Snickers’ Super Bowl ad: homophobic or not?
I thought Snicker’s 2007 Super Bowl ad was the funniest ad of the bunch. But several gay rights organizations didn’t think so. I’m usually on par with the gay rights organizations, so what happened this time?
A press release by the Human Rights Campaign states:
“Three alternate endings to the commercial spot are posted on the Snickers website, one of which includes the two men violently attacking one another […] Two other video clips posted on the Snickers website feature players from the Bears and the Colts watching the ads and responding [negatively] to the two men kissing.”
These alternate endings and video clips have now been removed, so I did not have a chance to see them. Based on HRC’s description of the violence involved, it seems the gay rights organization has made some good points, and fortunately Masterfoods, the parent company of Snickers, listened and pulled the campaign.
The ad I saw (and you can find it on YouTube here) was just plain funny and not offensive. The joke was clearly on masculinity and not on homosexuality. The ad showed the absurdity of an expression of traditional masculinity as reaction to something innocently homosexual.
HRC President Joe Solmonese asks: “Is Snickers suggesting that people who eat their candy bars are cavemen?” Not really. The ad suggests that a Snickers bar is so good, even absurdly and overly masculine men lock their lips by accident to get a taste of the candy. Again, the joke is on masculinity, not homosexuality.
If Masterfoods would have stuck with just this ad, and would not have included violence and negative reactions of sports icons in the rest of the campaign, nothing could have been said about it. It’s a shame, because the commercial was the only moment after the first two Bears touchdowns that made me laugh during the Super Bowl.
Update: here are links to the alternative endings - wrench, motor oil, and love boat and here and here are the players’ reactions. Now that I’ve seen these videos, I can judge the reaction a bit better.My verdict: in both the “wrench” and “motor oil” versions the joke is once again on masculinity, not homosexuality (the violence is not primarily in reaction to their homosexuality; it is the absurd way in which they prove their masculinity, making it a joke on traditional masculinity). Maybe the most harmful was the “love boat” version due to stereotyping with the third guy tossing his hair in a feminine manner. But most importantly, only the “motor oil” version came close to being as funny as the original one.
The players’ reactions, on the other hand, were completely unnecessary and it showed the players’ far from role model behavior; did Masterfoods really have to show these reactions if they know that these players influence kids (and adults)? They should have thought twice. And also, the players’ reactions, and some reactions on YouTube, made me realize some people might not take the commercial as a joke on masculinity, blinded perhaps by just two guys kissing.
In the end, Masterfoods should have just stuck with the original commercial. For funniness, and political correctness, sake.
2 Responses to “Snickers’ Super Bowl ad: homophobic or not?”
Comments
1 Bill Cestiale 9 February 2007 @ 6:28 pm
I learned over at http://www.gaymarketnews.com that the people behind the anti gay Snickers ads - and let’s be honest here - some of those endings are extremely homophobic, also own their own gay pr shop and that makes me think Omnicom are total wankers and that their gay agency Outfront is completely hypocritical.
Bill C.
2 Marc 10 February 2007 @ 10:56 pm
Again, I personally did not take the commercials as a joke on homosexuality, but rather as a joke on masculinity. In my eyes, I do not consider them homophobic. (Although the players’ comments are; the broadcasting of those comments is inexcusable.)
And I can see, again, how others cannot see past two guys kissing. In a less obvious way, it’s almost as if someone would take Stephen Colbert seriously. They would not see that the joke is on conservatives.
And in Outfront’s defense, I don’t think they knew about their parent company putting out those commercials. But if so, indeed, shame on them.
I read somewhere, unfortunately I can’t remember where, that the Snickers ad was supposed to have been viewed by GLAAD, which didn’t happen. This is, of course, a serious lack of judgment on Masterfoods’ and Omnicom’s side.
Trackbacks and Pingbacks
Leave a Reply