There appears to be an insensitivity epidemic. Not only has that total jerk Don Imus insulted the Rutgers Women’s Basketball Team, but now Comedy Central and Oddcast have launched the Comedy Central Comedian Constructor which lets you make a comedian avatar who tells pre-recorded jokes or uses ones that you record.
It’s sponsored by Hyundai. And it makes fun of homeless people. A pre-recorded message you can have your avatar say:
What’s the best thing about dating homeless guys? You can drop them off anywhere.”
When did homelessness become funny?
Oddcast is the brilliant company behind Monk-e-mail and several other brilliant campaigns. Which makes this slur astounding. And I have to say, after this, I won’t be thinking Hyundai when I think about cars.
C’mon you guys! You gotta get that joke off the site right now!!! Homeless bashing just isn’t funny.
Tags: Advertising, auto_advertising, avatars, BL_Ochman, Hyundai, Marketing, Oddcast
BL,
Homeless bashing isn’t funny to me but I’m afraid I hear some folks laughing.
Comedy has always been delivered rough by some; it’s the nature of the beast. But when a traditional business uses this sort of humor, it puts their brand at risk and, likely, hurts sales. One wonders what the CMO was thinking.
I agree that there are a lot of people who should not be buying creative product and placing it on the air. But let’s remember what truly shows it as a bad decision: If it didn’t increase sales or interest for the company!
This is a Marketing site so please stick to the topic. Please keep your political sensitivities and opinions to yourself. Or better yet, post them at Fox News or Drudge or anywhere else. This opinion, for one, is knee-jerk and unresearched.
For example, you asked when homelessness became a topic of humor. Think Charlie Chaplin’s Little Tramp, Red Skelton’s Freddie the Freeloader and Emmett Kelly’s great tramp clown, Weary Willy.
The homeless, the bum, the tramp, is a staple of humor all over the western world.
Please stick to marketing.
I think there’s a sensitivity epidemic. Everyone one seems to be too politically correct.
The site is meant to be tongue-in-cheek and not viewed as a serious venue where Hyundai puts its stamp on the views it supports.
Lighten up.
That’s my 2 cents.
Steve: I wonder, if it’s ok for a Fortune 1000 company to sponsor humor that makes fun of the homeless, is it also ok to make fun of the handicapped? Of female basketball stars?
I’m not saying I’ve never laughed at an ethnic joke, or at Red Skelton. I’m saying that in 2007 and beyond, it is absolutely not acceptable for a major corporation to sponsor this type of humor.
In that context, this post is very much about marketing because marketing has to reflect current culture and values.
Your examples are in the distant past. Thankfully, most of us have moved beyond making fun of the less fortunate.
Marketers need to stay in the current reality, which does not include demeaning people in unfortunate circumstances.
That change is already in progress and any CMO or CEO who doesn’t get the picture will pay at the cash registers.
But, Michael and Steve, I wouldn’t expect that everyone will be happy about progress or change.
thanks for being the ONLY ONE ON THE PAGE who responded without proving that there IS INDEED an insensitivity epidemic in general – just because something stupid is popular, doesn’t make it right; didn’t your mommas tell you? if not i think you should all be locked in a room with Chris Rock for 24 hours of yo-mamma jokes ALL DIRECTED AT YOUR MOMMA! after that you might not think it’s so funny. Being amused by unfunny things is and always has been kinda a dead givaway as to the un-initiated condition of certain souls, their gross underdevelopment, and a callousness that is unforgivable in a world where everyone knows better.
BL wrote: “Thankfully, most of us have moved beyond making fun of the less fortunate.”
Oh, BL, aren’t you so evolved? I have an idea: let’s ignore the homeless completely. Instead let’s pretend that we are all homogenous, that all audiences have the same values, see humor in the same things and buy the same products with the same disposable income. Let’s pretend that all ads have to appeal only to the Culture Csarina and all those who agree with you.
In case you haven’t heard, real Marketers long ago rejected this type of Beaver Cleaver vanilla mass marketing in favor of tailoring message, taste and content to their desired customer “segment” (segment= a population whose behavior is different that another.)
What you like is what you like. It is how marketers reach into your pockets and try to get you to buy. How do these same marketers appeal to snide Mr. Joe Beerbelly? They talk to him in terms that HE will understand. (BTW Marketers NEVER talk to the homeless because they have no economic stake in the value chain. It is the job of the nanny state to talk to them.)
Imus did not make fun of the basketball stars he insulted them.
As for your comments about CMO’s, they are already on the endangered species list. “Fortune” says the average tenure of a CMO in the top 100 companies is 22 months, down from 23 months three years ago.
Hmmmm, could that be because they try to appeal to the thin-skin commentators and Wall Street analysts rather than appealing to their customers?
Steve: Are you having fun yet?
I’m backing Steve on this one. That doesn’t mean I don’t like progress or change. It just means I don’t have thin skin.
BL, if you knew me you’d know that I always have fun.
Thanks for the debate. And feel free to make a joke about the segment called “snide Mr. Joe Beerbelly” if it helps you connect to your target population.
Steve: i’d hate to be insensitive to people with beer bellies. :>)
Insensitivity has been part of comedy shticks for a very long time. Think back to Lenny Bruce, Don Rickles, and many other comedians who denegrated their audiences. People had a choice to buy tickets to their performnaces or not. Their television appearances were different. They were sanitized versions to accommodate families watching TV together then, and the censors, of course.
Most broadcasting media today is owned and operated by major corporations whose accountability to shareholders is number one priority. If it shocks, is controversial and stands out from the throngs of other options, PLUS it makes a buck, the status quo reigns.
However, racism, mysogyny, sexism and anti-Semitism are rampant today. How can U.S. society claim to be paragons of virtue, democracy and the betterment of humanity if Americans don’t walk the talk?
Years ago, censorship disallowed certain words and phrases over the airwaves that today, are acceptable.The legislation set the tone and the example, albeit, sometimes too conservatively. But that was before cable and digital media.
Don’t you think the FCC should take the bull by the horns and set some boundaries? The founding fathers would probably be appalled to hear the ugly things said in public forums. Voicing an opinion, fine. But when do we take responsibility, as a country, to say we’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it any more? We don’t need to whitewash everything, but outright prejudice and racism should have no place in any public forum. This is a pluralistic country. Besides, isn’t this what our government is trying to teach the extremists and rogue nations – to accept and respect all peoples?
I am an insensitive person and I am incensed about how this forum is talking about insensitive people. It’s a genetic thing and we have no control. Andrew Dice Clay for president.
Just Kidding (:-)
“The founding fathers would probably be appalled to hear the ugly things said in public forums.”
That might be correct, but let’s not jump to conclusions about what that means. They also outlawed dueling as a means of settling disputes and attacks on honor, but that didn’t stop Aaron Burr from shooting Alexander Hamilton in an interview.
My belief is that it’s time to move past denigrating others for fun and profit.
There is no need to belittle the disadvantaged, minorities, or religions to make a point or a buck.
Yes, people will keep doing it, and people will keep responding to it. But as awareness is raised, and times change, communicators will change their tunes.
Lenny Bruce was hilarious, and so were lots of other comedians – in their day.
Time to move forward.
Should it be legislated? HELL NO?
Just as blogs don’t need a twinkie badge to say we’re ethical, the last thing we need is legislators telling us what to say.
The market will drive changes. It will take time, but it will happen.
Guess what guys – the joke about the homeless is no longer on the Comedy Central Comedian Constructor site.
I think that was a very smart decision on their part, and proof that someone over there is monitoring the internet.
B.L.
Thanks for the update. I have read this post with interest, as the comments ebb and flow.
We shouldn’t legislate speech or advertising, but when businesses take the low road, they should be advised that doing so will likely hurt there brand.
I’ve been in marketing and communications for 35 years. I haven’t run across any businesses in that time who willingly would take that kind of risk. Anytime we use humor in advertising, we are risking the brand. Why increase that risk by disrespecting or demeaning anyone?
I have no problem with comedians or comedies that take that approach nor do I with businesses. Doesn’t mean I will watch the show or buy the product, however, And since all business is about sales… Well, you get the idea.
hey, it was once amusing to watch slaves be eaten by lions.
times and social mores change.
it’ll be interesting to see where this round of changes leads.
My bet: Imus will have a paid video podcast with sponsorship online in a month.
And the people who like that sort of stuff will flock to it while the rest of us will temper our slurs and think about our humor a little more.
And, as Martha Stewart would say, that’s a good thing.
The joke coming down from the Comedy Central site is hardly a matter of smart decision-making so much as it is a necessity to cave to even the faintest hint of user dissatisfaction. Nice job putting the fear of overly insensitive people with too much time on their hands into them.
Yes, the homeless joke was mildly offensive. Have you noticed that a fair percentage of Comedy Central’s programming could be considered offensive too? Indeed, a recent episode of The Sarah Silverman Program seemed to be directly about making light of the homeless. Not that that necessarily makes it any more “right,” but you zeroed in on something really minor and, whoopee, now it’s gone thanks to you and more eggshells have been laid out for the company to be wary of. This should kick off your overly PC revolution nicely.
But, mainly I wonder this: how can you say with such certainty that social mores have changed to the point that making jokes about the homeless is universally understood as being unacceptable? On what do you base this claim? Personally, I find one of the other pre-recorded jokes on there to be in further bad taste. I guess it’s really a matter of one’s own opinions, prejudices, and beliefs.
Basically, what I’m trying to say is that different people get offended by different things, just as people are entertained and scared by different things. We have some fairly universally accepted social faux pas, i.e., murder, pedophila, rape, etc., but these issues are STILL explored in all forms of media. You can’t pander to the dislikes of any individual person or eventually everything could be considered potentially offensive. And, for the record, many issues are rarely as openly explored as they are in comedy. If you get offended by something, it’s possible it’s because you hold some guilt about it. Still, I personally see little issue with making a joke about our society’s problems. They still address their existence. Unless you’d prefer we do so in constant and complete solemnity.
You being offended by this one joke and pointedly taking it out on Hyundai is absurd because you are ONE person offended by ONE very specific humor genre (the “insulting of the homeless” genre?). I’m sorry, but various social issues come up with any form of media and all you’re doing is narrowing down the possible content out there for a company to sponsor (I suppose you could argue that indignance as a response to homeless mockery should be a newly instated social more, but I’m afraid I just don’t agree).
Should Hyundai stop sponsoring any form of comedy in the future for fear that they may end up offending someone for some issue they just so happen to be sensitive about? You very deliberately worded this in an effort to scare Hyundai and Comedy Central into taking it off the site, i.e., “I won’t be thinking Hyundai when I think about cars.” Certainly, you have a right to express your opinion, but was it really necessary to intimidate as well?
What you’ve done here is exceptionally minor, really, but what you’re aiming toward is frightening companies away from being involved with anything that might have even the most remote possiblity of being edgy, thus taking the funding away from any sort of creative process. So you are, in effect, doing your best to stifle creativity and free expression. Bravo!
And the homeless thing shouldn’t be a problem anyway. Most of them don’t have internet access.
Yes, that was a joke.
B.L., you say the market will drive changes and that it will take time. I moved to the US from Canada where the government passed Bill C250, that amended the the Criminal Code. Part of the Canadian hate propganda laws state:
319. (1) Everyone who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(2) Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
In my opinion, racism is not as prominent in Canada and freedom of speech is still entrenched in its laws.
“2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: … (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication”
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Hate speech and obsenity are exceptions and must meet certain criteria.
I worry that it may take too long for the progress to come in the US. Combatting racism in this country requires paragons of leadership.
As a added point…I don’t mean that we should whitewash comedy or make it illegal for artists to express themselves. But, if what they say incites threats or violence, as it did with the Rutger’s women’s basketball team, then it crosses the line. The Rutger’s team has received hate mail and death threats – all because of some stupid racist comedic utterances.
> I guess you meant “sensitive.” A little typo?
frankly, i think you have largely missed the point of my post. But I am glad to give you a forum for your ideas.
You’d love having a marketing blog and I’d love to see you start one.
Elaine: on paper, it looks like a good idea to have the legislation you have in canada.
but in the hands of government, particularly the one currently in power, those tools are always mis-used.
i really don’t want to see congress in this issue again. we’ve already been through the McCarthy era where we were told what it was ok to think, say and read. That sucked.
Regarding comedy: what we need is compassion and common sense. You can’t legislate that.
B.L.
So there was a coherent point hidden in Mr. Pickens’s rant after all? The framing example of this entire “discussion” was not so much an issue from the beginning, I concur. That it took him such an obnoxious, rambling tirade to form his thoughts, couched in a gleefully personally assaultive manner, however, underscores Ms. Ochman’s general point much better than anything she needed to say. Or anything Mr. Pickens will inevitably fling next.
B.L. I agree that there’s sensitivity about abuse of power, especially now. It’s such a difficult balancing act – between rights and freedoms and acts that can cause someone harm. God forbid we return to an era similar to McCarthyism. It’s scary enough now. It does bother me, however, that anyone can use hate propaganda and language in a public forum and it’s perfectly legal. That was a big adaptation for me in moving to the US. I was shocked to hear so much crap spewed over the broadcast waves. I wonder if the Rutger’s team has a case for a libel or slander suit?
Brent – the great thing about the blogosphere is that sooner or later the community evens things out, and weeds out people who just want to rant.
I highly recommend daily blogging to Mr. Pickens. It makes one a better writer, gives one a forum, and, if one’s ideas are of interest to others, an audience.
Elaine – i guess a lawsuit could be the next step for Rutgers, but, jeez, that would be a shame. Hopefully, they will put this ugly incident behind them and get back to school and basketball.
I’m sorry, I should’ve clarified. I’m not Steve Pickens. We just happen to share a name.
Yes, that was a pretty ironic typo. How embarassing!
Anyway, I don’t think I missed your point. You were saying that people will associate Hyundai with offensive material thanks to this thing on the Comedy Central site, but surely there must be a better example of blatantly off-putting marketing to make this point with? Not that I was personally offended by it, but how about the recent Superbowl Snickers ad? This is a touchy issue in America that clearly a fair number of people would’ve had a negative reaction to and then would associate Snickers with “that gay kiss commercial.”
I maintain that you can blanket this with whatever marketing example you claim you were making, but the bottom line is that something offended YOU personally and YOU decided you wanted to express it publicly and maybe scare Comedy Central/Hyundai in the process. I mean, it’s Comedy Central. You might as well go nitpicking through the website and tick off every time you’re offended, then make note of the sponsors of said content. You’d have blog material for months!
And personally I hate blogging. I tried it for awhile and I refuse to do it again.
Steve, and Steve Pickens – my blog is a place for my opinions about online marketing and trends. In the years I have been blogging, I have built a large international audience. I believe that’s because I am not only opinionated, but also very experienced in this space.
It’s a lot easier to criticize blog posts than to write them.
That’s cool with me. So long as you write posts about marketing, I imagine I won’t have any further criticisms.
Sorry to keep being a nuisance here, but I, too, am opinionated. I don’t intend to bother you any further.