Let’s just cut to the chase, shall we? It has come to our attention that Burger King has just launched what promises to be the most amazing and blog-worthy advertising campaign of all time. Even more worthy of ridicule than the Hipster Chicken Biscuit campaign previously mocked here. Even more reprehensible than the super-evil portrayal of concentration-camp-collaborationist cows in Chick Fil A’s “eat mor chikin” campaign. Even more absurdly dressed up in the language of authority and artistry than the “Fiji Green” nonsense we’ve been on about for a while here at Toxic Culture. No, this is something even better. And by better we mean much, much worse.
Burger King, perhaps having reached the end of their Freaking You Out With This Person Who Could Easily Be a Child Molester but Who is Nevertheless Bothering You While Wearing a Costume That, Trust Us, is What the Burger King Wears ad campaign, has launched a new ad campaign, presumably to roll out over the course of this week. We have mixed feelings about linking to these ad campaigns – the previous McDonald’s post explains why, but basically we don’t want to be part of the “buzz” surrounding the campaign, perhaps enabling the corporation in question to herald their “edginess” or describe their campaign as “controversial.” We get all that. But sometimes you’ve got to see the thing to rail against it. You can make your own call. Here’s the link.
If you don’t click on that link, then here’s the deal: it sends you to a site called “Whopper Virgins,” which is a promo for a longer video that Burger King seems to be planning to release in about six days (as of the writing of this post – I hope to provide weekly updates). Remember those Whopper vs. Big Mac taste tests? The extension of the Coke Wars? Well, looks like it’s on again. But, as with all “reality” that we get beamed to us via various pixels, it’s got a twist.
This time, Burger King has identified some people in different parts of the world (looks like Romania, Thailand, and Iceland) who have never seen a hamburger before. Some of whom (according to the frankly chilling video on the website) are said not to even have a WORD for hamburger. Imagine this! People so removed, so exotic, so untouched, that they have never even encountered a hamburger. These, Burger King tells us, are the “Whopper Virgins.” Yes, yes – you read that right.
Here, at last, we have the blank slate – the noble savage objective outsider who will tell us which of these products is better. They are “virgins” not by choice, but by lack of information about their Burger Options. Otherwise how could Burger King say that they were unbiased? We must assume that they are not Burger Resisters, Burger Naysayers, Burger Revanchists. They have somehow, accidentally, gone through life without encountering a burger. They are virgin in the same way that forests are virgin – untouched by civilization and never been cut. Along comes civilization, the axe, in the form of its perfect symbol. And really, could there be an easier target than the burger?
The sound you heard on Sunday night as the first commercial aired during the Steelers-Patriots game was the sound of thousands of cultural studies scholars clapping their hands with abandon. I can’t wait to see the papers emerge. Hopefully someone will rock the Sexual Politics of Meat angle – the shared ecstasy of watching the whopper virgins nervously await their fate, the established genre conventions of The First Time, the sweet release of that bite, the smile – they like it, see? It’s not a violation if they’re into it. The clinical nature of the taste tests only adds to the deviance, following a certain trajectory of erotic taboos familiar to anyone who’s ever seen any variant of Authority Porn (prison guard-prisoner, doctor-patient, teacher-student, etc.).
In any case, the deal is that a “film” has been made to document the work of “independent, third-party researchers” who, I’m sure, just happened to be interested in how indigenous peoples like to eat their dead cow, and stumbled on funding from Burger King in a totally coincidental and non-biased way. This is what researchers do, after all.
Meanwhile in another compartment of the Objectivity Express, Burger King wants you to know that they are on your side when it comes to fighting back against deceptive and misleading advertising practices. They’re even launching their own critique of advertising, foreshadowed here. It seems to have the following things to say about advertising:
- It is not real. We know that because this film is actually real. “Real locations, real burgers, real virgins.” Real real real. Or, as they evidently say in Brazil, real facts.
- It relies excessively on gimmicks. “No kings, no clowns.” Unlike this film, which is not just not a gimmick but is so freaking scientific that it’s practically grounds to give the filmmakers an anthropology doctorate. Did we mention that it was real?
- If you watch advertisements, you’re a dupe. You people out there in Americaland, you don’t have any REAL ideas because all your ideas are belong to us. This is why we need to go outside the culture and find out “what people think when no-one has told them what to think.”
This would be hilarious if it weren’t so unspeakably dark and cynical. Burger King, you might recall, once really wanted you (you! the humble consumer!) to be enfranchised by “Having it Your Way.” But now you (First World Advertising Dupe) just don’t know what way is yours anymore. Fortunately, Burger King has found some role models for you – some wide-eyed, teeth-flashingly smiley naifs. They are the Perfect Consumer. Not like you jaded losers with your arugula and fancy organic wheat. These people don’t have a way that they like their burger. Or, put it another way, they do. This works out pretty well for Burger King, since it completes the Great Circle of Corporate Life: the happy convergence of the consumer’s way and the corporation’s way. We can all have it our way. It is the great triumph of relativism, wallowing in that wonderful part of the Venn diagram where it overlaps with objectivity. Brilliant.
As a social scientist, let me just say that I support Burger King’s approach, and think it has great merit for our present economic difficulties. We need to find some people who have no word for “mortgage securities,” or “credit default swap.” Only those people will be able to tell us how to shore up the lurching global economy.
Just saw this commercial and I’m glad you’ve tackled this ad campaign with a post. I can’t tell if the Burger King ad people have an extreme sense of irony and enjoy playing with their power of advertising. Maybe they are indulging in the whole globalization thing – modernizing a non-whopper world.
Oh, I think they’re indulging all right. And irony is pretty bankable these days, but I think they’re trying to have it both ways here – stir up some outraged buzz with the lefties, while solidifying their taste test credibility with other people. A lot of people speculated that the Hipster Chicken Biscuit campaign was similarly oriented – tongue partially in cheek, partially in Giant Vault of Money.
I’m going to be posting about this all week, even though I get that this plays right into their hands. Even so, I can’t help myself (rubs hands together with poorly disguised glee).
sounds like a good idea. the kind of thing that is easy to criticize as exploitative, but is actually harmless. anyone who rails against it is trying too hard to look smart. especially in the world we live in today. are you really offended? then do something real for someone rather than sit on your ass and “blog” about the problems of the world.
this is what gives blogging a bad name.
Gosh, it’s so good to have Fred out there policing the reputations of blogging as an enterprise. With his razor sharp wit and crusade against capital letters, I sit, nay, stand confident that the problems of the world will soon be swept aside. Thanks for reading Fred! The once-sullied reputations of bloggers everywhere appreciate your vigilance.
no charge. and thank you for proving my point.
Poor showing, Fred:
1. She answers all of your arguments in the original post.
2. Posting to a blog about the futility of blogging is not only pointless, it’s so 1999.
3. It’s actually vacuous trolls lurking in comments that give blogging a bad name, so yes, your point was proven, but not in the way you intended.
[...] new populations and insisting they cram processed meat and chemical flavoring down their gullets as Kate at Toxic Culture seems to be, nor do I think that the Inuit or rural Romanians will soon find their rates of obesity [...]
Fred, I agree with you completely. Most people only read the blog to read Stephen’s posts anyway. Everyone knows that she creates issues where there are no issues in order to sound hyper-intellectual. That became obvious a long time ago. Just stick to Stephen’s posts and you can avoid a lot of this type of nonsense.
Generational transition. Irony and criticism are now fully inc.orporated into the consumer capitalist juggernaut. Frankly, they were well on their way to servicing the global economy’s insatiable appetite when reality bites started Hawkeing its pantheon of placed products. Time to get some new tools, (tools).*
Maybe the next generation’s tropes could be of service, with their spikey hair, and their baggy hats and backwards pants and hip-hopping and ipods and ear phones that look like hearing aides.
Nutty kids.
*I dont mean to be insulting, but nothing else really fits the ultra-cleverness of my sentence. Sorry, Charlie.
whoa “2nd that!” mean! (and untrue!)
As much as I disagree with both Stephen and Kate on a lot of substantive issues, each offers great writing and a unique perspective.
perspective is all i ask for. everyone believes the times they live in to be the beginning of the end. makes everyone feel like any success they achieve is extra special. complain about an ad, tie it to a larger social problem, then convince yourself you’ve overcome. share your thoughts online and wait for the virtual pat on the back. well done. plus it helps divert you from real problems that you have little to no chance of changing.
it’s an ad, kids.
Fred is engaged in a little thing called anti-intellectualism. Blogging, and the traditional journalism that preceded it, is a process of thinking out loud. Or, better yet, of conversation. When any thing, be it an ad, a work of art, a political figure, an idea, strikes a thinking person, that person is likely to think about the thing and share her thoughts with other thinking people, who will, in turn, share their thoughts. The real party pooper is the anti-intellectualist who butts into the conversation with “there’s no point in talking about this! you’re just wasting everybody’s time!” Conversation has value in and of itself, not only socially, but also for the intellectual and physical process of causing synapses in our brains to connect.
The truly curious thing about the anti-intellectualist is how much energy and time he spends talking about how others are wasting their time and energy talking about things. If the conversation is such a waste of your time, then butt out!
Fred,
How could you say the ad is harmless? This ad not only further supports the subordination of the consumer to the corporation, but also exploits certain populations in order to do so.
Also, you are pretty non-responsive to the substance of the post. Would you care to provide some reasoned *arguments* instead of unwarranted attacks? Troll, much?
2nd That,
You need to get help for your various mental health problems immediately! Only a delusional fiend would ever doubt Kate’s brilliance or claim that no one reads her work. Besides being wildly untrue, these claims are also pettily mean. Grow up. Your claim that Kate’s critique of Burger King’s exploitative and deceptive ad campaign is “hyper-intellectual” and a non-issue merely reveals an utter lack of comprehension on your part. Poor thing.
I also saw this ad during the Steelers-Pats game and was disgusted by it. I was, however, happy to see the Patriots get their asses kicked.
Stephen and Kate, sorry we missed you over Thanksgiving!
Gerald, Jamie, I’m sorry to crash your intellectual party with common sense and a yearning for substance. I appreciate your thoughtful response. Maybe I’m not thinking as clearly as you. Maybe the BK ad is either a sign that things are worse than I thought, or maybe it exists because of this new corporate greed you speak of. Either way I think it deserves more attention and insight through this “traditional journalism” I am, obviously, so new to.
Fred,
I would accept your apology, but for the fact that I doubt you even *read* the request for a response to the substance of the post? And where are those reasoned arguments, buddy? Do you have any or will you continue to insist on posting more drivel?
I did read the request for a substantive response to the post and I gave one. My response is about the idea of the post. The content of the BK ad critique is so flimsy and reliant on sarcasm it does not warrant further discussion. However, the thread has become the fascinating thing. Sad and fascinating. Railing against my posts as anti-intellectual and anti-conversational only exposes the lack of depth of thought involved overall. Of course the ad could be seen as exploitative. It is the first thing that would occur to any thinking being. My issue is just that. Shouldn’t this bastion for intellectualism have a higher standard? Shouldn’t the argument be elevated by thought rather than a Thesaurus? Why is the first club out of the bag always, “corporations are ruining the world with their actions?” No matter how much obscure reference we attach to it, it is still the easy, lazy position to take. Only surpassed by the, ‘hey, if you criticize the critic you must be dumb,’ position.
[...] finding out it was a kind of “breakfast slider” was a major let-down), I have had some things to say about Burger King, and also about McDonald’s hilarious hipster marketing plan. The more we looked into [...]