I like a laugh as much as the next guy, and to be honest, I am not above low-brow humor.
However, I have to wonder about the intelligence of major corporations that use humor that suggests a bias against certain demographics.
Specifically, there is a Dodge ad on TV these days, with a little Tinkerbell-type character flying around and turning mundane things into "cute" things. But try as she might, she is not able to make the rugged Dodge vehicle "cute," and in fact the beams from her magic wand bounce off the Dodge and back at her, and bounce her off of a wall. At this point, a rugged guy, walking a rugged dog, sees this and scoffs, "Silly fairy!" At which point, Tinkerbell zaps her wand at him, and in a flash, he is wearing a little shirt and shorts ensemble, with a sweater tied around his neck, and is now walking three matching Pekingnese dogs, and says "Oh!" in a high-pitched exclamation.
Now, whether or not we think this is funny is immaterial here. This is a TV ad, shown on national broadcasts, by a major corporation. I have to wonder how many people had to approve this idea, from its initial creation, through production, to its airing on national TV. No doubt, a high-priced advertising team came up with the ad, and in order for it to be produced, it had to be signed off on by some high-salaried executives within Dodge.
Did they think this was so subtle that it would not be recognized as making sport of gay men? Granted, Dodge is known for their big, manly pick-up trucks and high-performance muscle cars, but does that make gay-bashing acceptable? Or am I too uptight, and finding fault with an innocent little joke? I can't say I was "offended" by this commercial, but it did make me think of all of the approvals it had to go through in order to be shown on network television.
On the one hand, many of us like edgy humor. On the other hand, does this mean anything goes, in pursuit of selling product?
--- Chuck Dennis
Post Script: apparently, I'm not the only one who had some questions about this ad. Check out http://www.adage.com/columns/article?article_id=108621
Comments