Anyone else think that Snickers is just trying to create controversy for free advertising?

[Hippo_Tron]

Seriously, the more news outlets that cover the "was the ad homophobic?" story, the more free advertising Snickers gets and the more candy bars they sell.

I think that the people who made that ad knew exactly what they were doing and their intent wasn't to make fun of homosexuals or to make fun of homophobic men. Their intent was to create a controversy.

[fishnfla]

1. glad to see someone else gets it nt

[Poiuyt]

2. Well, they succeeded

At least they pulled the ad from their web site and promised never to show it again.

[Hippo_Tron]

4. Yup, but I have a feeling that was all part of the plan

Show the alternate endings and then pull them once they get criticized. Before you know it, Hannity and Colmes have enough material to do a "Was the Snickers ad homophobic?" segment for a week and candy bar sales sky rocket.

[Bluebear]

3. No. They would have loved to keep running the ad.

As it stands now they pissed a whole lot of people off, they withdrew their "Vote for your favorite ad for the NASCAR" contest, and I think they will drop this ad agency to whom they gave too much creative leeway.

[Hippo_Tron]

6. See post #4

[Bluebear]

8. I don't think candy bar sales will skyrocket at all over this.

They lost customers, in fact.

[Hippo_Tron]

9. You know that for a fact?

Seems a little early to determine whether they've lost customers or not.

[Bluebear]

11. Yes, I know that for a fact.

They lost customers at DU, I make no claim how many they will lose in total. i will no longer buy their product.

[Hippo_Tron]

13. Oh I understand that, but it's very possible it was part of a greater marketing strategy

I don't doubt that they lost some customers on DU, but lets face it DU isn't the rest of the country. I think that they fully intended to pull the ad and the alternate endings at the first sign of criticism.

Now, I could understand that even if the premise of my argument is correct that it could still be homophobic. Again, I see this being the perfect segment for low life excuses for journalism shows like Bill O'Reilly and Hannity and Colmes. It's entirely possible that they plan to use the free advertising to get Faux News viewers to go buy Snickers to spite those uppity gays.

My only point is that I don't think they intended to keep running the ad and I think that the alternate endings were meant to be pulled. Creating a more homophobic ending for a NASCAR audience just makes for too good of a Faux News segment for this to be a coincidence.

[karlrschneider]

14. They damn sure lost -this- one.

And it's hard for me to imagine anybody deciding to become a new customer after seeing that
offensive, goofy commercial.

[bullimiami]

5. i thought the ad was just stupid.

not clever. not controversial.

[Mike Daniels]

21. Agreed. I just saw a stupid ad with no implied commentary whatsoever

As soon as the one guy went out of his way to start chewing on a candy bar obviously hanging out of somebody else's mouth I was thinking "WTF?".

It didn't cost Snickers any sales on my part but it's not something that impressed me especially when one considers the history of Super Bowl commericals over the last 20+ years.

[bullimiami]

22. i think that some misguided ad folk thought they were being clever.

bit its not clever, not cute, not really controversial.

just dumb.

[DainBramaged]

7. No, their ad agency was insensitive and probably homophobic to begin with

[Bluebear]

10. I can just see the brilliant ad men who came up with this.

[DainBramaged]

15. No, I think they are more like this (when they lose their jobs)

Think how much the campaign cost LOLOL. Now it's flushed. HAHA

[Neshanic]

12. These hidden agenda advertising theories are just that. Theories.

Sometimes a big stupid group of ad agency guys, kinda like McMann and Tate, but stupider, and without a witch to help then out of jams, just do ads that are bad. They just do not see it.

The fact that GLAAD was invited then uninvited to see the ad prior to air makes me think someone with a Mars gene put in a call, and said "just run the freaking ad, and forget about those uppity gays".

You really give them too much credit. They really are not that smart.

[Hippo_Tron]

18. I guess I would like to think that for $1 million for a 30 second spot...

A company as successful as Mars wouldn't hire complete morons to make their TV ads. Do you know who made the ad by any chance?

[booley]

16. Informal poll says it was just stupid

So far in my house that comerrcial has been seen by a gay man (me) a Bi man and two straight men.

All have agreed the commercial was dumb.

And a little offensive to heterosexual men.

I mean, are straight men really stupid enough to rip off thier chest hair?!

Did they do it for the publity? Possibly. Though I dont' think it was intentional, i bet the hoopla in Boston means a lot more people are going to see the Aqua Teen Hunger Force movie now.

[Bucky]

17. Doesn't track. Backing down like they did would offend anti-gay people.

and anti-gay people eat a LOT of snickers

[Hippo_Tron]

19. Depends on how the story is spun on Faux News

Do they emphasize that Snickers backed down or do they emphasize that gays people complained about it.

[DainBramaged]

20. Anti-gays eat more than Snickers! >_<