So I thought (and hoped and prayed) that Canadian Club’s incredibly obnoxious (and homophobic, and racist, and sexist) “Damn Right Your Dad Drank It” ad campaign was dead and gone.
The campaign, which had been my sole topic of conversation for what seemed like ages, had vanished from the hoardings, bus stops, and telephone booths all around Toronto, so I foolishly figured it had come to a close, like all ad campaigns do eventually.
On odd occasions, I even allowed myself to entertain the fleeting thought that it was my ceaseless nattering at Beam Global that had actually ended the campaign. Like the efforts I made had come to something, enough people had voiced their displeasure, and between Shameless and Time Out, Canadian Club had felt they had gotten enough bad press and alienated enough people to make bringing the campaign to a close their only reasonable option.
Well, I was wrong. While sitting at the airport, innocently reading the latest issue of Wired, I came across the campaign once again. Not only was is not over, but they are even making new ads. This particular iteration was entitled “Your Dad Never Used A Bridge” and was once again entirely populated by white men. There weren’t any explicit digs at women (progress?), and if anything, the assertions had become even more inane (apparently driving automatic transmission cars, which are basically the default across North America, is NOT MANLY), but still, clearly Canadian Club has felt their campaign of pandering to men by harrassing and insulting women has done well by them.
Their website is even selling “Damn Right Your Dad Drank It” merchandise, including a calendar of the ad campaign that promises to let you “Keep track of time like your Dad did” (by using a VERY MANLY paper calendar, not one of those sissy, metrosexual Blackberry things).
Sigh.
At the time of my initial campaign against Canadian Club, a reader suggested that perhaps I was giving them just what they wanted, that all publicity was good publicity, and bringing attention to the ad campaign in any way, no matter how negative, was just making their faded brand seem more relevant. At the time, I most heartily disagreed with this sentiment. Surely, not all publicity is good publicity, I thought, and using that logic, why would any of us ever protest anything? But now I am thinking, maybe they were right. Maybe I (and others all over the Internet) did bring Canadian Club way more attention than they would have gotten otherwise, and maybe they were counting on that. So I don’t know, what do you think? Do these companies feed off the controversy? Is all publicity good publicity? If so, would it have been better to have said nothing at all? And, if not, what is the solution?
How can we try to make sure our protests hurt, rather than help that which we are trying to stop?


Digg
10 comments
Tough questions Michelle, but important ones. If you ignore a five year old's attention-seeking fart jokes, they just might stop. But, if that same kid starts some violence, you really need to react.
So at my gut level, I don't think we glorified CC in the long term by criticizing them. The outlash and attention may give them a temporary boost, but I hope that is a small price to pay for more awareness and less sexism in the long term.
(Or maybe we just need to be louder and tougher.)
Posted by Erin E.
November 13, 2008, 7:24 AM
I don't get what is manly about not using a bridge... Is a bridge something other than what I think it is?
Aaaaaanyway, yeah, that can be a hard line to toe, the point between drawing attention to the company's wrongs and drawing attention that the company may otherwise never have received. That kind of shock-advertising has certainly worked in the past for a range of companies and products, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't critique it.
Possibly it is because of the negative feedback that they have begun other ways to prove "Your Dad's" manliness that doesn't hinge on degrading women or men who take on habits more commonly associated with women. I don't know how long that can last though; much of masculinity in a two-gender system, particularly because masculinity belongs to the "transparent" gender in that system, is defined through what it is not or through what it rejects, the abject even. I don't trust these folks to stay away from the bashing for long.
Posted by stark
November 13, 2008, 9:40 AM
An additional observation: have they considered how MALE-BASHING their ads are, in addition to all the other groups they manage to offend? The general message is that it's not okay to be who you are, you have to be their particular version of a man. That constant message is just as damaging to all the men out there, as the denigration of women is to us.
Posted by Laura
November 13, 2008, 10:05 AM
Yeah, they aren't going to stop because of negative criticism from people who aren't their market. The only way that advertising campaigns stop is when they become irrelevant. And it's probably not. It's pandering to stupid boys who buy into that whole idea that stuff was better in the old days. Which is sad, but sort of fine, I think.... those kinds of people will always find their narrative... this campaign is just providing it. I don't mean, by saying that, that your drive against their campaign didn't have power... but I think the power was in the discussion with people who were never going to be their market and not with the advertising execs or with their market. I just think they don't really care what people like you and I (let's call them: women) think about it, and that's kind of the point. But that doesn't mean we can't bitch about it and comment on it. It doesn't, I think, give it greater currency or greater relevance, for us to be chatting about it... it highlights it for what it is - that old fashioned word that you hear so little these days: sexist!
Posted by Sandy O'Sullivan
November 13, 2008, 4:28 PM
A long while after I spotted one of the ads at a bus stop. The hilarious part was that I'd never actually seen one in person...
But still. Bridges?! Who do they think they are?!
Posted by Brianne
November 14, 2008, 7:36 AM
"Your Dad Never Used a Bridge" and "Keep track of time like your Dad did?"
My first thought is laaaaaame. Sounds to me like their "manliness" ads might not be taking off the way they had hoped.
As far as the negative criticism effect is concerned, anytime you speak out against something offensive, you're giving them attention. That doesn't mean you should keep quiet, though. I'm sure more people have noticed the CC ads because of your campaign, and not all of those people will agree with you. But, some will. Maybe there are more people out there now who will pay closer attention to the world around them and will speak up anytime they see sexism or racism or any of the other isms. More people out there who won't just take whatever the retailers want to give them, you know.
That's the point of speaking out, right? Not to make all the difference to everyone, but just some difference to someone.
Posted by Roman
November 14, 2008, 12:05 PM
At the end of the day, companies are more affected by consumer behavior than anything else. The almighty dollar, and concern over its garnishment or loss, should be the main focus of successful corporations. That being said, I think that its important to loudly protest against advertising campaigns one finds to be offensive. Sure, some people might be knee-jerked into doing the opposite of what you would like (in this case, refusing to buy Canadian Club whiskey), but if your protest presents a better case than the corporation, and you have the pull, your protest will lead to less money for Canadian Club than otherwise. I completely agree with your criticism of Canadian Club, and personally consider the whole advertising campaign to have disturbing Oedipal overtones, so I will not only avoid drinking Canadian Club any time soon, but I'll also make my opposition to their advertising campaign loud and clear among my friends. If enough people do that, we (the protestors) win. The main way protests work is to counter one idea (that Canadian Club whiskey leads to the resolution of some inner-held Oedipal neurosis) with a better idea (that the advertisements are racist, sexist, and plain sad).
Posted by Cato
November 18, 2008, 4:03 PM
I've been pondering this, and while one might not want to stoop to playing by their rules, I expect Beam would feel the sting if these parodies ridiculed their product and their ads *on their own terms.*
For instance, mock ads could draw attention to the fact that CC is a crap brand, trying to up their image. How bout a counter-attack that says "YOUR DAD COULDN'T FIGURE OUT WHICH WAS BEST"--(or, "couldn't afford the best", though that plays into their classism)--contrasting CC with, say, Johnnie Walker (or whatever--I'm not really up on my whiskies).
Or, to counter the message that CC implies potency: "WHY DO YOU LOOK LIKE YOUR DAD'S BEST FRIEND?" (lots of possible images spring to mind).
It all depends what result you want and who the intended audience is... But at any rate, I thought the funny ones were far enjoyable and effective than the sincere, earnest ones. Humor is a great weapon.
Posted by Fresca
November 20, 2008, 4:24 PM
Oooh--I've got it:
"If CC whisky's so great, why do you look like the milkman?"
Posted by Fresca
November 20, 2008, 6:08 PM
I am a Canadian Club model and this campaign has been our most successful yet! We have received Rave reviews from all genders and races and this is the first time I have heard anything negative about it. They're just trying to bring back the man's cocktail with the rise of Sex and the City era and women's cosmopolitans. This was Canadian Club's way of competing with that. I think you're taking offense from something that isn't there.
Posted by Emily
March 11, 2009, 5 PM
Leave a comment
This blog post is older than 90 days old. All comments submitted regarding this post will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
Our comment policy
Shameless prides itself on the diversity of opinions expressed by our writers, and we encourage and appreciate different points of view. Our intention at Shameless is to foster community and to maintain a safe and positive blogging environment; we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. We will delete comments that:
(We get to decide what's discriminatory, hateful, attacking, or inflammatory).
In some cases, we will cap off comments on a discussion when we feel they are spiralling out of control and fostering an unwelcoming space for bloggers and readers. Comments will be closed by the Web Editor, unless the post is by the Web Editor, in which case the Editor in Chief will close them.
If your comments repeatedly make the same point, they may be deleted. This also applies to comments made by multiple members of the same organization.
Your comments should be about the topic of the post, not its writer—although we certainly encourage praise for our writers, if you want to say something nice.