An Apology from Bacardi
Published June 22, 2009 @ 05:00AM PT
After the feminist blogosphere caused a lot of noise over the Bacardi & McCann Digital "Ugly Girlfriend" Campaign - a representative from the company left this note over at Women's Media Center blog saying:
Author : Bacardi
E-mail : Sean-Patrick@corbinpr.com
URL : http://www.bacardi.comComment:Thank you for taking the time to post your story regarding Bacardi Breezer.
The campaign you are referring to ran in 2008 for two months in Israel. Even though Bacardi Breezer is not sold or distributed in the United States, we immediately notified the appropriate Bacardi affiliate and had this website shut down.
Bacardi proudly celebrates diversity and we do not endorse the views of this site. We sincerely apologize to anyone who was offended by this site and thank you for bringing it to our attention.
While I'm glad to see that McCann's micro-site has indeed been taken down, the apology doesn't fix the fact that this campaign ran in the first place. We need to keep an eye out for offensive advertising toward women and make sure that companies and marketing firms realize that these sort of campaigns are unacceptable from the beginning. Only then will we be changing the system.
Share this Post
Related Posts
-
Take Action Against Bacardi & McCann Digital for "Ugly Girlfriend" Campaign
-
Will You Have To Ask Your Employer For The "Abortion Rider"?
-
The American Myth of Women's Equality
Comments (13)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Jen Nedeau is a social media consultant, progressive activist, feminist speaker and writer. She currently lives in New York City, where she works full-time as the Director of Digital Strategy at Air America Media. In August 2008, Nedeau was selected to be the Editor of the WomensRights.Change.Org where she facilitates daily discussion about the feminist movement. Additionally, Nedeau volunteers as the Chief Technology Officer for New Leaders Council, a non-profit that offers exclusive training for young leaders. You can follow her on Twitter @HumanFolly or learn more here: www.jennedeau.com.
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Email


















Why do women in the United States even care about an obviously tongue-in-cheek ad campaign that ran in Israel a year ago? To me, this sounds like a case of getting offended for the sake of getting offended.
Posted by Rob F on 06/22/2009 @ 06:39AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Why should any American only care about the people of his or her country? Are we supposed to confine our minds within our borders? Just because these ads ran in Israel does not mean that we shouldn't protest the offensive depictions of women. The ads degrade women based on their supposed lack of sexual appeal. Fat women are targeted. Women who are not conventionally beautiful are targeted. These women are overtly judged inferior. This is not a case of "getting offended for the sake of getting offended" (and please note it's not just women in the US, and not just WOMEN who have taken offense). This is a case of a corporation publicly shaming women who do not conform to a certain standard of beauty. It's dehumanizing. It is possible to make a joke without ridiculing certain body types. It's possible to be creative and witty and still have a conscious. These ads totally failed in this regard.
Posted by Alan W. on 06/22/2009 @ 07:22AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
This ad isn't any more "dehumanizing" than the plethora of TV shows which portray men as obese idiots, while their wives are both attractive and brilliant. After all, this is the same genre -- alcohol advertising -- that features talking dogs, doltish men who "vent" with their wives (by opening a "vented" can and then ignoring them), etc. Each of these "offenses" clearly occurs within a framework of absurdity which isn't intended to be taken seriously. Thus, getting offended by such material (and especially calling it "dehumanizing") merely diminishes the effect of complaints aimed at material which truly is offensive.
Posted by Rob F on 06/22/2009 @ 08:39AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
If we don't say anything about these ad campaigns, the advertising companies assume that this type of advertisement is OK and they'll do it again.
Since you asked, it does not logically follow that because ads which denigrate women are offensive, ads that denigrate men are OK. Feminist women already speak up against ads which denigrate women. Why? Because we're women and these ads attack us. If you feel that a type of ad campaign attacks you, get a bunch of men together and protest it.
But don't expect us--or at least me, I can't speak for anyone else here--to equate Bacardi's campaign with a Homer Simpson. That's like saying the H word is as bad as the N word in racial discourse. And you and I both know that's not true. The less political power there is standing behind an insult, the less the insult stings.
Posted by Dana Seilhan on 06/22/2009 @ 12:55PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Admittedly, we did not know the campaign only ran in 2008, but we knew it was for an Israeli audience. You have to care about these things though - past, present and future - because then how do you make corporations realize that it's not okay to denigrate women in order to sell a product.
Posted by Jen Nedeau on 06/22/2009 @ 06:46AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
My main point, Jen, is that there's a certain "cry wolf" effect that occurs when anything and everything gets protested. Alcohol ads are notoriously ridiculous. There's little to differentiate one product from another, so marketers resort to over-the-top stunts in order to grab attention. It may often be distasteful, but it's generally harmless.
Therefore, if we take even the silliest of things seriously, such as this, it only makes us look overdramatic. And the inevitiable result of being perceived as such is that protests about more meaningful things lose their bite in the minds of the outside world.
Posted by Rob F on 06/22/2009 @ 08:55AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
We wish to thank all of you who have written us about a past promotional campaign for Bacardi Breezer.
As a Company and as individuals we are also angered and dismayed that such a campaign was ever created and we have taken immediate action to stop it as it violated our stringent global marketing principles that we firmly support.
By way of explanation, but by no means an excuse, Bacardi never sponsored nor developed this promotion. But we understand it is our brand and our reputation and you are our consumers. We are also embarrassed that we didn't catch this breach sooner. We have been urgently looking into this matter to make sure this type of activity is never repeated.
What we do know is that a third-party developed and activated this brief campaign in one small market more than a year ago without our clearance. When we discovered this promotion, we instructed our distributor to shut it down as it did not comply with our global marketing standards. We are now urgently looking into the reasons why this program was recently reposted on the internet. In markets where Bacardi does not have a corporate presence, we are represented by third parties; in this case a distributor and its advertising agency, but they must adhere to our stringent marketing principles, which clearly this campaign did not.
When Bacardi found out about this recent reposting, we immediately notified the agency and distributor to shutdown the website.
Bacardi proudly celebrates diversity and we do not endorse the views of this site or the campaign, as it is offensive and completely inappropriate. We sincerely apologize to anyone who was offended by this campaign and thank you, our consumers for bringing it to our attention.
Sincerely,
Bacardi Limited
Posted by Bacardi USA on 06/22/2009 @ 12:52PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thank you for the elaborate response, Bacardi!
Posted by Jen Nedeau on 06/25/2009 @ 09:18AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I agree.
Posted by Thomas McHugh on 06/30/2009 @ 09:10PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Rob F's arguments aren't exactly original but I'm going to address them anyway because doubtless, some other guy (or some woman who's "one of the guys") will come along and make the same arguments, if only in their own minds.
"My main point, Jen, is that there's a certain 'cry wolf' effect that occurs when anything and everything gets protested."
We're not talking about anything and everything getting protested. We're talking about sexist behavior getting protested.
"Alcohol ads are notoriously ridiculous. There's little to differentiate one product from another, so marketers resort to over-the-top stunts in order to grab attention."
There is also little to differentiate soda, candy bars, and maxi pads, but these markets don't tend to use ridiculous ad campaigns that discriminate against demographic groups. Unless you think men should be able to menstruate, but I guess that is your own business. There's no reason for alcohol companies to use sexist ads. Period. They can be ridiculous and over-the-top in ways that don't insult fifty-one percent of the population.
"It may often be distasteful, but it's generally harmless."
No, it isn't harmless. Particularly not on television and in other visual media such as magazines. We make the mistake in this culture of believing that if harm is subtle or takes a long time to accumlate, that it isn't really harm. Tell that to a cancer patient. (Cancer is almost never an immediate reaction to a health insult.) The truth is that we are all visual creatures, and we are social animals. That means we're wired to want to be like the people around us (or to feel threatened when they're too different), and that one of our cues for how we are supposed to behave lies in the visual realm. And I promise you that if we had more images of women being treated as societal equals and fewer of women being treated like garbage, attitudes toward women in this culture would change drastically. They have already changed somewhat, in fact, BECAUSE the amount of obvious sexism has decreased significantly. That doesn't mean the job's done, though.
"Therefore, if we take even the silliest of things seriously, such as this, it only makes us look overdramatic."
What do you mean, "us"? I thought that was an Ugly Boyfriend campaign, not an Ugly Girlfriend campaign. If you're really part of "us," by which I mean to say the movement, maybe you should stop and think about why you object to so many things this movement does. Or so I infer from your protests here, Rob.
"And the inevitiable result of being perceived as such is that protests about more meaningful things lose their bite in the minds of the outside world."
Define "meaningful." I've seen the commenters over at Daily Kos refer to feminism as a "fringe issue" or "special interest." That means pretty much nothing that is important to women is important to the rest of the progressive movement. If that's the case with you, by all means prop the door open before you walk out of it. It's true that allies are useful in any political movement, but if you don't like what a movement is doing, by definition you're not its ally and we don't need you.
Put another way, it's not up to you to decide what's offensive to women or what hurts women. Why? Because you're not a woman and you have zero experience being a woman or suffering what women have suffered in this world. So all your protesting about how meaningless an ad campaign is, really misses the point. Am I telling you how to feel about Homer Simpson portrayals? No, I am not; I'm telling you that if you don't like portrayals of men as idiotic goofs, go do something about it. I'm not telling you you're silly to be offended. I don't know what it's like to be called an idiotic goof all the time. See the difference?
Posted by Dana Seilhan on 06/22/2009 @ 01:05PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I said: "I thought that was an Ugly Boyfriend campaign, not an Ugly Girlfriend campaign."
Stop. Strike that. Reverse it. I'm trying to do two things at once here. *laugh*
Posted by Dana Seilhan on 06/22/2009 @ 01:07PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
If I may Dana, I'd like to elaborate on your last statement:
"I'm telling you that if you don't like portrayals of men as idiotic goofs, go do something about it. I'm not telling you you're silly to be offended."
Instead of wasting your time telling other people what they shouldn't be offended about or working to fix, put your energy into something you actually care about. It's energy better spent.
Posted by Lisa Smolen on 06/22/2009 @ 02:09PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Well said dana.
And as a man, please let me add that us men should be just as offended by commercials that portray us as steriotypical males because in the end...It makes all men look bad.
Posted by Thomas McHugh on 06/30/2009 @ 09:15PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.