Dunkin Donuts Responds
I love ya Rachel Ray. Actually, Rachel is way too fuckin’ perky. Anthony Bourdain is sometimes too snarky. Fukui-San enjoys biting that pepper way too much. And the Brit who got 5 Michelin stars is a dick. The truth is, I haven’t built my life, such as it is, around Rachel and her friends. But I’m in her corner now.
It seems Rachel Ray did a commercial for Dunkin Donuts wearing a paisley scarf. And some hysterical morons thought it was a terrorist scarf and started a campaign to boycott Dunkin Donuts until they fired the evil terrorist Rachel Ray. And in fact that commercial was pulled.
I figure two can play this game. So I found Dunkin Donuts’ website and got to the customer feedback form and told them what I thought of their giving in to the forces of evil. And I reminded them that Krogers and Publix have perfectly good donuts. I am somewhat of an expert on the subject, but less now than before. I would have bitched that their store in Huntsville is always out of crullers, but that would be rubbing it in.
They wrote back (and assigned it a case number and everything):
Thank you for sharing your comments. We always appreciate hearing from our customers. The intent of the online ad featuring Rachael Ray wearing a paisley silk scarf was to promote iced coffee. Given the surprising and truly unfortunate interpretation of this ad from some of our consumers, we decided to pull the ad and replace it with another as it is no longer serving its intended purpose, which was to simply promote our iced coffee—nothing more, nothing less.
At Dunkin’ Donuts, we value all of our customers and remain steadfastly committed to making your experiences with us both memorable and pleasant. Thank you, again, for making us aware of your concerns; it is appreciated
Weasels.
I dunno, Bob. I just don’t see the forces of evil at work here. Yeah, I think the strategy of calling idiots idiots and continuing the ad would have been a reasonable course of action, but I don’t understand what has been lost here by pulling the ad.
There are plenty of good battles to be fought, but frankly, I can’t even tell what we are battling for - Rachel Ray’s right to wear paisley scarves? That hasn’t been inhibited. She probably didn’t pick the scarf anyhow - it was probably some ad designer.
It’s not affecting Rachel Ray’s livelihood - she has her show and her face on every other book in the cooking section of your local bookstore. No one is calling for a boycott of Rachel Ray.
Where is the harm?
Is it just that you object to the idiots getting their way? Again, so what? What was the cost? What was lost?
I mean, if you are warming up for some kind of censorship rampage, aren’t there enough real causes to embrace?
June 19th, 2008 at 7:08 pmNothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less.
Marie Curie (1867 - 1934)
I see the politics of fear at work here. It is not the act itself, but the people’s overreaction to it, that should be the cause for concern, something to be talked through. The company’s decision to simply pull the ad just feeds into the fear by eliminating any possibility for dialogue.
It’s a good thing our government doesn’t engage in this practice of fear, and I can sleep well at night knowing that the Patriot Act is protecting me.
The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.
June 20th, 2008 at 12:12 amJohn F. Kennedy (1917 - 1963)
Yup, David, that’s exactly the story I got from this.
And I hate it when they win. :p
June 20th, 2008 at 7:25 amWhat I thought was funny is that they sent back a lawyer approved form letter. The response would have been appropriate whether you wrote advocating their pulling the commercial or criticizing it.
June 20th, 2008 at 10:04 amGood gawd, Bob. Were you expecting anything other than the standard corporate booshwa in reply?
They probably pulled it from a file cabinet somewhere. Somebody read your email and said, “Send him a #24C.”
TOB
June 20th, 2008 at 10:29 amHi, TOB, I never expected anything else.
korprit wezils iz korprit.
June 20th, 2008 at 11:02 amOkay guys, you are going to have to be a little more explicit here, because I’m too dumb to figure this out.
I’m still trying to find the problem. Is it that people hate Rachel Ray, and instead of defending her, Dunkin Donuts dumped her?
June 20th, 2008 at 1:08 pm“I’m still trying to find the problem. Is it that people hate Rachel Ray, and instead of defending her, Dunkin Donuts dumped her?”
I think it could have been Jesus Christ in the commercial, and Dunkin Donuts would have made the exact same decision to protect their bottom line. Unfortunately, politicians do the same thing, only their bottom line is power and influence.
June 20th, 2008 at 1:28 pmI think it could have been Jesus Christ in the commercial, and Dunkin Donuts would have made the exact same decision to protect their bottom line.
I see, I think. Are you telling me that the haters are hating Dunkin Donuts, and that’s why they wanted the ad pulled?
No, on second thought, that doesn’t make any sense either.
Okay, it’s not Rachel Ray, it’s not Dunkin Donuts - who are we defending with our righteous anger?
June 20th, 2008 at 1:56 pmWow, some people are way too politically correct and thinks the rest of the world cares. But I guess people like this keep advertising in check. What are you gonna do, right?
June 24th, 2008 at 11:24 amDunkin Donuts was only interested in protecting its bottom line. If the commercial got people talking about anything other than coffee it distracted from its intent which was to sell coffee. Business will only ever act in their own best interest and not in the interest of the larger social good.
June 28th, 2008 at 2:25 pmHi, Ted, I’m no fan of that phrase, but pax vobiscum. What Malkin did is exactly what the McCarthyites did in the 1950s.
Read above when some folks in Family Equality tried the tactic back on them, and this time it worked even better. You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
But people like Malkin keep pissing into that wind.
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:39 pmWhat Malkin did is exactly what the McCarthyites did in the 1950s.
I think you have a typo there. What you mean is “What Malkin did is nothing like what the McCarthyites did in the 1950s.”
Whose voice was being silenced? Neither Dunkin Donuts nor Rachel Ray was at all interested in making a statement about Palestinians. There was nothing being suppressed. Unless you think Malkin was objecting to coffee.
Seriously, guys - you are as knee-jerk as they are. It’s embarrassing.
July 6th, 2008 at 6:52 am