i read in the papers over the last weekend about an advertisement by dunkin donuts that raised controversy. interested in what might have cursed such a furore, i did a bit of research into the issue at hand. for the low down, here is a quick summary by new york times.
New York Times - 30/5/08- On May 7, Dunkin’ Donuts began running an ad on its Web site and others, featuring the celebrity chef Rachael Ray holding a cup of the company’s iced coffee while wearing a black-and-white fringed scarf. In the ad, which was shot in a studio, she is shown standing in front of trees with pink blossoms and a building with a distinctive spire.
On May 23, the conservative blog Little Green Footballs posted an item that likened Ms. Ray’s scarf to the type typically worn by Muslim extremists. The blog said that the ads “casually promote the symbol of Palestinian terrorism and the intifada, the keffiyeh, via Rachael Ray.”
Later that day, the conservative blogger Michelle Malkin chimed in, likening the scarf to a keffiyeh and calling it “jihadi chic.” Then the story, as they say on the Internet, went totally viral.
in short, conservatives in america are upset over the keffiyeh (its has not been conclusively proven it is a keffiyeh, but thats beside the point) and they say that dunkin donuts (which is an american donut brand for crying out loud!) is promoting muslim extremists. that is like saying al qaeda endorses living in caves, since their videos seem exclusively shot in them.
in a move i feel was unnecessary, dunkin donuts pulled the ad due to the criticism that was raised. after that, malkin 'praised' dunkin donuts for removing the ad. she further added:
“The keffiyeh, for the clueless, is the traditional scarf of Arab men that has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad.”
might as well write "the us army uniform, for the clueless, is the traditional symbol of america that has to come to symbolize the senseless war in Iraq"
it is not fair to equate clothing to ideology. and it is worse to think that a scarf looks anything more than a scarf. its clutching at straws, trying to find fault in everything around you. while yes the palestine people may say that that piece of cloth represents their solidarity, its just a piece of cloth! i can respect your views as a conservative, but the moment you see flaws and condemn every other world view but your own, you basically lend no credence to your train of thought.
its almost scary for one how a simple fashion choice in an advertisement for one of america's favourite foods can turn into a pr disaster for dunkin donuts. but i am quite amused at the things people can nitpick on. likewise for another coffee chain.
starbucks also has made news. for the clueless, starbucks have changed their logo (not sure permanent or temporarily) in favour of a more retro looking sign. so whats the issue now?
now the issue is that the new logo is a 2 tailed siren which harks back to their original logo, without the bare chest this time. its supposed to represent how good their coffee taste: like a siren's song.
ok despite the ugliness of the logo (i hate it, prefer the old green one: charms the youth better then the new one), someone called mark dice (who after reading his website, i have decided is too full of himself) who leads a 'christian group' (no i don't think it is one.) based in san diego has found fault with this logo, claiming it "has a naked woman on it with her legs spread like a prostitute". please note that this 'christian group's' founder is an avid youtuber and sells his products on his group's website. (the media have been quoting the group as a christian group, but i beg to differ; its more conspiracy theory then anything else)
i agree that it looks really weird but its a mermaid with 2 tails - its pretty obvious right? its the same issue of trying to look too deep into things. and leave starbucks alone; i bet they will get enough stick from the world's youth to tell them the new (or is it old?) logo is ugly as hell.
but its funny people can cook up a storm in a coffee cup. --
