Are the "Wendy's Bees" Racist?

marylago said:

I saw the commercial during the Giants game yesterday. They must have gotten enough flack because the bee barely spoke and its lips were hardly visible. Perhaps it was due to it being big bucks time for advertising though...

And I'm sure outrage from many African Americans and various groups forced them to revamped the commercial. I found the original commercial rcarter posted, offensive.

When I viewed the original commercial, I was offended and thought it reminded me of the lips of Golliwog

Anytime I see those lips, I tend to associate it with racism however I also agree that those of us >30 might be more prone to seeing things like this as offensive. If I had no knowledge or understanding of history, the commercial would probably look like a talking bumble with red lips.

phenixrising said:

marylago said:

I saw the commercial during the Giants game yesterday. They must have gotten enough flack because the bee barely spoke and its lips were hardly visible. Perhaps it was due to it being big bucks time for advertising though...

And I'm sure outrage from many African Americans and various groups forced them to revamped the commercial. I found the original commercial rcarter posted, offensive.

I would hope so. It was offensive. I was just wondering whether the revamp was due to pressure or time slot. I hope it was the former.

This battle is lost. If you use Pepe on Twitter you are coming out as a white supremacist. No one who is in their right mind or hasn't been living under a rock this year would use it otherwise. This horse has left the barn.

The swastika was co-opted by the Nazis but no one is arguing to take it back. I'm surprised the ADL is even suggesting this.

spontaneous said:

Unless the ADL has taken to defending hate speech, Pepe isn't a symbol of hate unless used specifically as one. Context matters.

dave said:

Wendys has been using racist memes lately.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/wendys-tweet-pepe-deleted

eliz said:

This battle is lost. If you use Pepe on Twitter you are coming out as a white supremacist. No one who is in their right mind or hasn't been living under a rock this year would use it otherwise. This horse has left the barn.

The swastika was co-opted by the Nazis but no one is arguing to take it back. I'm surprised the ADL is even suggesting this.

spontaneous said:

Unless the ADL has taken to defending hate speech, Pepe isn't a symbol of hate unless used specifically as one. Context matters.

dave said:

Wendys has been using racist memes lately.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/wendys-tweet-pepe-deleted

People actually ARE trying to take back the swastika.

http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2013/01/raelians_defend_old_bridge_thi.html

http://www.proswastika.org/news.php?item.719.1

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2016/10/28/499475248/diwali-dilemma-my-complicated-relationship-with-the-swastika

The ADL has at least drawn a line in the sand to consider intent and context.

But we're so easily swayed. Here by a Nazi frog cartoon (!) of all things. The horror.

Amazing we've given such incredible power to hate groups co-opting innocent memes (and who knows what else) by instantly reacting across the board via censor (or public censure--take your pick). The ADL's file is going to get mighty big once they catch on and start slapping Hitler mustaches on kittens, and we'll be the poorer for it, while they laugh their ***** off. Unreal.

spontaneous said:

People actually ARE trying to take back the swastika.

http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2013/01/raelians_defend_old_bridge_thi.html

http://www.proswastika.org/news.php?item.719.1

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2016/10/28/499475248/diwali-dilemma-my-complicated-relationship-with-the-swastika

"Take back" tends to mean by the people who were threatened by it in the first place. For example, I assume you are familiar with "Take back the night"?

None of these examples is a "Take back" of the swastika by the Jewish people.

People of Indian descent are attempting to take back a symbol that was stolen from them and used for hate. They are being told they can't use a symbol that they used in peace for centuries, i.e. it was taken from them and they are trying to take it back.

sprout said:

spontaneous said:


People actually ARE trying to take back the swastika.

http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2013/01/raelians_defend_old_bridge_thi.html

http://www.proswastika.org/news.php?item.719.1

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2016/10/28/499475248/diwali-dilemma-my-complicated-relationship-with-the-swastika

"Take back" tends to mean by the people who were threatened by it in the first place. For example, I assume you are familiar with "Take back the night"?

None of these examples is a "Take back" of the swastika by the Jewish people.

None of the articles you posted uses the words "take back" -- because in the context of perpetrator and victim, "take back" means that those who were previously the victims switch things up to take back control.

What a load of bull.

ctrzaska said:

The ADL has at least drawn a line in the sand to consider intent and context.

But we're so easily swayed. Here by a Nazi frog cartoon (!) of all things. The horror.

Amazing we've given such incredible power to hate groups co-opting innocent memes (and who knows what else) by instantly reacting across the board via censor (or public censure--take your pick). The ADL's file is going to get mighty big once they catch on and start slapping Hitler mustaches on kittens, and we'll be the poorer for it, while they laugh their ***** off. Unreal.

This is an interesting situation. I don't think the question, "Are the 'Wendy's Bees' Racist?" will really be answerable. It's both grammatically and socially the wrong question. Shouldn't the question be "Are the Wendy's bees Racists?" (Plural.) I'll allow for the quotation marks deflecting the charge of racism from the bees themselves to the authors of the advertisement, but then shouldn't it then be "Is the 'Wendy's Bees Commercial' Racist?" (Singular.) I'll go along with the previous posters and accept the latter interpretation.

A more appropriate question might be, "Is the advertisement offensive - to whom?" or, "Is the advertisement intentionally offensive?" vs."Is the advertisement inadvertently offensive?"

I don't see provoking a discussion of an advertisement wherein some people are offended and others deny the authenticity of their offense as serving the purpose of the brand, despite the most cynical connection to Pepe the Frog and the subsequently deleted tweet.

Maybe I'm a naive and quaint older consumer of advertisements, but then again, isn't that Wendy's target market, at least a little- naive and quaint older consumers? Ahem, who are not also Racists?

I would interpret the subsequent edited version to be evidence that the advertisement was inadvertently offensive, and adjustments have been made to the content, and, one would assume, the staff behind its creation.

So do you also believe that the 8 year old Hindu boy in Old Bridge who got in trouble for drawing a swastika was expressing Nazi sentiments?

dave said:

Wendy's knew exactly what it was doing in the ad and in its twitter post. Controversy creates attention, which brings in sales.

I don't see how that question follows from anything I've posted, but to respond: no.

spontaneous said:

So do you also believe that the 8 year old Hindu boy in Old Bridge who got in trouble for drawing a swastika was expressing Nazi sentiments?

dave said:

dave said:

Wendy's knew exactly what it was doing in the ad and in its twitter post. Controversy creates attention, which brings in sales.

So you think the advertisers knew it was going to be offensive and aired it with that in mind - my intentionally offensive choice?

Keep in mind the alternative theory is that there was a whole team of people working on it who simply were too ignorant to realize it might offend some people - and subsequent legions of people defending it as "not offensive." Those of us who question this are in a minority. I don't think the creators of the advertisement were arch geniuses. They were just thoughtless goofballs who majored in marketing and goofed.

Still think it was by design? Most things outside of NASA are accidental, and some within NASA.

dave said:

I don't see how that question follows from anything I've posted, but to respond: no.

spontaneous said:

So do you also believe that the 8 year old Hindu boy in Old Bridge who got in trouble for drawing a swastika was expressing Nazi sentiments?

dave said:

You posted a video with a white man with a twisted swastika (the Nazi style) on it where they try to pass it off as a Hindu swastika. But sure, you don't know what you posted.

Sprout, take back also means to regain control of something. The swastika was used for thousands of years to mean luck and good fortune by more than one religion. It wasn't some esoteric symbol, it was widely used and known (well, well known in what we now know as India at least, if you have a Euro-centric view of the world then it wasn't well known at all). A bunch of white people decided to start using an ancient Hindu symbol and twisted it (literally and figuratively) for their own hateful purpose. Now more white people of European descent are telling people of Indian descent that they are wrong and should be ashamed to use the swastika. I would never display one, but I would also never tell a follower of Hinduism or Buddhism or Jainism that they should take theirs down.

spontaneous said:

Now more white people of European descent are telling people of Indian descent that they are wrong and should be ashamed to use the swastika.

Did you even read the article you linked to?

"School officials reportedly counseled the unidentified third-grader to let him know that while he had done nothing wrong, the perception of the swastika varies by culture."

jersey_boy,

cmon, do you really believe that commercial made it onto the air without someone involved in the marketing at Wendy's knowing it could be seen as racist? Another part of marketing is to do your research or proverbial homework to make sure no words or symbols can be seen as offensive. There have been enough lawsuits and backlash for anyone involved in marketing to know that. So the ages of the marketing executives involved has nothing to do with it. The lack of doing their homework may ...

how exactly does one do research on whether big red lips might be seen as racist?

You either know this, or you don't - hence the age argument.

MrSuburbs said:

jersey_boy,

cmon, do you really believe that commercial made it onto the air without someone involved in the marketing at Wendy's knowing it could be seen as racist? Another part of marketing is to do your research or proverbial homework to make sure no words or symbols can be seen as offensive. There have been enough lawsuits and backlash for anyone involved in marketing to know that. So the ages of the marketing executives involved has nothing to do with it. The lack of doing their homework may ...

my guess is that if they tested the spots at all, they didn't show them to any black people.

drummerboy said:

how exactly does one do research on whether big red lips might be seen as racist?

You either know this, or you don't - hence the age argument.

MrSuburbs said:

jersey_boy,

cmon, do you really believe that commercial made it onto the air without someone involved in the marketing at Wendy's knowing it could be seen as racist? Another part of marketing is to do your research or proverbial homework to make sure no words or symbols can be seen as offensive. There have been enough lawsuits and backlash for anyone involved in marketing to know that. So the ages of the marketing executives involved has nothing to do with it. The lack of doing their homework may ...

drummerboy said:

how exactly does one do research on whether big red lips might be seen as racist?

You either know this, or you don't - hence the age argument.

MrSuburbs said:

jersey_boy,

cmon, do you really believe that commercial made it onto the air without someone involved in the marketing at Wendy's knowing it could be seen as racist? Another part of marketing is to do your research or proverbial homework to make sure no words or symbols can be seen as offensive. There have been enough lawsuits and backlash for anyone involved in marketing to know that. So the ages of the marketing executives involved has nothing to do with it. The lack of doing their homework may ...

Like this?

that's funny, but of course, why would anyone put in such a search term if they had no knowledge of blackface? Are you saying that every physical characteristic used in an ad run through "is this racist" test?

flimbro said:

drummerboy said:

how exactly does one do research on whether big red lips might be seen as racist?

You either know this, or you don't - hence the age argument.

MrSuburbs said:

jersey_boy,

cmon, do you really believe that commercial made it onto the air without someone involved in the marketing at Wendy's knowing it could be seen as racist? Another part of marketing is to do your research or proverbial homework to make sure no words or symbols can be seen as offensive. There have been enough lawsuits and backlash for anyone involved in marketing to know that. So the ages of the marketing executives involved has nothing to do with it. The lack of doing their homework may ...

Like this?

that's a good point - I don't have any knowledge of the criteria used for selecting test audiences, but it's not unreasonable to assume they try to test for various ethnic/racial sensitivities. But I guess that will vary based on the ad agency.

ml1 said:

my guess is that if they tested the spots at all, they didn't show them to any black people.

drummerboy said:

how exactly does one do research on whether big red lips might be seen as racist?

You either know this, or you don't - hence the age argument.

MrSuburbs said:

jersey_boy,

cmon, do you really believe that commercial made it onto the air without someone involved in the marketing at Wendy's knowing it could be seen as racist? Another part of marketing is to do your research or proverbial homework to make sure no words or symbols can be seen as offensive. There have been enough lawsuits and backlash for anyone involved in marketing to know that. So the ages of the marketing executives involved has nothing to do with it. The lack of doing their homework may ...

The idea that media professionals at the ad agency retained by Wendy's were somehow unaware of what they were doing is ridiculous. Age has nothing to do with it. Ads are not produced in a vacuum, they are discussed and parsed by ad agency creatives, media execs at the advertiser and production company creatives. Wendy's knew exactly what they were producing and they simply didn't care. Creatives at the ad agency are paid millions of dollars to stay current on the American consumer and the ebb and flow of popular culture. Their sensibilities simply did not include any consideration of how the imagery would be seen by certain segments of society. Like any other spot they assumed that the positives would outweigh the negatives and they proceeded. They miscalculated- doesn't mean it won't happen again. It'll simply be in a modified, more sophisticated package.

.

ok, but maybe you're putting just too much faith in the analytic powers of people charged with a cartoon of bees with big lips.

And if you put so much faith in their analytic abilities, by what rationale would anyone in a competent ad agency decide that possible racist overtones should be put aside because they must have thought that the genius of bees with big lips overrides racist concerns?

Sorry, but that relies on believing in a special kind of stupid.

nah - I don't buy it was deliberate.

eta: on the other hand, in the age of Trump, discounting the extent of someone's stupidity is a fool's errand.

flimbro said:

The idea that media professionals at the ad agency retained by Wendy's were somehow unaware of what they were doing is ridiculous. Age has nothing to do with it. Ads are not produced in a vacuum, they are discussed and parsed by ad agency creatives, media execs at the advertiser and production company creatives. Wendy's knew exactly what they were producing and they simply didn't care. Creatives at the ad agency are paid millions of dollars to stay current on the American consumer and the ebb and flow of popular culture. Their sensibilities simply did not include any consideration of how the imagery would be seen by certain segments of society. Like any other spot they assumed that the positives would outweigh the negatives and they proceeded. They miscalculated- doesn't mean it won't happen again. It'll simply be in a modified, more sophisticated package.

drummerboy said:

ok, but maybe you're putting just too much faith in the analytic powers of people charged with a cartoon of bees with big lips.

And if you put so much faith in their analytic abilities, by what rationale would anyone in a competent ad agency decide that possible racist overtones should be put aside because they must have thought that the genius of bees with big lips overrides racist concerns?

Sorry, but that relies on believing in a special kind of stupid.

nah - I don't buy it was deliberate.

eta: on the other hand, in the age of Trump, discounting the extent of someone's stupidity is a fool's errand.

flimbro said:

The idea that media professionals at the ad agency retained by Wendy's were somehow unaware of what they were doing is ridiculous. Age has nothing to do with it. Ads are not produced in a vacuum, they are discussed and parsed by ad agency creatives, media execs at the advertiser and production company creatives. Wendy's knew exactly what they were producing and they simply didn't care. Creatives at the ad agency are paid millions of dollars to stay current on the American consumer and the ebb and flow of popular culture. Their sensibilities simply did not include any consideration of how the imagery would be seen by certain segments of society. Like any other spot they assumed that the positives would outweigh the negatives and they proceeded. They miscalculated- doesn't mean it won't happen again. It'll simply be in a modified, more sophisticated package.

It's not stupidity drummerboy- its racism and commerce. It is the purposeful and deliberate diminution of people through the use of stereotypes to create revenue.

Advertising is about collecting eyeballs, creating need and offering fulfillment. Advertisers will do anything to meet that goal. Along the way they will make mistakes and regroup only when and if their bottom line is threatened.

You know that you'll never see a commercial where homosexuals are referred to as '*******', or lesbians as 'dykes'. You'll never see a national spot with unflattering caricatures of Jewish folks with hooked noses and pockets bulging with coins. Why? Because to do so is wrong and would never be acceptable. How do we know that? Because we are alive and we've lived through a period where it was acceptable- and now it's not. Now we know that those groups would never stand for being portrayed in such a dismissive, negative light and as a result most advertisers would never employ that imagery/terminology and alienate potential customers. Why? Because they respect them as consumers and recognize their influence in society in terms of their ability to contribute economically.

If and when you see a commercial with stereotypical images of any group rest assured that the advertisers have weighed the economic impact of offending or alienating that group against attracting, winning and maintaining the economic support of another.

drummerboy said:

ok, but maybe you're putting just too much faith in the analytic powers of people charged with a cartoon of bees with big lips.

And if you put so much faith in their analytic abilities, by what rationale would anyone in a competent ad agency decide that possible racist overtones should be put aside because they must have thought that the genius of bees with big lips overrides racist concerns?

Sorry, but that relies on believing in a special kind of stupid.

nah - I don't buy it was deliberate.

eta: on the other hand, in the age of Trump, discounting the extent of someone's stupidity is a fool's errand.

flimbro said:

The idea that media professionals at the ad agency retained by Wendy's were somehow unaware of what they were doing is ridiculous. Age has nothing to do with it. Ads are not produced in a vacuum, they are discussed and parsed by ad agency creatives, media execs at the advertiser and production company creatives. Wendy's knew exactly what they were producing and they simply didn't care. Creatives at the ad agency are paid millions of dollars to stay current on the American consumer and the ebb and flow of popular culture. Their sensibilities simply did not include any consideration of how the imagery would be seen by certain segments of society. Like any other spot they assumed that the positives would outweigh the negatives and they proceeded. They miscalculated- doesn't mean it won't happen again. It'll simply be in a modified, more sophisticated package.

deliberately racist? no, probably more a racist stereotype that was meant to be funny, but isnt.

see, I might believe its wasnt deliberate if the accents on the voices of those bees were not african american. but there were, so adding those lips to the black bees was over the top, and meant to be over the top.

Ok drummerboy, or anyone else for that matter, racial connotations aside, the news reporter's comment in the commercial was about bees' wings being too small for them to fly. So, what benefit did the Wendy's bees having big red lips in their response bring to that commercial? Is it subliminal?