Snickers: only sometimes heteronormative
A number of people are up in arms about this Snickers commercial that ran during the Super Bowl:
If you haven’t read about the controversy, stop and think about it for a moment. Is this ad:
- Heteronormative / homo-hostile because it depicts homophobia, or
- Homo-positive because it depicts homophobia negatively
My money is actually on b). This ad depicts homophobia, but the protagonists are basically neanderthals: they’re unkempt, pudgy, working in a crappy garage on a crappy car, and evidently idiotic enough to rip out chunks of their own chest hair to demonstrate their heterosexuality. The ad is meant to be funny, and it’s meant to be funny because we’re supposed to laugh at these pathetic people. Laugh at them, not with them. Notice there’s a difference between depicting homophobia and conveying a homophobic message, which is why I’m trying to use the alternate terms of heteronormative, homo-hostile, or homo-positive.
When I saw the ad, I was surprised and happy that during the Super Bowl, homophobes were depicted as knuckle-dragging losers that we should all laugh at. I thought it was quite positive for the gay-rights movement.
Now, in fairness, this ad alone isn’t the whole story. This is the ad that ran during the Super Bowl, but Snickers had a bunch more material on their website with alternate endings featuring violence, and NFL players’ reactions to the ads (think: disgust at the idea of two men kissing).
I don’t approve in the slightest of any of the additional material; the violent endings promote the idea that violence is a rational outlet for homophobia, and showing NFL players grimacing uses national heroes to convey the idea that gay people are contemptible. But other bloggers have said it better than me; head over to AMERICAblog or Towelroad or This Modern World for discussion of the alternate endings and players’ reactions.
But, the Super Bowl ad itself, it seems to me, is thoroughly unobjectionable.
(mostly via)
Update: Jonathan Trenn makes a good point in a comment: to the extent that you identify with the two blue-collar males here, you may well be offended at the depiction of blue-collar men as brutish simpletons.
Jonathan Trenn wrote:
Let me see if I understand this…you describe the two guys (who are blue collar and similar to millions of other men) as being “basically neanderthals: they’re unkempt, pudgy, working in a crappy garage on a crappy car, and evidently idiotic enough to rip out chunks of their own chest hair to demonstrate their heterosexuality.”
OK, I fully realize how people could see this ad as homophobic…and I agree with your point that it is in many ways anti-homophobic…but what does it say about, well, working class guys? It directly insults them. It seems everyone is missing that. But it’s not yet ‘politically incorrect’ to do this.
Will it sell product? Consider the comments of Miller CMO Tom Long right after he came on board…“People will tell you that beer is not sophisticated enough, or stylish enough, to compete with wine and spirits. Why do they think that? Well, I believe it’s because we told them to.”
THAT’S why ads like this don’t work.
Posted on 08-Feb-07 at 9:48 am | Permalink
Mark wrote:
Well, if you believe the two characters in the ad are meant to depict blue-collar males generally, then yes, I suppose the ad is insulting to blue-collar males. I would imagine that it’s most insulting because it depicts these two particular blue-collar guys as mindlessly homophobic to the point of self-injury!
Personally, I’m also ticked off about men being systematically depicted as stupid in pop culture, but I didn’t get that from this ad, because I honestly don’t believe that the target audience is meant to identify with these characters. Like I said, I think we’re meant to laugh at them, not with them.
I could be wrong about that, though, in which case I think it would make perfect sense to be offended by the caricature of blue-collar males as simple-minded slaves to hetero gender roles.
Posted on 08-Feb-07 at 10:40 am | Permalink
Jonathan Trenn wrote:
Ah, yes. You are quite right in that we were meant to laught at them, not with them. But in today’s advertising arena, we’re laughing at men quite a bit. Blue collar or white collar.
And now that I’ve read your account (and others) of the ‘alternative’ endings that were online, I’m even more blown away at Mars’ stupidity. Those are definitely homophobic.
Odd thing is on Monday I was hungry while I was out and bought a Snickers Bar. And while I was doing that, the commercial didn’t even come to mind.
Posted on 08-Feb-07 at 5:12 pm | Permalink