Germans forced to apologies over Mao-Condom debacle

In an incident which has proven to be highly embarrassing the foreign media interest Grey Worldwide has been forced to issue an unconditional apology to Beijing, and to the Chinese people, after it was revealed that the company had produced a German language condom advertizement featuring anthropomorphic personification of a sperm resembling Chairman Mao.

The advertizement, which was exposed prior to being released for general consumption, depicts Mao as a sperm and implies that that Doc Morris Pharmacies brand condoms, the company whose product was being advertized could have prevented Chairman Mao's reign over China, Tibet and East Turkestan.

Needless to say, it caused widespread controversy on the Mainland.

This is not the first time that Mao has been used to advertize condoms. Previously a company attempted to take advantage of Mao's reputation for having many mistresses in order to sell condoms. The advertizement was banned on the Mainland. Ironically, in that incident the advertisement was produced by a Chinese company and was for domestic use only.

The Controversy?

The advertizement has provoked controversy on a number of levels amongst Mainlanders and China watchers, both for what it shows and for what it implies.

The most obvious source of controversy is that Mao is still officially regarded as being the father of modern China. Although not entirely historically accurate, Mao is promoted as being war hero who freed the Mainland from first the Japanese and then the nationalists, and who kept foreign imperialists out during the cold war. Thus speaking out against him is taboo in China, and foreigners criticizing/mocking Mao is seen not just as a slight again Mao and Maoist policies but also as a slight against China itself. Even amongst many of those who dislike Mao.

A second source of controversy is that in addition to the featuring Mao, the advertizement salso feature infamous Western Dictator Adolf Hitler, and the controversial Islamist leader Osama Bin laden, seen by some as a freedom fighter against Western Imperialism, but by others as a sociopathic mass murderer. The implication being that that Mao should be considered alongside these two.

Although arguably a reasonable association, given Mao's body count and track record for both directly and indirectly killing their own people, many Chinese find the idea objectionable none the less as it is part of the Chinese mindset to mentally separate controversial Chinese figures from their foreign counterparts, even if their actions are similar.

Other sources of controversy include objections to anything Chinese, not just Mao, being associated with sex or condoms. The former of which is less featured in the Chinese consciousness than in the more liberal Western nation, and is thus often not considered appropriate for use in advertizing of any sort, and the latter of which is still associated with promiscuity.

Separately from the Mao issue, China watches also note that controversy also exists over dictators and/or genocidal mass murders from any country to promote commercial goods. Which some feel is highly inappropriate, and disrespectful to those who suffered under them.

Additionally, the advertizement's use of eugenics as a commercial pitch: in this case the suggestion that 'increased condom use could prevent bad people from being born' is in itself a controversial concept. With some suggesting that this is only a small step away from advertizement that have already been banned around the world, such as those suggesting that the parents of badly behaved children could have saved themselves the embarrassment of their child's actions in a public place if they had used a condom.

The apology?

Grey's apology was released on April 17, and took the form of a brief press release and an official letter delivered to Chinese officials in Germany. Although the press release states that the advertizement was not on general release it did not explain how it came to be available on the Internet. It also neither confirmed nor denied whether the advertizement was purposefully released to the media, whether it was accidentally released by means of a clerical error or some such other event.

In addition to the controversy regarding the advertizement itself it has been claimed that representatives of Doc Morris Pharmacies have been contacting independent media outlets, those who carried images of the advertizement in order to debate its controversies, asking them to remove the copies in case they offend.

On one hand China watchers have welcomed this as being a sign that Doc Morris Pharmacies is taking the hurt feelings of the Chinese people seriously and is attempting to rectify its own mistakes. However, on the other hand, some have also expressed reservations over what amounts to a request for self censorship.

Questions have been raised over the authenticity of some/all take down request. With China watchers noting that the quality of English used in examples provided to the media is poor. Though it has also been noted that signatory on the takedown requests claims to Represent Grey's German base, rather than one of its international offices. Making them a non native English speaker who could legitimately have made such a mistake.

Condom Advertizing in China?

Condom advertizements in China have had a patch history. However, unlike Western countries where they are often taboo because of religious objections to contraception, attitudes towards condoms in China have largely been based around the condoms associational with sex itself.

In December 1999 China's State Administration for Industry and Commerce infamously banned the Mainland's first television condom advertizement after only two screenings. According to the SAIC the advertisment - which was promoting the use of barrier contraception in the fight against AIDs, rather than advertizing a particular brand of condom - violated media regulations by promoting a sex product. which was illegal under Chinese laws of the time.

Ironically, the advertizement was produced by China's state controlled Family Planning Commission, rather than by a private body, leading some China watchers to question whether 'Beijing's right hand knew what its left had was doing'.

At the time the use of barrier contraception in the fight against AIDs was a low priority on the Mainland due in part to state denial of the problem, but also due to low levels of promiscuity meaning that only an estimated 7% of China's AIDs cases were due to sexual contact. With the fast majority being down to needle sharing amongst drug users. Today the rate is somewhat higher due to the importation of loose mores from overseas leading to higher levels of promiscuity, and due to an increase in affluence and migrant working leading to increased incidents of prostitution.

In 2002 television advertising of condom was legalized, with Beijing creating a loophole for them by reclassifed barrier contraception as a medical product, rather than as a sex product. Thus allowing them to be advertized on television. At the same time the official Mainland term for condom was changed from 避孕套 meaning 'Anti-pregnancy cover', to 安全套 meaning 'Safety cover'.

Foreign Apologies?

This is not the first time that a foreign company has been forced to apologies for hurting the feelings of the Chinese people by misusing and/or abusing Chinese imagery for their own commercial gain.

In 2008 French auto manufacturer Peugeot Citroen was forced to humble itself after it offended the Chinese people by releasing an advertizement in Spain that depicted the Portrait of Mao from above the Tiananmen gates, but edited so as to make him appear demented. The advertizement contained an extract from Christian scriptures, as well as text that implied that Mao's revolution had stopped, but that the French owned company was carrying on.

"We repeat our good feelings towards the Chinese people, and confirm that we respect the representatives and symbols of the country"

Sokesperson Peugeot Citroen, January 2008

In an unrelated incident in 2004 US sports wear manufacturer Nike was also forced to humble itself to China after it released an advertisment that hurt the feelings of the Chinese people by showing US basketball player LeBron James striking an elderly Chinese man in period dress - intended to represent a martial arts master - in the face with a basketball. The advertizement was banned on the Mainland, but was still permitted to be screened in Hong Kong, where attitudes and advertizing laws are different.

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit