Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Racist / Not racist isn't really the issue at hand here.


If you're in the business of marketing KFC, a global brand - and yet you've somehow managed to stay blissfully unaware of both 'how stuff gets around on the internet' and the pejorative linkage of fried chicken, black people and slavery in the USA, then perhaps it's time to find a new job?


Perhaps you can work in Japanese car manufacturing and help launch the new Nissan "Minge" into the UK market?

Causing potential offence to the French with an advert for, say, John Smith's bitter - no problem. The French don't drink it. However..


KFC branches in USA - over 5000

KFC outlets in Australia - less than 500


It's a simple matter of marketing economics.. and somebody got their sums wrong.



On the upside, this must be the first time that more than four people in America have ever shown any interest in cricket.

That's actually quite a sophisticated piece of advertising for Australia - a lot of their adverts are still of the ' BUY TODAY BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE' genre without any attempt at humour or irony.


I didn't think it was offensive either - I think there may have been an implication that the fried chicken went down particularly well as the crowd was West Indian but I didn't take that as any more offensive as giving pints of Guinness to an Irish crowd, or tea and sandwiches to English supporters.


Now what I did find disturbing was seeing a group of aussie supporters in Melbourne going to the boxing day test (against Pakistan) wearing tea towels on their heads

jollybaby Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


>

> I didn't think it was offensive either - I think

> there may have been an implication that the fried

> chicken went down particularly well as the crowd

> was West Indian but I didn't take that as any more

> offensive as giving pints of Guinness to an Irish

> crowd, or tea and sandwiches to English

> supporters.

>


Perhaps pints of lager to English supporters would be a more appropriate racial sterotype to end that paragraph JB. Tea and sandwiches, much too complimentary.

brum Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> pk Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > in my view the ad is certainly racially

> > insensitive and ill judged

>

>

> Please can you explain why?



because it has caused offence and it was foreseeable that it would do so

Interesting choice, *Bob*, as the most popular brand of cheese in Australia causes a little consternation. It's called Coon Cheese (gasp!!!). It's been called that for nearly 80 years. It is named after Edward Coon, who developed the process by which it is made.


A 'campaigner' recently took the cheesemakers to task, claiming "he has been unable to find evidence that Edward Coon was a famous cheese maker, contending that the name came instead from the black wraparound in which it was originally sold. Edward Coon was an obscure factory hand who was induced to subscribe his name to the patent for cheese manufacture some time after the brand had been in use."


He obviously didn't try very hard to find the evidence - it took me two attempts at a google search to find this. Filed 1925, dated 1926 both before the brand was launched in 1931.


So, it leads to an interesting question... does a company abandon a valuable brand, worth millions and innocently named, because a word has changed meaning (assuming the American, offensive, version wasn't exported until later)??


In a similar vein, an American, upon sighting a bottle of Fairy Liquid, claimed to me that would never be sold in the US, as it would offend gay sentiments. Whether that is true or not, I don't know. But branding is a minefield - where do you draw the line?


  Quote
Strewth, mate.. just a harmless bit of fun..


And could that sentence, assuming you are not Australian, be considered racist (especially as you seem to be insinuating that all Australians are racially insensitive, but your picture is from an American establishment)? If this was about the Japanese and you wrote, "Oooh, just a harmress bit of fun", does that make it different? If we were talking and this was regarding India and you said the same sort of words in an overblown Indian accent, does that make it racist? Minefields, minefields...

That's all by-the-by, Loz.

'Coon Cheese' is not sold in America, nor is it ever likely to be. Most Australians are not offended by it, so there's no need (in terms of selling more ropey cheese) to change the name.


But KFC is KFC the world over. Moreover, it's an American brand and America is one of its largest markets.


If you work in marketing and advertising, surely priority number one is sales. Selling fifty more Bargain Buckets (I mean, er, Family Feasts) in Australia is no good if you risk offending half the population in one of your largest markets in the process.

So the answer is to change the name in Australia, like they did with Burger King!


  Quote
That's actually quite a sophisticated piece of advertising for Australia - a lot of their adverts are still of the ' BUY TODAY BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE' genre without any attempt at humour or irony.


So true, the average ad on Aussie telly is made with a camcorder in the local DIY store.

  Quote
So the answer is to change the name in Australia, like they did with Burger King!


Ah, but they did that before establishing the brand in Oz. When Burger King decided to move to Australia, they found that 'Burger King' was already trademarked, so their hand was forced. Urban mythology has it that there was a small Burger King establishment with the trademark that was bought up by McD's as a blocking move!


  Quote
So true, the average ad on Aussie telly is made with a camcorder in the local DIY store.


All Australian telly is bloody awful, not just the ads. It's become very American "shove an ad in wherever possible". Even the cricket had announcements of ads for tours, 'memorabilia', what movie is on Channel 9 tonight, etc. Urgh.

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If 'throwing a banana at John Barnes' is in the

> premiership, then 'placating back people with

> fried chicken' is probably somewhere in the second

> league.

>

> 'Ill-judged' is a good description.


I'm not sure Bob - throwing bananas was the visual accompaniment to the vocal monkey chants at football grounds and both had disgraceful racial connotations.


Who does not like fried chicken? and who should find that offensive anyay.

jollybaby Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That's actually quite a sophisticated piece of

> advertising for Australia - a lot of their adverts

> are still of the ' BUY TODAY BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE'

> genre without any attempt at humour or irony.

>

^


Please tell me you are kidding.. I'd like to see an example of our A LOT of our adverts are like that..

Im not trying to be controversial but what on earth is all the fuss about? I am Australian and to be honest even if I wasnt I wouldnt find that ad racist in any way shape or form. It is based on a KFC bucket which has always been known as the 'share with your mates food' and the fact that in the ad he is sat on the cricket oppositions side and he is probably losing and wanting to make friends with those around him, I mean come on people, racist my backside!


I do agree Australia has a long way to come in terms of accepting race, gays and just general equality but this ad is not an example of them being backwards..

It doesn't matter how many people like or don't like fried chicken. I do.

It doesn't matter how much people aren't offended by it. I'm not.


All that matters is that some people were guaranteed to be offended by it, and when those people also happen to be the ones who buy 'a lot' of your product, you've made a boo-boo.

Ok Bob, But we are not talking about whether KFC have made a boo-boo - I agree it seems clear they have, as it has gained them adverse publicity.


But is it genuinely offensive? Or are people searching for something to be offended by.


I agree that it is possibly racist to suggest all west indian people like fried chicken, but that does not make it automatically offensive.


"All west indian people are nice" is possibly racist - but probably not offensive.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Good advice Kipper!  The 1.0 early Ecoboost and 1.2 Puretech engines have wet cam belts that fail and failure with a cam belt invariably result in catastrophic  damage to valves and pistons. Later ones were changed to chains. Avoid at all costs!
    • Sorry. Link wasn't working on my phone, but it is now, and I couldn't delete the post.
    • Sent you a pm
    • I think there's a fair number of "participating" sub offices that do passports or, at least, play the "check and send" game (£16 for glancing at your form), so some degree of cherry-picking seems to be permitted. Though it does look as if Post Offices "Indentity Services" are where it things the future lies, and "Right to Rent" (though it's more an eligibility check) looks a bit of an earner, along with DBS checks and the Age Verification services that, if the government gets its way, we'll all need to subscribe to before we're allowed on mumsnet. Those services, incidentally, seem mostly outsourced to an outfit called "Yoti", a privately-owned, loss-making "identity platform" with debts of £150m, a tardy approach to filings, and a finger in a bunch of questionable pies ("Passive Facial Liveness Recognition" sounds gloriously sinister) so what the Post Office gets out of the arrangement isn't clear, but I'm sure they think it worthwhile. That said, they once thought the same of funeral plans which, for some peculiar reason, failed to set fire to the shuffling queues, even metaphorically. For most, it seems, Post Office work is mostly a dead loss, and even the parcel-juggling is more nuisance than blessing. As a nonchalant retailer of other people's services the organisation can only survive now on the back of subsidies, and we're not even sure what they are. The taxpayer-funded subsidies from government (a £136m hand-out to keep Horizon going, £1bn for its compensation scheme, around £50m for the network, and perhaps a loan or two) are clearish, but the cross-subsidies provided by other retail activities in branches are murkier. As are the "phantom shortfalls" created by the Horizon system, which secretly lined Post Office's coffers as postmasters balanced the books with contributions from their own pockets. Those never showed up in the accounts though - because Horizon *was* the accounting system - so we can't tell how much of a subsidy that was. We might get an idea of the scale, however, from Post Office's belated Horizon Shortfall Scheme, which is handing £75k to every branch that's complained, though it's anyone's guess if that's fair or not. Still, that's all supposed to be behind us now, and Post Office's CEO-of-the-week recently promised an "extra" £250m a year for the branches (roughly enough to cover a minimum wage worker in each), which might make it worth the candle for some. Though he didn't expect that would happen before 2030 (we can only wonder when his pension will mature) and then it'd be "subject to government funding", so it might have to be a very short candle as it doesn't look like a promise that he can make. Still, I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from applying for a franchise, and it's possible that, this time, Post Office will be telling the truth. And, you never know, we might all be back in the Post Office soon, and eagerly buying stamps, if only for existence permits, rather than for our letters.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...