« Hillary Just Started Talking.... | Yvaughn's Blog | Hate the Policy, Love (or at least support) the Politician »
A Little Boycott - Heinz & Dunkin Donuts
You've heard the phrase, "Damned if they do, damned if they don't." I never thought I'd help put anyone, even a company, into that rock-and-hard-place position, but that's it. I've had it.
Next time I want donuts, I'm avoiding Dunkin'.
Next time I'm after condiments, I will NOT choose Heinz.
Why? Y'all have heard the news stories, right? It's because both of them caved, almost immediately, to right-wing extremists. Dunkin' pulled a Rachel Ray ad because conservative mouthpiece Michelle Malkin decided Ray's scarf was a terrorist keffiyeh (which she equated to a KKK hood). And now Heinz has pulled an ad in which two men kiss, because (according to a British paper), 200 viewers contacted the company saying it was offensive. The whole joke of the ad for "Mayonaisse with a New York Deli Flavor," was that the role of the "Mum" of an otherwise British family was being played by a New York deli guy. The kiss was a simple, edge-of-the-mouth goodbye peck from "her" husband.
Okay, on the one hand? 200 viewers IS a significant number to contact a company, when you consider that each viewer who writes a letter is comparable to what, 500 unspoken opinions? Or it should be. But these complaints erupted after right-wing talk-show host BILL O'REILLY made a fuss about it on FOX News. Mind you, this ad only ran in Britain (until O'Reilly showed it specifically to inform his American audience about the horrors going on in British advertising). But apparently, O'Reilly is willing to go that extra effort to find something over which to take umbrage.
Am I overreacting? Very possibly. But it seems to me that the right-wing dittohead types are flexing their muscles in a manner that reminds me (vaguely, I admit) of McCarthyism. Bow to us, their complaints say, or we'll make trouble for you. It gives the impression that they are the standard viewing, donut-eating, mayonnaise-using audience, and they are NOT.
And I'm tired of it. So what if it puts me in league with a group of Liverpudlian gay activists who have already called for a boycott of Heinz? I'm no more gay than I am British, but I'd rather be in their camp than O'Reilly's any day. And if companies keep reacting this quickly to these nontroversies, that's exactly where we will ALL be. FOX News', Michelle Malkin's, and Bill O'Reilly's camp.
So my apologies to Dunkin' Donuts and Heinz Mayonnaise, but seriously. I'm disappointed with your cowardice, and I'm showing it with my pocketbook, just like the extremists are.
Next time, maybe take a poll before you pull.
Next time I want donuts, I'm avoiding Dunkin'.
Next time I'm after condiments, I will NOT choose Heinz.
Why? Y'all have heard the news stories, right? It's because both of them caved, almost immediately, to right-wing extremists. Dunkin' pulled a Rachel Ray ad because conservative mouthpiece Michelle Malkin decided Ray's scarf was a terrorist keffiyeh (which she equated to a KKK hood). And now Heinz has pulled an ad in which two men kiss, because (according to a British paper), 200 viewers contacted the company saying it was offensive. The whole joke of the ad for "Mayonaisse with a New York Deli Flavor," was that the role of the "Mum" of an otherwise British family was being played by a New York deli guy. The kiss was a simple, edge-of-the-mouth goodbye peck from "her" husband.
Okay, on the one hand? 200 viewers IS a significant number to contact a company, when you consider that each viewer who writes a letter is comparable to what, 500 unspoken opinions? Or it should be. But these complaints erupted after right-wing talk-show host BILL O'REILLY made a fuss about it on FOX News. Mind you, this ad only ran in Britain (until O'Reilly showed it specifically to inform his American audience about the horrors going on in British advertising). But apparently, O'Reilly is willing to go that extra effort to find something over which to take umbrage.
Am I overreacting? Very possibly. But it seems to me that the right-wing dittohead types are flexing their muscles in a manner that reminds me (vaguely, I admit) of McCarthyism. Bow to us, their complaints say, or we'll make trouble for you. It gives the impression that they are the standard viewing, donut-eating, mayonnaise-using audience, and they are NOT.
And I'm tired of it. So what if it puts me in league with a group of Liverpudlian gay activists who have already called for a boycott of Heinz? I'm no more gay than I am British, but I'd rather be in their camp than O'Reilly's any day. And if companies keep reacting this quickly to these nontroversies, that's exactly where we will ALL be. FOX News', Michelle Malkin's, and Bill O'Reilly's camp.
So my apologies to Dunkin' Donuts and Heinz Mayonnaise, but seriously. I'm disappointed with your cowardice, and I'm showing it with my pocketbook, just like the extremists are.
Next time, maybe take a poll before you pull.
Advertisement
Just boycotting is not enough (usually).
You must also write an originally-worded letter (not a boilerplate off of some activist website) expressing your disappointment and making it clear that you will be spending your money on their biggest competitor (Krispy Kreme over Dunkin Donuts, Hunts over Heinz).
Only that way will make it clear your mean business - immediately and forcefully.
June 25, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
OMG, give up Heinz ketchup? Sorry. Not possible.
On the upside, as a North Carolinian I'm officially required to claim I prefer Krispy Kremes to Dunkin Donuts.
June 25, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, as a child of Virginia who grew up a block away from a Krispy Kreme, I have to say I am glad the franchise has abandoned Minnesota.
They were wrecking my diet.
Never liked Dunkin' Donuts anyway though, so my "boycott" of them won't have much effect.
June 26, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not only am I, as a Southerner, also required to prefer Krispy Kreme over Dunkin', they're just better!
Ketchup's ketchup. So I'll do Not Heinz.
I'm only snobbish about bourbon and doughnuts.
They've been known to bookend my days.
June 26, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll join you on both of those, although admittedly I don't buy much of either as it is. :)
Like you, I can at least understand a little bit about why Heinz caved (as disagreeable as said caving was), but I'm left scratching my head on the Dunkin' Donuts one.
June 25, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Left 'scratching your head" eh?
What's the signifigance of that body language? A terrorist scalp rub?
June 25, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
What can I say? It gets itchy after I remove the turban.
June 25, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
NCSteve:
You can't give up Heinz?
Why not?
Just add 1 tablespoon of sugar to Hunts and you have Heinz! :)
June 25, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great. Another theological argument.
June 26, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's let up a bit on Dunkin' Donuts. I mean, sheesh, it's not their job to advocate for social tolerance - it's their job to sell freakin' donuts. They put up an ad that they intended to be COMPLETELY DEVOID of anything political, offensive, or upsetting. If it caused a mini-uproar, it makes total sense to pull it.
If it was a commercial for my company, I'd totally say, "Wow. Some people have totally misconstrued my ad. I didn't mean to make any kind of political statement. It's just that it was cold outside and it looked like the woman needed a scarf. This is a discussion that's not relevant to my business, and I'm hightailing it out of here."
I don't think we can blame Dunkin' Donuts on the grounds that, somehow, they didn't hold tight to their principles. Their principles are to make money and make you fat. They aren't in a game to win the hearts and minds and bellies of Americans by promoting liberal ideals.
June 25, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, we can blame them for having those principles, however. (OTOH, if you're surprised they have those principles…)
What gets me is that the Dunkin' Donuts "uproar" took stupidity to a whole new level. It's one thing when they treat us like we have an IQ of 80, but DD is treating us more like we have an IQ of 60.
(In their defense, being cold has been linked to increased eating, so that scarf might just hamper their bottom line.)
June 25, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
No Dunkin' Donuts and no Heinz! Not a problem.
But not enough. I'll communicate my concerns via writing with both companies and FOX.
Thanks for the update.
June 25, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I ain't giving up my Heinz ketchup. You cannot take it from my cold, hard grip. Sheeez!!!!! What do you freaks think I'm gonna eat my Freedom Fries with???!!!!!!!!
How else do you think I can motivate myself to the gym and go rockclimbing?
Get a life!!! I aim to profit Heinz and they aim to profit themselves. Yeeehaww! Capitalism!
June 26, 2008 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, a co-religionist! Just say no to the Hunt's heresy. (And damn, Del Monteists and people who use ketchup from those little fast food packets might as well just be dead.)
June 26, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ease up on the ketchup snobbery!
It doesn't matter.
According to Ronnie Reagan, Hunts, Heinz, Del Monte --- whatever --- they're all vegetables!
That though tomatoes are a fruit.
Oh, well, he wasn't The Great Obfuscator for nuttin'!
June 26, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
A fruit!?!
No.
I'm not telling my tomato plants that they are fruit plants. They will die of shame.
June 26, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
to·ma·to –noun, plural -toes.
1. any of several plants belonging to the genus Lycopersicon, of the nightshade family, native to Mexico and Central and South America, esp. the widely cultivated species L. lycopersicum, bearing a mildly acid, pulpy, usually red fruit eaten raw or cooked as a vegetable.
2. the fruit itself.
***
Best to coax those juicy, red buggers out of the closet now! They need to face their true fruity selves!
June 26, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those Del Monteists of the ketchup packets give us Connoisseurs of Ketchup a really bad name. Loserrs!!
And Hunt? What kind of self-respecting ketchup bottle would flaunt the name Hunt? One with no self respect at all. Say it out loud – Hunt ketchup. It lacks the zing as does their product.
Heinz or nothing, baby!!!!!!
{I’m hungry. But I got my Freedom Fries quota yesterday. ;-( aiiii! }
June 26, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
But... But... Everytime you use Heinz Ketchup, John Kerry gets a nickel.
June 26, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Heinz ketchup is vastly superior to any competetors, so I cannot support your boycot. Surely the appropriate response is to kiss men.
June 26, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm never visiting Dunkin Donuts again. Ever. Their cave was so stupid it was harmful to everyone. The complaint that Rachel Ray was wearing some kind of "terrorist headscarf" was so moronic that if they'd ignored it, it would have gone away. David Letterman would have had a field day over it, and every (sane) person in America would have laughed at Michele Malkin, and nobody would have questioned Dunkin Donuts.
Instead, they listen to some fringe wackos, pull the ad, and now not only do the fringe right know that they can affect corporate decisions there, but the left looks at the company with real suspicion now, and everyone else goes, "Did they really put a terrorist scarf in an ad? Weird." It was a lose all around for them.
They've lost me and my coffee drinking ways for good.
Heinz is a different matter. Not just the Kerry connection, but while there was nothing wrong with their ad, it was provocative. As such, it was a bit of a risk for them to put it out there (and I give them credit for it). However it does have the potential to offend some people, people that may be slightly more sane than the Malkin crowd (if only by a little).
Honestly, I don't see the point in "punishing" Heinz. That'll only lead companies to simply avoid tackling issues involving gay rights altogether.
Just my two cents.
June 26, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
affect = effect :(
June 26, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the ad made an untended political statement, pulling the ad did the same thing. I submit the statement made by pulling the ad was worse. In essence, it said the opinion of any Arab-American is less concern to us than the opinion of racist Islamophobes like those to whom Malkin panders. There is no way to avoid a political statement in this kind of situation. I have far more respect for Disney for refusing to withdraw the Gay Day at Disney world in the face of similar pressure than I do for Dunkin' Donuts. Starbucks, here I come.
June 26, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink