I

n today’s must-read blog post, The Jawa Report presents a compelling case that the PR firm Winner & Associates was behind this nasty hit-piece video making false claims about Sarah Palin’s supposed membership in the Alaska Independence Party:

The claims are false, and definitely were known to be false at the time the video was uploaded, Jawa says, because it was uploaded to YouTube eight days after the NY Times corrected its allegations about Palin’s membership in the AIP – and the NYT is the source quoted in the ad.  Less successful are Jawa’s efforts to tie the video directly to the Obama campaign.  Connections between the Winner family and firm and liberal democratic causes – including contributions to the Obama campaign – are there, and it’s clear the videos were uploaded on company time (as this post will be, BTW), but that’s not firm proof.

The ad could be a violation of FCC regulations on political advertising, since it neither says it is funded by a particular campaign, or is not funded by it – although there’s some wiggle room when it comes to what’s legal on the Internet.

Jawa traces Internet fingerprints that lead to a number of senior people at Winner, including Charles Winner, the founder, Ethan Winner, the firm’s internet guy who’s apparently the main culprit here, and Jared Liu-Klein, who was Winner & Co’s man on the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame account.  What we see in the Jawa evidence is an attempt at Astroturf grassroots:  The same ad was uploaded at different times by different people within the firm, it was sent to hard-left blogs like Democratic Underground and Kos (which subsequently removed it), and there were attempts to generate “‘comment chatter” on the ad.

Winner & Co. is not unlike my own firm – we both represent companies with big issues, including controversial development projects and corporate media crises.  Some of their efforts, like working to get an LNG transfer station sited off the California coast, are admirable … and I wish it were my account, not theirs. But my firm would never transmit information we know to be false.  We would never try to make a false hit piece video go viral. We believe that the channels of communication should be robust and spirited, but we take seriously our obligation to keep them clean and truthful.

If the allegations are true and Winner & Company uploaded a video they knew to be untrue and attempted to hide whoever was behind the video, the firm has violated the ethics rules of the Public Relations Society of America. Granted, this is hardly as heinous a doing as violated federal election law, but it would lead to an ethics hearing before PRSA and professional, if not public, embarrassment.

Here are the provisions Winner appears to have violated:

A member shall:

Preserve the integrity of the process of communication.

Be honest and accurate in all communications.

Act promptly to correct erroneous communications for which the practitioner is responsible.

PRSA has issued an ethics advisory for “front groups and individuals using Blogs, Viral Marketing and anonymous Internet postings,” which state:

ISSUE: Representation of front groups and individuals using Blogs, Viral Marketing, and anonymous Internet postingswith undisclosed sponsorships and/or deceptive or misleading descriptions of goals, causes, tactics, sponsors or participants. (Note: The term “Astroturfing” is often associated with unethical front group activities. Because Astroturf is a registered trademark, it is recommended that the term “Front Group” be used.)

BACKGROUND: A variety of organizations – known as “front” groups – as well as individuals have surfaced on behalf of issues and products blindly sponsored by industries and organizations. PRSA members are reminded of the PRSA Code provision, “Disclosure of Information,” that is based on the premise that open communication is essential for informed decision-making in a democratic society. The provision states that a member shall:

* Be honest and accurate in all communication.
* Act promptly to correct erroneous communication for which the member is responsible.
* Investigate the truthfulness and accuracy of information released on behalf of those represented.
* Reveal the sponsors for causes and interests represented.
* Disclose financial interest such as stock ownership of the client organization, past client work or affiliation
* Avoid deceptive practices.
* Disclose or help expose deceptive practices where possible

RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE PRSA CODE: At least three Code provisions and three professional values relate to this issue. They are:

CODE PROVISIONS
Free Flow of Information. Protecting and advancing the free flow of accurate and truthful information is essential to serving the public interest and contributing to informed decision making in a democratic society.

Conflicts of Interest. Avoiding real, potential or perceived conflicts of interest builds the trust of clients, employers and the publics.

Enhancing the Profession. Public relations professionals work constantly to strengthen the public’s trust in the profession.

PROFESSIONAL VALUES

* Honesty. We adhere to the highest standards of accuracy and truth in advancing the interests of those we represent and in communicating with the public.
* Fairness. We deal fairly with clients, employers, competitors, peers, vendors, the media and the general public.
* Advocacy. We serve the public interest by acting as responsible advocates for those we represent. We provide a voice in the marketplace of ideas, facts and viewpoints to aid informed public debate. …

RECOMMENDED PRACTICE: PRSA members should recognize that assisting front groups and individuals that represent undisclosed sponsorships and/or deceptive or misleading descriptions of goals, causes, tactics, sponsors or participants constitutes improper conduct under the PRSA Member Code of Ethics and should be avoided.

Given that Winner & Associates has clearly violated the Code of Ethics, I would bring them up to the Ethics Committee for a hearing, except for one thing: They are not members of PRSA and therefore are outside its reach. Winners’ parent company, Publicis, has many members of PRSA, including Louis Capozzi, chairman and chief executive officer of its PR and marketing communications group. Capozzi, like me, is an APR (PR’s professional accreditation), so he knows the Code of Ethics well. I’ll send him a note – he’s opted out his email address from the PRSA directory – and will share any response I receive with you.

7 Comments »

Sunday Scan will follow later. This item started as the lead-off Sunday Scan feature, but it’s growing into a full-blown post in its own right – Laer

T

he mainstream media have had days to truth-check the new Obama campaign ad that criticizes McCain for being out of touch because he doesn’t email. The truth, known to most anyone who’s following the election using sources outside the MSM, is that he can’t use the keyboard because of his war injuries, but is very techno-savvy and spends time with his wife every night answering emails – with her typing.

For those of you still in the dark, here, courtesy of NRO, is a Forbes story that spells it out. How hard would it be for a journalist to find the Forbes story, which has been around since May 2000?

In certain ways, McCain was a natural Web candidate. Chairman of the Senate Telecommunications Subcommittee and regarded as the U.S. Senate’s savviest technologist, McCain is an inveterate devotee of email. His nightly ritual is to read his email together with his wife, Cindy. The injuries he incurred as a Vietnam POW make it painful for McCain to type. Instead, he dictates responses that his wife types on a laptop. “She’s a whiz on the keyboard, and I’m so laborious,” McCain admits.

In the examples below, items found through Google have links, but items found through Nexis don’t because Nexis doesn’t provide links. If you want to read those stories, my tech-savvy readers, you can go to the newspaper and find it.

I’m focusing just on publications from today, since those reporting these stories had days to truth-check the ad and either they did, and decided to ignore it, or they are so bought in to the Obama mystique that they don’t think they have to fact-check the candidate of change.

The Associated Press apparently got the full story, but chose to recast it so it disparages McCain:

The newest Obama TV ad gets personal and makes a none-too-subtle dig at McCain’s age. It shows McCain at a hearing in the early 1980s, wearing giant glasses and an out-of-style suit. Other images include a disco ball, clunky phone, outdated computer and Rubik’s Cube. “Things have changed in the last 26 years,” the announcer says, “but McCain hasn’t.” … “He admits he still doesn’t know how to use a computer, can’t send an e-mail, still doesn’t understand the economy, and favors $200 billion in new tax cuts for corporations, but almost nothing for the middle class,” the commercial says. McCain has said he relies on his wife and staff to work the computer for him and that he doesn’t use e-mail. Emphasis added.

The Milwaukee Sentinel described McCain and Obama ads as if they were equally truthful:

The two nominees have gone after each other on these personal dimensions. McCain has painted Obama as a celebrity, elitist and lightweight. In a new advertising offensive launched Friday, Obama skewered McCain for being so “out of touch” he “still doesn’t know how to use a computer” and “still doesn’t understand the economy.”

The Philadelphia Enquirer described the Obama ad in loving detail and admits it’s done in a mocking tone – but fails to

From Obama came an ad that belittled McCain as hopelessly “out of touch” with modern technology and the angst of the beleaguered middle class. It included images of such objects as a 1980s-era disco ball and a bulky, early-vintage cellular telephone – and noted that the Republican nominee did not know how to use a computer. The mocking nature of the ad was part of the Obama campaign’s multifaceted attempt to reset its message.

The LA Times never covered the ad in the main newspaper, but did cover it in its excellent political blog, Top of the Ticket. It’s original story was a straight report on the ad, but it was later appended with a correction. This raises the question: When it became apparent that Obama had plaid such dirty politics, didn’t the story deserve being bumped to the main edition. Apparently not in the minds of the LA Times.

The Washington Post also reported the story straight, not bothering to mention the controversy swirling around the ad.

Saving the most egregious for last, the NY Times actually ran a complete analysis on the ad as part of its ongoing The Ad Campaign feature. Here’s the analysis conducted by the cream ‘o the journalistic crop:

ACCURACY Mr. McCain has told reporters that he does not regularly use a computer and was trying to learn how to send e-mail messages.

The reporter, Jeff Zeleny, apparently did some research, finding but not attributing the quote above. Did he find other sources that would have allowed him to slam this ad for being highly inaccurate? We can’t say for sure, but it seems it would be quite hard to avoid the information that’s out there on McCain’s war injury.

The best report on the story comes from the Boston Globe, of all places:

WASHINGTON – Democrat Barack Obama’s campaign came under fire from
conservative bloggers yesterday for a new political ad criticizing his
72-year-old opponent, John McCain, for not using computers.

The National Revew Online and other Republican-leaning websites said
the charge was unfair, citing several articles, including stories
several years ago in the Boston Globe and Slate.com, that indicated injuries McCain sustained when he was a prisoner of war in Vietnam prevent him from using a keyboard.

McCain
suffered broken bones that still prevent him from fully lifting his
arms and has lost mobility as a result of fractured fingers.

Calls to the Obama campaign weren’t returned yesterday.

Why weren’t they returned? Here I thought Obama was a new politician who didn’t play by the old rules – you know, like airing ugly hit ads, then keeping their mouths shut about it.

2 Comments »

P

roposition 8 on the California ballot in November seeks to protect the voice of 61 percent of the California people who voted in 2000 for Proposition 22, saying that marriage would remain the realm solely of a man and a woman and that all the possible gay, lesbian, transexual and God knows what else variations would not be deemed “marriages” by the state.

The pro-gay marriage groups know that if Prop 8 passes, gay marriage in California isn’t just ‘mostly dead,’ it’s dead dead, and they are fighting a much smarter fight this time. Let California Ring, a “no on 8″ committee, started the campaign with this ad:

It’s a brilliant piece of work because it avoids all the problems the gays had last time around by not showing a single gay person.  Rather, it calls on straights to empathize with the heartbreak and frustration gay couples feel being denied marriage. There are some legal issues with the ad because it doesn’t identify itself as a political ad, but they’re a subtext to the theme.

A very high bar has been set for pro-8 groups by the wedding ad. They will have to explain just as compellingly why the nice gay couple shouldn’t be allowed to walk down the aisle, and hate and fear won’t work well as motivators, given the compassionate themes laid down by Let California Ring. Here’s how Protect Marriage – Yes On 8 tries to get people to vote for the proposition:

The Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage did not just overturn the will of California voters; it also redefined marriage for the rest of society, without ever asking the people themselves to accept this decision. This decision has far-reaching consequences. For example, because public schools are already required to teach the role of marriage in society as part of the curriculum, schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergarteners. By saying that a marriage is between “any two persons” rather than between a man and a woman, the Court decision has opened the door to any kind of “marriage.” This undermines the value of marriage altogether at a time when we should be restoring marriage, not undermining it.

My voting-age daughters, who are conservative on most issues, have trouble seeing what’s wrong with undermining marriage because their social influences have included much of the “post gay being controversial” worldview that permeates popular culture. The only argument that gains any traction with them is the historical one: No societies ever have done this, so we need to ask why, we need to consider it very carefully. But I wouldn’t be surprised if they both vote no.

It’s going to be particularly difficult for the Yes on 8 set now that No on 8 has this:

The American Civil Liberties Union reported donating $1.2 million to defeat Proposition 8, the ban on gay marriage, on the November ballot.

The $1.2 million donation is the single largest check written to the campaign, though Equality California, a gay-rights group, and the Human Rights Campaign, a similar group, have bundled more total donations. (SacBee)

I can’t tell by the way it’s written whether both Equality California and the Human Rights Campaign have bundled more than $1.2 million, or more than $2.4 million combined, or whether together they’ve bundled more than $1.2 million. Either way, No on 8 has quite a war chest, especially when you consider that the funding for Let California Ring is separate.

On the other side, Yes on 8 is being waged primarily by a religious coalition of Mormons, Catholics and Evangelicals who are working to get Hindus, Jews, Muslims and others on board. They plan later this month to hand out over one million “Yes on 8″ yard signs as their major campaign push. They have a lot of heart:

“This is a rising up over a 5,000-year-old institution that is being hammered right now,” said Jim Garlow, pastor of Skyline Church, an evangelical congregation in La Mesa. Garlow said that, while he supported Proposition 22, he was not nearly as involved as this time around, when he has helped organize 3,400-person conference calls across denominations to coordinate campaign support for the proposed constitutional amendment.

“What binds us together is one common obsession: . . . marriage,” Garlow said.

He added that many people of faith, regardless of their religion, believe that “if Proposition 8 fails, there is an inevitable loss of religious freedom.” (LA Times)

But faith and yardsigns aren’t much more than a few fish and loaves in a basket, when compared to the multitudes of dollars and years of chipping away at the issue that are on the other side.

Hmmm.  Well, that approach has worked before …

10 Comments »

P

ETA may think ethically about animals, but it has some serious ethical issues dealing with people. The organization’s chosen communications vehicle – outrage and outrageousness – is good at getting attention, but is it effective to their larger mission of saving animals?

Previously, PETA has offended most of the world by comparing the butchering of animals to the holocaust. in effect comparing Jews to pigs. Now they’re exploiting a much smaller issue, but one that also raises big issues.

PETA’s latest ad focuses on an act of cannibalism that occurred on a bus that was crossing the empty plains of Manitoba on July 31. If you haven’t read details of the incident, you might want to think twice before reading the quote below; it is unbelievably disgusting:

[Prosecutor Joyce Dalmyn] said Mr Li had severed the victim’s head with a large knife and then carried it up and down the bus, brandishing it to passengers and taunting police.

He was also observed “cutting body parts from the victim and eating those body parts”, she said. A plastic bag later found in his pocket by police contained his victim’s ear, nose and part of his mouth.

This is a story that should upset all decent humanity, but we should be particularly concerned about the poor victim, his family and the people who were on the bus and have to deal with the memories and burned in images.

PETA has no compassion, as usual, for human suffering. Always opting for the extreme, they are now running this ad:

The concluding paragraphs, if you’re having trouble reading them, take the analogy further, saying the same thing happens to many “sensitive” victims who “value their lives.” It says if the ad offends, think of slaughtered animals and consider becoming a vegetarian.

As well you should. There are lots of good reasons for being a vegetarian, just as there are lots of good reasons for being an omnivore. But there’s no good reason for exploiting tragedy.

Worse, the ad reeks of PETA’s contention that animals and humans are spiritual equivalents. They feel and fear, for sure, at some level, but they do not have the capacity to “value their lives.” Valuing is much too complex and subtle a process for a chicken or cow; it was a gift bestowed on us by God so that we could live at a higher level, and to higher standards, than mere animals.

The truth of PETA is seen in how they treat people. They offend them and hurt them and seem not to value them much at all (witness their outrage when Palestinians killed a donkey in a terrorist attack – they had never taken an anti-terror position when mere people were killed). They, it appears, are not much better than animals at all, which may be why they see equivalency where we don’t. But they shouldn’t expect we higher beings to blithely follow them down to their level.

Back to my original question: Do these sorts of communications work? Yes, to an extent. They have succeeded in finding for PETA everyone who feels the way they do, giving a bunch of otherwise powerless fringe activists some social, but not political, clout.

But because PETA’s approach is so offensive to so many, the group’s communications strategy holds it back from ever becoming a broader social movement, which translates as more people not becoming vegetarians and more animals being slaughtered as a result. But PETA is having too much fun being outrageous and offensive to worry that their strategy isn’t working and poor, pitiful, all-knowing, all-feeing animals are suffering as a result.

Hat-tip: Jim

No Comments yet »

O

ur government continues to fritter away money on anti-smoking ads directed at children. I’m fine with fewer kids smoking, but it’s peer pressure that makes the difference, not advertising. Here’s a bit of just one of many studies in that regard:

Goldman and Glantz use data on total cigarette consumption per capita to assess the cost-effectiveness of the advertising campaigns in each state. Children consume only 2% to 3% of all cigarettes sold. The authors thus appear to be evaluating Massachusetts’ “more youth-oriented approach” solely by examining adult cigarette use. From 1993 to 1996, cigarette smoking among Massachusetts students in grades 7 through 12 remained unchanged3 but increased in California4 and the rest of the United States. (emphasis added; source)

Billions of dollars were spent during that period to discourage kids from smoking (and from doing drugs). The result? The media made a lot of money off of ad sales, the tax payers got their pockets lightened … and the kids just kept on smoking (and doing drugs).

So yesterday the guy in the photo, our cigar-smoking governor, was on hand to announce yet another advertising campaign directed at kids.

This one is more of a forced exaction than an ad campaign: Major movie producers have agreed to run anti-smoking ads on DVDs of youth-oriented movies (G, PG, PG-13) movies in which characters smoke. Arnie thinks it’s great:

“The anti-smoking crusade is taking now another giant step forward. As a matter of fact, by agreeing to include our anti-smoking ads in the opening minutes of the DVDs, especially those that contain tobacco use, the studios will help us reach tens of millions more viewers.”

Yeah, they’ll reach ‘em, but what good will that do? In fact, some messages – particularly ones that encourage parents to talk to their children about smoking – backfire and actually encourage kids to smoke.

That’s Arnie’s method, by the way. “I let them know, ‘Don’t ever try and start smoking,’” he said at yesterday’s event. But at least he’s got a great excuse for his smoking – He blames the Dems:

“I, of course, have a wonderful excuse because I can blame my father-in-law (Sargent Shriver) for getting me to start to smoke cigars. Because I never smoked until 1977, until he offered it to me in Hyannis Port. Since then, I’ve been smoking one cigar a day.”

The first one was free, it seems.

No Comments yet »

This is about as fine an ad as you’re likely to see any time soon.

hat-tip: Hillbilly White Trash

No Comments yet »

Absolut has posted on its Web site a response — not an apology — regarding its reconquesta ad from Paula Ericsson, VP, corp. communications:

The In An Absolut World advertising campaign invites consumers to visualize a world that appeals to them — one they feel may be more idealized or one that may be a bit “fantastic.” As such, the campaign will elicit varying opinions and points of view. We have a variety of executions running in countries worldwide, and each is germane to that country and that population.

Note the phrase “We have a variety of executions running….” What’s said and what’s missing tells us that Absolut and its agencies created this ad, that it was not solicited through some sort of contest. It therefore is the product of the company and must reflect their point of view at some level.

This particular ad, which ran in Mexico, was based upon historical perspectives and was created with a Mexican sensibility.

Again, “was created,” not “”was submitted.”

In no way was this meant to offend or disparage, nor does it advocate an altering of borders, nor does it lend support to any anti-American sentiment, nor does it reflect immigration issues.

Honey, saying it isn’t so doesn’t make it not so. Messages need to ring true or they clang like a gong. The ad does offend and disparage (more on that later), it obviously advocates a change in the borders because it shows a reconoquista border as an “absolute,” which is inherently anti-American. And the fact that reconquista and the radical anti-immigration law movements are one and the same makes it impossible to run the ad without reflecting immigration issues.

The statement should have said, “We regret that to many, this ad offended, and was disparaging towards America …” and so on through the entire list.

Instead, it hearkens to a time which the population of Mexico may feel was more ideal.

Hmm. Isn’t that statement itself offensive and disparaging? Doesn’t it seem to advocate an altering of borders (on behalf of the entire population of Mexico, not a part of it, which probably offends a fair amount of Mexicans)? Don’t you feel it lends support to an anti-American sentiment, and reflects immigration issues? I thought so. Me too.

As a global company, we recognize that people in different parts of the world may lend different perspectives or interpret our ads in a different way than was intended in that market. Obviously, this ad was run in Mexico, and not the US — that ad might have been very different.

In a global world, companies should realize that what they do in one market will be seen in other markets, and implying that it’s OK with them if an American Absolut ad is flagrantly anti-Mexican — when we know they would never run such an ad — just insults our intelligence.

And that’s not what you want to do with your messaging. Ericsson should have apologized, but the world “apologize” or “sorry” does not appear anywhere in the statement. It is, in short, one of the worst responses to a crisis communications challenge I have ever seen. And the comments it generated on the Absolut site show many agree with me:

Ex-Absolut Drinker, who apparently is in the entertainment biz, said:

I guess you could say your Absolutly f***ed. I will be sure and have a rider with the shows I book that no Absolut will be served during any of my artists shows.

Old-Fashioned American Patriot, who owns some bars, commented:

This will not be sold in my bars, and I will petition the bar-owners in my area to likewise boycott.

If only we had the ability to prevent the import of the product, it’d wind up in the harbors much like a certain tea did a couple-hundred years back…

And Perry the Cynic wrote:

You have every right to advertise anywhere in any way you like. I have every right to adjust my purchasing habits accordingly. I intend to never buy your brand again, OR that of your parent company (Pernod Ricard), and I will endeavor to educate my friends and acquaintances about your appalling attitude towards out country, and particular towards the great state of California.

That’s just part of page 1. There are 49 pages of comments already posted.

You can join the fun via the first link above (you have to type in an age over 21 to enter), or you can email Paula direct at paula.eriksson@absolut.se.

And if you must drink vodka, stay away from Absolut, of course, and Stoli, too, since it is also a Pernod Ricard brand.

No Comments yet »

I gave up drinking about 8 years ago, so boycotting Absolut won’t be too hard for me. How about you? Bad as this ad is, it’s not quite worth putting my liver at risk again just to protest the brand’s reconquista ad campaign for Hispanics.

Were the reconquest of North America by Mexicans — who for the most part are just another bunch of continent-grabbers — successful, I don’t think the economy would sustain a whole lot of Absolut drinkers. Cheap mescal would be more the ticket.

Shoot, why not just paint the whole continent red and go after the Native American drunks?

If seeing the ad sends you into a drunken rage, email your protest to at Absolut’s PR guy at jeffrey.moran@absolut.com.

hat-tip Jim and Michelle Malkin

No Comments yet »

Carl’s Jr. and Hardees are apparently the butt of too much criticism over their “Flat Buns” commercial, which I recently covered as yet another sign of our crumbling civilization, and have promised to modify it.

Are they editing it to remove the blatant sexuality, which Laura Ingraham refers to as the “pornification” of America? Not exactly.

Apparently, Carl’s is more concerned about offending teachers than it is about offending the moral sensibilities of folks like us who are trying to raise good kids and live decent lives. From the OC Register’s Fast Food Maven blog:

After angering educators with a sexy teacher ad, Carl’s Jr. reps said they will expel the female character from the “flat buns” commercial.

“Many people are not taking the ad as it was intended to be taken,” CKE Restaurants stated today. “We will be re-editing it (the commercial) to remove the female teacher character and focus exclusively on the rappers. We believe these changes will eliminate the primary source of concern and we anticipate that the revised ad will begin airing by the weekend.”

I can understand teachers not wanting to have the classroom sexualized, and Carl’s leggy young blond certainly accomplishes that. It’s a serious issue, as one teacher made clear in a comment on my previous post:

The ad is offensive and degrading.
I was once practically raped in the classroom.
Teaching is a difficult enough job without having to turn women teachers into sex objects to sell a hamburger.

Agreed. But even with the teacher-protecting edit, the lyrics remain, and Carl’s continues to sexualize America. Here they are in case you think I’ve overstated my case:

Well, I like ‘em really hot
I like ‘em really flat
I like ‘em lookin’ like a pancake stack.
What about hiney? Got no hiney?
I call you Your Hineness.
In anatomy class
You got butt minus.
Flatness makes a better rear
Stand sideways, girl, you disappear.
Flat buns.
I like flat buns.
I like the flat ones.

For those of you who must have one last glance at the teacher (professionally, I’m sure, only to evaluate whether she truly does over-sexualize the classroom), click here.

No Comments yet »

You’d think a classic bit of Americana like the patty melt would be beyond the touch of the civilization-slimers who bring everything down to the scuzzy mindset of an 18-year-old male in order to sell more product and make more money.

I can understand dropping “my first lay” to that level, but the patty melt? What next? Apple pie? Oh, they already did that.

The patty melt’s fall into society’s sewer is brought to us by none other than fast food chain Carl’s Jr. (Hardee’s in the Eastern U.S.), who not that long ago gave us a minimally dressed Paris Hilton flaunting about in a largely successful effort to get young men to think of Carl’s hamburgers when they think of sex … a pretty compelling marketing strategy, you have to admit.

When Carl’s decided to offer patty melts on its menu — patty melts, by the way, that don’t look nearly as good as the one featured here — they did it with a TV ad called “Schooled” (view here), showcasing a too-hot for this planet high school teacher who slithers about in a slinky gray suit while a couple boys in the class rap:

Well, I like ‘em really hot
I like ‘em really flat
I like ‘em lookin’ like a pancake stack.
What about hiney? Got no hiney?
I call you Your Hineness.
In anatomy class
You got butt minus.
Flatness makes a better rear
Stand sideways, girl, you disappear.
Flat buns.
I like flat buns.
I like the flat ones.

The scene cuts to a patty melt with a more mature male voiceover: The patty melt. On flat buns. Only from Carl’s Jr.

Patty melts are not, of course, “only from Carl’s Jr.” The only thing that’s only from Carl’s Jr. is the raucously in your face flaunting of the old “sex sells” paradigm of advertising, and a willingness to further degrade the American morality in the name of “creative advertising.”

This commercial would have been un-runable a few decades ago, but it wouldn’t have been unthinkable. I’ve been in plenty of creative sessions where someone would throw out an idea so tasteless, racist or sexually over the top that it would get a laugh or a groan, but never a thought to really go with it. Heck, most of the time we’d be so embarrassed by the mere thought of having to admit we could come up with such an idea that we wouldn’t even share it with our clients.

Now it seems that the more outrageous the idea, the more likely the ad agency (in this case, Mendelsohn|Zien) is to run it … and not just run it, but run it as if it were significant in some way other than that bothersome “complete breakdown of civilization” way. Really; the folks at Carl’s thought the ad so important they issued a news release on it (via Nexis, so no link):

“The Patty Melt is an American classic but the burger has been around for almost 60 years and, thus, it needed an image make-over to become more relevant for today’s fast-food consumers,” said Brad Haley, executive vice president of marketing for Carl’s Jr. restaurants.

“So, our advertising agency developed a rap song to emphasize one of the unique aspects of the burger: the use of flat, grilled rye bread as opposed to the traditional round-top bun. That rap song, which originally ran as a radio spot for our Hardee’s chain, became so popular with the public – even spawning related websites and YouTube spoofs – that we decided to make it into a music video TV commercial for the burger to run at both chains. Who knows? This may help give flat buns the respect and admiration they have been missing for all these years.”

To help that possible trend along, and to keep digging this civilization hell-hole deeper, Carl’s kindly provides a list of the hottest flat-bunned celebs. Most of them are meaningless Hollywood people, but you’ll be interested to know that Hillary comes in seventh on the female side (large thighs and flat buns … is that the anatomy we want in our president?), and Rudy seventh and Obama tenth on the male side (are Obama’s buns too flat to be the first black president?).

Sigh. As much as I’d like it if sex didn’t sell, and we lived instead in a world where a clever headline, beautiful copy and tasteful art was what drew people to buy products, I have to admit that ever since they started illustrating the Grecian urns to sell more olive oil, sex has been a big part of the marketing mix.

But really, has it become too much? Has it come down to this?

No Comments yet »