Heinz pull Mayonainse advert after homophobic complaints

[volatile]

nLNPdZPSII0

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/25/gayrights.gender

Heinz have withdrawn this mayonnaise advert, featuring a brief gay kiss, after 200 complaints (from an audience of 6 million viewers).

Isn't it rather tragic that in this day and age, there is still a vocal community of bigots inserting disharmony and distrust into our society? Isn't it time we all took a stand against this type of backwards, retrograde, discriminatory nonsense?

My letter to Heinz, urging them to re-instate the advert, will be in the post tomorrow...

[The Painter]

My letter to Heinz, urging them to re-instate the advert, will be in the post tomorrow...


Oh good for you!!!! Don't you feel better now???

Breach of Membership Agreement removed.

[Piggy]

That was hilarious!

And the thing is, I wouldn't even call that a gay kiss.

I mean, the premise is that "mum" is a cook from a New York deli, so this fellow with a Brooklyn accent is substituted for the wife and does all the things, and says all the things, that the British wife would do.

It's a gag, not an actual depiction of a 2-dads family.

But yeah, it's sad that the idiots get to set the bar so often.

ETA: I wrote this post not knowing that The Painter had referred to the OP as an "idiot" in the meantime. And yes, I stand by my contention that the ones protesting the ads are the idiots in this equation. If the shoe fits....

[skeptifem]

yeah its supposed to be a joke. ive seen a lot more serious gay kissing on television. christina aguilara (sp?) had a gay guy on guy kiss in one of her videos. heinz is crazy for pulling the ad over such a small number of people.

[mrbaracuda]

Isn't it rather tragic that in this day and age, there is still a vocal community of bigots inserting disharmony and distrust into our society? Isn't it time we all took a stand against this type of backwards, retrograde, discriminatory nonsense?

Bigots inserting disharmony and distrust into our society? I'd argue people like you are inserting disharmony and distrust into our society and you are the bigot here, but you're not worth it.

"So you don't want some gay stuff in a mayonnaise ad? You just got to be looking for inserting disharmony into our society!"
"So you don't want some gay stuff in a mayonnaise ad? You distrust gays, don't you?"


Breach of Membership Agreement removed.

[Piggy]

Bigots inserting disharmony and distrust into our society? I'd argue people like you are inserting disharmony and distrust into our society and you are the bigot here, but you're not worth it.

"So you don't want some gay stuff in a mayonnaise ad? You just got to be looking for inserting disharmony into our society!"
"So you don't want some gay stuff in a mayonnaise ad? You distrust gays, don't you?"

3 words: Get over it.

No one said that the bigots -- and yes, people who feel they have the right to have images of people of other sexual persuasions removed from publication because it makes them uncomfortable are bigots -- were looking to insert disharmony... just that this is the end result. No one said that they must distrust gays, but rather that their actions encourage distrust of gays.

It's about the feeling of privilege which they feel they are entitled to.

Bigotry is bigotry. The ad was humorous. But because a certain minority feel that certain people should not be depicted in any way in the public sphere, the company yielded to their bigoted demands.

That's a shame.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Wow, this thread is full of people just begging to be put on ignore...

I thought the commercial was funny.

[TragicMonkey]

It's disgusting and horrible. Someone kissing a Yankee? Ewwww. It makes my skin crawl. I don't mind Yankees if they just stick to their own kind, and their own place. Just not on my TV. Ick.

[Rufo]

I don't understand how there can be any disagreement about this. Surely there is nothing wrong with voicing your opinion about something to make sure the company gets a balanced view of the public opinion?

Also - they're selling mayonnaise. Couldn't they come up with something more explicit than that? Prudes.

[SDC]

It's disgusting and horrible. Someone kissing a Yankee? Ewwww. It makes my skin crawl. I don't mind Yankees if they just stick to their own kind, and their own place. Just not on my TV. Ick.

Fee fi fo fum. I detect someone from below the Mason Dixon.

Well, at least us Yanks lay off our own sisters.

[skeptifem]

Well, at least us Yanks lay off our own sisters.

lolwut? ALABAMA

[TragicMonkey]

Fee fi fo fum. I detect someone from below the Mason Dixon.

Well, at least us Yanks lay off our own sisters.

Darling, we've seen your sisters.

[quixotecoyote]

What does having apple pie for breakfast have to do with anything?

[volatile]

Oh good for you!!!! Don't you feel better now??? Idiot.

Oh! You're homophobic as well as ignorant! I never would have guessed! :)

[volatile]

Bigots inserting disharmony and distrust into our society? I'd argue people like you are inserting disharmony and distrust into our society and you are the bigot here, but you're not worth it.

Yeah, I can' think of anything more bigoted than pointing out the bigotry of others! You're right! What was I thinking!

I recant - it is totally cool for people to hate other people (and even to pretned that they don't even exist) based on their sexual preferences! How silly of me ever to have thought otherwise!

[mrbaracuda]

3 words: Get over it.

No one said that the bigots -- and yes, people who feel they have the right to have images of people of other sexual persuasions removed from publication because it makes them uncomfortable are bigots -- were looking to insert disharmony... just that this is the end result. No one said that they must distrust gays, but rather that their actions encourages distrust of gays.

It's about the feeling of privilege which they feel they are entitled to.

Bigotry is bigotry. The ad was humorous. But because a certain minority feel that certain people should not be depicted in any way in the public sphere, the company yielded to their bigoted demands.

That's a shame.

No, a shame is a post like yours, where you portray voicing your opinion to a company about one of their ads as something wrong simply because you don't agree with "them"; go as far as to claim to know why the complainants did it and that they're bigots; nit-pick about whether or not those who voiced their opinion about the ad are actively or passively "inserting disharmony and distrust into our society", in the end causing this harm to society anyway, a statement with no basis, all while ignoring volatile's statement and dismissing it with "no one said.."; when it is you fascist, who wants to - for whatever reason; probably to shield yourself from any accusation of bigotry - impose this ad on everyone while demonizing simple complaints and dissenting voices and babble about what people who disagree with you feel their right is, utilizing words like "yield to" when talking about the company's actions and answer to interaction from viewers. That is the shame here.

Now, I am sure you have to sew a flag for the next CSD.

Wow, this thread is full of people just begging to be put on ignore...

I thought the commercial was funny.

Woah, hey racist! Funny you'd show up! :)

[tkingdoll]

This is ONLY about selling mayonnaise. The number of people who go as far as making a complaint are a proportional representation of the number of people who don't like the ad. Not 'aren't persuaded by it', but 'don't like it'. That means a negative experience with the brand and the product. That's not in the interests of selling mayonnaise.

The fault is with Heinz for not testing the ad more thoroughly before going live. Or they did test it, encountered some controversy, and decided those headlines are worth more than running a fairly weak ad. Who knows?

But if the public don't want gay mayo, the public speaks. They did. End of.

[mrbaracuda]

Oh! You're homophobic as well as ignorant! I never would have guessed! :)

Yeah, I can' think of anything more bigoted than pointing out the bigotry of others! You're right! What was I thinking!

I recant - it is totally cool for people to hate other people (and even to pretned that they don't even exist) based on their sexual preferences! How silly of me ever to have thought otherwise!

Funny it was you talking about how others were inserting disharmony and distrust into our society just a moment ago before you went ahead accusing people you probably don't even know of being homophobic, ignorant or driven by hatred.

[mrbaracuda]

Yeah, I can' think of anything more bigoted than pointing out the bigotry of others!

Now, can you present your evidence The Painter is homophobic and ignorant?
Ignorant of what? Homophobic why?

I'm looking forward to seeing your evidence.

[volatile]

Funny it was you talking about how others were inserting disharmony and distrust into our society just a moment ago before you went ahead accusing people you probably don't even know of being homophobic, ignorant or driven by hatred.

You know what, Baracuda? Call me crazy, but I think it's quite OK to judge homophobic behaviour as homophobic.

If you're content to actively lend support to the voices of a small number of homophobic bigots that seek to change the cultural landscape of our society, then you're homophobic by association. You'd be wise to be more careful of the intellectual company you keep.

[volatile]

Now, can you present your evidence The Painter is homophobic and ignorant?
Ignorant of what? Homophobic why?

I'm looking forward to seeing your evidence.

Ignorant cause the boy has form beyond this thread.

Homophobic because defending the actions of homophobes is demonstratively homophobic, by definition. Or do you want to play the "I'm not homophobic, but..." card?

[Alt+F4]

Heinz have withdrawn this mayonnaise advert, featuring a brief gay kiss, after 200 complaints (from an audience of 6 million viewers).

Why does mayonnaise make people want to kiss? It just seems against God's plan.

I'm going with my gut instinct on this....I blame it on the teaching of evolution in public schools.

[volatile]

Why does mayonnaise make people want to kiss? It just seems against God's plan.

I'm going with my gut instinct on this....I blame it on the teaching of evolution in public schools.

I blame Lisa.

[Rufo]

I still can not understand the negative responses. If it is within the rights of people to complain and get the ad withdrawn, surely it is within the rights of people to get it reinstated? And what legitimate reason could someone possibly have for wanting it withdrawn in the first place?

mrbaracuda, are you objecting just to labeling the complainers as homophobic or also to the attempt to reinstate it? What do you think motivated people to complain about the ad?

[mrbaracuda]

You know what, Baracuda? Call me crazy, but I think it's quite OK to judge homophobic behaviour as homophobic.

And there is no other reason for people to lodge complaints about TV ads in your universe? How do you know the complainants are homophobes? See below and answer this: What's wrong with having a, I dare say natural, aversion to homosexuals "in action"?

If you're content to actively lend support to the voices of a small number of homophobic bigots that seek to change the cultural landscape of our society, then you're homophobic by association.

I am not actively lending support to the voices like you want to make it out to be. I am simply lending my support to free speech, unlike you, you fascist.

You'd be wise to be more careful of the intellectual company you keep.

And you'd be more wise to be more intellectual I suppose.

Ignorant cause the boy has form beyond this thread.

Being not too interested, I'll leave it to you whether to present some posts or not.

Homophobic because defending the actions of homophobes is demonstratively homophobic, by definition.

Oh, so saying you're an idiot for writing to Heinz probably just to make yourself feel good because you fought those bigots and homophobes is defending the actions of homophobes? Interesting spin or whatever you want to call this.

Or do you want to play the "I'm not homophobic, but..." card?

Going by the merriam-webster definition of homophobic (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobic), including simply an aversion to homosexuality [of men; I am quite fond of lesbians! Well, the appealing ones anyway], yea, I am a homophobe. Nothing irrational when I am not too fond of two men caressing each other and I react with repugnance, unless you want to condemn my body's reaction upon seeing such scene. Are you an emotiophobe? I suspect you of knowing a better term to describe my dilemma.

All this, me being a homophobe based on the aforementioned, does not mean I can not tolerate, like, befriend or accept gay men, nor that I have to hate or discriminate homosexuals, as you are trying to make it appear.

[Autolite]

That was hilarious!
And the thing is, I wouldn't even call that a gay kiss.


Agreed, that was very funny! It was an obvious gag. I fail to understand how anyone could see anything "gay" about it. Admittedly it was not the best "man-to-man" kiss I've ever seen. My favorite was Michael Corleone smooching with Fredo in the original "GodFather". Now that was a kiss... :D

[Piggy]

No, a shame is a post like yours, where you portray voicing your opinion to a company about one of their ads as something wrong simply because you don't agree with "them"

Let's get 2 things straight (pardon the pun) right off the bat.

1. I support everyone's right to express their opinion. What I find cowardly and silly is the company's decision to pull the ad. I once had a someone file an obscenity complaint with the US Postal Service because she found one of my envelopes sexually suggestive -- it was a picture of a chocolate-covered strawberry. Did I pull the envelope? Nope.

2. Just because I support freedom of speech doesn't mean that I find all opinions to be equally valid. Some opinions are ignorant and bigoted, and I have a right to say so.


go as far as to claim to know why the complainants did it and that they're bigots;

I don't claim to know what's in anyone's mind. But please, you tell me what reason there is to complain about this ad, other than the appearance of homosexuality?

Go ahead. I'm listening.

nit-pick about whether or not those who voiced their opinion about the ad are actively or passively "inserting disharmony and distrust into our society", in the end causing this harm to society anyway, a statement with no basis, all while ignoring volatile's statement and dismissing it with "no one said..";

It's not a nit-pick, and I'm dismissing nothing. I'm also not claiming that what Volotile says is true. Learn to read.

when it is you fascist, who wants to - for whatever reason;

Again, I support freedom of speech. However, those who exercise their freedom of speech are also subject to the counter-arguments of those who disagree.

I disagree with the bigots who wish to purge images of and references to homosexuality from the public sphere. And there is absolutely nothing fascist about my exercise of my right to express my opinion that such people are obviously bigots.

probably to shield yourself from any accusation of bigotry - impose this ad on everyone while demonizing simple complaints and dissenting voices and babble about what people who disagree with you feel their right is, utilizing words like "yield to" when talking about the company's actions and answer to interaction from viewers. That is the shame here.

"Impose this ad on everyone"? What kind of nonsense is that?

It's the marketplace of ideas, my friend. No one has a right to be shielded from ideas they disagree with. There is no right not to be offended.

In fact, I support every company's right to pull any ad at all for any reason whatsoever.

But that does not mean that I therefore relinquish my right to call them a bunch of spineless gits for doing so.

Now, I am sure you have to sew a flag for the next CSD.

What the hell's the CSD?

[Rufo]

I am not actively lending support to the voices like you want to make it out to be. I am simply lending my support to free speech, unlike you, you fascist.
Let's take a closer look at how things have unfolded. Heinz use free speech to air the ad. People use free speech to complain about the ad being aired. Heinz pulls the ad. volatile uses free speech to complain about the ad being pulled.

Sounds like free speech in action to me. No fascism here.

[mrbaracuda]

I still can not understand the negative responses. If it is within the rights of people to complain and get the ad withdrawn, surely it is within the rights of people to get it reinstated? And what legitimate reason could someone possibly have for wanting it withdrawn in the first place?

We don't know how many pro-ad letters Heinz received. Now, if you were some guy who makes the decision about airing a certain ad which has received 200 contra-letters, you might want to reconsider the whole thing.

You might not understand the negative responses (in this thread btw, or the complaints Heinz got?), I don't understand what a legitimate reason would be for voicing your opinion. Would an emotion triggered by the ad be enough to express yourself and write to Heinz? Or would it have to fall into your subjective notion of what is good and what is bad and be legitimate only when it's "good" or "bad"?

mrbaracuda, are you objecting just to labeling the complainers as homophobic or also to the attempt to reinstate it? What do you think motivated people to complain about the ad?

Frankly, I don't know, nor do I care much about reinstating it. It doesn't affect me in the slightest, since I am not American and even if I were, I'd probably never see it because I don't watch TV for more than maybe an hour a week, which probably sums up the news from over the span of a week. [ETA] Note volatile's use of to urge in his reaction. And just to be sure, I wouldn't mind it being reinstated, so no, I don't object to reinstating it. I also thought it was funny, although it seems I can't fully comprehend it yet. What I do object to though is this tone that is swinging with the whole discussion here, coming from the rhetorics I've pointed out, even if only a few.

Maybe they are homophobes, maybe not. Who cares? They can express themselves, they did, Heinz pulled it.

[Piggy]

This is ONLY about selling mayonnaise. The number of people who go as far as making a complaint are a proportional representation of the number of people who don't like the ad. Not 'aren't persuaded by it', but 'don't like it'. That means a negative experience with the brand and the product. That's not in the interests of selling mayonnaise.

The fault is with Heinz for not testing the ad more thoroughly before going live. Or they did test it, encountered some controversy, and decided those headlines are worth more than running a fairly weak ad. Who knows?

But if the public don't want gay mayo, the public speaks. They did. End of.

Are you sure?

I agree with what you're saying, generally, but I haven't run the numbers here.

As a demographic, gay/lesbian customers are highly brand loyal, much moreso than the general population, especially when they are marketed to explicitly.

This is why Levi's runs gay and straight versions of its phonebooth ads.

Has this company made the right decision, given current attitudes toward homosexuality, and considering the likelihood that the overwhelming majority of viewers got the joke?

[Autolite]

I mean, the premise is that "mum" is a cook from a New York deli, so this fellow with a Brooklyn accent is substituted for the wife and does all the things, and says all the things, that the British wife would do.


I would guess that the folks who complained simply didn't get the joke. I thought that the "New York deli" shtick was obvious but, like any joke, some people miss it completely.

It brings to mind those old movies and shows where guys dressed up in drag to get a laugh (Milton Berle, Flip Wilson, Jack Lemon, Tony Curtis etc). I don't recall anyone seeing anything gay in those acts. It was all just for laughs. What has changed to cause anyone to see it differently today???

[plumjam]

Would have been much better with les beans.

[Alareth]

Wait ... is that ... Gravy?

[mrbaracuda]

Let's take a closer look at how things have unfolded. Heinz use free speech to air the ad. People use free speech to complain about the ad being aired. Heinz pulls the ad. volatile uses free speech to complain about the ad being pulled.

Sounds like free speech in action to me. No fascism here.

Yes, but the overall undertone is not very good, apart from the accusations, volatile among others complain about bigots and homophobes complaining without even knowing whether or not they're homophobes or bigots. Maybe I am too sensitive, but it is a recurrent theme of some people trying to demonize people with words like homophobe or bigot and shut them up. This and the notion of the whole pro-gay rhetoric and their, I don't know, defenders? followers? and the accusations of being a homophobe or bigot when you aren't fond of homosexuals.





Let's get 2 things straight (pardon the pun) right off the bat.

1. I support everyone's right to express their opinion. What I find cowardly and silly is the company's decision to pull the ad. I once had a someone file an obscenity complaint with the US Postal Service because she found one of my envelopes sexually suggestive -- it was a picture of a chocolate-covered strawberry. Did I pull the envelope? Nope.

Cowardly? Interesting. Why cowardly? The bible-belt won't buy Heinz mayonnaise and set our factory on fire soon? Heh.

2. Just because I support freedom of speech doesn't mean that I find all opinions to be equally valid. Some opinions are ignorant and bigoted, and I have a right to say so.

See above when I talk about me being too sensitive. I don't agree with you saying that not all opinions are equally valid though.

I don't claim to know what's in anyone's mind. But please, you tell me what reason there is to complain about this ad, other than the appearance of homosexuality?

Go ahead. I'm listening.

Maybe not everyone, but the complainants'. As to your question, maybe just not liking the ad without being a homophobe or bigot? Dissatisfaction with the product? I don't know. [ETA] I am curious though, because I can not imagine someone spending time writing to Heinz to express their dissatisfaction with a TV ad, heh.

It's not a nit-pick, and I'm dismissing nothing. I'm also not claiming that what Volotile says is true. Learn to read.

Maybe I'm tired and German at it, too. I think I can read though. I shall give it another look tomorrow in all my freshness!

Again, I support freedom of speech.

As long as it is "valid" (to you) I presume?

However, those who exercise their freedom of speech are also subject to the counter-arguments of those who disagree.

Surely, but those I have not seen being addressed. How could they? We don't know what the 200 complainants' points were, do we?

I disagree with the bigots who wish to purge images of and references to homosexuality from the public sphere. And there is absolutely nothing fascist about my exercise of my right to express my opinion that such people are obviously bigots.

Oh what nice rhetorics again. I don't know if it's me just having an affinity to history, especially WWII, or not, but "to purge images and references to homosexuality from the public sphere" has certain connotations for me. What is fascist is the whole "valid", or like Rufo said, "legitimate" version of free speech.

"Impose this ad on everyone"? What kind of nonsense is that?

After these posts you might understand why I said that.

It's the marketplace of ideas, my friend. No one has a right to be shielded from ideas they disagree with. There is no right not to be offended.

"Valid" ideas?

In fact, I support every company's right to pull any ad at all for any reason whatsoever.

But not when it is mayonnaise buying bigots and homophobes? :p

What the hell's the CSD?

Church Sodomy Day Christopher Street Day! :)

[BPSCG]

Of course it's gay.

You know what homos do with mayonnaise, don't you?

[mrbaracuda]

I would guess that the folks who complained simply didn't get the joke. I thought that the "New York deli" shtick was obvious but, like any joke, some people miss it completely.

Can you explain it to a German like me who is not too accustomed to this shtick? :)

[Autolite]

Can you explain it to a German like me who is not too accustomed to this shtick? :)

I will assume that your query was serious.

New Yorkers are stereotyped as gruff, rude and aggressive. The "mum" character was a guy portraying a New Yorker who runs a deli. The joke is a big, rough and tough guy asking for a kiss. Trust me, it's funny...

[Piggy]

What is fascist is the whole "valid", or like Rufo said, "legitimate" version of free speech.

You don't understand.

Let me try to clarify.

I support everyone's right to free speech, period. I support the Ku Klux Klan's right to march and distribute literature. You name it.

I have no qualms with speech. There is no speech which should not be allowed.

When I talk about what is valid, I'm talking about the substance of the argument. Not all opinions are equally valid. Those which are supported by evidence are qualitatively superior to those which are contradicted by evidence. But that does not mean that the latter should be suppressed.

In fact, if speech is supressed, then it becomes impossible for individuals to decide which arguments are valid and which are not.

That's the free marketplace of ideas. And I would contend that the USA is much more free in that regard then Germany, which practices prior restraint on certain types of speech, such as support for Nazism, for example.

In my opinion -- and I could be wrong -- Heinz pulled the ad prematurely, and for the wrong reasons.

I agree with Teek that this is a business decision, pure and simple. Heinz is not in the business of social activism -- they're in the business of selling sauce.

But this decision, to my mind, smacks of the decision by Starbucks to pull their ad which reminded a few people of 9/11. Or the decision to sack a gov't employee who used the word "niggardly" correctly in the face of ignorant objections.

I could be wrong. I admit that.

But I know how quickly such decisions can be made without thorough consideration of the true market dynamics at play, and I suspect that Heinz has buckled to bigotry without full consideration of their position.

[SezMe]

Use it in their sandwiches? Put a dollop on a cottage cheese salad? What am I missing?

ETA: Responding to Beeps.

[Terry]

Of course it's gay.

You know what homos do with mayonnaise, don't you?

Yup, we put it on our sandwiches. Scandalous, huh?

[Safe-Keeper]

How can they target ads when the company in question sells spotted dicks? Microwavable, even?

http://www.catchwordbranding.com/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/spotteddick.jpeg

Yup, we put it on our sandwiches.Yuck! "Sandwiches" are for defecating!

I don't understand how there can be any disagreement about this. Surely there is nothing wrong with voicing your opinion about something to make sure the company gets a balanced view of the public opinion?There is something wrong about not only having such backward views in 2008, but also trying to shut down ads with differing views. You can say that they have a right to do it all you want, but we're not discussing rights, we're discussing morals, so it's a void point. To make a more extreme example, it's kinda how the fundamentalists have the perfectly valid right to blame every school shooting on atheism to spread their bigotry, but still shouldn't because it's a dreadfully stupid and mean-spirited thing to do.

Why is it that every time something's pulled due to the eebil Muslims being offended, there's an outrage, but when anyone else do the same thing, suddenly it's perfectly OK? Shouldn't you guys be donning your "Support Heinz' fight for freedom of speech" sig pictures by now:confused:?

This is ONLY about selling mayonnaise.In a day and age when homosexuality is hotly debated, to many it is far more than that. There are people who view an ad featuring men kissing each others as a shove by the "homosexual agenda", and there are those who want gays, including things that are not gay but reminds the anti-gay crowd of gayness, to remain in the closet.

The fault is with Heinz for not testing the ad more thoroughly before going live. You pathetic coward, bowing to Heinz' self-censorship:jaw-dropp. Cue the brave Danes making numerous "homosexual" mayo ads to promote freedom of speech.

[mrbaracuda]

I will assume that your query was serious.

Yes. And thanks for explaining. :)

New Yorkers are stereotyped as gruff, rude and aggressive. The "mum" character was a guy portraying a New Yorker who runs a deli. The joke is a big, rough and tough guy asking for a kiss. Trust me, it's funny...

I guess I am just not too prejudiced or just haven't heard of this stereotype that's being circulated. ;) The New Yorkers I've talked to on this board are nice people and far from what the stereotype depicts. :o

[Piggy]

Church Sodomy Day Christopher Street Day!

I have no idea what that is.

Fwiw, I'm not gay. I don't have a "Straight, but not narrow" bumper sticker on my car. I'm not particularly interested in gay rights.

But I am interested in the rights of consenting adults to live their lives as they see fit.

And I am interested in opposing prejudice and dark-age thinking.

And I am also interested in objective analysis of market position, which sometimes involves resisting the urge to make knee-jerk decisions based on fringe reactions -- no matter how strongly expressed -- to marketing campaigns.

[brodski]

But if the public don't want gay mayo, the public speaks. They did. End of.

I've snipped everything with which I totally agree, but I don't think that this is "end of. A section of the public has spoken out against "gay Mayo", but a section of the public is also speaking on in favour of "Gay Mayo", and I suspect with the added publicity over the pulling of that add that number is likely to grow- the public is still speaking and I doubt this is the end of anything, people tend to be much more motivated to contact organisations in protest rather than in support- and so now it's the pro "gay mayo" groups turn to speak.

[mrbaracuda]

You don't understand.

Let me try to clarify.

I support everyone's right to free speech, period. I support the Ku Klux Klan's right to march and distribute literature. You name it.

I have no qualms with speech. There is no speech which should not be allowed.

When I talk about what is valid, I'm talking about the substance of the argument. Not all opinions are equally valid. Those which are supported by evidence are qualitatively superior to those which are contradicted by evidence. But that does not mean that the latter should be suppressed.

I suspected as much; that it's a matter of definition. Damn you, English, for using single words for so many meanings at times! Excuse me. :o

In fact, if speech is supressed, then it becomes impossible for individuals to decide which arguments are valid and which are not.

That's the free marketplace of ideas. And I would contend that the USA is much more free in that regard then Germany, which practices prior restraint on certain types of speech, such as support for Nazism, for example.

Unfortuneately yes, it is much more free than Germany. I don't know who said it, but I am pretty sure I read it here and I liked the expression "to be able to drag bad ideas to the surface and expose it to the sunlight", if you know what me - or the original poster - thinks and means. :)

I think "the government" supressing thoughts like those of the extreme right here in Germany gives them more authority and power than anything else when they can claim some kind of "victimhood".

In my opinion -- and I could be wrong -- Heinz pulled the ad prematurely, and for the wrong reasons.

I agree with Teek that this is a business decision, pure and simple. Heinz is not in the business of social activism -- they're in the business of selling sauce.

Indeed they are. Any indication they pulled it prematurely? I can't remember any from that article.

But this decision, to my mind, smacks of the decision by Starbucks to pull their ad which reminded a few people of 9/11. Or the decision to sack a gov't employee who used the word "niggardly" correctly in the face of ignorant objections.

I could be wrong. I admit that.

And I can also be wrong. As for the 9/11 Starbucks ad, well, I can understand it. I have strong emotions about 9/11, even though I was in no way affected by it like those who lost relatives and / or friends that day. :(

But I know how quickly such decisions can be made without thorough consideration of the true market dynamics at play, and I suspect that Heinz has buckled to bigotry without full consideration of their position.

If you really want to blame bigotry for them to buckle.. :rolleyes::D

[Safe-Keeper]

New Yorkers are stereotyped as gruff, rude and aggressive. The "mum" character was a guy portraying a New Yorker who runs a deli. The joke is a big, rough and tough guy asking for a kiss. Trust me, it's funny... According to the article, the joke was that the mayo was so good it turned the mother into a deli chef in everyone's eyes.

Funny, when I saw it, I thought the kiss part was that there was mayo on the guy's lips, and that the other guy loved the taste so much he had to kiss "him" to savor some.

[mrbaracuda]

I have no idea what that is.

Some famous "gay pride" parade thing, executed in many countries including Germany. I think it started in America.

[Piggy]

Any indication they pulled it prematurely? I can't remember any from that article.

No, and that's why I say I could be completely wrong and Teek could be entirely right.

I base this on my experience with the industry.

But I could be talking out my @$$.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

I heard, "homophobic," and, "mayonaise," and, being a dirty minded wretch, I thought, "oh no...".

Well: No.

It's HILARIOUS! I figured out what was going on as soon as the li'l girl called him, "Mum," and I am, as Hugh Laurie might say, "as thick as a whale omelet."

I do, however, have a sense of humor.

I guess there's folks are either thicker or duller in the world.

Ah, well....

[Autolite]

I guess I am just not too prejudiced or just haven't heard of this stereotype that's being circulated. ;) The New Yorkers I've talked to on this board are nice people and far from what the stereotype depicts. :o

As I am sure that there are European stereotypes that would be completely lost on a North American...

[Autolite]

Personally I couldn't care less about Heinz and their "gay mayo". I'm just worried that if this homosexual innuendo thing concerning condiments picks up momentum it might force Kraft to pull "Miracle Whip" off the shelves... :jaw-dropp

[Magenta]

Seems to me like a fairly innocuous and mildly humorous advertisement. 200 complaints in a short time looks like an organised campaign...

I wonder what the other 4 "most offensive" ads were.

[volatile]

And there is no other reason for people to lodge complaints about TV ads in your universe? How do you know the complainants are homophobes? See below and answer this: What's wrong with having a, I dare say natural, aversion to homosexuals "in action"?

It's homophobic. It's intolerant. It's irrational. Not only that, it's impolite to seek to enforce your prejudices on others by writing to ad companies to ask they be accommodated. It's quite clear that these complaints would never have arisen against any ad featuring the same kiss between a man and a woman, and thus the complaints were homophobic.

As I said in the OP, if we pander to these opinions, then we give bigotry and intolerance a foothold. No thanks.

I am not actively lending support to the voices like you want to make it out to be. I am simply lending my support to free speech, unlike you, you fascist.Errrm, like Piggy, I am not disallowing or disagreeing with their right to complain, merely their right to have their intolerant, hateful ideologies acted upon. That's not fascist. Not by any definition of the word.

Oh, so saying you're an idiot for writing to Heinz probably just to make yourself feel good because you fought those bigots and homophobes is defending the actions of homophobes? Interesting spin or whatever you want to call this.It's not "to make myself feel better". It's to tell companies like this that they shouldn't be pandering to small-minded bigots, and that there are plenty of people who want this ad to be returned to the screens. Free speech and all that. What are you, a fascist?

You said above "What's wrong with having a, I dare say natural, aversion to homosexuals "in action"?". Nothing, really, even though it's stupid. Nevertheless, there manifestly is something wrong in seeking to compel others to change their behaviour for the benefit of your hateful constituency, and in supporting the opinions (and not just the right to express the opinions) of those who do.

Going by the merriam-webster definition of homophobic (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobic), including simply an aversion to homosexuality [of men; I am quite fond of lesbians! Well, the appealing ones anyway], yea, I am a homophobe. Nothing irrational when I am not too fond of two men caressing each other and I react with repugnance, unless you want to condemn my body's reaction upon seeing such scene. Are you an emotiophobe? I suspect you of knowing a better term to describe my dilemma.

All this, me being a homophobe based on the aforementioned, does not mean I can not tolerate, like, befriend or accept gay men, nor that I have to hate or discriminate homosexuals, as you are trying to make it appear.Having an aversion to actually kissing people of the same sex yourself is not homophobic. But trying to seek a ban for depictions of other people engaging in same-sex behaviour that is tolerate on-screen between heterosexuals is homophobic, and I wouldn't pause from also assigning that label to those who support the actions of the complainants, or those who castigate people like me for standing up for the alternate point of view.

Sorry, but I'm a nice guy like that. If I see people being bigoted, or see companies pandering to bigotry, I will speak up, because I don't want to live in a bigoted society or one where bigotry is allowed to flourish. I am bigoted against bigots. I am intolerant of intolerance. I hate hatefulness. You called me fascist - I call it the very opposite of fascism.

[SezMe]

Having an aversion to actually kissing people of the same sex yourself is homophobic.
Gawd, I hope you meant, "...is not homophobic..." because if you really meant it then it goes against everything you have argued for up to this point.

It also means I am homophobic. Which, in fact, I am not. I don't give a damn how homosexuals express their feelings but I do, in fact, have an aversion to kissing another male. My own personal aversion to homosexual behavior has absolutely nothing to do with my personal acceptance of homosexuality.

[volatile]

Gawd, I hope you meant, "...is not homophobic..." because if you really meant it then it goes against everything you have argued for up to this point.

It also means I am homophobic. Which, in fact, I am not. I don't give a damn how homosexuals express their feelings but I do, in fact, have an aversion to kissing another male. My own personal aversion to homosexual behavior has absolutely nothing to do with my personal acceptance of homosexuality.

Sorry! Of course I meant not. I hope the rest of the paragraph made that clear...

[slingblade]

A new avatar in honor of this thread. I has one. :)

[BPSCG]

Of course it's gay.

You know what homos do with mayonnaise, don't you?

Yup, we put it on our sandwiches. Scandalous, huh?Exactly... :mad:

[Lothian]

Inappropriate remark removed.

You will not post anything that is considered pornographic, obscene, or contains excessive reference to violence and/or explicit sexual acts.

I don’t really have an opinion on mayonnaise.

[TragicMonkey]

Heinz would have been wiser to keep airing the ad. Having done so to begin with upset some people, but removing it upset other people while the first bunch are still upset that it ever aired. So by reversing themselves they angered both extremes. They should have just gone on airing it out of practicality, and to demonstrate that Big Mayonnaise fears nobody.

Anyway, the ad itself is hardly pro-gay, as it's using homosexuality as a punch line. Oh ha ha, gay! Funny! Remember those stupid cereal commercials in the Eighties, for "Nut and Honey" cereal? Where the big joke was that the tough guys thought another guy was calling them honey, and were rightly aggrieved?

There's a reason you shouldn't look for politics or social messages in commercials--they're designed to sell you something, not depict social justice or current realities or anything else. The only message this commercial is meant to convey is "buy our mayonnaise".

[AgeGap]

Just seen the ad. You really must have a lot of time on your hands if need to complain to Heinz about that. On a matter far more serious; the description of spotted dick. Spotted dick is both plural and singular. As in, "Hello boys, spotted dick all-round," or "would sir like some cream on his spotted dick?"

[mrbaracuda]

Originally Posted by mrbaracuda
And there is no other reason for people to lodge complaints about TV ads in your universe? How do you know the complainants are homophobes? See below and answer this: What's wrong with having a, I dare say natural, aversion to homosexuals "in action"?

It's homophobic. It's intolerant. It's irrational. Not only that, it's impolite to seek to enforce your prejudices on others by writing to ad companies to ask they be accommodated. It's quite clear that these complaints would never have arisen against any ad featuring the same kiss between a man and a woman, and thus the complaints were homophobic.

You put the emphasis on the part about aversions, yet tell us later "Oh no, it's not homophobic". What is it now? I am confused.

As I said in the OP, if we pander to these opinions, then we give bigotry and intolerance a foothold. No thanks.

You know, I started with a totally wrong premise here. I thought this took place in the US, not the UK. See my bible-belt comment. Now that I've realized it happened in the UK, the UK where a Muslim wearing a headscarf gets 5000 £ (if I remember correctly) as compensation because a hairdresser doesn't wish to employ her, the UK where the right-hand of Osama bin Ladin gets 8000 £ pounds for his bad back a year, the UK that doesn't want to sink pirates out to rape, plunder and kill anymore because of human rights stupidness, the UK that is pandering to ridiculous demands probably on a daily basis by a certain, it seems growing in influence, and hostile group of people, this isn't so unusual all of a sudden anymore! And I agree with you that they should not have pulled it, but Heinz is Heinz and 200 complaints in one week, like one source says, is quite a lot. What I am concerned about here though is - see below.

Errrm, like Piggy, I am not disallowing or disagreeing with their right to complain, merely their right to have their intolerant, hateful ideologies acted upon. That's not fascist. Not by any definition of the word.

Are you sure about that? I'm not reading that here. Their complaints are the result of "acting upon their ideologies", aren't they? Nothing else is mentioned here; no report of "Heinz complainant bashes in homosexual's skull". What I keep reading here is somewhat of a demand to ignore and suppress customer complaints you don't agree with and don't know much about.

It's not "to make myself feel better". It's to tell companies like this that they shouldn't be pandering to small-minded bigots, and that there are plenty of people who want this ad to be returned to the screens. Free speech and all that. What are you, a fascist?

Okay, but where is your call for action, your address to the UK citizens roaming these boards, the e-mail collection of people to mail, maybe a pre-made mail one can just copy? While searching about this topic I found a call of a German:

lasst uns hören! wir wollen keine zensur oder diskrimination!

ich habe gerade ein reklamations-email geschickt. lasst uns hören! schreibt an pressoffice@uk.hjheinz.com mit kopie an butlerc@amvbbdo.com, Ted.Smyth@us.hjheinz.com, Nigel.Dickie@uk.hjheinz.com und Consumer.Contact@uk.hjheinz.com

betreff: Censoring of Heinz Deli Mayo TV ad

text: dear mr. or mrs. i’m really disappointed, why did you remove the Heinz Deli Mayo TV ad made by BBDO only because a bunch of sick homophobes pressured you to do that? you are endorsing a homophobe agenda and i won’t buy any of your products again until you repair the damage you have done. you have lost one customer, and i’m pretty sure i won’t be the only one. have a nice day xxxxxx

es gibt auch eine petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/heinz/petition.html

Mail list, link to a petition (which I just signed) and even for the lazy people a pre-written mail. So much for you "urging" Heinz to reinstate the clip. Maybe the woman writing for the Guardian is right, although I don't know whether or not you are a leftist, but you seem to be either lazy or half-heartedly at it at best.

You said above "What's wrong with having a, I dare say natural, aversion to homosexuals "in action"?". Nothing, really, even though it's stupid.

Yea, well that's the way I react. If I had too much free time on my hands and would file a complaint about the ad I'd most likely automatically be called a homophobe, intolerant, prejudiced and driven by hatred by you though and that is something I don't like or could comprehend really. Black and white world views can be nice though, or something.

Nevertheless, there manifestly is something wrong in seeking to compel others to change their behaviour for the benefit of your hateful constituency, and in supporting the opinions (and not just the right to express the opinions) of those who do.

Like I said before, I don't support their constituency or ideology, but their right to voice their opinion and I respect their opinion, whatever judgment I may have about the content.

Now, you are aware that I can turn this around, aren't you?

What is your ideology? Aren't you trying to compel others to change their behaviour for the benefit of your constituency (or what you want to call gays in this case)? I don't need gays "in my face" in a mayonnaise ad (although I don't mind), if you know what I mean.

If I were to complain about this ideology of imposing all this "Tolerate gays! Accept gays! Being gay is positive! Accept our he-mum in this mayonnaise ad! And if you don't, you're homophobe driven by hatred, boo for you!" (or other BS you encounter these days), as well as all these anti-discrimination laws because it annoys me, which it does, since it often goes hand in hand with hipocrisy and stupidness most of the time, especially when it comes to others' opinions and people like you insulting them for not wuving them gays as much as you do, am I suddenly a hatred driven bigot homophob?

I wouldn't exclude other reasons than being a homophobe to complain.

Nigel Dickie, of Heinz UK, said: 'It is our policy to listen to consumers. We recognise that some consumers raised concerns over the content of the ad and this prompted our decision to withdraw it.

'The advertisement, part of a short-run campaign, was intended to be humorous and we apologise to anyone who felt offended.'

The advertising watchdog has yet to confirm if it will investigate the Heinz commercial, one of the most complained about commercials this year.

Viewers said it was 'offensive', 'inappropriate' and 'unsuitable to be seen by children', while some parents were angry that they had been forced to explain same-sex relationships to their youngsters who asked them about the ad.

While saying "**** you, homophobe!" could be appropriate at times for certain complainants, this is a firm that got 200+ complaints in a week (that is my understanding) about one of their ads and a firm which probably doesn't want to use the broadest of brushes they got in their house on their customers.

What I am more concerned about is are things you have over there we don't seem to have here in Germany, or at least not to that effect and that is homepages of watchdog groups where you can complain in online-forms when your feelings are hurt like ASA.

Having an aversion to actually kissing people of the same sex yourself is not homophobic. But trying to seek a ban for depictions of other people engaging in same-sex behaviour that is tolerate on-screen between heterosexuals is homophobic, and I wouldn't pause from also assigning that label to those who support the actions of the complainants, or those who castigate people like me for standing up for the alternate point of view.

What are the actions of the complainants? Voicing their opinion? Again, your words seem different from what you are trying to say. Also, who tries seeking a ban for depictions of other people engaging in same-sex behaviour?

My understanding is that it aired during a time when children are usually watching (although one might argue they can and do watch all the time nowadays anyway).

Would you mind complaints about sex-hotline ads in the afternoon, or would you accuse people of being prejudices, bigoted, intolerant or even driven by hatred? I doubt this, but maybe you would mind such complains.

Sorry, but I'm a nice guy like that. If I see people being bigoted, or see companies pandering to bigotry, I will speak up, because I don't want to live in a bigoted society or one where bigotry is allowed to flourish. I am bigoted against bigots. I am intolerant of intolerance. I hate hatefulness. You called me fascist - I call it the very opposite of fascism.

This is all noble, but your words or maybe the way you phrase your statements tell me something different and you generalize too much for my taste.

[volatile]

You're comparing two men kissing in an advert in exactly the same way as men and women kiss in adverts with sex hotline ads in the afternoon.

So what if children see men pecking each other on the lips? Why is it so terrible that children might be exposed to this? What, indeed, is so wrong about men kissing other men?

Your bigotry and homophobia is astounding.

[CFLarsen]

Yup, we put it on our sandwiches. Scandalous, huh?

Yes, it is. A normal person would use mustard.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

My understanding is that it aired during a time when children are usually watching (although one might argue they can and do watch all the time nowadays anyway).

Your understanding is wrong.

The advert cannot be shown in or around children's programming as due to it's salt and fat content it is restricted by Ofcom's rules on "junk food".

So those who complained about it because they had to explain to their children were letting their children watch adult programming. In other words they want the whole airwaves made "safe" for their rugrats.

[mrbaracuda]

Your understanding is wrong.

The advert cannot be shown in or around children's programming as due to it's salt and fat content it is restricted by Ofcom's rules on "junk food".

So those who complained about it because they had to explain to their children were letting their children watch adult programming. In other words they want the whole airwaves made "safe" for their rugrats.

Fair enough. Another thing that's quite strange is that "The advert cannot be shown in or around children's programming as due to it's salt and fat content it is restricted by Ofcom's rules on "junk food"". I didn't give this much thought nor intended to, but with a culture like this, where you take away the individual's responsibility by more or less telling them what to eat and do etc, it's not hard or surprising to have people complaining about ads like the one in question which would make them explain something like same-sex marriage or homosexuality to their children, if you catch my drift. Now, unlike volatile, that does not make me automatically insult them or accuse them of hatred among other things.
I don't know if it's been like this for a long time over there in the UK, but this development is quite rubbish and retarded if I might say so.

Can you tell me what "Ofcom" is?

[volatile]

Your understanding is wrong.

The advert cannot be shown in or around children's programming as due to it's salt and fat content it is restricted by Ofcom's rules on "junk food".

So those who complained about it because they had to explain to their children were letting their children watch adult programming. In other words they want the whole airwaves made "safe" for their rugrats.

And even against things that aren't dangerous!

[Lothian]

So what if children see men pecking each other on the lips? Why is it so terrible that children might be exposed to this? What, indeed, is so wrong about men kissing other men?
Mrbaracuda makes some good points. I was watching the European football championships the other day and was appalled.

Men were lying on the floor rolling around kissing each other. I turned to my young daughter and told her I thought it was a disgusting thing for the BBC to broadcast when children might be watching.

She disagreed and told me to grow up and accept the fact that British teams are just not good enough and not to get so upset just because the Germans scored a goal.

[volatile]

it's not hard to have people complaining about ads like the one in question which would make them explain something like same-sex marriage or homosexuality to their children, if you catch my drift.


Why shouldn't people explain same-sex marriage and homosexuality to their children? After all, if the ad showed a male and a female kissing and they'd never seen it before, they'd have to explain heterosexual attraction, surely?

Also, I note with some amusement that the complainants are probably the same people who object to teaching about homosexuality in schools. It's like they're ostriches with their head in the sand, thinking that if they don't see gay people, gay people seek to exist.

[mrbaracuda]

You're comparing two men kissing in an advert in exactly the same way as men and women kiss in adverts with sex hotline ads in the afternoon.

Ah, I expected such response. Yes, in a way, well, I kind of did compare it indeed. I thought you'd get the point though; apparently though it was too much for you. Anyway, this point is void now anyway, since it seems to have been my imagination that this ad was aired during "children's time". Even then, I personally don't have such a problem with it (or any, as I don't make as much of it as others do), but

So what if children see men pecking each other on the lips? Why is it so terrible that children might be exposed to this? What, indeed, is so wrong about men kissing other men?

is this question really directed at me? Why do you ask me? I don't think it's terrible or wrong (although I might argue about the word 'wrong', since you usually say "that's just wrong" when your body reacts in the way I described).

Your bigotry and homophobia is astounding.

Nah, your idiocy and how quickly you jump to tardy conclusions is though. :)

[CFLarsen]

Mrbaracuda makes some good points. I was watching the European football championships the other day and was appalled.

Men were lying on the floor rolling around kissing each other. I turned to my young daughter and told her I thought it was a disgusting thing for the BBC to broadcast when children might be watching.

She disagreed and told me to grow up and accept the fact that British teams are just not good enough and not to get so upset just because the Germans scored a goal.

What do you expect? They are Brits.

Boarding schools. Cold water showers. Stale bread, stale beer. Windsor soup, too.

Most things can be blamed on Windsor soup, you know.

[mrbaracuda]

Why shouldn't people explain same-sex marriage and homosexuality to their children?

Yes, why shouldn't they?
Why shouldn't (high in salt and fat) mayonnaise ads be shown during "children's time" on TV?

After all, if the ad showed a male and a female kissing and they'd never seen it before, they'd have to explain heterosexual attraction, surely?

I suppose so. But seeing how many people even have problems explaining sexuality in general, then having this culture of complaining with rewards as in the case of that want-to-be-hairdresser and some apparent notion of "let the government regulate and handle this", it's not surprising.

[Lothian]

it's not hard or surprising to have people complaining about ads like the one in question which would make them explain something like same-sex marriage or homosexuality to their children, if you catch my drift. You don’t need to explain same sex relationships to children, unless you have previously told them it is wrong. They see it as perfectly natural to want to be with someone you love.

The hard part is explaining to children why people, who want to, can’t be together. The papers had stories recently about siblings who were imprisoned for being in a relationship. My kids wanted an explanation for that but have never questioned people's desire to have a same sex relationship.

[Matthew Best]

Can you tell me what "Ofcom" is?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=ofcom

[volatile]

is this question really directed at me? Why do you ask me? I don't think it's terrible or wrong (although I might argue about the word 'wrong', since you usually say "that's just wrong" when your body reacts in the way I described).

Yes, it was. Why is it wrong to teach kids about same-sex marriage? You seem concerned that some kids may have seen the ad. Why?

Nah, your idiocy and how quickly you jump to tardy conclusions is though. :)

How does one quickly jump to a tardy conclusion? :confused:

[volatile]

Yes, why shouldn't they?
Why shouldn't (high in salt and fat) mayonnaise ads be shown during "children's time" on TV?

Because there's a massive obesity epidemic and preventing children from harm is the role of responsible society. What's the connection with showing two men kissing (when showing a heterosexual kiss is ok) again? And how is this insistence not homophobic on your part?


I suppose so. But seeing how many people even have problems explaining sexuality in general, then having this culture of complaining with rewards as in the case of that want-to-be-hairdresser and some apparent notion of "let the government regulate and handle this", it's not surprising.

Sorry, what are you talking about? I take it you don't think there's a problem with adverts showing men and women kissing in the same way as in the ad in question, so why is a gay kiss problematic?

[mrbaracuda]

Because there's a massive obesity epidemic and preventing children from harm is the role of responsible society.

And government, too? Would you mind complainants asking for the ban of too fatty, too salty products?

What's the connection with showing two men kissing (when showing a heterosexual kiss is ok) again? And how is this insistence not homophobic on your part?

What insistence are you talking about? I don't understand.

Sorry, what are you talking about? I take it you don't think there's a problem with adverts showing men and women kissing in the same way as in the ad in question, so why is a gay kiss problematic?

Not problematic to me. You seem to include government regulating TV content as part of a "responsible society" andgoing as far as to let government have a say in which ads should be aired when and if, depending on whether or not the product is "good" or "bad" and a trend of obesity, when in my opinion it should be the responsibility of the individual not to eat too much of salty or fatty food.

The assumption you made that "the complainants are probably the same people who object to teaching about homosexuality in schools" is only addressing your homophobes et al again, excluding everyone else like the lazy people or those who are unable to explain things of this nature. I think it's quite the opposite with many people; that they'd rather leave it to the school to explain those things so the parents themself don't have to touch the subject. Not surprising you can have complainants complaining solely on the basis of annoyance caused by the ad.

[Complexity]

Saw the ad. It wasn't about a gay couple - it was about a heterosexual couple whose female part was transformed into a deli guy from New York while she used Heinz's superduper mayonnaise.

That Heinz gave in, and so easily, is insulting - that they flirted with a gay element in their ad and then abandoned it shows their crass opportunism and lack of principle.

Shame on them.

[mrbaracuda]

Yes, it was. Why is it wrong to teach kids about same-sex marriage?

Never said it's wrong or that I have a problem with education.

You seem concerned that some kids may have seen the ad. Why?

I'm not.

How does one quickly jump to a tardy conclusion? :confused:

Start asking the right persons. In this case it would be you.

[Autolite]

Saw the ad. It wasn't about a gay couple - it was about a heterosexual couple whose female part was transformed into a deli guy from New York while she used Heinz's superduper mayonnaise.

That Heinz gave in, and so easily, is insulting - that they flirted with a gay element in their ad and then abandoned it shows their crass opportunism and lack of principle.

Shame on them.

I saw nothing gay in the ad but I don't blame Heinz for caving. Heinz is in the business of selling mayonnaise and they have shareholders that they must answer to. The bottom line is money. It's just that simple. They are not in the business of supporting or condemning social mores using other people's cash...

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I don't know if it's been like this for a long time over there in the UK, but this development is quite rubbish and retarded if I might say so.

The junk food rules are relatively new, and I think it is a "voluntary" code - albeit the code was only introduced because the government threatened legislation if it was not brought in.

Of course the UK is not the only country that regulates advertising to people "for their own good":

http://www.out-law.com/page-8852

And of course this is an outright ban, not simply a restriction to avoid programmes aimed at children.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I saw nothing gay in the ad but I don't blame Heinz for caving. Heinz is in the business of selling mayonnaise and they have shareholders that they must answer to. The bottom line is money. It's just that simple. They are not in the business of supporting or condemning social mores using other people's cash...

This makes sense only if you think that they would lose more business by continuing to run the ads than by dropping them.

My guess is that what they have done is the worst of both worlds - those upset by the advert will be upset that it ever existed, and dropping it will have little impact with them.

By dropping it they have generated massively more publicity (so more people will be upset with them for having made the ad) AND upset a whole new group of people (those who think that they were wrong to drop the ads).

They have put themselves in a position where BOTH sides see them as supporting the social mores espoused by the other side - that does not strike me as smart.

[Rob Lister]

They have put themselves in a position where BOTH sides see them as supporting the social mores espoused by the other side - that does not strike me as smart.

I concur. They actually made the situation worse by making a press release. They should have just pulled it and, if asked, cited inadequate positive demographic response.

From a business perspective, it was just a bit too over the top, (demonstratively, if the OP article is to be believed about it being the 5th most offensive commercial) regardless of the humor (and it was quite funny).

Ironically, while the rules preclude the advertisement during 'children-hours', they showed this product being fed to children!

Can't anyone think of the children!

[Jaggy Bunnet]

They should have just pulled it and, if asked, cited inadequate positive demographic response.

I believe the "normal" response is that it was part of a wider advertising programme and only ever intended to air for a limited period of time and that there are no plans to re-air it.

[Complexity]

I saw nothing gay in the ad but I don't blame Heinz for caving. Heinz is in the business of selling mayonnaise and they have shareholders that they must answer to. The bottom line is money. It's just that simple. They are not in the business of supporting or condemning social mores using other people's cash...


They are perfectly comfortable using the controversy regarding gays and the treatment of gays in our society to add some edge to their ads - they're happy to make money from the crap that we've had to put up with.

As far as I'm concerned, once they've taken that step, they've incurred some responsibility for what follows.

If they didn't want that responsibility, they shouldn't have so cavalierly used cultural stresses regarding gays to make another buck.

Thanks for helping me clarify in my own mind why I'm pissed.

[Autolite]

They are perfectly comfortable using the controversy regarding gays and the treatment of gays in our society to add some edge to their ads - they're happy to make money from the crap that we've had to put up with.

As Safe-Keeper mentioned, the idea was to portray "mum" as a New Yorker running a deli (in the eyes of the family). I suppose each of us interprets things differently. I didn't see anything offensive about the ad but perhaps I would if I were in fact gay or homophobic. I dunno, maybe I'm just thick but I thought that portraying a stereotypically "straight" character as being effeminate was humorous. Is this what you find offensive???

[Complexity]

As Safe-Keeper mentioned, the idea was to portray "mum" as a New Yorker running a deli (in the eyes of the family). I suppose each of us interprets things differently. I didn't see anything offensive about the ad but perhaps I would if I were in fact gay or homophobic. I dunno, maybe I'm just thick but I thought that portraying a stereotypically "straight" character as being effeminate was humorous. Is this what you find offensive???


I enjoyed the ad. I thought it made effective use of the edginess of gay marriage and gay displays of affection (used by the ad even if the character being portrayed was a straight woman who manifests as a straight male deli guy when using their special sauce).

I was offended by Heinz's behavior in giving in to homophobic pressure after having attempted to profit from a gay-friendly ad.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I was offended by Heinz's behavior in giving in to homophobic pressure after having attempted to profit from a gay-friendly ad.

I have never seen the ad and don't care if they attempted to profit from making it gay friendly or if they never thought for a moment that it could be seen to have anything to do with gays.

I have a negative view of them for giving in to homophobic pressure in either circumstance.

[I Ratant]

I got the impression that "This is only a test. If the homophobe response is muted, there will be more like this soon".

[tkingdoll]

The question is, how are mayo sales?

Without this controversy, I'd never had heard of these new mayo flavours.

I'm not going to buy them, I make my own, but it'll be interesting to see if this helps or hinders product sales.

[Darth Rotor]

The question is, how are mayo sales?

Without this controversy, I'd never had heard of these new mayo flavours.

I'm not going to buy them, I make my own, but it'll be interesting to see if this helps or hinders product sales.

As you may know, mayo is used by Belgians for their 'frites' in varied flavors, a guilty pleasure I discovered one day in Mons at the urging of my friends Bruce and Martha.

To break free of the ketchup paradigm took a single frites in a spicy mayo dip. While I still prefer salt and malt vinegar, the Belgian method, and Belgian chocolate, is one of the fews excuses Belgium can give for its existence.

Meets the good enough standard.

DR

[TX50]

...the Belgian method, and Belgian chocolate, is one of the fews excuses Belgium can give for its existence.


Yeah, right, and the rest...like over 500 varieties of beer (including
the biggest brewery on Earth), numerous great Flemish and Belgian
artists (oil painting was invented in Flanders), several Belgian
nobel prize winners, and FN Herstal design and produce some of the
best infantry weapons in the world. Belgium doesn't need an "excuse
for its existence".

[Darth Rotor]

Yeah, right, and the rest...like over 500 varieties of beer (including the biggest brewery on Earth),
Meh. I'll take German or Brit, thanks.
numerous great Flemish
Which gets to the core of the issue, and the Dutch being for real, the Belgians not, thanks for playing, and the Flemish having been bundled.
and Belgian artists (oil painting was invented in Flanders),
Artsy fartsy bruhaha.
several Belgian nobel prize winners,
:rolleyes:
and FN Herstal design and produce some of the best infantry weapons in the world.
OK, fine: FN, frites, chocolate. The hat trick.
Belgium doesn't need an "excuse
for its existence".
It exists as it is solely at the sufferance of The Powers of Europe, as it has since its organization as "Belgium." The lines on the map make no sense.

DR

[Autolite]

I was offended by Heinz's behavior in giving in to homophobic pressure after having attempted to profit from a gay-friendly ad.

I am not certain that I am right but I am assuming that Heinz gave in because they thought that the negative attention that the ad might draw would hurt sales. I am no business expert, but even the fear of damaged sales would justify Heinz pulling the ad would it not? They are (I assume) a publicly owned corporation and the bottom line is the potential loss of money. If Heinz was a privately owned company then perhaps they could afford to run the ad on principles...

[ponderingturtle]

This is ONLY about selling mayonnaise. The number of people who go as far as making a complaint are a proportional representation of the number of people who don't like the ad. Not 'aren't persuaded by it', but 'don't like it'. That means a negative experience with the brand and the product. That's not in the interests of selling mayonnaise.

The fault is with Heinz for not testing the ad more thoroughly before going live. Or they did test it, encountered some controversy, and decided those headlines are worth more than running a fairly weak ad. Who knows?

But if the public don't want gay mayo, the public speaks. They did. End of.

Is having an add that people will remember but might upset some people really worse than a unremarkable add?

I don't think it would bother people too much as it seems unlikely that too many people would miss the joke.

[SezMe]

Yes, it is. A normal person would use mustard.
I use both. Does that make me bi? :)

ETA: Or trans-gender?

[Complexity]

I am not certain that I am right but I am assuming that Heinz gave in because they thought that the negative attention that the ad might draw would hurt sales. I am no business expert, but even the fear of damaged sales would justify Heinz pulling the ad would it not? They are (I assume) a publicly owned corporation and the bottom line is the potential loss of money. If Heinz was a privately owned company then perhaps they could afford to run the ad on principles...


They aren't stupid - this outcome was quite predictable.

They chose to take this path knowing what could and probably would happen. I'll hold their feet to the fire.

Bad, cynical company. Hope they fail.

[Moochie]

Mayonnaise has come a long way, baby.


M.

[marksman]

Actually, I thought the following section of the linked article was the funniest bit:

Complaints have centred on the fact that one man kissing another could be construed as homosexuality, and oblige parents to explain to children what that is. Never mind that mayonnaise can't be advertised between kids' programmes because the fat and salt content is too high.

[Darat]

I wonder if this had something to do with a difference of opinion between the USA parent company and the UK company?

[CFLarsen]

I use both. Does that make me bi? :)

ETA: Or trans-gender?

No, just someone who has no taste. ;)

[TragicMonkey]

Actually, what compliments ham quite well is if you mix mustard and mayonnaise together. It makes a kind of sweet mustard. In moderation, it's pretty good. My family uses that with ham and little potato bread rolls to make an easy snack for parties and things.

[marksman]

Oh, ugh. No wonder British cuisine has the reputation it does. They can't even handle Heinz Mayonnaise!

[tkingdoll]

Well, the new mayo flavours were doing well in the supermarket tonight. I bought the garlic one, for an experiment.

[mrbaracuda]

garlic

Delicious! Good choice, good sir. :drool:

[SezMe]

*snicker* He said "sir". Wonder what Teek will do with that.

[mrbaracuda]

Yea, after checking that "dinner blog" I got to say she cooks like a woman. :forks::zzw:

:scarper::D

[Piggy]

You said above "What's wrong with having a, I dare say natural, aversion to homosexuals "in action"?". Nothing, really, even though it's stupid. Nevertheless, there manifestly is something wrong in seeking to compel others to change their behaviour for the benefit of your hateful constituency, and in supporting the opinions (and not just the right to express the opinions) of those who do.

In the interest of full disclosure, I also am repulsed by gay sex, in much the same way I'm repulsed by the practice of eating grubs, or religious self-flagellation, or certain heterosexual sex acts for that matter.

But I understand that these are cultural and personal differences.

I stop short of making judgments about other people based on my personal preferences and what turns me off.

I don't want to watch film of people eating grubs. But if PBS shows a documentary featuring such footage, I'm not going to call them up and harass them or demand that it be taken off the air.

I'm not going to make up some nonsense about them "inflicting" that footage on everybody.

I find commercials for children's cereals highly offensive. It really makes my blood boil that these companies are marketing fiber-free sugar pellets to impressionable minors.

But I accept my place in the world, you know.

[plumjam]

If there's anything in this World that's gonna reduce my desire to go out and buy a pot of mayonnaise it's the sight of two big hairy-arsed blokes kissing each other on the lips in a kitchen.
If that qualifies as "homophobia", guilty as charged, m'lud.

[tkingdoll]

So, the mayo was horrible. Really powedery texture and very artificial garlic taste. Pretty much garlic powder mixed with cheap mayo. Crapola.

However, the Guardian reader comments on this issue has the funniest argument ever. I call Godwins!

I'm disgusted by the cowardly behaviour of Heinz in pulling the ad. Didn't Heinz manufacture mayo for the armies of the 3rd Reich? I think I remember reading that somewhere, & the name would support it, so its not like they don't have previous.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/organgrinder/2008/06/was_heinz_male_kiss_ad_really.html

[Piggy]

However, the Guardian reader comments on this issue has the funniest argument ever. I call Godwins!

Ah, the Guardian. God love it!

[leonAzul]

3 words: Get over it.


My sediments exactly.

[plumjam]

My sediments exactly.

Shouldn't that be 'condiments'?

[Magenta]

Well apparently Brits are more offended by perceived animal cruelty than a kiss between two blokes. The complaints about the mayo advert pale into comparison with an ad for a car:

The Advertising Standards Authority said yesterday that it had received 202 objections from viewers, a high number in such a short time but that total is only a quarter of the complaints that came in for a Volkswagen Polo advertisement that drew accusations of cruelty after it featured a shivering dog outside a car.


I wonder if the withdrawal might not do Heinz more harm than continuing with the ad campaign. From the same article in the Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/kiss-goodbye-to-your-sales-stonewall-tells-homophobic-heinz-after-advert-is-pulled-853510.html):

Last night Ben Summerskill, the chief executive of the gay rights group Stonewall, urged its supporters to stop buying Heinz products. "We're shocked that an innocuous ad should have been withdrawn in this way.

"Our phones have not stopped ringing with supporters who are deeply upset. I think people are a surprised they have responded so swiftly to what appears, on the face of it, to be organised complaints, a campaign by people who are determined to be outraged whenever there is any reference to homosexuality, however light hearted," he added, pointing out that a recent billboard campaign by Stonewall featuring the words "Some people are gay. Get over it!" had attracted approximately 100 objections in three days in what they believed was another targeted attack. The Heinz advertisement was actually banned from being aired in or around children's programming, because it fell foul of Ofcom's TV ad restrictions relating to products that are high in fat, salt and sugar.

"The biggest irony of all is, by responding to claims it damages children, Heinz has drawn attention that it is actually not allowed to be shown around children's programmes because it is so unhealthy," added Mr Summerskill.

[Texas]

I will assume that your query was serious.

New Yorkers are stereotyped as gruff, rude and aggressive. The "mum" character was a guy portraying a New Yorker who runs a deli. The joke is a big, rough and tough guy asking for a kiss. Trust me, it's funny...
Most large companies use regional commercials now so I would be surprised if the commercial was even seen in the Bible Belt and if that is true then maybe many New Yorkers missed the joke as well.

[Texas]

Did I read the link correctly. Was this actually a commercial aired only in the UK?

[Magenta]

Did I read the link correctly. Was this actually a commercial aired only in the UK?

That's correct.

[SezMe]

Shouldn't that be 'condiments'?
I thought he meant "compliments". :)

[TragicMonkey]

I'm surprised the British even have mayonnaise. I'd have expected them to have something like it, but called something crazy like "fatty sauce" or "scrimpy" or "spot-o-the-bubble" or "teatime gravy". Apparently they have some horror known as "salad cream", which two words clearly do not go together. I've been told it's Miracle Whip with a cup of sugar added. Honestly, when I read about Brit cuisine I understand exactly why they went out and made themselves an empire--anything to get better food, including conquering India. Is it any accident they eat so much curry?

[mrbaracuda]

Reeevisiiit!

So, is it back, what happened? What have you done in the fight for the ad to be shown again during the last week, volatile?

[Soapy Sam]

Yup, we put it on our sandwiches. Scandalous, huh?

You're sick.

If GOD had wanted people like you to put mayonnaise on sandwiches, he wouldn't have given us butter.

You're on a slippery slope to HELL!:jaw-dropp

[Soapy Sam]

I'm surprised the British even have mayonnaise. I'd have expected them to have something like it, but called something crazy like "fatty sauce" or "scrimpy" or "spot-o-the-bubble" or "teatime gravy". Apparently they have some horror known as "salad cream", which two words clearly do not go together. I've been told it's Miracle Whip with a cup of sugar added. Honestly, when I read about Brit cuisine I understand exactly why they went out and made themselves an empire--anything to get better food, including conquering India. Is it any accident they eat so much curry?

Racist scum!

We taught the Indians everything they know about cooking.

Hell, they didn't even realise you were supposed to have sultanas in a Peshwari Nan before Clive conquered 'em. You think Indians discovered that late night chicken vindaloo is the perfect complement to nine pints of Watney's Red Barrel?

Pah. What do you know about Indians, except to get the wagons in a circle and wait till they run out of arrows.

[Aitch]

Anyway, having missed the ad, I shall be sticking to Waitrose own-brand lemon-mayonnaise. Makes for a lovely chicken sandwich.