Whopper Virgins

Burger King's new ad campaign, Whopper Virgins, is supposed to launch on TV next week. The question is, will it go ahead after much of blogland has found it culturally and morally offensive?



Some blog commentators see this ad as just another example of America trying to ram their own ideals and values down the throats of the rest of the world - another move towards a homogenized McWorld. Should they really send their intensively-reared, fat-, salt- and sugar-laden meat into the remaining corners of the world who've yet to be subjected to it? The locals' own hand-reared meat is probably healthier and tastier than a Whopper any day - I wonder if BK polled them on that?

Some commentators also noted that throwing one free burger at people who may be living in borderline poverty and famine is more than a little insensitive. However, there is nothing to say that anyone featured in the ad was in that situation and it would be just as wrong to jump to conclusions. Likewise many commentators have pointed out that some of the countries featured - Romania for example - are already exposed to fast-food advertising so it's wrong to generalise them all as 'poor backward country folk'.

Personally, on first view the campaign comes across as exploitative, stereotypical and condescending. I'd be interested to see a behind the scenes - not because I care if the Whopper really came out on top (that is perhaps the most irrelevant part of the whole campaign), but to see just how authentic or otherwsie their 'Whopper Virgin' setups are. I'm willing to bet that more than a little cultural stereotyping and staging went into the traditional outfits, idyllic rural backdrops and gentle pastoral folk.

Jon Darke sees it a bit differently:
I don't see it as exploitative. It's a wider sociological issue about the developed world's communal guilt, and the notion that we are forcing our cultures upon them through advertising and media. I don't believe this to be true at all, having been to some of these places, including the poorest villages in S.E. Asia, and spent time with the people. Exposing these people to a burger isn't going to brainwash them. They are simply going to think that a bunch of silly westerners came to their village, fed them, took some pictures and went away.

The ad is additionally controversial because of the product advertised. It's generally agreed that 'evil burger companies' don't do much good on this earth. That escalates to ‘How dare they advertise their product by feeding it to poor farmers to gauge opinion’. They exist because it's a viable business model in demand.

What is really boils down to is this: The advert is simply poor. How is the opinion of a Thai farmer on the taste of a burger relevant to me? It isn't that dissimilar to the recent Apple/PC war - corporate bickering déjà vu. Where's the creativity?

What do you think? Here's some more views from the Collective floor:

Omar:

"It's brilliant! The new-age missionary!! Bringing burgers to the deepest, darkest corners of this flat world..."

Jon H:

"A bit condescending mefinks.. "

Jon D:

"It's actually a good idea (in theory). Brand infiltration affects peoples' decisions more than you realise, and getting a control test is almost impossible with brands as large as these."

Stephane:

"I think it's pity - culture needs diversity; it should be the other way round. Unfortunately the humbleness of learning from others is not in the blueprint of Western industry."

Leila:

"I think that the whopper is a winner in taste any day! Down to McFilth I say!"

The campaign is supposed to launch in 5 days. Let's see what happens.

Links to further reading:
Official Site
Maholo
Inquisitr
Metro