‘Double Down’: NOW Denounces KFC Ad Campaign on Women’s Butts
- Posted on September 23, 2010 at 2:59pm by
Scott Baker
- Print »
- Email »
This is another one of those ad campaigns that was counting more on the coverage of the outraged reaction than the actual impact of the ad campaign itself. Simple premise: Use the backsides of attractive college girls to sell bunless sandwiches.
As you might expect, denunciation didn’t take long:
The largest U.S. women‘s group doesn’t like it. “It‘s so obnoxious to once again be using women’s bodies to sell fundamentally unhealthy products,” says Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women.
But KFC marketing chief John Cywinski says it’s an effective way to catch the attention of young men — the biggest fans of the Double Down.
Here’s more from the team at Newsy:
Multisource political news, world news, and entertainment news analysis by Newsy.com
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 687 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 536 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 448 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 374 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 333 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 295 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 305 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 196 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 301 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 295 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (98)
MyAuntsNotFreeloadingIsYours
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 5:10pmSweatpants? Awwww man whata rip, I tuned in to see daisy dukes. Just another bunless and funless chicken ad.
Report Post »cheezwhiz
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 5:00pmI like big bu**s
Report Post »and I cannot lie
:P
Buck Bagaw
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 4:58pmThat’s very nice “Tea”. Say it once again, this time think with the ugly lump above your shoulders. To quote the late, great Bugs Bunny (yeah, Bugs is dead. He was flattened by a semi on Rte 66 while making that fateful wrong toin in “Albaqoiky”) ‘What a Maroon’.
Report Post »psst
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 4:46pmWow!! have Michelle O heard about this. She could make a Fortune. The Colonel’s people would not have enough secret herbs and spices to cover her fat arse.
Report Post »Ooops. pardon Moi.. I forgot to remember to read farther down the piece.
It did say attractive.
I‘m sure the Colonel’s folks wouldn’t care if the arses were not in college.. BUTT as long as they were attractive.
The attractive thingy lets Michelle out. I think she should so and see the EEOC and file a complaint..
The Colonel’s folks must have never heard about the Quota thingy.
BUTT, I’m sure they would make an exception for the FLOTUS.. That is.. If they can find enough herbs and spices.
Buck Bagaw
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 4:44pmSo much innuendo, so little time. The dirty old man part (most) of me is struggling to keep it clean. So I’ll try; It‘s freakin’ brilliant. Why the hell wouldn‘t you advertise on space that’s going to be looked at anyway. No demographic or traffic volumn studies necessary. Speaking of traffic, I could see a few problems with guys running off the road while reading the “copy”. Now, off to the Colonel”s for some tender breasts and thighs (drool).
Report Post »Revotelution
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 4:35pmAte at KFC today… and yesterday. The ad is working. Haven’t been there in months before that.
Report Post »alamo
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 4:30pmI will support KFC in the same way I support McDonalds and all fast food restaurants, by buying their food. The worst part about these people in opposition is that they claim it is wrong to sell an unhealthy food using attractive women; this implies that the people buying the sandwiches are too stupid to understand that it is not healthy. Once again we see that they have full belief in the nanny state. When will we all realize that personal responsibility is the key?
Report Post »Okpulot Taha
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 4:25pmFree Market Enterprise at its best! I love this, so very ingenious and this helps our sagging economy.
I would walk around with a KFC logo on my backside for $500, this would be fun! This would be a big message in my case, roadside billboard size; hard to miss.
However, I would demand $1000 to walk around with a Starkist Tuna ad on my backside.
Okpulot Taha
Report Post »Choctaw Nation
William J. Horn
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 4:05pmLeft wing idiots could hang Sarah Palin from a yardarm and throw hot cinders at her for being a conservative and these same N.O.W zealots would order up more chardonnay and brie. N.O.W needs to get a life. Women have butts…get over it.
Report Post »mtnclimberjim
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 3:50pmI will make it a point to support KFC this weekend for their creative marketing. Don’t you just love the USA.
Report Post »Anonimouse
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 3:47pmThis guy is a clown. He’s calling for violence on another thread. He probably posts this stuff, then sends a screen shot to Huff Po to illustrate those crazy tea partyiers. Kinda sad, huh?
Report Post »megansmom
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 3:35pmHey I just hope eating those on my low carb diet will get my butt looking that good.
Report Post »pinkcadlac
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 3:31pmThis is absurd.
Report Post »pinkcadlac
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 3:30pmSeriously?
Report Post »Jack007
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 3:30pmI love Hot Buns lol
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 3:25pmSend in the clowns lol! Looks like the seminars are coming up so short they have to dip into the junior high schools for hired trollage lol!
Report Post »SND97
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 3:16pmI’ll take two double downs, and four naked buns..HEY!!!! I’m taking about bread here OK????
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 3:15pmAm I at a Conservative site? Selling anything through sex is NOT a Conservative value as I understand. Help me understand you folks. OK?
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 3:22pmYour utter absence of humor brands you as other than a Conservative. I’m unclear that employing sexuality is un-conservative, it’s how you employ it. Conservatism does not require one to cease being human, you know….
Report Post »broker0101
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 3:29pmMan, you ARE confused. “Conservative” means that we believe in a “conservative” (i.e. literal) interpretation of the Constitution on the United States of America. The Constitution, I would argue, says pretty clearly that a private American company has the right to advertise in any way they see fit, provided it does not deprive anyone else of their Constitutional rights.
Report Post »I think your question is better directed at the Christians here. (which I am not, so I defer to my Christian peers)
broker0101
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 3:33pmConstitution of the United States of America. That’s a typo I want to fix.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 3:36pmI’m a Christian, Missouri Synod Lutheran, they call us “Catholic Light”.
I‘m unclear that having advertising printed on the backside of one’s sweatpants stands in violation of any Christian principles lol!
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 3:51pmPROSPRO: I love good humour. But I also love decency in public. Just how would you think Christ would react? Would you be laughing at this as just fun? WHY?
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 4:42pmTroll asks: “Just how would you think Christ would react?”
You mean, would He break away from the trivial matter of saving the souls of all mankind through self-sacrifice to comment on printed sweatpants. Hmmm…never gave that much thought….
Puleez lol! You ******** are so buffoonish.
Report Post »tepartyblog.info
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 6:17pmI am not a christian ether but I am sure he would let them wash his feet with their hair.
Report Post »ClockKing
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 7:13pmYou no longer have a right to tell Christians how to think or behave. That liberal thought crime crap is rescinded.
Report Post »geminisailor
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 3:11pmThe NAGs will speak up on behalf of these KFC gals, who didn’t ask for their help…but the NAGs don’t have a word to say about others who get run down, i.e.: Sarah Palin, Condi Rice, etc.
They should change their name to “National Organization for Liberal Women”.
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 3:11pmI’m waiting to see what American Family Association does. I hope they will call for a buying ban. Most of their boycotts on moral issues have brought action wanted. I hear so many folks complain about how the USA moral are droping, yet how many join AFA boycots? Gross hyprocrisy. All talk: no walk.
Report Post »Sheepdog911
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 7:43pmConnie, That’s a whole lot of writing for having said absolutely nothing. I”’ bet your lips flap alot too, with nothing intelligent being said.
Report Post »V-Forge
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 3:10pmmmmmm Chicken. Ok it worked I’m gonna have one today.
Report Post »Anonimouse
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 3:12pmlol!!!
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 3:20pmNobody who actually *opposes* fried chicken, bacon, and cheese can be considered sane or noteworthy. I mean, it’s okay not to like it (i‘ve never met anyone who didn’t like fried chicken, cheese, or bacon though) but to flat out *oppose* it?
Wow lol! ******** are such freaks.
Report Post »PeachyinGA
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 3:22pmYum! Works for my low-carb diet. Thanks left-wing media for bringing this great new sandwich to my attention!
Report Post »5000YRLEAPER
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 5:20pmDitto, they actually look good to me, I mean the sandwich of course;)
Report Post »tepartyblog.info
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 6:14pmThe problem with this sandwich is the type cheese they use in between. They should have just put a beef paddy in the middle.
Report Post »Anonimouse
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 3:10pmBut they applaud the PETA girls going naked.
The liberal brain is so, so, very hard to figure out, isn’t it?
Report Post »5000YRLEAPER
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 4:41pmNo kidding, it’s not like KFC forced the adult college student girls into the sweat pants and pass out coupons. I bet they lined for the chance. This is a joke, it is clever advertising by KFC, nothing different and nothing worse than what is broadcasted on prime time TV. They should be cracking down on Victoria’s Secret more than KFC.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 4:44pmHey now, much of my wife‘s nightwear comes from Victoria’s Secret. Don’t be dissing on VS :P
Report Post »5000YRLEAPER
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 5:19pmI’m not dissing on V.S., believe me I have benifited from their product lines by my wife as well. However, I’m just pointing out how many are making mountains out of mole-hills by going after chicken-bum sweat pants. If they are going to run after companies for utilizing female appeal for advertising, they should go after a retailer that acutally uses it.
Report Post »broker0101
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 3:09pmAnd yet NOW‘s denunciations of women’s “honor killings” and stonings throughout the Muslim world (including honor killing within the United States) remain conspicuously absent.
Report Post »plunderpower
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 3:45pmNOW stands for National Organization of Whiners.
Report Post »GENZERO
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 3:08pmCAPITALISM IS GREAT!!!! Can‘t tell me that the students don’t need the money$$$ and when you put college students to work it messes with what their liberal instructors are teaching in liberal economics classes. I hope the IRS taxes every penny earned and that gives the students a lesson in why smaller government and fewer taxes are both needed.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 3:06pm“The largest U.S. women‘s group”
You mean, all twelve of them are the largest? That’s a good sign.
Report Post »Marylou7
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 3:25pmlol I totally agree. You notice these groups never (and I repeat…NEVER) come to the defense of a conservative woman.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 3:40pmOr to the defense of the victims of any liberal sex-fiend politician, even if the victim is a liberal…
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 3:50pmMaryLou, I am curious as to what you mean by never coming to the defence of “conservative women.” You know, of course, that NOW and organizations like it don’t consider “conservative women” a separate species?
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 4:39pmPubliusPencildick writes: “I am curious as to what you mean by never coming to the defence of “conservative women.””
Ah, here comes the troll to display yet again his penchant for willful obtuseness.
Let’s break it down for you, Pencildick:
NOW…the national organization for women…never defends women who are also Conservatives.
This is really simple English, Pencildick, anyone can understand the very clear meaning. If you continue to have difficulty with really simple English, there are surely many community colleges in your area offering remedial courses at reasonable rates.
MJ1025
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 4:50pmSoros funds NOW. Go to discoverthenetworks.org. Those women do what he tells them to do.
Report Post »Sheepdog911
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 6:07pmPencilneck, You missed the point … NOW represents no one but themselves, and only those twelve. Last I heard, the NOW had a total of fewer than 1000 voting members. My calculator won’t even give me a good percentage of the female population of the U.S. these idiots represent … but the number is something like 5 to the negative 6th power. With that type of representation, please explain why anyone has ever even heard of NOW, much less why we would have ever heard of them more than once.
Report Post »tepartyblog.info
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 6:10pmThe problem with the women rights movement is not that it takes women out of the house but that it does not put a family member(like grandma, granddad, aunt, uncle ) to take their place and pass along the values of their family(this is why they have been so successful in getting rid of the church(divide and conquer)). This is another example of us failing in our social obligations which in turn leaves fertile ground for communism. The ironic thing about the liberal women in this movement is that they that when the communist manifesto talks about creating a community of women; they think it means that women will be in charge of the community but in reality they will be community property. A community of women not belonging to anyone in particular like a public road or park(I detest sex in the city these women think they are on top but in reality they are just a sandbox). If women want to have a career that’s fine but it is unfortunate that they do not fully understand the importance in their role in the development of modern society.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 6:39pmHa! You folks are great… really.
Prospero, thanks for trying, but I think the joke is on you, since you somehow were completely unable to understand the question. The “Pencildick” thing is clever, but please quiet down when the adults are talking.
Sheepdog, you misrepresent NOWs influence with your 1,000 “voting members” statistic. According to Wikipedia: “[NOW] was founded in 1966 and has a membership of 500,000 contributing members and 5,987 chapters in 47 U.S. states.” This may not be enough for you, but it’s still 500x as much as you claimed. However, if you want to insist on “voting” members, then NOWs 1,000 dwarfs the Republican National Committee, which has only 168 voting members.
And for the original post: MaryLou, while you may not agree with some of NOWs legislative priorites, such as its pro-choice stance, the organization’s work for pay equity, against workplace discrimination, and its efforts to support and aid rape victims benefit (and defend) women of all political stripes. Therefore, your claim–”these groups never (and I repeat…NEVER) come to the defense of a conservative woman”–is false.
Class dismissed.
Report Post »Independent Tess
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 7:11pmPublius, I, too, have been repeatedly disappointed by NOW’s non-response to so many slurs, etc. against women who are conservative. I remember in the early days when they were ready to jump on any slight, but now the most odious comments and situations are ignored if they run counter to the Progressive agenda. I think of the disgusting things that were said about Sarah Palin giving birth to a Down syndrome baby. They should have been celebrating her right to choose to do so, even though they are pro-abortion.
Report Post »Sheepdog911
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 7:38pmPencilneck,
Report Post »Who’d you get? I’d say class dismissed against you. I‘d say it’s amazing how a prog troll like you has to spout “accurate stats about their own loser organizations. NOW has 500,000 members, in only 47 states? Wow, gosh and they’ve been around since the mid-60′s and can only have chapters in 47 of 50 states. Glenn Beck fielded over 500,000 from all 50 states and several territories, to one single location at one time in only a matter of months. And … where the heck did hte RNC, which is only a Committee, come into this. How many members does the Dumbo Nat’l Committie have? When your progressive organizations grow up, can garner some truely National (remember 50 states) interest and membership and chapters, come back out and play.
PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 8:01pmTess,
I agree that any sexism is unacceptable, no matter who it is directed against. That said, NOW has released statements defending Sarah Palin. As the NOW Hall of Media Shame notes:
“During the 2008 presidential elections, media misogyny reached toxic levels. Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama and Sarah Palin were the targets of the some of the most extraordinarily sexist (and racist) attacks we’ve witnessed in a long time. It’s long been true that women who serve in or run for political office (and the women and girls in politicians’ families) are subject to gender-based double standards and slurs.”
http://www.now.org/issues/media/hall-of-shame/about.html
NOW also criticized David Letterman‘s jokes about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy:
http://www.now.org/issues/media/hall-of-shame/index.php/television/letterman-palin-daughter
Not long after Palin was nominated, the NOW PAC chair Kim Gandy wrote:
“I feel for Palin, and for all women struggling to be taken seriously in a man’s realm; the desire to have people discuss your policies, not your hair or hemlines; the conviction that you have every right to raise your family as you see fit, including taking on a demanding job outside the home; the entirely reasonable expectation that you are the peer of your male colleagues and deserve the same treatment and opportunities that they receive.”
Perhaps NOW did not condemn all the attacks and did not condemn them strongly enough, but they did speak out against the sexism that Palin and her daughter faced.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 9:08pmTess, I had a post responding to your comment but the site went wierd for a second and apparently it didn’t go through. Anyway, I agree that any sexist attack needs to be condemned strongly, no matter whom it is against. Shortly after Palin’s nomination, the chairperson of NOW PAC wrote this:
“I feel for Palin, and for all women struggling to be taken seriously in a man’s realm; the desire to have people discuss your policies, not your hair or hemlines; the conviction that you have every right to raise your family as you see fit, including taking on a demanding job outside the home; the entirely reasonable expectation that you are the peer of your male colleagues and deserve the same treatment and opportunities that they receive.”
NOW has condemned a number of media figures who have attacked Sarah Palin and her daughter. Many of these statement can be found on NOW’s Media Hall of Shame on their website. Perhaps they have not done enough, but they have spoken out in defence of the Palins.
Sheepdog,
You are really going to try to make hay about the “only 47 states” thing? Now that’s just silly and unproductive. But, just in case you are concerned, the NOW website says that they have members in all 50 states and D.C.. The discrepancy may come from the fact that Wikipedia is specifically talking about states with official chapters. My point about the RNC is that the number of “voting members” does not accurately represent the support an organization may have. Please try to read carefully, because I don’t want to have to explain everything. Note too that the 500,000 refers to “contributing members,” and I’ll admit that I do not know what that entails, but do you think that the far, far less than 500,000 people who appeared at Beck’s rally all qualify as “contributing members?” Actually, don’t worry about answering that, because it is all beside the point.
Funny, I don’t feel that have “accurate statistics” is a bad thing…
Report Post »Sheepdog911
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 10:01pmPencil. Anything said by a progressive is “unproductive” and usually tragically “silly.” And yes, if after 44 years, a “National” (their name not my claim) organization can’t establish a chapter in every state, I’d seriously call them tragic. Those are the stats you idnore. It matters not that they have members in every state. Their members are orphans in three states. What does “contributing” mean … They pay dues> Is this a Union thang? As for the 8/28 crowd, refer to your “accurate statss” crap. You must have gotten your stats from Chris Matthews … I was there. Translate that as witness to the events. Your stats, across the entire spectrum of your overblown self-importance are trash. Go home troll. You bore me.
Report Post »H2OBoardem
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 10:14pmPencilPubis. Grow up, your statistics prove only that fools try to prove any losing arguement with limp statistics. NOW has always been a group of shrill hags, and you lost joined the Intellectually challenged crowd on this. Learn to chose you battles better. Your chosen warriors and your cause are losers.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 10:38pm“Orphan members” and “shrill hags”? I would have loved to continue this debate, but you two have given me absolutely nothing of intelligence to respond to. You think that’s what the Founding Fathers were looking for in a democracy? I know there are many smart people in the Tea Party who are willing to have an open discussion about political beliefs, and right now you two are giving them a bad name. You really think it’s productive to attack the use of statistics to make an argument (note, I was not the one to introduce either the question of NOW membership numbers or Beck’s rally attendance)? Do you really think that NOW is a failure as an organization because they do not have chapters in Hawaii, North Dakota and Maine? Now you are just grasping for straws, and it’s sad.
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on September 24, 2010 at 12:24amPubliuas, I’m a Constitutionalis NOT a Progressive. I apologize for the idits here who’ve attacked you pwersonally. I beleive you’ve honestly tried to present your perspective in a helpful way. I fear for America because these hateful attackers of anyone/anything they disagree with
Report Post »H2OBoardem
Posted on September 24, 2010 at 8:24amPencil and Connie, You two are sad. You throw your crap into the fan and act like it‘s the fan’s fault the crap went everywhere. You act like your muckraking here is someone else’s doing. If Beck, conservatives, the TEA Party, et.al. were so insignificant, you and those of your ilk wouldn’t be on this site try to keep things stirred up. Shrill is a great description of those who claim one thing and then only support who support them. True to liberalism and progressive thought, you pick and only advocate the parts of our system that you want, and ignore the rest, all the while wrapping yourselves in the flag and invoking the image of the Founding Fathers. Sorry. It’s a total picture situation. We want the total image that the Founding Fathers imagined and penned into existence … not your severly parsed version of it.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 24, 2010 at 8:52am“It’s a total picture situation. We want the total image that the Founding Fathers imagined and penned into existence … not your severly parsed version of it.”
Vague gobbledygook. The best way to hide from anyone who disagrees with you.
Report Post »