[
](KFC accused of 'racial insensitivity' over cricket advert)
This same quote has been repeated in numerous articles.
And just to drive home the very obvious point there: if reproducing the ad online requires the US’ approval, that shows what the relationship is. And since they were told it was because of a culturally-based stereotype, it shows that they knew on both sides.
Yeesh.
No the only reason to post it was that it is a comment by David Novak in which it is stated “Management overseas is fairly decentralized” and Novak says: “You can’t run China from Kentucky. Self-sufficient teams with local knowledge and expertise make things happen.”
You however insist that Kentucky know all the minutiae of every overseas operation. So, cite?
It simply means that as the copyright holder, KFC had not officially authorised their intellectual property (the ad) to be uploaded to Youtube. There’s no great conspiracy here. They’re simply saying “Hey, we didn’t actually intend for this ad to be shown in the US market”- presumably because most Americans are unfamiliar with cricket and are certainly likely to be unfamiliar with the fact Australia and the West Indies play cricket together.
So the only reason is a deliberately misleading gloss that uses an out of context phrase to pretend that the entirety of the rest of the article doesn’t exist and the brand-definition and top-down policy structure doesn’t exist because they don’t determine menu choices in China due to decentralization.
If you insist.
I truly am amazed. Truly. I really do need to keep track of the number of people in this thread who are unable to read my posts and keep confusing them with their imaginations. Yet again, a hint: if I said it it’s something I said. If you imagined it, it’s not. As I never said that Yum should know the minutiae of every overseas operation, it’s probably a safe bet that you made it up.
As such, my cite is your mind.
But for those following along, posting ads online requires the US’ permission, US corporate told KFC Australia that the ad was racist,and the US’ influence was such that they got FKC Australia to pull the ad.
WTF?! Sport not relevant? Do you have any idea at all just how popular cricket is in the Windes and Australia? Do you have any idea how much time, effort, energy and emotion are spent on cricket?
Or are you trying to say that its irrelevant when portraying sports fans that a sport is being played?
The fact of the matter is that (purely from the cricket I have watched) Windes cricket fans are a pretty homogenous group (realtively speaking) and this is a pretty realistic portrayal of them.
Where is there any mention of KFC USA? You’re just making stuff up at the moment.
Are you aware that putting the ad online refers to some member of the public putting it on YouTube?
Can you tell me what exactly an African American stereotype has to do with West Indians?
So the US holds the copyright, didn’t authorize it to be posted (because as we all know the last thing any company wants is its ads to be shown for free), but did tell KFC Australia that it had racist overtones. And then when the story broke the KFC branch went from defending it to, mysteriously, pulling it.
Just one of those coincidences I guess.
I give up. He wasn’t talking about KFC USA, the same organization that put pressure on them to pull down the ad when Australians, their own market, obviously didn’t object. No, when he said “KFC” he meant “KFC Mars”.
Thanks for catching me “making things up.”
I’m waiting to be challenged on the definition of “the”, next.
…dude. Stop making stuff up. This is Great Debates: you know as well as anyone the standard of evidence around here. Can you provide a cite that KFC told KFC Australia that the ad had racist overtones?
I apologise for that comment, I see now that KFC in the US has made comment.
The rest of my post stands. Why the fuck are the US dictating what can be shown on Australian TV when the objection is based on an American stereotype known in America about Americans. The complainers are all a bunch of thick cunts as far as I’m concerned.
It’s not uncommon for a company to pull something that gets a negative reaction. It doesn’t mean the reaction was warranted, it just means they’re playing safe. KFC is still defending the ad itself.
Edit: Can you please comment on my analogy about a rowdy New Zealand tourist.
What makes you think the US holds the copyright? I’d say KFC’s Australian branch holds the copyright on the work (certainly under Australian law, and thus US law as per the Berne Convention) and there was never any intention to show an ad about an Australian cultural event (cricket match vs the West Indies) in the USA, simply because no-one would have any idea what was going on.
Someone uploaded the ad to Youtube (possibly because they found it amusing) and suddenly the blogsphere is alive with cries of “RACISM!”, at which point KFC USA are on the blower to KFC Australia saying “Pull the ad because it’s generating a lot of bad publicity for us over here”.
The point they’re making is that the ad was never intended to be seen outside Australia, and besides the fact that KFC is originally an American company (who have done a marvellous job of “Australianising” themselves here BTW), KFC Australia are pretty much free to do whatever they like as long as the money keeps coming in. As such, they had not authorised the ad to be shown outside Australia (perhaps it’s advertising a product not available overseas, for example?) and are basically saying “We did not intentionally make and distribute a racist ad as part of some New Media-based marketing scheme, OK?”
The official response acknowledges that the ad may be racist in America. And as everyone has pointed out, the ad was shown in Australia. Not America. Where the ad had no racist connotations, was not intended to have racist connotations, and was simply one of a series of ads about a cricket fan trying to enjoy the game (that he had no doubt paid good money to see) by sharing his KFC with people also at said match.
…how about this? :mad:
Question to American dopers: are these ads racist?
Well the ONLY reason I grok the “hook nosed money lender” as Jewish is because I studied merchant of Venice at school and we talked about some of the Jewish sterotypes at the time. But for that I would be clueless.
One last go and back to teaching my dog to play chess:
So apparently this isn’t you?
And really how hard did I try to hide the “deliberately misleading gloss” of the quoted passage about China? I provided the link to the whole thing, I didn’t edit it to make it seem he wasn’t talking about China. To me overseas is overseas. I was only responding to other posters such as GreedySmurf who were discussing practical matters.
I only found out recently that, although Shakespeare created the most famous Jewish character in all fiction, he probably never met a Jew in his life as there were virtually none in England at the time.
Sorry I just had to comment on this - isn’t a “beaner” a pitch in baseball deliberately aimed at the head? I din’t know there was any other meaning
Thanks for informing we ignorant Americans! Why, if we didn’t have other people there to tell us so…we might think everything was racist!
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Let’s look at it this way, ok?
Fried chicken is good. Let’s just eat fried chicken together and be happy.
I’m going to eat some right now.
Sorry, Finn, you’re stretching it. Actual U.S. references to fried chicken and watermelon as markers in racist jokes probably disappeared from U.S. advertising before 1963 and from just about every other medium, (aside from Mel Brooks parodies), before 1970. I do not find it amazing that folks outside the U.S. are unaware of a theme of offensive humor that disappeared from exported media almost 40 years ago. (Heck, we’ve had at least two huge knock down drag out fights on this board with U.S. posters arguing over whether the phrase “white trash” had a racist origin or component.)
OTOH, kidnapping the children of indigenes occurred in both Australia and the U.S. and folks who are historically aware will recognize that reference even when they don’t “get” a joke that may not have aired since before they were born.
If you want to hold that the ad was insensitve, more power to you, but some of your arguments are not going to stand up to close scrutiny.
Interestingly, when I clicked on the link, I saw West Indians (based on the music and dancing) partying around a guy, not blacks being disruptive. I am not about to claim that the second view is not possible, but clearly the first view is possible.