Comments

You should have seen the part they edited out with the leather interior.

Posted by LOL at February 4, 2005 3:45 PM

The ad isn't tasteless. It's actually creative. Pulling that ad is another demonstration of the power of the church's religious agendas and influence in "free" America. When will it stop?

Is this www.tompeters.com or www.religiousright.com ? Come to think of it, why the hell are any of you posting articles here? Leave it to THE PRO. This community is going to hell and is less about Tom than it is his subordinates.

Re-imagine your goddam sense of humors while you are at it.

Posted by Dau at February 4, 2005 4:05 PM

dau: Then why did Ford pull the ad ??

Posted by /pd at February 4, 2005 4:42 PM

You do not want to offend the people you are trying to sell a product to. If you look at demographics of people that purchase Lincolns, I would be willing to wager that many of them will fall into the group that would be offended by the ad.

Now I wonder what the response would be if the comemrcial was by a beer company instead of Lincoln. The same or different?

Posted by Fred at February 4, 2005 5:32 PM

Actually, after reading your note, Steve, I'm left pondering whether in this day and age of 'heightened sensitivity' whether it's possible to do anything without some group or other being offended. This morning I sat enjoying the beautiful Boulder weather and sporadically eavesdropped on a couple sitting next to me who were complaining about the kind of vitamins that are added when something is "vitamin fortified". They were quite incensed about the whole topic and, frankly, knew more about the subject than I did. BUT I'm sure that when they see an advertisement that says "Now vitamin fortified to be even better for you" they get upset and want to write a letter to General Mills or whomever.

Obviously the Ford ad was in poor taste and stupid, but I can't believe that anyone is going to say that the rest of ads on TV aren't typically also in poor taste and stupid too. I mean, what makes an advert with beautiful supermodels hanging on the arm of some dorky guy who just happens to drink the right drink, wear the right cologne, or buy the right clothes any less offensive or insulting to us as a society?

Am I sorry that there are people who have been abused by their clergy, and am I appalled at the violation of the trust placed in the church by these families? Of course. Everyone should be. But does that mean that it's yet another verboten area where we can only refer to it in hushed, reverent tones? I hope not. Because it's all part of the fabric of our world, like it or not. The more we place some topics in the "serious" category, the less we can engage in a healthy dialog - a dialog that often includes humor or satire - and grow.

Posted by Dave Taylor at February 4, 2005 5:45 PM

Dau - I couldn't disagree more. This is not about "the religious right," which, by the way, isn't Catholic and doesn't have priests. It's about stupid, worthless advertising, it's about offending both of the victims of abuse, it's about lumping the 99.9% of priests who don't abuse kids in with those who do, it's gratuitous, it's in bad taste, and it won't sell anything.

Posted by Steve Yastrow at February 4, 2005 5:53 PM

Steve, I agree. This "ad" is based on a small and inappropriate bunch of self-centered men masquerading as righteous by wearing the cloth. That happens in many religions. Plus, pairing these images puts a really bad spin on "lust" itself. And lust is not always bad.

Posted by Pam Brill at February 4, 2005 6:28 PM

Lust is't always bad? Sorry, I'm gonna bite. Please explain. Not bad for the one who lusts, or not bad for the one who uses another's lust for his own gain (i.e. Apple creates lust for their products.)?

Posted by Dustin at February 4, 2005 7:23 PM

Dr.Pam: I'll have to also bite that- "Lust is't always bad" - could you give me one case in which it is good ??

i'll conceed the point if "lust" is replaced with "love" !!

Posted by /pd at February 4, 2005 7:50 PM

Dear Steve,

Do you ever have anything good to say about anyone or anything (yourself excluded)? As a reader of Tom’s blog for about four months, I don’t recall anything you’ve submitted except attack ads and negative marketing against your competition. In your world does “good” or “positive” sell? How about in the blogosphere? What about a Museum of Goodvertising?

Maybe being the “Official Curmudgeon & Misanthrope” of Tom’s World helps you gain corporate clients. Maybe constantly trashing the competition will secure one more account or speaking engagement. If so, I understand. It’s a tough world.

This weekend is the Super Bowl, and for most of us the opportunity to watch some entertaining advertising in between. Many of us will laugh our heads off at the commercials. And many of us will return on Monday to read your entry on why they were stupid, ignorant and a waste of money. I can hardly wait!

Am I the only one who feels this way?

Posted by don at February 5, 2005 1:17 AM

Okay, your comments sent me to dictionary.com, one of my favorite sites. Thank you.
One of two definitions listed for lust: "Intense eagerness or enthusiasm: a lust for life."
Through my lens, a lust for life is a wonderful thing.
A lust for excellence is another one that I respect. Courage to take a stand- to put yourself out there in blogville- along with a lust for excellence are what I see in Yastrow's posts and in those who respond, whether the posts are positive or negative.

Posted by Pam Brill at February 5, 2005 1:37 PM

Offensiveness aside, it is just a really lame ad. What is with these marketers who think linking the Catholic Church with sex or lust is at all sexy. It's not even funny because the humour is overlooked by the "huh" factor.

Case in point, the nuns eating Nestlé Sundae piece. That should have been pulled on the basis of incredibly bad taste. It was revolting.

Posted by Aleah at February 5, 2005 4:10 PM

Ok, aside from the subject matter of the ad which I agree was probably a bad choice, to say the least. I have to agree with the comments from Steve that this is just a really , really bad ad. Why would I ever consider buying a Lincoln after seeing this? Because some priest lusted after it? I don't think so. In my opinion this is just another example of the really poor job that much of the advertising industry is doing these days.

Posted by Andrew Hayden at February 5, 2005 11:37 PM

Time to weigh in! Thanks for all the great comments ... just warming us up for the Super Bowl Ad Orgy.

To Don: Hey, I kind of like the marketing misanthrope title, but I think of myself more as the kid in the Emperor's New Clothes, pointing out advertising and marketing stupidity as I see it. If you want to see what I think is good, send me your address and I'll send you a copy of my book, Brand Harmony. It's a comprehensive philosophy of what I believe works in marketing. I have strong beliefs in what I think is good! As for being purposely negative to secure clients or speaking engagements, I can assure you I have more effective personal marketing strategies than that! The fact is that the readers of this site love to debate "badvertising," and every one of our discussions has people on both sides of the debate. That's good ... and interesting.

More comments: On Pam's legitimate comment that "lust is not always bad." One definition of lust is to "have a craving, appetite, or great desire for." She's right. (And as a PhD Psychologist, we should defer to her on these issues anyway!)

Overall: This is crappy advertising. It isn't just some weird "heightened sensitivity" thing, or the "religious right," (which isn't Catholic). It's just another example of indulgent advertising creatives getting something that won't sell anything past a bunch of client morons.

Can't wait to hear all of your comments on Super Bowl ads tomorrow!

Posted by Steve Yastrow at February 6, 2005 3:08 AM

I don't think this ad is an intentional poke at clergy at all. It's pretty obvious that the moral jab is not directed at a sensitive subset of the target market, but ALL of the (poorly considered)target market.

It's absurd to so readily connect this ad with abusive clerics when it's SO OBVIOUSLY about car people-people who lust after that one gloriously perfect and rapturous machine.

This said, it doesn't make the ad any less stupid. Just because the abuse connection is absurd doesn't mean that Ford shouldn't have anticipated the absurd-especially given the current cultural climate.

How many would have immediately made the connection and been offended this group hadn't already made a stink about it? It wouldn't have occurred to me. I simply would have thought, "Hmm... funny ad. Stupid, but funny...hmm what wonder what else is..."

And yes, Don, I think you're the only one. But that's okay because you've got a positive attitude and I'm sure you'll get over it.

Posted by Jason Kerr at February 6, 2005 5:24 AM

Using the same reference point that you used. The word 'lust' comes out in two ways.. correct !!

a) An overwhelming desire or craving: a lust for power.
b) Intense eagerness or enthusiasm: a lust for life.

You only articulate (b) why ??

So reading what you said: "Plus, pairing these images puts a really bad spin on "lust" itself. And lust is not always bad. "

Posted by /pd at February 6, 2005 11:08 AM

Don - Be sure to give us your comments on the Super Bowl ads later ... bad or good!

Posted by Steve Yastrow at February 6, 2005 2:16 PM

I didn't see the ad, of course. But did it have ANYTHING about why we should put five figures of moola towards a motorized hunk of metal from DETROIT with our greatest president's name on it? Anything about the comfort, performance, hauling space, reliability, or how (or if) Detroit is finally making a car that's better than the German and Japanese cars, along with a good deal of style and humor (e.g., Honda)? Or did they just want to poke a jab the priests just for free publicity? Or maybe it's done just to bring out Dau's intolerance toward Christians.

Posted by Ron at February 7, 2005 11:05 AM

Ron is correct. Lincoln is getting a ton of free publicity without spending the $2.4 mill for the air time. The ad wasn't the least bit creative. It was just tasteless. Don't think for one second that Ford didn't know exactly what they were doing. In fact, I'm sure they would have been very dissapointed if Fox hadn't stopped the ad.

By the way, you don't have to be a "religious conservative" to be offended by poor taste. Also, for the record, there are a lot of ministers from a lot of denominations who wear the "Roman collar." Catholic churches rarely use the message board to promote next week's sermon. That's not the purpose of the mass. That the man in the ad is a priest is an invalid assumption, even though it almost certainly was Ford's intent.

Posted by MikeB at February 7, 2005 2:21 PM

It just stikes me now.. a Whatif Scenario -If I were to create/ run once/pull the Ad strategy ..would this be ethical behavivour and business strategy ?? I.e create a shit distrubing ad, knowing fully well that it will run only once and then it will need to be pulled !! Yet at the same time just creating more buzz then anything else and thereby leveraging publicity chatter ??

What would this mean for Brand Engineering and product and crediablity ??

Just shooting a crazy thought here.. any comments

Posted by /pd at February 7, 2005 3:42 PM

Two answers from me: viagra for sale without prescription

1) That's certainly a $2.4 million gamble. It may work, it may not ("Black And White", Michael Jackson). It certainly is not in line with Lincoln's stodgy image. It's also not something I would do, but oh well, whatever. If this strategy is what Ford had in mind, then they have some real destructive minds in their marketing department (i.e., destroy your company before your competitor does, a la Tom Peters).

2) Will that strategy work for GoDaddy.com? (I don't think so either.)

Posted by Ron at February 7, 2005 4:38 PM

Is the link to adage Ok? I have tried three times to see the ad and it´s been impossible. Next time.

Posted by felix gerena at February 8, 2005 9:53 AM