Nabisco wants progressives, but not traditionalists, to buy their products, it would seem

06 Apr

Given a couple of ads they recently aired (the second, in response to complaints about the first):

DEERFIELD, Ill. – Nabisco, the makers of Honeymaid graham crackers and Teddy Grahams, is defending its promotion of homosexuality in a recent commercial entitled This is Wholesome.

The 30 second commercial begins with a man bottle-feeding a baby, presumably the child’s father. Moments later, another man bends forward and kisses the baby on the head. The commercial then displays the men, the child’s two “fathers,” taking the baby for a walk. The scenes that follow show various families enjoying time with their children, often around Honeymaid graham crackers or Teddy Grahams.

“No matter how things change, what makes us wholesome never will,” the voiceover states. “Honey Maid: Everyday wholesome snacks for every wholesome family. This is wholesome.”


But Nabisco released another advertisement this week in response to the outrage, defending its actions and defying those who expressed disapproval.

“[W]e asked two artists to take the negative comments and turn them into something else,” a new commercial entitled Love outlines.

Footage then shows two young women rolling up printouts of the complaints sent to Nabisco and gluing them together to form the word “love,” written in cursive.

The company then claims that it received over ten times as many positive comments about the commercial, and likewise rolled up the printouts to surround the complaints.

“Proving that only one thing really matters when it comes to family: love,” the advertisement states.

There are alternatives, for those seeking substitutes for graham crackers in recipes for cheesecakes, and such.

And of course, there are other brands of cereal besides Nabisco.

So there are options for those who wish to buycott other brands.

Why give a company your business if they clearly don’t want it, when there are other choices?


17 responses to “Nabisco wants progressives, but not traditionalists, to buy their products, it would seem

  1. Will S.

    April 6, 2014 at 9:33 am

    Reblogged this on Will S.' Culture War Blog.

  2. Handle

    April 6, 2014 at 10:13 am

    Let’s try to understand a little bit of Nabisco’s thought process here, assuming they are trying to be rational, but sometimes makes mistakes.

    TV advertising is expensive and there is a lot of scrutiny at many levels for effectiveness and risk to goodwill. At the end of the day, greenlighting an ad like this is supposed to be generating more profit than some noncontroversial ad.

    So this is either defensible empirically given their marketing data, or its not.

    If it’s not, then either the the majority of the decision-makers are progressives and blinded by ideology or willing to betray their duty of loyalty and sacrifice revenues for the sake of ideology, or in the alternative, no one with the data felt able to tell the emperor he was naked, out of fear of getting Eich’d.

    On the other hand, we could assume Nabisco is both rational and correct about this ad generating more profits.

    One possibility is that they were targeting the ad at a few very gay-friendly markets, hoping news of it wouldn’t bleed over into other places that wouldn’t like it, but that seems completely bizarre and idiotic in this day and age. Also, if this was a genuine surprise and unexpectedly blew up in their faces, you would expect the corporate response to back away slightly as opposed to doubling down.

    The alternative possibility is that they saw this coming, but that either (1) it doesn’t matter, because they don’t expect any significant loss of business from conservatives, and possibly also (2) they did it on purpose, to generate controversy-buzz, as an implementation of the ‘there’s no such thing as bad press’ theory of advertising. To me, the double-down ad seems completely pre-planned.

    All of these options are bad news stories for conservatives, but in my judgment the last paragraph – “they saw it coming and did it on purpose and will make more profit as a result” is both the worst news and the most likely.

    Conservatives can’t do boycotting apparently, and will continue buying a company’s products no matter what, so what do the corporations have to lose by scoring some good-will points with the progressives? And if that’s the case, then conservatism is doomed.

  3. Velvet

    April 6, 2014 at 11:40 am

    Or you just go paleo and don’t eat that nasty stuff to begin with. Pecans make a fine crust for a cheesecake.

  4. donalgraeme

    April 6, 2014 at 1:44 pm

    …What Velvet said.

  5. Will S.

    April 6, 2014 at 2:59 pm

    Ooh, I love pecans!

  6. Will S.

    April 6, 2014 at 3:08 pm

    @ Handle: I’m inclined to agree that they don’t see any downside to hurting conservatives – I agree about boycotts not being terribly effective, which is why instead of boycotting companies one is pissed off with, I think it’s better to encourage folks to consider finding other companies to support, i.e. buycotting, which flips the dynamic from negative to positive, and made as an individual choice, if done by many, rather than as a call from on high, is surely more likely to be effective, in the long run.

    And yeah, I suspect the marketing folks behind this strategy are banking more on the publicity gained from the controversy rather than thinking that more progs are going to buy their product just because of the controversy, and they suspect any conservative attempts at a boycott in retribution are most likely to fail, and fizzle out, so that there won’t be any long term negative impact to their brand. Still, it means they’re willing to throw traditionalists under the bus, and even if traditionalism be doomed, we may well want to take that into consideration when making our purchasing decisions; do we want to pay those who either dislike us or don’t give a shit about us?

    I’d rather buy from a company that doesn’t want to artificially manufacture a controversy by doing something to piss off me and my ilk.

  7. infowarrior1

    April 6, 2014 at 5:46 pm

    And also there should be pragmatic solutions that include creating companies that make superior products at lower prices than the progressive competition and are reactionary in their political stance at the same time. Likewise creating superior ethical technologies as well.

    These are the specific solutions that traditionalists can try

  8. Will S.

    April 6, 2014 at 5:54 pm

    Absolutely, if and when and where feasible; certainly worth a try, I’m sure, in some cases, at least.

  9. aaronthejust

    April 6, 2014 at 9:55 pm

    There’s nothing wholesome about a bunch of carbs and sugar.

    Truth in advertising.

  10. Will S.

    April 6, 2014 at 10:19 pm


    The word ‘wholesome’ is itself a weasel word, because it’s meant to give the connotation of ‘nutritious’, which of course they can’t say. ‘Wholesome’ really doesn’t mean anything much; it can mean suggestive of being conducive to good health, but it doesn’t truly mean ‘nutritious’.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s