U.S.-Mexico Relations Strained Over BK Ad
For all of the seriousness with which this blog tries to approach international relations, strategic communications and related topics, sometimes you’ve just got to laugh. Or at least you probably should.
From AdFreak.com’s David Kiefaber comes this latest foreign relations tempestad en una tetera: (That’s a tempest in a teapot, for anyone who didn’t earn a gender-neutral “gentleman’s B” in Spanish 1002, or who hasn’t mastered the shameful art of using Google translation to impress the easily-impressed.)
Anyway…
This European ad from Crispin Porter + Bogusky (CP + B) for Burger King’s Texican Whopper is honestly pretty harmless, but it has Mexico up in arms about its people being portrayed as tiny luchadors who wear their nation’s flag like a cape. It’s the first cross-border advertising dispute since that infamous Absolut ad from Mexico City. We’ve seen worse stereotyping of Mexicans, though. And Consumerist is right to ask what kind of cowboy can’t open his own jars. But it’s worth pointing out that chaps are buttless by design, so that’s not insulting, either. At least he wore them over pants.
Given some of the more transgressive trippiness emanating from the CP + B agency these days on behalf of BK, you probably shouldn’t get your wrestling tights in too much of a twist over this. Personally, I’m just immune after sitting through 90+ minutes of (the only-slightly-taller) Jack Black doing basically the same thing in Nacho Libre.
As for you mamas out there, don’t let your babies grow up to be cowboys that can’t open their own PB and J ….or PB + J. As for the sorry one in the ad, I reckon’ some kind soul needs to put one of these newfangled things in his stocking for Christmas.
PDF 
Over on Mashable, there’s an engaging article by Mark Drapeau (and a lively comment stream) on possible alternatives to the rapidly-aging “2.0″ cliché, and some thoughts about what will – or at least might – succeed it.
It’s important to realize that the particular exchange over at Mashable is specifically about language and what we should call things, rather that the specifics of those things themselves.
Personally, I’m all for a new, cliché-free naming convention for all of this 2.0 business. Or, at the very least, a new set of clichés to replace the ones we’re using now.
Besides, if we continue with the Web/Gov/Health/Socks/Goldfish x.0 metaphor, (one that’s been borrowed from software development), there will be those who will be unable to resist the temptation to take the metaphor to its logical conclusion, i.e., incremental upgrades…with predictably illogical – or at least impractical results. After all, if we’re continually improving it, shouldn’t government 2.0 naturally become 2.1, 2.2 and beyond? This, in turn, begs some further questions:
Since this morning, I’ve been especially partial to this gentlemen’s coinage: WeGov.
Other ideas abound: Activist Kevin Bondelli (possibly the Gen-Y/millenial’s successor to Joe Trippi), prefers User-Generated Government.
While my inner geek might pine for Quantum Government, NanoGov or similar such fanciful stuff, my inner communicator wins out: If we’re going to create meaningful slogans and coinages for everyone’s use that represent at least an earnest effort to really listen and really collaborate, then let’s keep ‘em short, sweet and simple.
Ultimately, the particular terminology that ultimately gains traction to describe citizen-centric, responsive government at every level pales in importance, compared to the people and policies – and, yes, the social technologies necessary to undergird it. We’ve only just begun.
More to come…