Mila Kunis: bourbon and/or baby?

Jim Beam has rolled out a new ad series for their bourbon that feature Mila Kunis.

It now appears that Ms. Kunis is expecting a child with her fiancée.

Should Jim Beam stop running the ads now?

(I prefer Maker’s Mark, myself, when I get in a bourbon mood.) But I don’t see any reason that Jim Beam should pull the ads. I have read at least one article with a tone that suggests that they should, although the article is Just Asking Questions.


Kunis is just an actress. She’s not actually drinking the bourbon just because she’s make a movie on it. And even is she did drink barrels of the stuff during the making, then the the ad series has already been shot.

The baby won’t be harmed by a glass of bourbon now and then anyway.

Perhaps the OP can lay out the pros and cons as he sees it. I can’t see any reason why this is even an issue. It’s not like there is a “baby bump” in the commercials.


Pros for continuing the ads: Kunis is an attractive and effective advertiser for the product, and there’s absolutely no reason that her pregnancy is risked by the ads. Nor do the ads suggest that pregnant women should drink gallons of bourbon.

Cons: see the linked article for an example of the tenor of the questions that suggest, without explicitly laying out a case, that the ads are A Bad Idea.

That article simply asked the question if it’s a good or bad idea. It doesn’t make an argument either way. You say in the OP that “the tone” indicates it’s a bad idea. Are we to debate against a “tone”?

This does seem like one of those things where the arguments against it are only that other people might have arguments against it.

Since she’s engaged, they should probably stop airing all those TV shows and movies where she’s with some other guy. People might get the idea that marriage isn’t sacred.

So if I film a commercial for razors, do they have to stop showing it when I decide, in my private life, to grow a beard?

Wait, I see the argument.

Mila Kunis is engaged to Ashton Kucher.
Ashton Kucher was once married to Demi Moore.
Demi Moore once posed, pregnant, for the cover of Vanity Fair.

Other possible debates: Is it DE-mi or de-MI?

Ok, John. I guess we can table this debate until some source comes along that offers an actual critique, or until Kunis’ pregnancy passes unremarked by TV ad viewers.

I though the tone was obvious, but I am certainly willing to admit that I may have been wrong, and this did NOT presage more spirited attacks from other sources.

From here.

Is that sufficiently explicit, John, and sufficiently less reliant on “tone?”

From here.

John? How’s that tone? Still too faint to debate?

Come on. I agree that the tone is negative, but like I said, are we supposed to debate a tone? And as I also said, since the ads don’t show any “baby bump”, what’s the problem?

No, that’s not explicit at all. It’s the equivalent of: OMG!!! To which I guess the rebuttal is: Uh-HUH!!!

As a general principal, though, I would hope we were past this sort of thing. As long as she’s not explicitly promoting drinking while pregnant, I don’t see the problem. Does she need to stop driving cars while she is shilling for JB as well? If she gets pregnant again 2 years from now, can they show the commercials without any “controversy”?

What do YOU think?

Counter-point: I find Kunis only medium-attractive, and her endorsement will not cause me to change my opinion on rye vs. traditional bourbons. (Though I do like Devil’s Cut.) They should discontinue the ads.


I must be imagining it. Certainly not enough tone there to debate, huh John?

I thought I made my own reaction clear in the OP.

(Color added to one sentence for attention and emphasis).

It is a marketing question. In this case I doubt the people who think “OMG! A pregnant woman is in a liquor commercial!” are significantly represented in the target market, so that alone may not effect the company’s decision. However, their long term plans may change since the Mila’s future image might change now. The details matter, since they’ve already paid to have the ads produced they may want to use them before she is no longer a good representative, but if they started this in anticipation of continuing the campaign then they may want to move on to another representative sooner rather than later.

I doubt it makes any real difference though. I believe Ali Larter was doing something similar for a liquor company just before having her first child. I don’t recall any uproar about it.

The advertising series was created prior to Ms. Kunis getting pregnant (hopefully) and she has been presumably paid for her presence in the ads. They should run until Jim Beam and Ms. Kunis decide that they no longer wish to have a business relationship.

If Ms. Kunis wants to indulge in bourbon while she is pregnant, then that’s not great, but it is her business. It’s not my place to tell an adult how they should maintain their pre-natal health,especially not an adult who I don’t know personally. She’ll have to deal with the consequences (if any) if she chooses to imbibe while carrying a child.

A side note: I’ve never been a fan of Jim Beam. I’ve always preferred scotch,gin,rum or vodka in mixed drinks when I do imbibe. Mila Kunis’ presence or absence in Jim Beam ads will do nothing to make me buy the product.

I object to the tone of this thread.

It’s not nearly mocking enough.

My first draft was more disdainful of the “OMG A Pregnant Woman Plus Alcohol” theme. But I decided to…er…tone it down.