SuperBowl Ad Controversy

There's a big controversy brewing over a SuperBowl ad to be aired this Sunday, and no, it's not the latest censored ad from GoDaddy. This ad is controversial not just because of it's controversial subject matter, but because it's breaking a long standing SuperBowl rule.

I never knew this before, but apparently CBS had long standing rule that advocacy ads were not accepted as advertising during the SuperBowl. The reason being that the SuperBowl is a fun, family friendly event and let's not spoil it by bringing up sensitive, heated issues. Honestly, I think that's a great stance. I don't want to be watching political or controversial stuff in the middle of SuperBowl party, do you? This year however, CBS approved an advocacy ad on one of America's most controversial issues: abortion.

A pro-life ad featuring football star Tim Tebow was approved by CBS to air during the SuperBowl. Not surprisingly, this made a media splash, with advocacy groups on the other side calling foul. The ad—paid for by Focus On The Family, a conservative Christian group—features Heisman trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mother. The speculation is that the ad tells the story of his mother's decision to have him despite doctors' encouragement to have an abortion due to health reasons. (Though the truth to that story is now getting questioned as well.) I have not seen the ad and as far as I know there isn't a leaked version anywhere on the web.

Focus On The Family says that the ad itself is not controversial. The theme is 'Celebrate Family. Celebrate Life.' Of course it's a bit hard to judge before seeing the ad, but either way, the press surrounding this controversy and it's sponsorship by a pro-life organization has made it controversial regardless. It boils down to CBS looking biased about abortion if they air the ad without offering the other side an option to air their opinion as well.

My original hunch (and hope) was CBS saw the ad and didn't think it was advocating pro-life so they approved it. But apparently, after push back from women's rights groups, CBS declared they're now accepting controversial ads—well except from the gay dating site that tried to buy a spot this year. To me, that kind backpedaling seems like a sorry attempt to keep the spot, and thus the $3 million dollar price tag, in the programming without having to accept any opposing opinions. When they rejected other controversial ads—particularly ones that would appeal to their liberal audience, like the gay dating site—CBS comes across as a conservative biased station.

Were they desperate for advertisers to pay the hefty price tag in this recession? Otherwise I can't imagine why they wouldn't dump that ad and fill it with something else. Is it really worth all the bad PR they're getting?

So to CBS, I'd prefer you didn't air the commercial during the SuperBowl, but if you are, at least air everyone else's advocacy ads too.That's my stance anyway. What do you think?

Attention Special Interests: Leave the First Family Out Of Your Ads

Back in August, I blogged about  Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a thinly veiled vegan promoting activist group, referencing Sasha and Malia Obama in an ad campaign for healthier school lunches and plastered the ads all over the DC Metro. The White House, not surprisingly, was not pleased.

It seems PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, is up to similar tricks but took it a step further by actually using Michelle Obama's photo in a recent anti-fur ad. The White House has said was never authorized. Um, why does PETA think they can use someone's image without permission? Especially someone like Michelle Obama, who is not only a celebrity, but someone who legally cannot endorse an special interest group like PETA. According to this Associated Press article,

PETA says that they will not take down the ads and maintains that Michelle Obama's past anti-fur declarations essentially give them license to use her image in a campaign.

Whoa, hold on there. How is that even remotely their excuse? Michelle Obama's public stand on fur isn't exactly a model release for an ad campaign. Or am I missing something?

Like I mentioned in my August post, ruffling the feathers of the White House is maybe not such a good idea and if PETA thinks Michelle Obama is as fabulous as they claim, why can't they show her and her position a little respect? Breaking the rules, false advertising and ticking off a popular political figure doesn't help your brand.

Chris Farley DirecTV Commercial In Bad Taste?

Direct TV is currently airing a commercial that features the late Chris Farley in a scene from his 1995 movie, Tommy Boy. The spot also features Farley's Tommy Boy costar, David Spade, in the 'Fat Guy in a Little Coat' scene. It's a memorable scene in the movie and in the commercial, David Spade turns and speaks directly to the camera about Direct TV while the scene continues with Chris Farley in the background. Watch the spot below:

Some controversy popped up when fans of Farley thought the spot was in bad taste for featuring the late comedian. Farley died of a heart failure from a drug overdose in 1997. Recently David Spade told People that he didn't think the spot was inappropriate and that he agreed to do it because it thought it was funny and something he though Chris Farley would have agreed to as well. According to the People article, the Farley family agrees, but some fans are still offended and think David Spade was just using Farley's funny bit for a paycheck.

Personally, I don't think the spot is in bad taste—it's amusing and far enough removed from Farley's death that it shouldn't be offensive. If someone used Marilyn Monroe in a TV spot would it be offensive to anyone? I doubt it. Perhaps the offense is whether David Spade is using Farley's memory for a paycheck. It's possible, but I think I'd agree with Spade's statement that Farley would have agreed to do the spot too.

What do you think? Funny or offensive?

Ralph Lauren's Overly Thin Ad—Continued...

So I'll admit it, this post is a little off topic for the blog and a bit editorial, but it's an interesting update on last week's post about retouching—specifically referring to the Ralph Lauren ad I discussed.

Apparently, around the day that I originally posted, Ralph Lauren issued an apology about the ad in question, probably realizing that trying to silence bloggers was not really working. But the PR nightmare isn't over for Ralph Lauren now that the model in question, Filippa Hamilton, has come forward saying that she was fired from Ralph Lauren six months ago for being 'overweight.' Wow. She'd worked for Ralph Lauren since she was discovered at age 15. According to this Shine article, Hamilton is a size 4, 5' 10" and 120 pounds. That height and weight puts her BMI at 17.2 which is technically underweight. She'd even be too thin to participate in runway shows in Madrid which has banned models with a BMI under 18. Apparently, that is not a rule Ralph Lauren agrees with since their technically underweight model was so overweight by their standards that after firing her they felt the need to whittle away not just her waist and hips, but her legs and arms too. To the right is a photo of a healthy version of Hamiliton. Compare it to the one in my previous post.

Ralph Lauren's defense? This ad was never supposed to be seen in the U.S. It was for Japan only. Oops. Sorry to break it to you, but this is a flat world and other company's mistakes should teach you that country specific ads often leak their way into territories they were never intended for. But even so, why is it okay in Japan? The few Japanese women I know well, via an exchange program, are all significantly more fashion and weight obsessed than most American women I know. All the more reason to be portraying health, not anorexia.

When Photoshop Gets Ugly

Photoshop is awesome. It does some truly amazing things to photos and give us creatives the freedom and ability to create all kinds of cool stuff. But overly photoshopping something can ruin something just as easily as it can make it work.

Retouching photography is one of the most prolific uses of Photoshop. It's done every day in the world of design and advertising, it's just part of the business. But when are you over-retouching? It's a fine line that, as an art director, I have to think about every time I'm using a photograph. On the one hand, you want the product to look perfect, but not unnatural.

When it comes to fashion adveritising however, things take a different turn. I was intrigued by a recent acticle criticizing Ralph Lauren for a print ad of a model who'd been retouched so drastically "her head's bigger than her pelvis." Well, Ralph Lauren tried to quiet the blogger, a combination of BoingBoing and Photoshop Disasters, by claiming copyright ingringement which really just backfired and the ad is now plastered with even more criticism in various areas of the web.

I understand minor retouching in any ad—to get rid of a flyaway hair that distracts or an odd shadow etc. but why are we retouching outragously thin models to be even thinner? It goes hand in hand with the recent debate in the fashion industry about models being too thin. There's an interesting story about the editor of Vogue accusing designers of providing sample sizes for photoshoots that are too small to fit healthy models thereby forcing the magazines to hire bony, too-thin talent. She goes so far as to say her art department retouches in some meat on those models. The designers came back saying it was the modeling agencies only sending them tiny girls for the runway. It's probably an all around blame game—especcially if you read this article about the editor of SELF magazine. Wow, what a warped way of looking at photography for magazine covers.

The odd thing is, there's been so much good press for having healthy models that it's confusing why it's taking so long for the fashion world to catch on that emancipated models aren't popular anymore. Why is Ralph Lauren taking an already very thin model and making her thinner? She actually looks kind of freakish in the photo. Personally knowing far too many women who have suffered or are suffering from eating disorders, manipulated photos like this make me feel sick. It's even worse when you see what some companies do to already beautiful celebrities like the Campari ads featuring Jessica Alba.

On the flip side, this Glamour article about a real size underwear model in their magazine is what women would rather see in their literature. It's a huge step forward for the fashion industry and I hope other magazines follow.

(Also see our follow up post: Ralph Lauren's Overly Thin Ad—Continued...)

DDB's Offensive 9/11 Ad Ushers In Some Much Needed Award Show Rules

I was apparently living under a rock last Tuesday when AdFreak first broke the news about DDB Brasil's tasteless 9/11 ad (above) which has continued to blow up throughout the blogosphere and has DDB Brasil and the client, WWF, backpedaling like crazy to escape the international bad PR. You can check out the day-by-day updates on the original AdFreak post.

Essentially, the print ad shows hundreds of planes flying into lower Manhattan and the copy compares the death toll between 9/11 and the 2004 Tsunami. The copy reads, ‘The tsunami killed 100 times more people than 9/11. The planet is brutally powerful. Respect it. Preserve it.’

Wow.

I get that our planet is powerful and can be very destructive, and I do believe we need to take some drastic action to curb climate change, but seriously? How do you possibly compare a natural disaster to a terrorist attack? The oddest thing is that this concept actually won a One Show Merit Award for public service work. Yeah. I would think the One Show would know better. It's not just that it's an offensive ad, but it's just a bad concept too.

As AdWeek's Barbara Lippert said, “Aside from being offensive and cringe-worthy, it's also just an ugly and dumb piece of creative, scoring high on the 'gratuitous use of tragedy to make a nonsensical argument' meter.”

It's shock value only, so how did it win a One Show Merit Award? Beats me.

That brings us to the next uproar. Aside from the fact that the One Show bestowed its honor on such a bad, tasteless ad, there is the question of whether the ad is even legit for entry. Once the corporate backpedaling started, WWF immediately claimed that they never approved such an ad to run. Sound familiar? Well, once the finger pointing began, it turns out that someone in the local Brazil WWF office actually did approve the ad and it ran at least once.

Well, okay, it ran once in a newspaper somewhere, but sometimes there's still the question of whether that really makes it award eligible. It's part of the larger issue of award chasing: Agencies like awards. They look pretty on display and they give that little ego boost and assurance to creatives that they actually are pretty good at what they do. But award chasing gets a little out of hand sometimes with people submitting fake ads, ads that were never approved, ads that never ran or sometimes ads that the agency footed the bill to run once, just so they'd be eligible for awards. Wow, that makes us ad industry folk sound like a bunch of cheats, doesn't it? The sad thing is this happens rather often on all levels of ad competitions from the local level to the international level.

In Barbara Lippert's AdWeek article on the recent DDB Brasil fiasco she quotes David Baldwin, former chairman of the One Club as saying that somehow the award shows always get blamed for giving awards to fake ads. True, I can't imagine the daunting task of trying to fact check every ad submission to some of these competitions, but at the same time, as far as I know, the award shows have never really penalized anyone for these fake entries. You might lose your award, but that's it. I remember once stumbling across a little note in Communication Arts retracting one of the campaigns I loved from their ad annual because it had never run, but it was a tiny little footnote that I just accidentally happened to see. There was also the Cannes Bronze Lion awarded to the agency that produced the fake J.C. Penney spot last year. I believe they lost their Lion, but that's about it. And did that really matter compared to the huge recognition they got for that fake ad?

The truth is, at the moment there's little to no incentive not to cheat in most of these shows. Sure, most ad agencies will figure out a way to make it technically legit (i.e., it ran once in this tiny little publication) but are those really any more legit than a totally fake ad?

In response to the uproar around DDB Brasil's controversial ad, the One Show has enacted new rules to deter fake entries. Basically, if you enter a fake ad and get found out, the agency and everyone credited is banned from entering the One Show for five years. If you enter an ad that 'ran once,' or the agency paid to run, etc., but isn't really legit, under The One Show's discretion the agency is banned for three years.

Personally, I applaud the One Show for finally taking some much needed steps to deter this ever-growing practice. I think the banning will help enormously, assuming it's enforced.

* On another note, check out the even worse TV spot from DDB Brasil that surfaced this past week. They apparently tried to enter it in the Cannes Film Festival, but thankfully, it didn't get shortlisted.

Pfizer Follow-up: Record Fines over Illegal Promotions

Well over a year and a half ago, Christine reported that drug giant Pfizer was in some trouble for using an unlicensed M.D. to promote their drug Lipitor. Now, as this article on Yahoo! describes, Pfizer has been fined $2.3 billion in civil and criminal penalties for illegal promotions.

According to the article, "Pfizer invited doctors to consultant meetings at resort locations, paying their expenses and providing perks."

"FBI Assistant Director Kevin Perkins praised the whistleblowers who decided to 'speak out against a corporate giant that was blatantly violating the law and misleading the public through false marketing claims.' "

While not related to the incident in Christine's original post, it seems this kind of thing has been a problem for Pfizer for some time.

"Authorities called Pfizer a repeat offender, noting it is the fourth such settlement of government charges in the last decade. They said the government will monitor the company's conduct for the next five years to rein in the abuses."

Yikes.

Ad Council's Attempt to Dissuade "That's So Gay"

Last week, AdFreak reported that the Ad Council has come out with a new campaign trying to curb the use of the phrase "That's so gay." There are TV spots, print ads and a Web site targeting a young audience. Two of the spots use celebrities Wanda Sykes and Hilary Duff (below).



Do you know how I learned (very quickly) not to use the term "gay" to mean anything other than homosexual? By going to a liberal college where, if someone overheard you say, "That's so gay," he'd kick your ass.

So what do you think? Is it an issue of deep-seeded homophobia, or simply political correctness gone too far? Will Ad Council's campaign work?

Brooke Shields and VW Routan Team Up - For Sexism?

A couple weeks ago, I was driving around town and heard a new radio spot featuring Brooke Shields for VW. A day or two later, I heard the same ad and it bugged me just as much as the first time I'd heard it.

The ad speculates that women everywhere are getting pregnant in order to justify their purchase of the new VW Routan minivan. Women. Like it's a one-sided deal. Like women are mischievous and manipulative. Like our duty in life is to have babies and drive minivans.

Yeah, I know it's a joke. It's supposed to be a playful spoof on the "soccer mom" stigma. But I'm a college educated woman and, in fact, a mom. And though I don't consider myself a feminist by any means, as a Women's Studies minor sometimes things evoke a sense of sexism for me. And this is one of those times.

Last week, I saw the TV spot:


In her article in Adweek, Barbara Lippert critiques the spot for a few far-fetched connections, like those it supposedly has between the phrase "German engineering" and "genetic engineering," reminiscent of the tragedy Hitler caused, and the struggle with post-partum depression Brooke Shields had after her last pregnancy.

Listen, I'm not trying to nitpick here, but this one really does disturb me. It seems the "role" of women in our society is so ingrained that no one thinks twice about it. Yeah, I know they're trying to get past the label "soccer mom," but can't they do it in a way that doesn't offend educated women and career moms? It could be as simple as CP+B using the word "families" instead of "women."

Real Men of Genius?

While watching the MLB All-Star Game last night, I couldn't help but notice some great ads for Budweiser. Baseball and a cold beer on a hot summer night, could there be a more perfect combination? No. Could there be anything more American? Well, that's where it gets tricky.

Last night's ads proclaimed Budweiser to be "The Great American Lager." Only a slight deviation from the message in this ad, posted to YouTube less than a month ago (if Christine were here to help me, you wouldn't have to click through to watch it, sorry).

What a feel-good ad! It's great to know that Budweiser is still American-owned. Only problem is, that's no longer true.

So up until very recently, Anheuser-Busch was running ads touting their domestic ownership. Now, while the ink is still wet on A-B's deal with Belgian brewer InBev, new TV spots reinforce the American image of Budweiser beer, but make no mention of corporate ownership.

Budweiser has a brand image to maintain, but these ads are sure to strike a raw nerve. A lot of people are upset over an iconic American brand being sold to a foreign company. What do you think? Have these ads entered insult-to-injury territory?

Award Show Reality Check

To continue my string of posts on this Cannes/JCPenney issue (which I apparently can't get enough of) this blog post might shed some light on how the spot came to Cannes. Was it unapproved "pork"? Or produced by Epoch just for giggles?

False Advertising?

Todd Davis of LifeLock gives out his Social Security number on his commercials, claiming that his LifeLock service is so good, he can do this without worry. His little stunt has brought quite a bit of attention to LifeLock. The problem? It doesn't work. Reports circulated all over today about how frequently Todd Davis's SS number has been misused and abused. I'm sure with a successful company and an army of workers to clean up the fallout of misuse of his identity, can the same be said for you? Clearly LifeLock isn't as bullet proof as Davis would have us believe.

But is what Davis doing any worse than an infomercial that promises far more than it ever delivers? In a world scared silly of identity theft, this deception has made far more headlines than your average ineffective stain remover for fraudulent claims. I'm not saying I approve of this kind of deceptive advertising, and maybe I'm just jaded, but shouldn't a consumer always be wary of any claim that seems too good to be true?

Is Dove's 'Campaign for Real Beauty' Real?

We're all familiar with the Dove Real Beauty campaign. It centers on the revolutionary idea to use "real women" rather than models in its advertising efforts.

This past Friday, a feature article in the New Yorker took an inside look at the world of photo retouching and renowned fashion retoucher Pascal Dangin. In it, the author posed the following scenario:

I mentioned the Dove ad campaign that proudly featured
lumpier-than-usual "real women" in their undergarments. It turned out that it
was a Dangin job. "Do you know how much retouching was on that?" he asked. "But
it was great to do, a challenge, to keep everyone’s skin and faces showing the
mileage but not looking unattractive."

As you can imagine, there was an uproar. Could it be true that the advertising campaign claiming real beauty was, itself, fake?

Both Dangin and Dove immediately issued statements. (Interestingly, I couldn't find a press release on this issue on the Campaign for Real Beauty Web site.) Dangin claims his comments were taken out of context and misconstrued. Dove claims the images were not digitally altered. Here's the final quote from Dove's statement:

Mr. Dangin responded, "The recent article published by The New Yorker
incorrectly implies that I retouched the images in connection with the Dove
"real women" ad. I only worked on the Dove ProAge campaign taken by Annie
Leibovitz and was directed only to remove dust and do color correction -
both the integrity of the photographs and the women's natural beauty were
maintained."

Slate takes a look into whether it's possible to tell if the images were indeed retouched. What are your thoughts about all of this?

Turn out your lights tonight!

In 11 hours people around the world will turn out their lights and any other electronic devices between 8 and 9 p.m. local time in an effort to make a statement about global climate change. The movement, called Earth Hour, started in Sydney last year as a way to inspire people to take action on climate change. 2.2 million people in Sydney turned out their lights for one hour last year making a 10.2% reduction in energy usage—the equivilent of taking 48,616 cars off the road for a year. Now that the movement has gone worldwide, let's see what a difference we can make this year.

Information and marketing about Earth Hour has been popping up all over the place this year between Facebook and Hollywood stars jumping on board. Even Google's homepage is black today in support of Earth Hour, so turn out your lights tonight at 8pm!

Misrepresentative Lipitor Ads Pulled

About a month ago I blogged about Dr. Robert Jarvik's misrepresentation in the Lipitor commercials. Today, I was surprised and happy to read that Pfizer has pulled the spots after a year or so of controversy. Better late than never.

Celebrity should not be mistaken for authority

I recently learned about a bit of hot water Pfizer is in over their Lipitor commercials starring Dr. Robert Jarvik. Now when you watch these commercials, Dr. Jarvik comes across as a licensed, practicing physician who is giving you medical advice. And let's not forget he has some fame from the Jarvik artificial heart he tested in 1982. Being an infant in 1982, I didn't know anything about the case, but it sounds impressive to have an artificial heart named after you—so he must be a good authority on cardiology and cholesterol right?

Wrong. The unfortunate truth be told, Dr. Jarvik, while technically an M.D., NBC reporter Bazell looked into his education early last year, he is not a licensed or practicing physician. After failing to make the grades to get into med school in the US after undergrad, Jarvik went to school in Italy for two years before dropping out. Then he meandered back to the US and finally went and graduated med school from the University of Utah in 1976. But he never interned, did a residency or practiced medicine in any way and he definitely can't prescribe drugs.

Well he's still an M.D. you say—except that by not being licensed to practice medicine, he doesn't have to renew his license, so he doesn't have to continue his medical education like licensed doctors do. Yes, he is still working on making his artificial heart work, 25 years later, but does that really qualify him to recommend prescription drugs on cholesterol? Especially when the tv spots currently airing misleadingly make him sound like a practicing physician who's taking his own advice when he's never prescribed any medicine—ever. Sneaky sneaky on Pfizer's part if you ask me.

I'm not the only one questioning this either. Congress is investigating if Jarvik is giving out medical advice without a license to practice medicine. Check out the spots below and decide for yourself.