[quote=“Icon”]
It gets better:
Ad nauseum…[/quote]
oh that Colbert…
It looks like words are defined very differently for the likes of Michael Leahy…
There you go folks. Coke knows its business and marketing well. You dont buy a six million dollar slot on the most watched advertising slot of the year, without doing your research. They knew it would offend the extreme right wingers who get offended at things like Santa claus being referred to anything other than white, and try to point out how Santa Claus is a historically white person without realizing the absurdity of what they are doing.
They are not targeting rich white folk who try to keep their soda intake to a minimum because of the health risks, they target the poor, the minorities and latin America. Its a cynical type of advertising, one step removed from miley cyrus twerking on stage, designed to shock certain parts of the population, they really dont care about, create a talking point and at the same time galvanize their target customers with an uplifting and positive message (ok, that last part had nothing to do with Miley Cirus).
So my take, the Republicans who get pissed at this are morons. The liberals running around pointing at the Republicans are not far behind. Coke on the other hand played this beautifully, give them marketing guys a pay rise.[/quote]
Wouldn’t it be so sad if it was so? In the Internet era, I bet there are as many people abroad watching the Super Bowl live -and I mean more than nostalgic expats- commercials and all. After exhaustive research, especially the demographics of the people watching, a simple commercial that depicts what is expected or rather accepted as vision of the US -a nation composed by immigrants- causes such a rift? Or the rift is already there, ready to explode at the least touch? Is it a color divide, an income divide, a political divide? A nation divided against itself cannot stand, indeed. But when one wonders what the forces tearing it apart are getting from the chaos, are we sure it is media and big companies on top? Where is the puppeteer?
[quote=“Icon”]
Wouldn’t it be so sad if it was so? In the Internet era, I bet there are as many people abroad watching the Super Bowl live -and I mean more than nostalgic expats- commercials and all. [/quote]
Icon is right, a few non-English articles I read interpreters the comments from the right as “Coca cola’s move to portray American unity accidentally exposes the ugly discriminatory aspect of American society”.
I don’t know if the extreme right wings understand such intolerant comments damages American image… but seriously they do… and they goes on to hurt American interests because it becomes that much harder to win people over.
[quote=“hansioux”]
Icon is right, a few non-English articles I read interpreters the comments from the right as “Coca cola’s move to portray American unity [strike]accidentally exposes[/strike] [color=#FF0000]deliberately and intelligently uses[/color] the ugly discriminatory aspect of American society [color=#FF0000]to identify excellently with its main target customers [/color]”.
I don’t know if the extreme right wings understand such intolerant comments damages American image… but seriously they do… and they goes on to hurt American interests because it becomes that much harder to win people over.[/quote]
I think Icon raises some interesting questions. Although, I don’t think there was any accident about it. I made an edit to your quote above, mine in red, to read what I think it should say.
[quote=“Mick”][quote=“hansioux”]
Icon is right, a few non-English articles I read interpreters the comments from the right as “Coca cola’s move to portray American unity [strike]accidentally exposes[/strike] [color=#FF0000]deliberately and intelligently uses[/color] the ugly discriminatory aspect of American society [color=#FF0000]to identify excellently with its main target customers [/color]”.
I don’t know if the extreme right wings understand such intolerant comments damages American image… but seriously they do… and they goes on to hurt American interests because it becomes that much harder to win people over.[/quote]
I think Icon raises some interesting questions. Although, I don’t think there was any accident about it. I made an edit to your quote above, mine in red, to read what I think it should say.[/quote]
I was just paraphrasing what those articles said. It just feels like an unnecessary bad publicity for the US of A over nothing.
They should have had a scene with a bunch of stoners getting wasted in a Coloradan landscape, swigging Coke to slake their parched throats.
Those stoners would likely forget who made the commercial and end up buying Pepsis.
Good for nothing stoners, not reliable to the marketeers like the blabbering pissbags are.
Pepsi supports gays; Coca-cola supports multi-culturalism; what’s a wing-nut to do? How about a nice big glass of pure West Virginia river water?
[quote=“hansioux”][quote=“Icon”]
It gets better:
Ad nauseum…[/quote]
oh that Colbert…
It looks like words are defined very differently for the likes of Michael Leahy…[/quote]
Psst…nobody tell Michael Leahy about the author of the song.
I think Glenn Beck drinks Mountain Jew.
Coke ads are all about lifestyle.
Coke is it. I’m lovin’ it.
It’s the thing.
Everything goes better with Coke.
But they took the real thing out of it years ago and turned it into a softdrink with a big marketing department.
Fake name: there’s no coke in coca cola.
Chewy’s comment reminds me of Glenn Beck’s criticism of American liberals supporting LGBT rights, while “failing” to criticize the anti-gay movement in Russia, Nigeria, etc. First, many liberal journalists and commentators have written extensively about anti-gay bigotry in those nations (compared to little to no coverage in right-wing media). Second, and more importantly, it’s a red herring, as Chris stated. If someone is writing or talking about LGBT rights in the United States, that’s the topic. Glenn Beck and his ilk, are more than welcome to start conversations about the oppression of gays, or the rights of Latin American workers in Coke plants, but they don’t really want to. They just want to distract from the topics at hand. Casting red herrings is a thoroughly dishonest tactic.
I would like to ask that the administrator split Chewy’s off-topic statements into another thread.
Meanwhile, back on topic, conservative America has gone completely ape-shit because of a Coke ad featuring a little diversity. Gasp! Some people are speaking different languages. Gasp! There’s a gay family. Gasp! There’s people of different ethnicities. Coke is known as one of the most gay-friendly places to work in the US, so it’s no surprise that they’re the first company to feature a gay family in a Super Bowl commercial. But I doubt they’re any vast conspiracy theory or social agenda. They just want to sell Coke products.
Putting aside the larger political questions of gay rights, I don’t understand how any human being can watch that ad and become incensed. And that is what many right-wing commentators are: absolutely enraged. I just don’t get it. Coke made a beautiful commercial full of smiling people. I found it very uplifting. Life is cold and cruel. We should savor and celebrate little joys. What kind of sick, twisted person sees two dads and their happy little girl, and then goes on a crazy, curse-laden rant on Twitter?
Again this site is not Pravda. It thrives when all things can be discussed.
It’s a shame they don’t think the same way about collective bargaining rights in Colombia and prefer thuggish tactics.
Let’s play the diverse socially responsible company to a bunch of first world football fans, but then use thuggish and violent tactics against the third world labourers. 
Amazing that such reprehensible marketing impresses liberals. 
I try to stay out of threads such as these because the titles illustrate that the OP is basically trolling (oh look, Chris started this thread!).
The title is what? Right Wing Angry About Coke Ad or something? That’s blatantly misleading in that 1) it attempts to paint all conservatives with a single brush (something I thought liberals were opposed to 
) and 2) I’m not sure the issue is being presented accurately.
It seems to me that a few commentators on the right were upset about the ad. Few rather than all of or even a substantial portion of the population that makes up conservatives appear to be upset, and it seems that of those conservatives who are at all upset, most are irked that the ad was multi-lingual rather than in English. That is, very few people were upset at the diversity shown in the ad, but instead would have preferred to see those different American people singing in English, even if (especially with) with heavy accents.
Here are some comments re this issue from Right Nation, a very conservative site populated by lots of Tea Party folks:
[color=#FF0000]The above is really the only comment complaining about the changing demographics in the US.[/color]
So, there you have it. A fairly good representation of real conservative “right wing” opinions regarding the Coke ad. Virtually all of them complain about the language issue rather than the diversity issue. And NO, these two are not the same issue.
- what’s wrong with that?
- we didn’t even get the super bowl broadcast here in Taiwan this year, what are the chances that regular Saudis would get the super bowl?
- even if the super bowl is shown in other parts of the world, why would the broadcasting entities give up their right to air their own commercials? back in the days when it was aired in Taiwan, they certainly didn’t show ANY original commercials.
Nothing. Nobody said anything was wrong with this.
Not much, I guess.
[b]Yes. It was pointed out in the thread that people in other countries likely did not see the Coke ad. Thus, the Coke ad was likely only aired in the US market.
The point I am trying to make is that it doesn’t seem many right wing conservatives are upset about the ad showing diversity. If anything, some of them would have preferred that the ad show diverse demographic Americans singing that particular song in English. Hardly the outrage suggested by the title of this thread.[/b]
Headline: Right wing now in tizzy over accusations it’s in a tizzy.
Headline: Mucha Man now in tizzy over an alternative point of view.
[quote=“Tigerman”]Headline: Muzha Man now in tizzy over an alternative point of view.
[/quote]
That headline is one awkward construction. Well, as fred would say, baby steps.
[quote=“Mucha Man”][quote=“Tigerman”]Headline: Muzha Man now in tizzy over an alternative point of view.
[/quote]
That headline is one awkward construction. Well, as fred would say, baby steps.[/quote]
If it is, its because I copied yours and only substituted a few words. 
Yes, baby steps. Its difficult for some folks to entertain aternative views without getting snarky!