Snickers, GM under fire for Super Bowl ads

posted at 2:44 pm on February 6, 2007 by Allahpundit

We’ll start with the minor controversy, which is a controversy in the sense that someone from ABC News needed something to write about and started calling around to auto workers and therapists to see if he could scrounge up a little outrage about suicidal robots and downsizing. Mission accomplished.

Meanwhile, in the span of not quite 48 hours, Snickers has yanked down its “After the Kiss” website, cancelled the related ad campaign, and promised never again to air its commercial about two mechanics who end up sharing more than a candy bar and then overreact by pulling out their chest hair. Apparently it was the website, which featured outtakes of NFL players wincing at footage of the kiss and an alternate ending where the two men prove their manliness by beating each other, that drew the most outrage. It must have been: the ad itself is obviously a satire of homophobia, not an endorsement of it.

The man to thank for this remarkably rapid reaction and deployment of grievance-group economic power? The same man who claimed, the morning after news of the UK airline bomb plot broke, that it was a hoax designed to distract the public from Ned Lamont’s primary victory in Connecticut.

The Malcontent, who enjoys absolute moral authority in commenting on gay issues, has an excellent post up about this. Quote:

They cannot speak coherently on gay marriage, they could not prevent three-quarters of states from passing amendments, they have not the tools to persuade the electorate on our issues, but yesterday the professional grievance organizations of Gay America vanquished a candy company, and for that they are heroes.

Heroes, at least, if you found yourself among the offended.

For those of us not offended by the Snickers ad campaign, there rested in the twelve hour maelstrom something terribly depressing and clarifying about the pulleys and levers used to operate some quarters of gay activism.

Read on. Here’s the ad, in case you missed it Sunday.

Update (Ian): Greg Tinti calls it “the gayest controversy ever.” Heh.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

The thing that grossed me out more than this commercial was the Prince “behind the sheet fake penis pose.”

freakagriep on February 6, 2007 at 2:52 PM

The next thing you know, the scene with John Candy and Steve Martin from “Planes, trains, and automobiles” will be removed from all copies.

“Those aren’t pillows!!!”

csdeven on February 6, 2007 at 2:54 PM

dont make allah post the brokeback version of that movie again :(

lorien1973 on February 6, 2007 at 2:55 PM

I’m generally very supportive of the gay rights agenda and community (skewer me for that if you wish), but I do not see what the big deal is over the Snickers ad.

It’s hilarious and digs at a male’s oft ill-conceived notion of manliness rather than presents some sort of anti-gay agenda. The first thing I thought of was Lady and the Tramp when I saw this commercial. Not once did I think it was a shot at homosexuals.

TheThink on February 6, 2007 at 2:58 PM

Well, like I say, the website was a little dicier. I think that’s where most of the outrage was aimed.

Allahpundit on February 6, 2007 at 2:59 PM

Well, like I say, the website was a little dicier. I think that’s where most of the outrage was aimed.

Gotcha. The players giving the “ewww” face is a bit out of place.

TheThink on February 6, 2007 at 3:01 PM

I was disappointed by the Snickers commercial for an entirely different reason. I was *sure* they were going to start playing “Bella Notte” because it was so similiar to the Lady and the Tramp spaghetti scene.

Tanya on February 6, 2007 at 3:01 PM

I was *sure* they were going to start playing “Bella Notte” because it was so similiar to the Lady and the Tramp spaghetti scene.

That would have been hilarious. And outrageous, of course!

Allahpundit on February 6, 2007 at 3:02 PM

It was a stupid commerical that tried too hard.
I’m not homophobic, just homodisgusted.

chilipequin on February 6, 2007 at 3:03 PM

Gotcha. The players giving the “ewww” face is a bit out of place.

TheThink on February 6, 2007 at 3:01 PM

Why out of place? Why isn’t one allowed to show distaste at someone elses actions? If I make a ‘ewww’ face when I see two guys kissing, that doesn’t mean I’m trying to stop them from doing it, just that I don’t like seeing it. I may make the same face when I see someone with spikes embedded in their skin… it doesn’t mean I’m going to try to stop them.

Since when does tolerance == approval?

dalewalt on February 6, 2007 at 3:06 PM

“Those aren’t pillows!!!”

Yeah, well… the difference there is that you didn’t actually see anything. I don’t need to see two guys “accidentally” kissing in the most retarded way imaginable in order to get a joke about homophobia.

Watcher on February 6, 2007 at 3:07 PM

I’m willing to bet that way more lesbians watch the Super Bowl than gay guys.

freakagriep on February 6, 2007 at 3:08 PM

I demand lesbian snickers commercials!

Savage on February 6, 2007 at 3:10 PM

It’s common knowledge that gays prefer Hershey bars.

The Ugly American on February 6, 2007 at 3:13 PM

As has been mentioned by many… this wasn’t a good Super Bowl commercial year.

I did like the Doritos commercials.

jeffshultz on February 6, 2007 at 3:13 PM

The man to thank for this remarkably rapid reaction and deployment of grievance-group economic power? The same man who claimed, the morning after news of the UK airline bomb plot broke, that it was a hoax designed to distract the public from Ned Lamont’s primary victory in Connecticut.

Plus he was the founder of the StopDr.Laura campaign.

Power

Slublog on February 6, 2007 at 3:13 PM

..the Prince “behind the sheet fake penis…”

freakagriep on February 6, 2007 at 2:52 PM

All this did is confirm one of my suspicions about Prince.

Lawrence on February 6, 2007 at 3:17 PM

It’s the whole leftist pro-gay agenda. I’ve said this before, and haven’t heard a counter argument yet. Leftist feel it is worth dying and killing (via HIV/AIDS and other STD’s) for the right to have anonymous high-risk homosexual sodomistic sex. But defending our country, western civiliation, and our very existence are NOT worth dying or killing for…or even inconveniencing citizens or questioning terrorists!

Any comments? Is my analysis flawed?

stonemeister on February 6, 2007 at 3:17 PM

It’s common knowledge that gays prefer Hershey bars.

The Ugly American on February 6, 2007 at 3:13 PM

Darnit… I’m eating a Hershey bar right now (and it even has nuts). I gotta do something quick. {OUCH}.

Whew… all better.

dalewalt on February 6, 2007 at 3:18 PM

I’m willing to bet that way more lesbians watch the Super Bowl than gay guys.

I dunno… a bunch of guys chasing each other around trying to grab a ball so they can score, ending up in a great big sweaty manpile over and over again, dancing around and slapping each other on the butts afterwards? Sounds kinda gay to me.

Watcher on February 6, 2007 at 3:19 PM

Since when does tolerance == approval?

dalewalt on February 6, 2007 at 3:06 PM

Re: The “ewww” face.

I went to Washington D.C. for the first time ever in July of 2001. On July 4th, I went to the Hill and saw a lot of homosexual males with each other. I too gave the “eww” face when I saw them kissing, because I just don’t get down like that.

But the thing is, I wasn’t endorsing a product nor was I representing a corporation. Me giving an “eww” face when two males kiss each other is a lot different than say, the CEO of a Fortune 500 giving the face and having it printed in a nationally released magazine. I think the exposure level is the reason I said it was “out of place”. I didn’t say it was out of line.

A reaction is a reaction, whatever that may be. But the face that Snickers consciously included these videos on their website makes a greater overall statement than me (a nobody) giving an “eww” face in a crowd of people on the Hill.

Right or wrong, whatever. I’m just thinking in terms of marketing. I would hope to attract as many customers as possible because that = revenue. And, like it or not, in big business it all boils down to the bottom line.

TheThink on February 6, 2007 at 3:19 PM

We’ll start with the minor controversy, which is a controversy in the sense that someone from ABC News needed something to write about and started calling around to auto workers and therapists to see if he could scrounge up a little outrage about suicidal robots and downsizing. Mission accomplished.

I don’t think it’s worth a controversy, but that commercial was way too depressing for my taste.

Esthier on February 6, 2007 at 3:19 PM

Right or wrong, whatever. I’m just thinking in terms of marketing. I would hope to attract as many customers as possible because that = revenue. And, like it or not, in big business it all boils down to the bottom line.

TheThink on February 6, 2007 at 3:19 PM

You’re correct; it doesn’t matter whether it was right or wrong, they made a marketing decision. It’s just a damn shame that people get upset about things like that.

dalewalt on February 6, 2007 at 3:21 PM

Yeah, well… the difference there is that you didn’t actually see anything. I don’t need to see two guys “accidentally” kissing in the most retarded way imaginable in order to get a joke about homophobia.

Watcher on February 6, 2007 at 3:07 PM

I don’t see why it is viewed as homophobic. The idea that most men do not have to be taught to be disgusted by homosexuality, escapes those whom push the gay agenda. It’s as natural for a hetro to be disgusted by it as it is for a gay to be drawn to it. It is a learned behavior to generalize all gay men as effeminate, but that is hardly a “fear”.

csdeven on February 6, 2007 at 3:22 PM

Masterfoods, huh? Sounds suspiciously like master… race!

Jim Treacher on February 6, 2007 at 3:22 PM

It’s just a damn shame that people get upset about things like that.

Absolutely agreed to.

TheThink on February 6, 2007 at 3:23 PM

We call people like that “fun suckers”. They walk into a room and when they begin to speak the fun is sucked out. This guy needs a life, it was funny to most, some didn’t like it, I thought it was hilarious.

right2bright on February 6, 2007 at 3:26 PM

Yannow….if someone suggested even 10 years ago that Mars Inc. would pull a Snickers Super Bowl ad because teh gheys found it to be homerfobic, I would’ve thought ‘em crazy.

I feel like I’m living in a parallel universe.

The Ugly American on February 6, 2007 at 3:27 PM

I’m willing to bet that way more lesbians watch the Super Bowl than gay guys.

freakagriep on February 6, 2007 at 3:08 PM

I might consider taking that bet…I saw the pregame show, and it seemed like they were reaching out to a somewhat different audience than normal.

James on February 6, 2007 at 3:29 PM

Re: The “ewww” face.

I will say this though, the ad didn’t show a kiss between two homosexuals. It was a kiss between to heterosexuals. It was intentionally awkward and not romantic. It was meant to cause people to make an “ewww” face.

Esthier on February 6, 2007 at 3:30 PM

It is the latest “fad” in commercials. I can’t even tell you how many commercials are out there now which manage to depict what can be described as “males in compromising positions”. It is sad and now it is getting tedious. Some are more overt then others. The Snickers kiss was. But it is only the latest in a long line that seem to try and drive home the message “Gay Happens, Don’t fight it”.

LakeRuins on February 6, 2007 at 3:30 PM

I found the commercial ridiculous. I mean everyone at the Superbowl party I attended said “ewwww” and then when the guys on the commercial said “quick, do something manly” I thought that was offensive to gays. So who were Snickers trying to attract here? They offended hetro and homo alike. The entire thing was just PR stupid.

Rightwingsparkle on February 6, 2007 at 3:32 PM

Everyone knows that lesbians really want to be men, and vice versa for the gay guys. So it only makes sense that more lesbians would watch football. Gay guys were probably watching the style channel during the game!

freakagriep on February 6, 2007 at 3:32 PM

I’m willing to bet that way more lesbians watch the Super Bowl than gay guys.

Not me.

I go to the mall and make nice with all the Superbowl Widows ; )

The Ugly American on February 6, 2007 at 3:36 PM

Everyone knows that lesbians really want to be men…

Only for the chance to pee standing up.

The Ugly American on February 6, 2007 at 3:37 PM

You all better stop blogging and start procreating because THE GAYS ARE COMING FOR YOU!!!

Ropera on February 6, 2007 at 3:41 PM

Ropera
You all better stop blogging and start procreating because THE GAYS ARE COMING FOR YOU!!!

Well that may sound ridiculous I see an oppurtunity to fill what may become an urgent need.
/For a modest price of course and just trying to do my part to keep the women legal.

LakeRuins on February 6, 2007 at 3:50 PM

It was intentionally awkward and not romantic. It was meant to cause people to make an “ewww” face.

My wife thought it was gross.

I thought it was quite funny.

The only one we both laughed at was the Bud Light commercial with the hitch-hikers.

Lawrence on February 6, 2007 at 4:00 PM

/For a modest price of course and just trying to do my part to keep the women legal.

LakeRuins on February 6, 2007 at 3:50 PM

Once science figures out how to initiat life into manufactured cells then heteros, and for that matter men in general, will become obsolete.

Lawrence on February 6, 2007 at 4:03 PM

Grow some nards, pansies! There is no right to not be offended.

NTWR on February 6, 2007 at 4:05 PM

myspacebarisnotworkingxxxxxneitherarepunctuationmarksxxxxxIjustwanttosaythatIthoughtitwashilariousxxxexclamationpointxxx

IrishEi on February 6, 2007 at 4:07 PM

As I was reading the comments, the Geico Caveman commercial started. Is it offensive? Who the hell cares! They’re only commercials. Don’t like them? Fine, don’t buy the product. When the sales drop, the commercials will stop running.

People read way to much into the “hidden” intent in commercials. The only intent is to sell a product. Even a controversial commercial is seen as a success if people REMEMBER that commercial.

Remember the Joe Namath in pantyhose commercial? That was controversial too, at the time. But people remembered that commercial and talked about it for years. It was a very successful commercial because of that. That commercial lead to a huge increase in sales because of the controversy it inspired, as was intended. That’s all part of advertising.

As they say in the business, where’s the Beef? It’s under the controversy.

RedinBlueCounty on February 6, 2007 at 4:10 PM

Aroused?

Heeellllooo down there! Are you awake?

Kini on February 6, 2007 at 4:12 PM

News Flash to gay people: straight guys don’t enjoy kissing each other. I know, I know, hard to understand, but bear with them – they know not what they (don’t) do.

Seixon on February 6, 2007 at 4:31 PM

I know this is a lame reaction, but in response to Snickers caving to the gay lobby, I pledge to never buy another Snickers bar again. And this isn’t a (comlpetely) empty promise. When I buy candy bars (which is pretty rare anyway) one of the few I have usually bought is Snickers. (I need to figure out which company manufactures those so my protest can be more inclusive.)

urbancenturion on February 6, 2007 at 5:13 PM

Why can’t these ad wizards just go back to advertising the product?
Remember that?
Too many of the ads nowadays are these “concepts” that have only peripheral or no connection to the product…no wonder you can’t remember what they’re advertising!
If they’re not doing that, it’s sex and this is for the non-”male enhancement” products (which I hate, hate, HATE–Who knew there were so many impotent men in this country! Are there?!)
The Snickers ad was in incredibly bad taste and the “concept” behind it was weak–If the guy was so crazed to have a Snickers, why couldn’t he grab it before the other guy got it to his mouth? You’re left wondering if he wanted to (almost) kiss the other guy more than he wanted the candy…not good.
Both guys just ended up looking like Neanderthals.
Yep, I hate those Geico “caveman” commercials, too.
Glad they pulled the ad and now they should fire the ad agency.

Jen the Neocon on February 6, 2007 at 5:19 PM

The robot commercial was very funny. Commie-Liberals are a humorless breed.

Maxx on February 6, 2007 at 5:27 PM

Wow, reading this thread has really piqued my interest. As a married, heterosexual male with a 7 year old girl, I do not agree with the gay lifestyle (yes, it’s a lifestyle, you are not born that way, it’s a choice), I’ve got to say there’s way too many people cocnerned about something that is not threatening our country or our lives. Sure we can argue the moral fabric, give them rights for this now and they’ll want more tomorrow, but really folks, if a commercial offends you, regardless of your sexual persuasion, you really need to get a life. I’m offended that many of my government leaders elected by folks I can only assume to be idiots think that there are issues more important than the one we face now against terrorism. I’m offended that being a conservative republican automatically makes me a supporter and a believer in the right wing religous groups causes. Like Neal Boortz says, what these people do in the privacy of their own home really shouldn’t concern us, nor should we try to legislate it. We should just be sure we raise our children with the knowledge that this choice is theirs and it goes against the rules of nature (I’m a science educated individual, and I challenge someone to show me that the gay lifestyle is found in nature), but it’s their choice to be made. Then, we can all have a good chuckle at the commercials knowing that they are all there for one purpose. To sell a product, not push and agenda. Now can we all get back to taking care of our Islamic terrorists please?

rayvet on February 6, 2007 at 5:28 PM

Good lord. I’m so sick of this PC crap and everyone getting “offended” at everything. People need to get over themselves. And people who are targeted by this need to get some backbone. It’s just a stupid and yes, funny commercial. It’s not a political statement. That Snickers caved in on this…well, that’s just gay.

CP on February 6, 2007 at 5:35 PM

Wait a second, they really pulled the Geico ads? What the hell was wrong with them? They were way better than any gay Snickers commerical of Budweiser commercial. My favorite line “Yeah walking upright, discovering fire, inventing the wheel, sorry we couldn’t get that to you sooner” Is a classic. These have been my favorite commercial since the first one aired with them ordering dinner in the restaurant. I swear, have I crossed over into the twilight zone here, I thought offense was a liberal trait, guess I was wrong.

rayvet on February 6, 2007 at 5:37 PM

Relax, rayvet–they haven’t pulled the Geico ads. You can continue to enjoy the caveman ads. Glad you like them–I don’t.
I don’t even like their lizard ads or the wailing Little Richard ads!
What the hell does any of it have to do with car insurance, except make you want to get in your car and drive away screaming…and then probably get into an accident because you were too crazed by being irritated that you didn’t see the other car?

Jen the Neocon on February 6, 2007 at 5:45 PM

“Eww face?” Is that different from an O-Face?

JasonG on February 6, 2007 at 5:47 PM

“Eww face?” Is that different from an O-Face?

JasonG on February 6, 2007 at 5:47 PM

Lol.

TheThink on February 6, 2007 at 6:38 PM

As a gay dude, I didn’t find the commercial offensive. I didn’t find it very funny either. I just wish someone, anyone would stand up to these fringe kooks!

SouthernGent on February 6, 2007 at 6:51 PM

Much ado over nothing in the long run.

Emmett J. on February 6, 2007 at 9:09 PM

And speaking of pansies, I think I’ve stumbled upon a clear definition of “Pansy”:

In my 2001 Dodge Grand Caravan (no, not me) with 93,000 miles, in a snowstorm in Chicago tonight, I had to pass this “guy”*, on the right, driving a newish 4 wheel drive Honda Pilot SUV, going 20 in a 45 in the left lane.

(*…or should I say Pansy)

Jaibones on February 6, 2007 at 10:40 PM

The thing that grossed me out more than this commercial was the Prince “behind the sheet fake penis pose.”

freakagriep on February 6, 2007 at 2:52 PM

Oh good gravy, was that awful! I was at a big party and we were all looking around at each other like “is he really doing that??”

that’s a whole lot of ew, my friend.

Jewels on February 6, 2007 at 11:01 PM

I demand lesbian snickers commercials!

Savage on February 6, 2007 at 3:10 PM

Quick, someone invade a Code Pink rally and hold up that sign. They won’t get it, be all for it(which in itself would be funny), you’ll be a hero, and then you’ll turn the sign around and it’ll say HotAir.com. Then Michelle will get wind of it and we’ll both be banned.

- The Cat

P.S. On 2nd thought, don’t do it.

MirCat on February 7, 2007 at 12:13 AM

Amazing that we have “evolved” to the point where disgusting diviate sex practices that God calls abominable are joked about in the mainstream media, and discussions go on in public attempting to determine if the purveyors of these repulsive acts make “good parents”. How low our society has become, and how much lower can it actually go…

NRA4Freedom on February 7, 2007 at 10:16 AM

NRA4Freedom on February 7, 2007 at 10:16 AM

The pretentious bullsh*t thread is over there –>

Nonfactor on February 7, 2007 at 2:31 PM