From a public relations standpoint it is often a wise tactic to attempt to analyze who might be offended by any media pronouncements your company might be making.
Nowadays, it almost seems as if someone or some group is looking to be offended.
As an example, recently a Kansas City TV anchor referred to San Francisco as “San Fransicko” at the end of a newscast and one gay guy was so offended he started a Facebook site to get the anchor fired. The anchor had to go on a local radio talk show an apologize for his remark.
Ironically, the anchor used the term only after reporting that some residents in SF were trying to get a measure passed to allow public nudity. It had nothing to do with gays or their gay agenda, but that didn’t stop him from being offended.
Taco Bell has now found itself in basically the same position and being forced to pull an ad it developed because it “attacked” vegetables.
It now seems as if vegetables might move into the area of being a protected class in society.
Taco Bell had developed the ad promoting its new 12-pack of Tacos and made fun of people who bring vegetables to a football watch party.
A voice-over says that everyone knows that bringing veggies to game day “is like punting at fourth and one. It’s a cop-out and secretly, people kind of hate you for it.” The 15-second spot was created by DraftFCB.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (AKA the “Food Police”) did not find the ad one bit funny.
“It’s bad enough that there aren’t many ads on television for broccoli, kale, or carrots,” noted the group. “The last thing healthy fruits and vegetables needed was to be the subject of attack ads.”
An obviously beleaguered Taco Bell spokesperson clarified why his company yanked the offending spot, “We didn’t want anyone to misinterpret the intent of the ad.”