Controversial ice cream? Nun of that, thanks…

I’ve been meaning to mention this ad from the UK for Antonio Federici’s ice cream. What were they thinking?

What were they thinking was going to happen? Of course this was going to drive the Catholics insane. Of course it was going to be phenomenal press coverage for an ice cream company I haven’t even heard of but now crave like I’m preggers.

The company said the idea of “conception” represented the development of their ice-cream. The use of religious imagery was in part because of the company’s commitment to ice-cream and in part “to comment on and question, using satire and gentle humour, the relevance and hypocrisy of religion and the attitudes of the church to social issues”.

However, the ASA said the use of a pregnant nun and the reference to immaculate conception was “likely to be seen as a distortion and mockery of the beliefs of Roman Catholics”.

What they should have had for a tagline instead of “Immaculate Conception” was something daft like “She’s not pregnant, she just loves our Chocolate Swirl ice cream!”

Actually, that wouldn’t help them sell ice cream as much as this controversy will. People wouldn’t want to associate that rich deliciousness with the extra pounds they’ll put on if they over do it.

“We concluded that to use such an image in a light hearted way to advertise ice-cream was likely to cause serious offence to readers, particularly those who practised the Roman Catholic faith,” the ASA added, banning the ad from appearing again.

The ad is the latest in the company’s “Ice-cream is our religion” campaign.

Making ice cream into a religion is a stupid campaign idea. It wouldn’t matter what kind of advertising technique they’d try in order to sell that image, it’d wind up offending somebody’s idea of a properly held traditional superstitious belief system. And once enough people feel offended or hurt by the imagery, everyone has hear them bellyache over it and then we all suffer needlessly.

Isn’t it worth asking why an ice cream company thinks it’s up to them to “comment on and question, using satire and gentle humour, the relevance and hypocrisy of religion and the attitudes of the church to social issues” in the first place? I’d think all they really are required to do is make ice cream and sell as much of it to hungry sugar addicts as they possibly can. Their job is not to mock what might have been a sizable portion of their profit base. Their logic does not resemble earth logic.

I’m not saying companies can’t take a stand on an issue, but in the middle of a marketing campaign? I suppose there are ways it can be done productively that won’t lose them any customers but by and large I think they mishandled this one.

I think they should be allowed to mock the fact that people will follow and obsess over anything if they love it enough, but this wasn’t the best way to bring attention to that aspect of humanity. Not by a long shot.

And did anyone think to ask what the hell kind of bastard creature an ice cream god would plant in a woman anyway? Nothing I’d be wanting to squeeze out nine months later, that’s for damn sure…seems like a great idea for some off-kilter horror story, though.

About 1minionsopinion

Canadian Atheist Basically ordinary Library employee Avid book lover Ditto for movies Wanna-be writer Procrastinator
This entry was posted in In the Media, religiosity, Why in the world? and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.