When you have kids, you naturally censor yourself when you're around them (or at least you try to - sometimes you just let an expletive slip out). But when you're in marketing, is there an obligation to keep it rated PG?

Racy ads, like some more mature prime time shows, have traditionally been reserved for after-bedtime hours. But with the advent of so many social media tools for sharing video content or photos, marketers can bet that their ads will pretty much been seen any time of the day.

The reason I bring this up is that there's a billboard campaign by the regional convenience store chain Sheetz that's created quite a stir. Evidently, a Harrisburg, PA family took a look at this billboard and balked, claiming it contained offensive language:


Having been raised in a household where the offending word was banned, I can understand how this might have ruffled a few feathers. They claim it's an approximation of another word that has an 'F' a 'C' and a 'K' in it. Whether you agree or not, you have to admit two things: (a) how pervasive foul (fowl?) language has become these days and (b) how easy it is to get more mature subjects into younger hands.

Every website that contains a signup process, whether it's a social network, newsletter, etc. typically has language asking to verify that you're 13 years of age or older. This is in cooperation with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. But when we create portable or distributable content (to say nothing of billboards), there has to be some acknowledgment that this content, however edgy it may be, could end up in the hands of an unintended minor.

While I snickered at Sarah Silverman's "I'm F*cking Matt Damon" on late-night TV, it was quickly and widely distributed over the Web within days (current count of this version: over 7.8 million views). Jimmy Kimmel came up with the rejoinder in his equally as funny/disturbing "I'm F*cking Ben Affleck" (currently at just over 4 million views). So, this content isn't remaining in the sole domain of late-night viewing.

There are always going to be sensitive eyes & ears about any variety of things. The politically-correct movement is always trying to change our phraseology so no one gets offended, but the reality is, someone is always going to be offended by something. My question is: with the ease of syndication, embedded videos, and widgetized content, is their anything we can do to minimize the exposure of tiny eyes and ears to this stuff? Or is doesn't it matter any more?

As to the above, I guess this family won't be eating chicken fricassee any time soon. At least they won't be putting with with any more Sheetz. Maybe they'll be frickin' Jimmy Kimmel...

Whoops! Can I say that here?

Labels: ethics, Marketing, news, social media

 Comments

 LINKS TO THIS POST

 Comments:

At 3/04/2008 8:29 PM,  walhus said...

Take a look at our budding political billboard site http://republicant.com

Dina Knight, Cheryl Hill and I are interviewing attendees, panelists and trade show exhibitors at SXSW for http://geeknewscentral.com and http://austincast.com/sxsw. I see that you're going to SXSW. Geek News Central was a big hit on itunes with it's coverage of CES in Las Vegas this year.

Would you be willing to do a skype or phone interview with us online now and then do a video interview at SXSW? My skype name is walhus. Phone is 512.699.4000. The video would appear on both of the above mentioned sites.

If this is ok, send your contact phone and skype to walhus@gmail.com with a suggested time to call or skype you.

This is a sample of an interview I did today with Jim Crews via skype.

http://www.austincast.com/blog/?p=134

Thanks,

Paul Terry Walhus
512.699.4000 cellphone
skype: walhus
http://austincast.com/sxsw
http://geeknewscentral.com
http://justin.tv/austintexas/
http://twitter.com/springnet - add me

 

At 3/05/2008 4:06 PM,  Jordan said...

Oh wow, Scott.

I don't know where to begin- this post is so chock full of puns that I feel obligated to reply with one, but I'll resist the urge.

Fwiw, at Strutta we recently printed some stickers with the correct spelling (no frick here) of the "offending" term, that we have distributed internally and to close friends for a laugh.

I can defend our actions a number of ways, but I think it's enough to say that we knew our community would respond positively to it, and that it made for good marketing.

That said, I admit there's a HUGE difference between a limited run sticker and billboard advertising, and walking the fine line between edgy and forgettable in mainstream advertising can't be an easy task.

Thank goodness we work in social media!

 

Watch Your Frickin' Mouth

When you have kids, you naturally censor yourself when you're around them (or at least you try to - sometimes you just let an expletive slip out). But when you're in marketing, is there an obligation to keep it rated PG?

Racy ads, like some more mature prime time shows, have traditionally been reserved for after-bedtime hours. But with the advent of so many social media tools for sharing video content or photos, marketers can bet that their ads will pretty much been seen any time of the day.

The reason I bring this up is that there's a billboard campaign by the regional convenience store chain Sheetz that's created quite a stir. Evidently, a Harrisburg, PA family took a look at this billboard and balked, claiming it contained offensive language:


Having been raised in a household where the offending word was banned, I can understand how this might have ruffled a few feathers. They claim it's an approximation of another word that has an 'F' a 'C' and a 'K' in it. Whether you agree or not, you have to admit two things: (a) how pervasive foul (fowl?) language has become these days and (b) how easy it is to get more mature subjects into younger hands.

Every website that contains a signup process, whether it's a social network, newsletter, etc. typically has language asking to verify that you're 13 years of age or older. This is in cooperation with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. But when we create portable or distributable content (to say nothing of billboards), there has to be some acknowledgment that this content, however edgy it may be, could end up in the hands of an unintended minor.

While I snickered at Sarah Silverman's "I'm F*cking Matt Damon" on late-night TV, it was quickly and widely distributed over the Web within days (current count of this version: over 7.8 million views). Jimmy Kimmel came up with the rejoinder in his equally as funny/disturbing "I'm F*cking Ben Affleck" (currently at just over 4 million views). So, this content isn't remaining in the sole domain of late-night viewing.

There are always going to be sensitive eyes & ears about any variety of things. The politically-correct movement is always trying to change our phraseology so no one gets offended, but the reality is, someone is always going to be offended by something. My question is: with the ease of syndication, embedded videos, and widgetized content, is their anything we can do to minimize the exposure of tiny eyes and ears to this stuff? Or is doesn't it matter any more?

As to the above, I guess this family won't be eating chicken fricassee any time soon. At least they won't be putting with with any more Sheetz. Maybe they'll be frickin' Jimmy Kimmel...

Whoops! Can I say that here?

Labels: ethics, Marketing, news, social media

blog comments powered by Disqus

Home