In protest of this offensive Super Bowl ad, I sent the following letter to various Pepsi representatives at email addresses I could locate. Before I share addresses where you can direct your own protest notes, I want to insure they are correct. If anyone can help locate appropriate addresses where such messages could be targeted, it would be appreciated.
I watched with much disappointment your Super Bowl ad “Love Huts” that depicted a woman attempting to control her male partner with repeated instances of supposedly humorous physical violence.
I cannot fathom a scenario where this ad would have been deemed acceptable if the genders had been reversed, and for good reason. For that same reason, neither should this ad have been broadcast.
Intimate partner physical abuse is regarded as a significant public health concern when its victims are women. Too often in mass media entertainment, when its victims are portrayed as men, it is a punch line. Your ad plays into long debunked myths that domestic violence is only a problem when its victims are women. While women are injured more frequently than men in domestic violence situations, a significant body of credible scholarship shows that women and men inflict comparable levels of domestic violence. Unlike women, men are stigmatized to not report their victimization because complaining about it isn’t considered “manly.” When men do seek help, they are often discriminated against by domestic violence service providers and law enforcement systems.
Ads such as this do a tremendous disservice to the countless men suffering in silent shame from the effects of domestic violence. Such ads also unwittingly endorse a toxic climate of partner abuse because they tell children that it is OK when mommy and daddy use violence to control one another.
Respectfully,
Pierce Harlan
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
34 comments:
Great letter, Mr. Harlan.
SafeAuto had an even worse ad, featuring a young man being repeatedly kicked in the crotch, and then in the rear. The company is featuring the ad now on its web site and Facebook page. I posted a protest comment on the SafeAuto Facebook page, and I reported it as abuse.
http://www.safeauto.com/
http://www.facebook.com/SafeAutoInsuranceCompany
To protest to the CEO of Safe Auto Insurance about its ad featuring unprovoked violence against a young man, call 614-231-0200, and chose menu option 5 for the company directory. Speak the CEO’s name, "Ari Deshe," and you will be transferred to his assistant, to whom you can state your objection.
Is violence against men a good and acceptable way to sell a product? Would the company feature the same violence against a woman?
Nicolas, that one is much, much worse than the ball shot ad posted before this one. Totally gratuitous testicled violence. But note it didn't involve domestic violence as this ad does, and dv is a sacred cow for feminists.
Thanks for the protest info Nicolas. I think this deserves a separate post tomorrow.
RESPONSE FROM PEPSI:
Dear Pierce,
Thank you for contacting us at PepsiCo to share your sincere thoughts. Your email to Dave DeCecco [david.dececco@pepsi.com] was forwarded to me for immediate response.
The commercial you cited was one of the winning consumer submissions in our web-based Crash the Super Bowl promotion. We apologize if you were upset or offended by this consumer submission, and we will share your feedback with our marketing teams so they can be aware of your concerns.
Thanks again for taking the time to write.
Max Jabbonsky
Consumer Relations Representative
012611311A
By the way, there were others who protested this commercial: yep, some sites thought this ad was unfair to -- BLACK WOMEN. http://www.whataboutourdaughters.com/waod/2011/2/6/defamed-during-the-superbowl-check-out-pepsis-anti-black-wom.html
And
http://ruthlessblogs.com/2011/02/06/should-sisters-be-concerned-about-the-super-bowl-pepsi-max-commercial-with-the-angry-black-woman/
So, let me get this straight: there are protests on behalf of the people who resemble the alleged perpetrator but not the VICTIM?
Finally, we're not the only blog to notice the dv aspect of this ad. See here: http://www.adglitz.com/2011/02/05/pepsi-max-super-bowl-2011-adscommercials-check-out-the-final-five-videos/
Archivist haven't you been paying attention? Once again: No matter who does what to whom- THE WOMAN IS THE VICTIM.
Yeah, yeah -- I forgot Trend.
Not a problem, sometimes we men slip up and revert to logic and reason...
Archivist Pepsi's response to you is nothing more a boiler plate acknowledgement. Sounds like a letter of rejection. You're not fooled into believing they take you seriously, are you?
"You're not fooled into believing they take you seriously, are you?"
Are you kidding? I am more than full well aware of when someone has taken me seriously. The only thing about that response that made me happy was that it proved they got my note. Finding current email addresses for these companies is sometimes very difficult. I had one come back on me.
No, the goal is to to do a Spearhead and Reddit MensRights push. A few hundred emails will get their attention. Won't change their mind, but it'll get their attention.
Pierce,
Since Max is the one that responded, any chance of posting his email address for us?
Thanks.
Steve, it's a no-reply email address -- that's why I didn't post it. Go into the email account and see if I'm missing something since you are more knowledgeable about this stuff than I am.
Honestly, I get where you are coming from Pierce, but I think you have to pick your battles a bit more.
Yes, we know the double standards when it comes to the entertainment industry, but it's not what this site is about.
"zarko said...
Honestly, I get where you are coming from Pierce, but I think you have to pick your battles a bit more.
Yes, we know the double standards when it comes to the entertainment industry, but it's not what this site is about."
Are you fucking kidding me?
If this site isn't about something like this what IS it about?
It's FAAAAAR overdue to start calling this companies on this crap.
"It was an award winning ad, so it's OK" is the message I got. Loud and clear.
It's all part of the culture, Zarko, that enables FRAs.
"Would the company feature the same violence against a woman?"
Apparently they WOULD.
Maybe you didn't notice, but as a blond white woman, "I" noticed a blond white woman getting hit in the head and knocked to the ground with a can of Pepsi.
Anon at 6:16: the unwritten rule seems to be that women are allowed to hurt other women. The point here is that a man is never allowed to hurt a female partner; a woman IS allowed to harm a male partner.
Archivist,
I am glad to see that black women are offended by the ad. Just as a man might be offended by being portrayed as an abuser. The ad is insulting to both men and women. Those women who aim to be something better than the bitches that modern society allows and encourages them to be are useful allies.
Are you fucking kidding me?
If this site isn't about something like this what IS it about?
It's FAAAAAR overdue to start calling this companies on this crap.
"It was an award winning ad, so it's OK" is the message I got. Loud and clear
As I said, and I would appreciate not responding so violently to me...
Pierce, of course, is right. But I also don't want him to get burnt out, because this stuff is everywhere.
I mean, every movie almost has a metric crap-ton of men being killed and acting like cartoonish villains and thugs, and supposedly get their comeuppance.
CSI Miami is terrible for this stuff, every third or fourth episode has a guy randomly try to rape a woman for no apparent gain or motive or even somewhat plot-related. It's seriously just thrown in to fill 2-3 minutes of extra time.
It's just too much.
Anyway, it's just my opinion, and I have been known to be wrong so many times :).
Zarko is actually right -- we could post 100 times a day and not scratch the surface on all these issues. The reason I did the Super Bowl ads was because I figured a huge percentage of people had actually seen them. I am encouraged that so many people had the same reaction as I did.
Zarko is actually right
I am so printing that and putting it up somewhere! :D
1 in 4591 times ain't bad!
Anyway, sorry if I came across as needlessly confrontational. I do guess that the most watched program in american history (or so they say) would be very important to analyze.
Harlan: A few hundred emails will get their (Pepsi's) attention. Won't change their mind, but it'll get their attention.
Few hundred? You need a marketing course. Try a few hundred thousand.
"Few hundred? You need a marketing course. Try a few hundred thousand."
No, "Harlan" is right. A few hundred. Believe it or not. I do this stuff for a living.
Zarko: "As I said, and I would appreciate not responding so violently to me..."
Zarko - There is a tremendous difference between vehemence and violence. I don't appreciate being falsely accused of violence. I said nothing remotely intimidating or threatening - I DO adamantly support any and all efforts at speaking up against injustice.
This pepsi ad was rife with Jim Crowe stereotyping.
Male victims of DV were certainly right to be offended by it.
Black women are certainly right to be offended by it.
White women were certainly within their rights to find it offensive.
...yet it was a big favorite.
Go figure.
1:03:00 PM - please pick an alias to make it easier to identify you and also not make me call you by your post time. I don't like doing that :).
Otherwise, I will concede the fact that I shouldn't have used the word violence, but for some of us that learned english from the back of a cereal box, limited vocabulary will be a problem :).
Secondly, I cannot quite challenge the rest of your post either, as I agree. It was offensive. But my point was that it is too much, and Pierce correctly pointed out the venue is what makes it so huge.
Zarko - I like being anonymous.
My words are judged on their own merit rather than my "identity".
My false accuser claimed I was "violent and dangerous" to bolster her claim.
So yes. I took umbrage at your claim that I was "violent".
I am passionate. I am angry. I'm fucking pissed off as hell.
But I am not violent.
Never have been, never will be.
...not to mention I'm a chick.
I do not mean to identify you completely, but a moniker. Easier than using the time to refer to you.
And of course you are correct.
My moniker or identity does not matter.
Only th truth matters.
7:57: Monikers are helpful. If people know that the painting they are looking at is a Monet or a Renoir, they will give it a longer, more serious look. Just human nature.
"No, "Harlan" is right. A few hundred. Believe it or not. I do this stuff for a living."
No, Axel, you're as wrong as Harlen. A few hundred is the response you'd get for a campaign ad on a much smaller scale.
A few hundred negative responses to a Super Bowl ad is laughable, insofar as evoking Pepsi's attention.
Axel is right.
Great letter. Totally correct. If the gender were reversed, women would protest. Any minor violence against women is considered a crime.
So protesting serves to enforce equal rights.
======
Now, while I agree with you, I also harbor an almost opposite view:
I think government should not meddle in people's lifes, meddle with commercials, jokes etc.
Nor should art, commercials, most commercial behavior constantly be monitored for policital correctness, be it by government or other institutions.
My alternative remedy would be not to allow political correctness interfere. Stop heeding to feminist "sensitivities". Allow commercials demeaning to men, but also to women. Allow commercials that use women as "objects". Remember when car repair shops had Playboy pinups all over? But this hurt women's "sensitivity".
Re-institute our old freedom, then also allow commercials like this.
Don't start more and more laws, regulations, sensitivities. Get government, feminism, political correctness out of the way.
Of course, I am being unrealistic. So your action is probably the only one that can be done realistically.
Post a Comment