Was it Gay for the Onion’s ‘It’s Gay to smoke’ video to be removed from YouTube?
-
Claire
3 years ago -
5095
views
As a social media engineer I constantly talk about involving the community, after all without the community there is no ‘social media’, but what happens when the core of what drives a medium, turns on it?
A colleague of mine forwarded me an article this morning from utalkmarketing entitled “Smoking is Gay’. Fake PSA campaign that could actually work“.
The article was discussing a recent story by the Onion websites fictitious breakfast news show, ‘Today Now’. The show had a Fake doctor from the ‘Centre for Disease Control and Prevention’ Dr Michael Gaines taking about their new campaign to stop teens smoking.
“Were saying, understand that if you choose to smoke, people are going to make fun of you for looking like a Q***r” Doctor Gaines tells the ‘Today Now’ presenters.
The Faux campaign was made as a reaction for Conservative congressional staffer who said “Porn makes you Gay”. The video was very funny, if watched on the Onions website next to other titles such as ‘Genetic Scientists Develop Sheep with the Brain of a Goat’ and ‘Breaking News: Bat Loose in the Congress’. I personally dislike the use of the word Gay as mean
New Anti-Smoking Ads Warn Teens ‘It’s Gay To Smoke’
But what did make me stop and think, was the fact that the Utalkmarketing headline hinted that a campaign like this ‘could actually work’.
I then did another search and found that the video had been written about on a whole host of other sites, some that didn’t go into detail of what the Onion was or that the video was in fact meant to be a joke.
One comment that I found on one such site said:
“The point is the video is going to be circulated beyond those that regularly read the Onion and therefore an ambiguous message is dangerous”
I thought this was a very interesting point, after all, as marketers do we stop for one minute to consider the affect of our campaigns, not that I am saying we regularly create bigoted content, but I am sure that the Onion, didn’t intend to offend a whole load of gay people, they made a marketing decision based on current news.
Someone however did respond to the negative feedback from YouTube, as the video was removed from their YouTube account. This was done, much to the annoyance of their users who posted a whole host of hateful slurs, absolutely convinced that the Gay community had had the video removed and were therefore leftwing so’n'so’s (that’s the tame version).
So in fact, where there is no recognised editorial authority. Who is running the show? And if in fact the Onion believed that this content had enough integrity to post it to YouTube, why was it later removed, and if the content is so offensive not to host on YouTube, why not remove it from the Onion’s website also? if in fact it was the Onion who removed it, whew , aaaand if they did remove it, why single out the YouTube community alone?
Anyway, it got me thinking about my clients and how I would cope with a major negative onslaught against a piece of rich media they had created, which they had faith in and which the majority of their community liked.
I give you two examples and I’m not going to answer them as I’d like you too.
1) You have a client who sells fashion accessories; some of these accessories feature fur trims that are made of mink. Your client finds and article about wild mink pest control and how destructive the species is. They do their research and create an informative video; the video is added to YouTube and on their website in the information pages and goes down very well with their audience.
Social media Issue: A week later an animal rights movement begin to bombard the comments section on YouTube with pleas to remove the video as to not spread bad press about the animals. Two videos targeting your clients have already been uploaded and are sending more negative comments their way. The community have enjoyed the video and add their own comments apposing the animal rights group.
Social media Question: The client asks you if they should remove the video. What do you advise?
2) A client of yours that sells paddling pools, creates a funny video showing 3 of his nieces all dressed in Hijab and tunics and sitting in a paddling pool to cool off on a sunny day. Their customers love it, and find it really funny.
Social media Issue: The client has also added the video to YouTube where it receives a lot of very negative feedback from the Muslim community. The owner actually goes and comments on the Video saying that he himself is a Muslim and that he thought the video was very light hearted. The YouTube stream begins to get Racist slurs and the client is considering removing the video altogether.
Social media Question: What would you advise this client to do?
I would be really interested to get feedback on this, to see what other people think. After all if the wisdom of the crowd is destructive, how long can it be before it destroys the very element it is deemed to be promoting?
PS: i do not condone the use of the word Gay as a derogatory comment and people that do say it, should consider if they would say the term ‘Black, Jewish or Muslim’ in the same contex and if you wouldnt, then stop saying it. My use of it was simply to express a point, so i hope this does not offend anyone.
Resources:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/new_anti_smoking_ads_warn_teens
http://www.utalkmarketing.com/pages/Article.aspx?ArticleID=15591&
http://www.womanist-musings.com/2009/10/onion-proclaims-smoking-is-so-gay.html
http://tweetmeme.com/story/204514117/new-anti-smoking-ads-warn-teens-its-gay-to-smoke-the-onion-americas-finest-news-source
http://www.photobasement.com/the-onion-new-anti-smoking-ads-warn-teens-its-gay-to-smoke/
http://www.247gay.com/News/Daily_News/2009/10/06/The_Onion__It__39;s_Gay_to_Smoke/
http://www.mediabistro.com/agencyspy/ha/smoking_so_gay_not_really_139475.asp
http://www.emptyclosets.com/forum/showthread.php?p=569276&wb_session_id=45d2e4ea81662229280befd2f9de07be
http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/2009/10/smoking-is-gay-says-new-antismoking-psa.html
29 comments so far to - Was it Gay for the Onion’s ‘It’s Gay to smoke’ video to be removed from YouTube? -
It’s an interesting argument, the problem is in the world of social media being near the edge of what’s acceptable can really help you get attention. The problem is if you’re too near that edge there’s danger people aren’t going to ‘get’ it.
Though watching this video, I worry about the inteligence of the people who can’t tell it’s satire!
that was exactly my fear, the Onion has big budget promotion quality videos and it could very easily appear real
As an individual, I see moral dilemas in social media needing answers from one’s own morals and principles. As just me, I’d probably stand and fight my corner and defend my beliefs.
However, when you’re operating as or for a business, those morals can sometimes go down the tiolet. They shouldn’t, but if it’s a matter of morals vs. cash or a client’s account, it can be a difficult decission.
As on overall answer to the problems you’ve set above, I think it’s a test of the business’ morals vs. financial gain. The problem is that the ‘baby that cries loudest’ often wins out in socail media or PR, whereas the majority often don’t care. But the argument itself can swing public opinion rather than the actual issues. Humans are such fickle monkeys.
I think the business needs to understand what the potential outcome might be (loss of trade, long term damage to the brand etc) and weigh this against the potential benefits (increase in brand awareness, CSR positioning, potential increase in sales) … and then decide just how moral they really want to be.
It’s actually a good way to get a business to define / review it’s CSR stand and I’d use this as an output from the whole affair.
Good luck :o)
The Long Dog.
Thats a really good point about damage to their Brand, it is a funny business with opinons changing in seconds online in favour and out of favour for Brand A to Brand B.
From a social media angle we often fall behind the users becoming the Brand, it just scared me a bit seeing the homophobic outcry from the Onions user base on YouTube. I mean no one wants a Brand that stands for that, but what were they saying about the Onion as a brand in those comments?
It is a contensious issue. PS: thanks very much for commenting
Hmmmm – it’s all about context and exposure. I think that the content on the Onion site, as a piece of satire is funny and makes fun of the very nature the problem in a context which makes the fact that it is taking the micky, very obvious.
And the same for the examples you have used. Youtube doesn’t provide a space for context. Perhaps it should – perhaps people should read the blurb in the top right hand of the screen and people uploading content should be careful to explain the tone.
I mean racist, homophobic or cruel content is wrong – end of. The mink example is a little different because it is not meant in jest – so people are angry about the issue and would be regardless because it has been taken in the tone that it were created.
I think basically if a video such as the Onion video is meant in a certain way then the Onion should be careful to ensure that the video was only seen in that context. If the video’s tone is explicit then I think it should be fine on youtube.
When it comes to responding to negative feedback I think that companies need to believe in what they are producing and have the courage of their convictions. This will ensure that they can respond appropriately to any negative comments.
Do you think that the Onion should stand by the comments on YouTube and add their own comments explaining what the context of the video was meant to be?
Good post. The Onion isn’t known for self censorship so I presume that they took the video down due to getting a threatening legal letter. Compared to some of the other stuff they’ve done it’s pretty tame and the point of satire is to expose ludicrous posturing by using ludicrous references.
Here’s how I’d answer your two questions:
1) The client should not have created the video in the first place and certainly shouldn’t have posted it on a video sharing platform. By doing so they’ve decided to join an emotive political debate that it based on an emotional reaction not a reasoned one. So, a debate that can’t be won.
However, having entered the debate willingly they would be unwise to pull the vid from You Tube. If they’re broadcasting to an open community then they must be prepared for the conversation.
2) In this instance the client was a muppet and the fact that he is a Muslim himself is irrelevant as it doesn’t justify the fact that it’s just a really rubbish creative idea.
He could of course submit the ad to You’ve Been Framed and see if he can win £100?
My advice to retailers is don’t work with Religion or Animals.
Firstly, lol… loved the feedback on the paddling pool idea
Taking the Mink idea, this is something that has been on my mind ever since the question at our training day with regards to the fur industry.
Its a tough one, as any industry that has a bad element to the creation of its products; be that child slave labour, animal cruelty or sexisim, is going to come up against it at every turn in the realms of UGC and the soundbite generation on Twitter. But, is this an opportunity for them to make the change OR to add more smoke and mirrors? i’m not sure, i would like to see the changes made, but this costs money and money rules the boardroom
From a promotional point of view I would keep a piece of content running for as long as possible. I’m a believer in the “any publicity is good publicity” idea.
However, when people start believing the content to be something it’s not, or actually being offended by something, it becomes a moral issue. Is promoting your business more important that offending or insulting members of a community or the wider public? I think this is a decision only the client can make
I suppose my fear is, what if the client doesnt make it? at what point do we step in?
First comment – LOL… I love the Onion, and was brought up on Monty Python, and then Chris Morris and love satire in all it’s forms.
However there is a certain inevitability of the kind of stir that this video would cause. It also seems uncannily on-topic that here in the UK we currently have a not dissimilar issue thanks to someone using the derogatory name for someone from Pakistan on national TV.
I have a very simple observation on this – we’ve lost our common sense.
Where on earth to you have to have been living to not understand satire at this level?
To my mind this is a fantastic bit of viral marketing, which, as Claire points out, once out there in the worl, once handed over to the community, it’s held aloft for the masses to decide – all control is lost.
For us in marketing this is a success, and reminds me of a quote I frequenetly use – “There’s only one thing worse than being talked about, and that’s not being talked about”, Oscare Wilde.
Yes, in marketing terms it is a success, i mean we are all talking about it too and so if this was the key indicator to its success its most definately a WIN
Really good article – its obvious to say but left me with more questions than answers!
My take – on the same lines as The Long Dog
In answer to your scenarios , I would say that you have to be moral “neutral” when marketing, In both examples I would *personally* feel that the videos should stay up – the intention of both was malign. However it isn’t about how I feel, the reality is that if the videos stay up there your fictional clients are going to find it harder to achieve their marketing goals – whatever they may as long as people focus on these videos as opposed to their other messaging.
It just isn’t worth the risk – unless you are an organisation that is built on a set morals – The Body Shop would be an example – I’m struggling to think of a company that has built a strong reputation on the flip side – for example saying that the 100% back animal testing – can anyone else think of one?
So you think that this type of viral content would detract from what else they are saying?
yup – unless the viral content is directly linked to the message. The accessories company isn’t about ensuring that pest control by products are put to good use – they are (I’m guessing) about creating products which are desirable to their target market and selling shed loads of them. And the chap that sells pools isn’t about being a Muslim he’s about selling pools!
I saw this the other night on telly http://tinyurl.com/yhcq58b (not in the commercial break but refereed to), it totally fits with the Marmite brand but some people might find it offensive – however as it fits so well with the messaging I reckon it’s worth the risk.
Awesome post Claire! Personally, I would pull the advert if it started to offend people as much as this video has. I agree with Duncan is saying that this is a decision that would ultimately have to be made by the client. I would assume they would say, “Take it off!!”
How people didn’t realise this was a joke (a very funny joke) is beyond me…
It’s funny, when Dan first sent it to me i was outraged, really pissed off and started penning the post in seconds.. then i had a cup of tea, watched it in the contex of the Onion and found it very funny.
It’s such a dilemma when it comes to things like this, its all down to personal taste and in this case the Onion might have gotten it a tad wrong? who knows, their readers liked it. I really want to find out Who pulled the video? juries still out on that one…
I think the problem is context. Mostly anybody (apart from those using it as a journalist source about how the moon landing was fake) knows that the Onion is based on satire, so nobody is going to take the video seriously. By publishing it on YouTube you remove that information from the viewers, who might think it’s actually a real opinion. Maybe lots more branding on the video might have helped, or having it only on the Onion website with its full context.
About the two questions:
1) Are those offended people going to buy jewelry with mink fur bits on it? Maybe you’re not offending your customer base, so why should you worry some people don’t like you. Though keeping the debate civil if possible would reflect well on the company, just hard to do that on YouTube. Video should stay as long as the information on it it’s true.
2) It might sound like political correctness gone wild, though, would depend on the video real content. If it has managed to upset a large amount of the muslim population, there might be some problem with it. Personally, I doubt people would get so cross about that. Commenting “I am a muslim too” is like that joke “I can say shit about , because my mum was . Saying “I am sorry, wasn’t done with intention to offend and it’s light hearted” should suffice. Still I find it a bit of on bad taste anyway, but it’s my personal opinion.
Just my 2c :)
Thats really interesting as i am always banging on about get your content out there, everywhere, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook etc.. but what your saying is interesting, your saying that the message should be blatent throughout, which is fine on YouTube in the channel but not in the general search, i wonder how the Onion could have made their message more definate as in Jo-Rosie’s point
“And the same for the examples you have used. Youtube doesn’t provide a space for context. Perhaps it should – perhaps people should read the blurb in the top right hand of the screen and people uploading content should be careful to explain the tone.”
thanks for this, brilliant stuff
I think there are several issues here that are only resolved by moral opinion and choice.
Firstly, although the Onion video is controversial and courageous, it isn’t malicious. They simply know their target audience well enough to create such content without it being taken too seriously. What happens to the content after that point is when it becomes susceptible to criticism. For example, one gay person could be highly offended by it and express their views (which is their choice) and another would see the satirical side to it and just laugh it off (also their choice). Personally I don’t think this is a hateful stab at the gay community, but equally YouTube have to respond to negative feedback. YouTube’s demographic is, of course, far more cavernous than the Onion’s, but it’s our ‘choice’ when we search and see this kind of content.
I think the two example you’ve created are where moral comes into it slightly above choice (just). As nether a Muslim, fur advocator or gay person (just camp) I still register offence when ANY community is targeted unfairly or maliciously. So, if these were my clients in question I would of course know the intention of their marketing actions, as much as the moral implications surrounding them. Some folk will always have racist tendencies, enjoy wearing fur, smoking, be homophobic, but we all know it always boils down to choice and opinion. Yes, I would take the video down if it was causing wide spread offence, but only because morals dictate that. I believe again there was no malice in the content, but like mentioned already, you need to always have courage in your convictions!
And, aren’t we all simply fuelling the fire by discussing the topic now? We all know this is the art to successful modern day marketing; plus social media accelerates how quickly it makes an impact. When it makes this impact – like now – we express our views and opinions (no right or wrong really) just moral nuances and choice.
Great post Claire!
I agree with everything you said and, yes it is about moral dilemmas which hinder and help everyday life. It’s funny but generally everyone is steering towards taking the video down. My main fear is the anger this creates from those that didnt want it taken down.
Also, the Onion’s subscribers on YouTube are loyal and expect to see the content via that channel as always, they havent done anything wrong in their eyes, and they want to know why the video was taken away from them? yet left on the Onions website?
For example: If their was a hashtag about a certain topic on twitter and we all got involved and Retweeted it and followed it and someone said “hey thats bad” a bit like the @moonfruit situation and pulled all the posts.. but left the comments on a website.. how would we feel?
We are indeed throwing petrol on the Fire MrRatty (miss ya and thanks)
Adding this on behalf of @greg_dreyfus as he raised some really great points in his Twitter feedback;
Greg said:
“Hey there! Well I’ve watched the video & I have my views on it ….
So first off it’s the onion that created it so this will offend but once the video is taken outside of the normal onion audience, the viewers may not appreciate the “comical” values and therefore the message may appear to them as “real”.
This is where it becomes dangerous. If they had a disclaimer advising the viewer it is fake then this may help. The way I see it is like the show family guy…. highly offensive but i like it ..however I would never take moral values from the show!”
Thanks Greg
The questions clearly indicate the need for a better understanding of the changes of language/info exchange according to the medium by which they’re accessed.
This was posted on Twitter by @alan_sharland
I think the whole thing with ‘what offends’ and what doesn’t is actually very individual even though it’s often claimed to be a thing that offends a whole group.
You’d probably find some people who are gay laugh at it and others deeply offended. Ain’t no right/wrng
Thanks Alan
Reminds me a bit of the whole debate around the 70s British sitcom character Alf Garnett. Whenever comedians offer up a satirical mirror to society, some will see the joke and some won’t. I have two objections: 1. it’s preaching to the converted 2. those of us who are the target of the alleged abuse end up being defended by people who probably don’t actually give a monkey’s about us in the first place, they just want to seem righteous.
As for the issue of people commissioning adverts and PR that backfires, well I think it’s the responsibility of the PR machine to inform clients of any potential pitfalls, but if the client decides to go ahead it’s their responsibility *not* that of whoever made the advert. As a programmer I have come across many clients who have disregarded my judgement, and that of my colleagues, and have had to pay to have applications rewritten when they’ve realised their mistake. At the end of the day, all you can do is advise, and that’s where your responsibility ends.
Good points, it’s interesting about being defended by those who wish to appear righteous, i think thats very true and can sometimes and quite possibly what happened in this case made the problem worse.
Yes we can only advise our clients at the end of the day, if they wish to go ahead with content that we percive risky, then is their call.. i suppose i’m intrested in what we do when the backlash hits.. surely it affects everything we have built up in the first place.. and we might end up playing catch-up again
What a first post Claire! Very interesting debate here, I’m gonna weigh in on it even if its a few days late…
Firstly I have to say the Onion vid (which was hilarious) was obviously a satire on (amongst other things) homophobia – that it’s there in the media, but hidden, couched in P.C. language and almost subliminal – it’s saying, you know what, I prefer the blatant playground homophobia (“thats so gay!”) because at least its honest and upfront. Gay people and liberals who found the Onion video offensive (a) need to grow a sense of humour and (b) realise that far from being homophobic its actually pointing & laughing at homophobia in our society in a way that only satire can. It’s a bit like the Shakespearian King getting angry at the jester for taking the piss out of the King’s faults and hypocrisies while everyone else just sucks up to him and tells him how great he is. Don’t use the onion as a scapegoat!
OK marketing hat on now. As far as the Onion is concerned this was a 100% success. If they create controversy and outrage THATS A GOOD THING – its pretty much part of their business plan. A commercial business, creating this kind of content, on the other hand, is a whole different kettle of fish. As commenters above have said, it depends on how this fits into your brand image and how damaging it could be.
But I do tend to agree with Duncan and Tim in that “any publicity is better than no publicity at all”. If a client is willing to try something edgy and put it out there, I would not tell them to be scared and stay safe. It’s all about how you RESPOND to the bad feedback and controversy – and frankly I hate the idea of putting a “this is a joke and not meant to be taken seriously” disclaimer – yuck. So here are my answers to your 2 scenarios:
1) The client could actually turn this around if they are brave enough. Get in touch with some of the anti-fur campaigners and ask them to do a video response to the minks are pests video, but with guidelines on not being offensive etc. The best one gets to (gasp) be featured on the client’s blog alongside the original vid. At the same time launch a faux-fur range. If you think about it you could not only diffuse the situation by giving your critics a voice (which they are desparate to air), but you’re controlling the conversation so you can respond to the points the campaigners make, you’re generating more buzz and links, you could grab a new customer base with the faux-fur range, and IMO you’re not really going to put the fur fans off, they will still buy from you coz they just cant get enough of that fluffy dead animal round their neck…
2) So this is a bit more tricky and potentially offensive to a far wider group. But better to make this mistake and respond to it than just keep churning out mind-numbingly dull blog posts about the different varieties of paddling pools and their benefits. So you’re starting to get kudos from BNP types who are looking to pounce on any excuse to stir up some racial tension and win some votes. Well, turn it back on them. Release another video, a spoof of your girls in hijabs one, with three neo-nazis in a paddling pool talking about how much their new Union Jack Bulldog tattoos hurt when the sun comes out… get the muslim / antiracist crowd behind you on that vid – potentially a reputation managed, and extra buzz off the back of the controversy.
Woah..Holy Long Blog Comment Batman!
Whow, and your meant to be relaxing on holiday.. lol.
Ok, i do agree that on the surface it is a joke and thus shouldnt be taken seriously, but alot of people arent as aware as you and they may think that it is real. This is a risk of adding content without contex on other mediums.
My main concern was actually who removed it from YouTube, as their is no evidence that it was the Gay community?
PS: go relax
I applaud you for your post and I feel that you answered your own questions by the following phrase: “i do not condone the use of the word Gay as a derogatory comment.” If you have to qualify a campaign in such terms then doesn’t that set off a red flag as to the wisdom of running it? Insensitive humour often is funny but I would consider some of these examples as marketing spam and debate the wisdom of leaving it out there to, essentially, start an opinion war.
I know that alienation is a big branding tool for political and social campaigns but I do not think products should be divisive unless you have segmented your customers to the extent that the ones you have marginalised are considered inconsequential to your organisation. Regardless, I find these practices ethically dubious and, for any activists that really do their homework, any major backlash could spread from the client to the agency as well.