12 Aug The Most Offensive Advertisement Ever
12.08.07
|
11 Comments
Okay, New Zealand isn’t perfect. The proof: Hell Pizza, one of the country’s most successful pizza chains. The company has cornered the market in offensive advertising, with the Advertising Standards Complaints Board recently upholding complaints against the following billboard — which even I find beyond the pale:
But you haven’t seen anything yet. The company’s most recent billboard is by far the most offensive advertisement I have ever seen in my life. Here is a photo I took myself a few hours ago (click to enlarge):
If there is a Hell, I hope it isn’t too good for the people who created that ad.
I thought the first billboard was perfect.
GWB has blackmailed nations to exempt him from the I.C.C. &now has bought 90,000 acres in Paraguay to try to escape war crimes.
The billboard is spot on.
Billboard #1 is inaccurate. In physical appearance, W clearly resembles both his mother and his father. Ah, but seriously folks … I think I’d count billboard #1 as “in poor taste,” but I don’t think I’d go so far as to call it offensive. (Offensive to whom? George W. Bush? Republican voters in the United States? 19th Century Puritans upset that Hell isn’t depicted as sufficiently terrible?) Besides, are we not to expect that a large group of people, in countries the USA considers both its “enemies” as well as its “allies,” would consider W evil? It’s W himself, through both his rhetoric and his policies, who has contributed most to the promotion of a Manichean world view in foreign policy and international law. Billboard #2, on the other hand, is patently offensive. I’m sure its creator would argue that the billboard is “poking fun” of Hitler by having him hold a pizza, but using an image of a man responsible for the mass extermination of millions of people (in terms of human history, only a blink-of-an-eye ago) to sell pizza? Revolting. Finally, (and I think Mr. Heller’s posting of these two images side-by-side invites the question) what kind of… Read more »
The fact that the folks in NZ equate Bush with Hitler is because of the similarities. Offensive is in the eye of the beholder. Just because they are our allies shouldn’t make it incumbent upon their government to muzzle free speech. Maybe they take that right more seriously than we.
Offensive? No, not really. What’s offensive is the shredding of the Constitution without any consideration for the consequences by President Cheney and his dummy as well as the acquiesence of Congress.
I can readily envision billboards with images of Joseph Goebbels and Rush Limbaugh sharing a slice of pizza from Hell or Karl Rove and Martin Bormann hoisting brewskis in the presence of a healthy young Hellish pizza server.
Those billboards show significant creativity to, I daresay, a very large segment of the American public. Why, imagine pizza from Hell being served to the denizens of the internment facility at Guantanamo.
NZ is not perfect indeed. They worry about the word bastard, and not with the bastard himself!
A typically perceptive comment from Cruz del sur. The Baord did not uphold complaints about the “Even Hell Has Its Standards” billboard that was also associated with Bush.
Thank you for your kind words Professor.
I think it is going to be interesting to see how long the Heil-Pizza board is going to be allowed to stay up. Now that is truely offensive!!!
Hmmm. wonder how many of those finding these boards offensive scoffed at Muslim sensitivities over Danish cartoons featuring a turbaned Mohammed look-alike?
Where’s your sense of humor AND you freedom of speech NOW?
I hope they sell millions of pizzas.
Spot on is right!
DWG,
I don’t recall suggesting that the billboards should be censored — nor do I think they should. And yes, I was offended by the Danish cartoons — but I didn’t support censoring them, either.
Kevin
now has bought 90,000 acres in Paraguay to try to escape war crimes.
My, how rumors and unsubstantiated gossip mutate. Last I heard, they were speculating a water rights grab or a military base.
I’m eagerly awaiting a tie in aliens.
DWG: First of all, I think that the comparison you made, is a bit unfair. The problem with the Danish cartoons of Mohammed was that Islamic religion prohibits the drawing of the Prophet. To compare that to someone who was responsible of the murder of millions of innocent civilians is absurd. Now, let me tell you why I was not offended by the Danish cartoon: Sometime before that came out, there was a big outrage in Argentina with a painter (I just can’t remember his name) They were offended because he had said that he didn’t support Christianity because the idea of hell, implied the acceptance of perpetual torture. He had also painted a Christ crucified in a U.S. B-28 Bomber. I supported that painting then, and I should do the same with the Danish cartoon. But above that, the cartoon did not offend me because I think they are imposing their ethnocentric values upon the rest. Also, I f I were offended by that, I should also be offended by those who eat beef and Pork. Also some religions impose body mutilation, and therefore, those who do not agree with those practices should offend me. So, no, the cartoon… Read more »