Following on from Controversy Central #1: Tiger Loses (Almost) Everyone, this is an interesting case of an ad created to leverage a sponsorship in one region being a disaster in another. Here’s the setup:

Here in Australia, it’s summer, and in summer, our major sport is cricket. This season, we’ve played international series at home against the West Indies and Pakistan. KFC, a long-time sponsor of Australia Cricket, created a series of TV ads, called “Cricket Survival Guide”. On one of them, you have a lone Australian cricket supporter, dressed in the Australian green and gold, sitting amongst the opposition. In this case, it was West Indians wearing red and green and enthusiastically supporting their team, as cricket supporters do. Now that you have the context, here is the ad:

Why was I concerned about the context? Because the ad was made specifically for the Australian audience, referring to a very specific situation, and it made perfect sense down here. When the ad hit YouTube, however, a vocal minority of mainly Americans without benefit of context – or in some forums, not caring about the context – decided to call “racism”. Why is there only one white guy? Why is everyone else black? Why are the black people the only ones acting up? Why does he think fried chicken will fix everything? Why is it an “uncomfortable situation”?

I grew up in America and am a dual citizen, so I do understand the angle. And clearly, if this was an American ad depicting one white American and a bunch of black Americans, it would be terribly offensive. But it’s not. It’s about one Aussie cricket supporter who somehow got a seat in the middle of the West Indian supporters, with no hidden agenda with the chicken. There is no racial sensitivity about fried chicken in Australia or the West Indies – it’s just chicken.

Okay, I’m done defending the ad and ready to talk about the bigger picture…

If a brand is to connect with a target market, you do it by reflecting and respecting the passions, interests, and humour of that culture. You talk about what’s happening and you speak the language, which means it may not make a lot of sense or mean the same thing somewhere else. Context is everything.

This is a global marketplace, but have we really got to the point where every ad and every sponsorship leverage strategy, has to be checked for cultural sensitivities – about race or otherwise – around the world? Do we really have to cater to global sensitivities for regional ads, even though the rest of the world would have to go looking for those ads on the internet in order to be offended by them? Imagine the ads, and how boring they would be.

It’s a slippery, dangerous slope. Would McDonald’s be able to show a burger in an ad, because it may offend some cultures by glorifying the eating of meat? Bikinis and sexual innuendo would be out, as there are any number of cultures that would consider that that to be a case of egregious sexual permissiveness. None of that will happen, of course, so why does an Australian ad about making friends with a West Indian crowd at a cricket match by sharing chicken with them have to conform to American sensitivities?

Apparently, it does, because in an outstanding display of cowardice, KFC pulled the ad from Australian television. It’s an ugly precedent. Very ugly.