Burger King: Home of the Inappropriate Values

"The Snack is Sacred." This is a slogan that was circulating in Spain in Burger King ads. While BK denies this ad was intended to offend anyone (the Hindu community especially), I'm not really sure how else a slogan like this can be taken, other than a jab at Hinduism or Indian culture.

Hindu Goddess Lakshmi (goddess of wealth)? check.

Goddess stationed above a Burger King burger? check.

Referring to a burger (made from cow) as "sacred" with a Hindu theme (when cows are considered sacred in India and definitely not eaten)? check.

Apparently slamming Mexicans, degrading women, selling sexuality to children (or their parents who apparently always think about sexy women and "square butts" as they consider their dinner options) and essentially ignoring any sense of morality is not enough for Burger King. So it's on to attacking various religions next. Checkout BK's official response (with very appropriate commentary from ad bloggers Ken Wheaton and Emily Bryson York in parenthesis):

"Burger King Corporation values and respects all of its guests as well as the communities we serve (You certainly have a funny way of showing it). This in-store advertisement was running to support a limited-time-only local promotion for three restaurants in Spain and was not intended to offend anyone (Oh, well that makes it perfectly OK, then, doesn't it). Out of respect for the Hindu community, the in-store advertisement has been removed from the restaurants (Translation: We were caught, and it's creating a PR headache, so we guess we'll go ahead and take it down. We would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for those meddling kids at the Hindu American Foundation!). "

Enough said. NOTE TO THE EXECUTIVES AT THE HEAD OF BURGER KING: I think it is past time to call a meeting and regroup. I think it is official that the image of BK is nothing short of trash. This is not to say I had much respect left for your company following the sexually-charged ads for kid's meals, but if there was any left it is now effectively gone. Until you pull it together and decide families, faith and children are valuable to your company, my family will have no part of your restaurants.

Want to join the conversation? Click here to comment or ask a question.

________________

What Kind Of Happy Meal Are They Selling?!?!

Most have probably seen this commercial by now (I just saw it for the first time last week). It is a Burger King commercial for Kid's Meals featuring Spongebob Squarepants. Kid's Meals!!!!! (The song in it is a play off of the rap song "Baby Got Back" by Sir-Mix-a-lot.)



This is only the 30-second version (there is also a full length 2:31 minute version). I am at a loss for words. The social irresponsibility for this ad is mind-blowing! I don't care if this ad is meant to entice parents to buy the kids meals (the argument BK made to justify the ad) or the kids themselves - this ad is revolting on all levels. How in the world did the questionably "grown" adults who made this ad ever think that a creepy mascot (probably the creepiest image ever to represent a company, restaurant or product of any sort, in my book) measuring the square butts of women dressed as school girls, having them then dance around the creepy mascot while singing "I like square butts and I cannot lie..." (replacing the original song's "I like big butts and I cannot lie...") and about wanting to "get with" Spongebob ever seem like a good idea? What child-rearing demographic with any sense of dignity or morals would ever find such an ad acceptable for their children (or children's products)?

While I would like to think this was a serious judgment error and a back-fired attempt at marketing to parents, Burger King's ads (to my knowledge, all done by the same ad company: Crispin, Porter and Bogusky) have recently all walked and crossed the line of moral acceptability (from Hootie singing about "nice caboose" to "Whopper Virgins"). I hold Burger King, Nickelodeon (because they must authorize the use of their brands, names, characters and trademarks before they can be used commercially) and the irresponsible and obviously uncreative and morally bankrupt ad agency Crispin, Porter and Bogusky responsible.

I can guarantee my family and I will not step foot in a BK again (we already do not watch Nickelodeon) until they (1) change their marketing strategies, (2) begin to take their social responsibility (especially toward children) seriously, (3) stop pushing Spongebob Squarepants as if it is their own trademarked character, and (4) get rid of that creepy "king" character.

Want to join the conversation? Click here to comment or ask a question!

_____________

Interesting Campaign by Skechers

The other day I was reading Entertainment Weekly when I came across an ad for Skechers Footwear. I normally skip right over ads, but this one caught my eye. Featured in the ad were two teenage boys embracing their parents and above them was the caption "Nothing Compares to Family." It's a great picture and ad. Turns out the family in the ad are Supermodel Niki Taylor, NASCAR driver Burney Lamar and Niki's two twin teenage sons, Hunter and Jake (I only knew who they were because their names were printed on the pic... I don't follow fashion or NASCAR). At the bottom of the full page ad was the caption "Skechers joins Niki Taylor and Burney Lamar in support of Mercy Ministries of America".

Normally I am not a fan of Skechers advertising because it (like most companies) likes to push the envelope and often runs sketchy ads (pun intended) that promote rebellion and immodesty. This ad, however, was completely different. It turns out that Skechers has dubbed 2009 as the year of the family and is committing its charitable giving to various organizations supported by different celebrity families. Throughout the campaign Skechers will purchase ads in different mediums that promote the family and feature a different celebrity family.

While I'm not exactly sure what Skechers' definition of family is (an important question!), it is nice to see a corporation support the family and put a little of their spotlight on them. It's also nice to see them use their giving dollars to support a great ministry like Mercy Ministries. Usually charities that are supported by big companies publicly are those with little to no Godly influence (not that they are less worthy of donations, but Christianity is not usually acknowledged corporately).

Props to Skechers! Now if only they keep this focus!


Want to join the conversation? Click here to comment or ask a question!


____________________

Protesting Sexuality?

Over the weekend a member of our church emailed me about a gentleman who is petitioning our local mall to ask its Abercrombie and Fitch store to remove an inappropriate picture from the front of its store. Since getting that email several local news stations have picked up the story and have aired further coverage on it, to include others’ view of the ad. To be clear, I have never been a fan of Abercrombie. I like their clothing (the kind that actually covers bodies in a stylish fashion, not the kind that appear to be suffering from an apparent fabric-shortage), but struggle supporting what they endorse and stand for, so I never shop there.

So... I am writing this entry for a few reasons: (1) Clarify why I support the petition, (2) to discuss where I think the petition is lacking, (3) and to call on Christians to take this a step further.

Why I Support the Petition:

First, I appreciate that the petition is addressed to the Triangle Town Centre Mall. I do not petition Abercrombie (as I’ve already stated – they are who they are and the only thing that speaks to them is $$... sales are up, so nudity and sexually suggestive ads and catalogues will be too), but I do petition the mall to enforce its own code of conduct. Patrons and models in window ads ought to meet the same criteria for appropriateness. If any ad (regardless of store) does not meet their criteria for decency (as established by their posted codes of conduct) then the mall ought to enforce its policy. Regardling their claim that the ad is "legal" - of course it is legal. It's private property, they have the "right" to post almost anything they want. The issue is not whether or not it's "legal" but whether or not it's appropriate.

Second, I think all people ought to work to protect innocence (or in America’s case, reinstate it) and sexuality. Some opponents of the petition state that people shouldn’t protest sexuality – I agree wholeheartedly. However, this ad isn’t “sexuality,” it is voyeurism and it objectifies sexuality (instead of celebrating it in its right place and relationship: marriage).

Third, I appreciate that the petition is simple in its request: move the picture inside the store and put a more appropriate one in its place (such as one that has, oh I don’t know, a picture of their clothing in it – I digress). It is a very smart and reasonable request that doesn’t try to regulate or legislate the store’s morality (or lack thereof).

Fourth, it is a well organized campaign that, for the most part, keeps the main thing the main thing: making the mall a family-friendly place.

Where I Think the Petition's Reasoning Falls Short
I think my main issue with the petition is a fairly minor one that deals more with the petitioner’s argument. I believe the originator of the petition and complaint, Mr. Jimmy Stopper (I love the irony of his last name with this issue), makes a hasty generalization in his appeal to the public for support by claiming (in CAPITAL LETTERS) that “every child is FORCED to look at [the picture]”. I agree that the picture (as are several pictures/ads in the mall from time to time) is inappropriate and ought not to be available to the eyes of the general public. However, to claim that anyone is “forced” to look at it is entirely inaccurate and an irresponsible use of wording. All that sort of claim does is seek to appeal to the emotion which inevitably evokes an emotional response from all sides that rarely meets in the middle for dialogue.

Call on Christians to Take It a Step Further
I am not here to encourage readers to sign the petition themselves (that is a personal call). There are bigger issues at stake here that I want to address that have nothing to do with picketing, boycotting or petitioning: namely the worship of the One, True God with our whole hearts, minds, souls and strengths. Matter of fact, if worshipping and following Him were happening, there’d be little to no need for any sort of protesting actions. So my call is to Christians of all ages (in particular those who typically consume culture blindly, arguing, “they’re just clothes – I don’t support what they stand for”) to CONTEND FOR THE FAITH with your lives.

Live…
1. …like GOD matters more to you than anything else.
2. …like He is the Creator and gives us the responsibility to not only be (responsible) consumers/participants of culture, but to also be creators and influencers of culture!
3. …like we have a choice in who and/or what we worship by choosing to walk the “narrow path” that leads to Life.
4. ...lives of integrity (in public or private, with our choices of entertainment and clothing, in our relationships, etc.).

For more info about the petition/advertisement…

The Petition’s Page (Move the Picture):
http://www.movethepicture.com/index.php

One local news station’s coverage of the petition:
http://www.abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=6303025

And that's what "protesting sexuality?" is all about Charlie Brown...