in the news for good things.