The Discussion on Billboards that Suck.
Friday, February 2nd, 2007This Blog Post is by Chris Kieff
Editor of Unconventional Thinking
Most of our readers get this blog via our email system. This means that you’ve most likely missed the 
lively debate that’s running on the blog about whether we are, to use the words of another blogger; “Rude, Crude and Socially Unacceptable“
Since the “Mark Stevens Vs. Warren Buffet” blog has received 25+ comments (as of Thursday) we felt that there is enough interest to reprint the excerpts from some of the best comments for all of our readers to see and consider.
I’ve found it interesting that while the comments on our blog are very nearly 50/50. Which may be because of the back and forth dialog. The voting on BrandSizzle is clearly running 89% that Clear Channel should not have violated their contract with MSCO, vs. 11% that Clear Channel was right in removing the ad. While several of the commenter’s noted that it was purely the use of that term in the title of Mark’s books which caused them to pick the books up, and ultimately buy them.
There was much speculation that Mark and by extension the rest of us here are childless, which is quite wrong- the children of staffers exceed the employee count (as it should). However, we do live in the NYC area and so believe that we may be more tolerant than some other areas. But that didn’t stop our friend over at Net Jets.
The one point I found conspicuous by it’s absence was that offensive ads for all manner of things were never brought into the discussion. Blatant sexuality is tolerable, but the mention of a word that has one meaning of a sexual nature is unacceptable? Look at the cover of Cosmopolitan Magazine that any 6 year old can see in the supermarket, I’m embarrassed by the language used.
Does Mr. Net Jet worry about explaining these to his daughter?
“Sex Tricks He’s Never Seen Before: The Outrageous ‘Rock’ Technique And 21 Other Moves That Will Make His Thighs Go Up in Flames!”
“Turn your man into a YOU pleasing sex genius”
“The Sex he’ll die for!”
I would propose that in common usage today; “that sucks” doesn’t carry any sexual meaning, while “that blows” certainly does. I think that the Net Jets executive is a little behind the times, while perhaps MSCO is a little on the leading edge in our usage of “sucks”. In another 5 years the point will be moot, (a word that’s reversed it’s meaning in the last 15 years,) by which I mean it is not going to be worthy of discussion.
I think that the real issue here is that some fat cat Net Jet executive threw his weight around simply because he could make the little guy suffer. There are many other egregious abuses of social standards that could and should be fought. But this jerk decided that he would take on MSCO purely because he would win, because he’s working from a position of the Big against the Little. He doesn’t fight against Cosmo because it’s strength against strength and he won’t win that one.
And finally a message for our clients, and those who read this blog looking for business insights. In order to engage your prospects- you must engage with them to create a dialog. While this discussion is only thinly related to the business of marketing, it is highly engaging to many intelligent people who read it. Now our task it is transitioning this engagement into a business engagement with those who have found us anew as a result.
Selected Excerpts from comments to Mark Stevens vs. Warren Buffet:
You can read the full comments here:
Mark (not Mark Stevens) says, “The word sucks is offensive because of it’s sexual root which is why it gets peoples attention and I am guessing why you used it.”
Gaston M. says, “If he really cares that much, why stop at MSCO why not keep crusading against all the bad words seen in the media? ITS RIDICULOUS!!!”
Paul says, “However, “sucks” is not a word that is used in my household, either by the adults or the children. We find it in poor taste, and I certainly don’t want my 8 or 10 year olds thinking that it is anything but rude, despite the fact that I know they’ve heard it many times at the school yard.”
Paul says, “You aren’t being prohibited from publishing your book, or speaking in appropriate forums. Commercial speech is not the same as public speech, and has no absolute guarantee of privilege. Your website name in large letters on a billboard is offensive to community standards.”
Jordan M. says, “Clear Channel is doing you a huge favor because (hopefully) news organizations will pick up on this story and give your books and (delightful, talented) firm ‘free’ publicity.”
Paul says, “While the judgments of the mayor’s office and of Clear Channel’s management were wrong in how they dealt with this issue, neither is trying to hurt anyone. Rather, they are trying to respect that we are pluralistic, with many different views of what is acceptable in the community.”
Rajan S. says, “Just as we are expected to teach our children right from wrong, we are also expected to teach our children how to use good judgment, and part of that is knowing how to filter what they see, read and hear the second they step out of the household and in to the real world.”
Paul says, “I’ll be at the front of the line defending Mark’s right to use the word in the right context, but it has no place on a billboard that is seen by everyone.”
Andrea says, “With media on display and easily accessible by everyone at all times - online, in the middle of primetime television, on billboards - we seem to have to be more responsible for where our own eyes (and our kids) may linger.”
Marketing Recruiter says, Why is this necessary? Because it’s clutter busting? Because the URL was available? Maybe. But just as likely it’s because you may not have kids, or because the problem you caused with my kids is very abstract and not your problem. It’s selfish.”
Rajan S. says, I recall many times seeing billboards as well as public store fronts in shopping malls advertising the fashion company “fcuk”, which stands for “French Connection UK”. The “fcuk” is obviously meant to shock - read it fast enough and the other word appears. I don’t see anyone recalling those ads or preventing their children from going to malls.”
Gaston M. says, “Kids can watch TV or the news and learn about prostitution, the acts of rape & murder, money laundering, sex and all different criminal acts. Now someone puts the words SUCKS on the billboard and a community of parents are in uproar because it’s ‘offensive’…priceless.”
Paul says, “Many puerile-minded, insensitive and selfish “marketers” haven’t the intelligence to create marketing campaigns that don’t rely on below the belt shock factor to make their point
Nedra W. says, “They should have written policies regarding what falls within their guidelines of acceptability in terms of content. If they did not feel the word “sucks” was appropriate, they should not have agreed to post the billboard. Having signed the contract, they were then obligated to follow through despite the complaint they received.”
And now it’s your turn to sound off.
Is this a tempest in a tea pot?
A major social ill facing our society today?
Click on the comments below and add your bit.
the real world stars from the college professors.
Time to shut down Harvard Business School . And Stanford. And Columbia. And all the other academic sink holes that pretend to be the epicenter of business learning, when in fact… How can that be…?
I got excited the other day when I saw a commercial that led me to believe 
-Too much of what passes as “marketing” is just arts and crafts in disguise. Kindergarten finger painting. Creating beautiful ads that are Technicolor loss centers. Great marketing has to be built on great ideas. On the 
How dumb can a smart person get? Not much dumber than Judith Regan who attempted to add Simpson to her name.
Why does most 
