Tasteless Advertising: How Snoop Eats Pistachios

I'd like to address an ad for Wonderful pistachios. The company seems to relish the fact that this ad is considered "risqué"; in fact, it's blatant corporate irresponsibility. It features well-known musician Snoop (Dog? Lion?) popping pistachios with the implication that they're like prescription pills. 

We know Snoop for his music, but the big laugh advertisers are counting on is Snoop's well-known proclivity to live-it-up "high" on life.

Wonderful Brand Pistachios in a Prescription Pill Bottle

First, let me say that I don't really have a problem with Snoop, his music, or his personal choice to get high. I know this is a fairly divisive topic in the political arena; however, it's just a matter of time before marijuana is legalized across the country and we'll be able to skip this part of the convo. I'm not interested in talking politics here. 

I DO want to talk about making a deadly American epidemic a punchline. Making a joke about Snoop being high (which everyone does all the time) and joking about Snoop misusing prescription drugs is NOT the same thing. Wonderful Pistachios did another ad with Steven Colbert that utilized pot humor, and it worked just fine. In fact, whether or not you find them funny, nearly all of their ads hit the mark in terms of what they're going for - a quick punchline that comes with familiarity (a celebrity, a reference to legalized pot in Colorado), plus a twist on a silly new way to eat pistachios. It's a predictable formula and it works.

Steven Colbert's "Rocky Mountain High"

Here's my point: let's say that in this commercial, Snoop had somehow lit a pistachio and smoked it, which is no more absurd than Steven Colbert's fake American eagle in a plaid shirt. In this scenario, the pistachios would be pot, which is less addictive than numerous legal substances available, including alcohol and nicotine (1). The connection would be recognizable, harmless, and silly; it would fit Wonderful's formula. The biggest change would be that the writers would have to come up with a different punchline. (Snoop eats pistachios ... 'One hit at a time?' ... or, 'He cracks them like they're hot?' This isn't rocket science, folks.) 

But they are NOT pot. Snoop grabs what is clearly a prescription bottle and shakes out the nuts like pills, and then the ad tells us that he eats them "habitually."

I'd like to contrast this with a harsh reality in our culture: our children, our siblings, our parents, and our friends die every day as a result of prescription drug addiction (a "habit"). 

 

Source: CDC 

To contextualize this further, the CDC has reported that "[e]very day in the United States, 44 people die as a result of prescription opioid overdose" ("Prescription Drug Overdose Data"). 

I find it horribly offensive, tactless, and insensitive -- not to mention egregiously irresponsible -- to make light of drug habits that kill people. If there's some sense that pill-popping is no different than smoking pot, then that's a deeper level of inexcusable ignorance.

Can we expect advertisers to pay attention to this kind of detail? Though it might seem like nitpicking, in this case I think it should work exactly opposite. If you're going to go "risqué" for a laugh, then you'd better understand the nuance behind your message.

On that note, I'd like to offer an alternative to the public. We're the consumers of media. First, you can refuse to purchase Wonderful brand pistachios. Second, you can talk back through social media. The CDC has its own people-centered media campaign. It's title is a bit unwieldy, but the message is pretty clear, "When Prescription Drugs Become the Problem." Anyone can take a picture with a message and post it to social media. It's not quite as "cool" as Snoop popping pistachios, but maybe if some celebs got on board it could save some lives instead of promoting drug addiction. So post it on FB, Tweet and Retweet it. Tag Wonderful @getcrackin in every post until they get the message. 

#RxProblem Link: CDC Campaign

I challenge Wonderful Pistachios to apologize publicly, take down this offensive ad, and then put some weight behind their apology by donating to this campaign. Alternately, they can and should donate  to a major drug rehabilitation program. There are plenty to choose from. 

44 dead Americans every day. 

_________________________________________________________
Wonderful Pistachio Contact Info:
Social Media Sites:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/getcrackin
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/wonderfulpistachios
US Contact Info: 
CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS

The Wonderful Company, Wonderful Citrus, Wonderful Pistachios & Almonds, Teleflora, FIJI, Wonderful Sales 11444 Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90064

comments@wonderful.com (310) 966-5700

_______________________________________________________________________
(1) I'd like to underscore that I don't want the focus here to be "pro-marijuana" but rather the irresponsible nature of a company making light of what the CDC calls an "epidemic." I'm not interested in - and I won't engage in - a discussion about legalizing Marijuana here.

In reference to the addictive nature of marijuana versus other substances, here is a general overview of those numbers from a study done by the National Institute on Drug Abuse: "The researchers found that of those who had tried marijuana at least once, about 9 percent eventually fit a diagnosis of cannabis dependence. The corresponding figure for alcohol was 15 percent; for cocaine, 17 percent; for heroin, 23 percent; and for nicotine, 32 percent. So although marijuana may be addictive for some, 91 percent of those who try it do not get hooked. Further, marijuana is less addictive than many other  legal and illegal drugs." Source: "Experts Tell the Truth about Pot," The Scientific American. 1 Mar 2012. 

Pride, Prejudice, and (why does this exist in our world?) Zombies

Every Janeite loves P&P (and every true Janeite calls it thus); in truth, every Janeite IS a Janeite (1) because he/she/they fell in love with the words on the page of one--and more likely all--of Austen's novels. Jane Austen wrote 6 complete novels, along with numerous shorter works in her youth (collected as Juvenilia). Her journals and letters have also been recovered and published. (2) Such a small collection of works from an author so beloved leaves her fans wanting more. Fans write fan fiction. Fans produce sequels, prequels, adaptations, reimaginings, mashups, and a myriad of other creative works that show their love and dedication to the original works. (3)

Source: http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=4 

It's true that people have been riffing off of Jane Austen for years. Many of these works are brilliant. The BBC's movie series based on the books stay truest to the original works, but they are still an interpretation of the original texts. Some of the literary imaginings of characters' lives before, during, or after the novels are very well-written and do equal justice to the spirit of Austen. 

These are admittedly my unqualified opinions as a fan. As Emma tells her anxious father, who is always eager to assume that everyone must think and feel as he does, "One half of the world cannot understand the pleasures of the other" (Emma Ch. 9). Does anyone have the right to pass judgement on these works? How do we sift through them? Is there a "right" or "wrong" -- a "good" or "bad" type of what amounts to variations of Austen fan fiction? Is there any accounting for taste?

One of the broader questions that haunts all fandoms is that of ownership. Can anyone really own a story? Doesn't a story leave the author the moment it leaves the press, even the moment it hits the page? At the very least, a work of fiction leaves the author's control once its readers consume it. Why shouldn't others have the right to create new fictions that are variations of old fictions? Aren't all fictions some variation of something that came before? 

"Are the shades of Pemberley to be thus polluted?"

There can be no pure answer to these questions; just as there can be no pure primary texts. No text exists without some hint (taint?) of influence by texts that have gone before it. Doesn't this grant fan fiction permission to do whatever it likes with so-called "originals" that aren't really original at all?

These are all wonderful, legitimate questions. But--

But zombies? 

Austen *facepalm*

Talk about polluting the shades of Pemberley. Call me a snob. Call me a purist. Call me a Lady Catherine de Bourgh. We have to draw the line somewhere. Admitting Elizabeth Bennet onto the grounds was one exception; however, when Mr. Darcy and zombies show up in the same sentence, it's time to pick up the proverbial pen/stick/machete and carve out some boundaries. 

So, here's what I have to say to anyone who wants to add anything else to the Austen canon: MOVE ON. We're all filled up. Find another author -- ANY other author. And move your pen/typewriter/Macbook along to pick at their textual bones. 

Want to write a novel about a zombie apocalypse set in the Regency era? That sounds FASCINATING! It does! Do it! Have the writerly guts to do it! But do it on your own merit - without the crutch of a story and characters you borrowed wholesale from a great author; do it without riding her shirttails or exploiting her fandom.

And for the love of all things sacred, leave the moldering bones of Jane Austen and the well-appointed grounds of Pemberley out of it.

ZOMBIE FREE ZONE

___________________________________________________________________________

(1) In case you need a full explanation of what a "Janeite" is: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21036818 
(2) Go HERE (part of pemberley.com) for a full list of Austen's published works, along with links to full text copies of most of them. 
(3) To get a sense of the breadth of work inspired by Jane Austen, take a look at pemberley.com and austen.com Also, there are national societies for Janeites in several countries, including the US (Jane Austen Society of North America), the UK, Australia, and even Brazil.