Who's boning your mother?
February 20, 2007 2:00 PM   Subscribe

Greenpeace doesn't know it has a new ad campaign that asks "Who's f***ing Mother Earth," but their logo is on it. The copywriter admits he hasn't told the organization yet about the ads he's designed in their name. "It's probably not legal, but there's too much paperwork, meetings and phone calls involved to get the campaign approved in time for Earth Day," he explains. "I figure Greenpeace is too busy getting sued by conglomerates to bother suing a few people who are trying to promote the cause. They can always officially deny the vulgarity."
posted by jbickers (36 comments total)
 
*Starts up Photoshop to make "Who's fucking your non-profit organization's reputation?" ad campaign*
posted by Plutor at 2:04 PM on February 20, 2007


Christ, what an asshole.
posted by boo_radley at 2:19 PM on February 20, 2007 [3 favorites]


Please, tell me that's a joke.
posted by FormlessOne at 2:21 PM on February 20, 2007


That comma is kind of awkward there.
posted by Skorgu at 2:33 PM on February 20, 2007


This would actually be slightly more redeeming if it was a self link.
posted by public at 2:41 PM on February 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


I'm sorta more offended by the gratuitous comma usage than I am by the F-bomb.
posted by crackingdes at 2:41 PM on February 20, 2007


It would be better if it was funny.
posted by doctor_negative at 2:49 PM on February 20, 2007


Who's Getting Sued into the Fucking Ground, Tomorrow?
posted by Mikey-San at 2:50 PM on February 20, 2007


Who Spiked The Kool-Aid, Yesterday?
posted by phaedon at 2:53 PM on February 20, 2007


*yawn*
posted by delmoi at 2:53 PM on February 20, 2007


Dude this isn't promoting Greenpeace's cause. It's making them look like idiots.
posted by Flashman at 2:56 PM on February 20, 2007


well, there goes Greenpeace's hard-earned reputation as level-headed, reasonable people!
posted by drjimmy11 at 3:07 PM on February 20, 2007 [4 favorites]


This is just wrong. And for the record, drjimmy11, I think that Greenpeace is a lot more level-headed and reasonable than some of our elected officials.
posted by leftcoastbob at 3:29 PM on February 20, 2007


And for the record, drjimmy11, I think that Greenpeace is a lot more level-headed and reasonable than some of our elected officials.

And the award for left-handed compliment of the year goes to....
posted by eriko at 3:49 PM on February 20, 2007


Dude this isn't promoting Greenpeace's cause. It's making them look like idiots.


As if they need help with that.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 3:51 PM on February 20, 2007


Why "sign" the ads at all?
posted by delmoi at 3:53 PM on February 20, 2007


Why "sign" the ad's, at all?

(As it would appear on that poster.)
posted by maxwelton at 3:59 PM on February 20, 2007


Oh goody, a real-world self-linker. "Greenpeace can just delete it if it breaks the rules!"

Jesus, does this dumbfuck have any idea what "protection of trademark" means? They have to sue him for using their trademarks or there's precedent to lose future lawsuits.

What a stupid, lazy piece of shit. Congratulations, shitstain, you just blew thousands of Greenpeace's dollars for your lazy self-promotional attempt to "advance the cause." Jackass.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:27 PM on February 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


,
posted by unmake at 5:20 PM on February 20, 2007


Interesting set of responses.

I'm not trying to be contrarian when I say that I liked the campaign a lot.

I think it's extremely memorable and I think that in a visceral way it sinks home that violating the Earth is obscene, that I in fact really wouldn't care that, say, Exxon execs were having sex with their mothers but the fact that they foul the world is an intolerable obscenity (made far worse by the fact that given their obscene profits they could certainly afford to run their operation far more cleanly if they chose to do so).

I also think this message has great appeal to the core Greenpeace supporters who probably think much as I do. If you think this is going to deter even one person who might support them, you are sadly mistaken as to how placid these people are.

I also think it will be extremely successful -- it might even be a deliberate guerilla marketing stunt. I anticipate that Greenpeace will politely defend their trademark and the images or at least the Greenpeace logo will be "removed" -- except they'll float around cyberspace forever.


On preview, XQUZYPHYR wrote:

Jesus, does this dumbfuck have any idea what "protection of trademark" means? They have to sue him for using their trademarks or there's precedent to lose future lawsuits [....] shit [...] shitstain [...]

Despite the wording of this advertisement, random profanity is generally to be avoided in polite discourse: it doesn't put one's prose in the best light, particularly when that prose contains a serious misstatement.

No, Greenpeace doesn't have to sue anyone. There are many many things you can do to protect a copyright short of litigation, which is usually a very last resort. Sending someone a polite letter asking them to take the trademark off and following it up to make sure they comply is for example a more than reasonable way to protect a trademark.

(IANAL but my band did successfully defend a trademark against a major label.)
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 5:30 PM on February 20, 2007


Maybe the copywriter is a mole of some sort, an employee of Big Oil, who infiltrated the ad agency? Maybe his daddy owns a lumber company? Is the guy's name Oedipus by any chance?
posted by culturemaven at 6:28 PM on February 20, 2007


I also think it will be extremely successful

Hah. You're cute.
posted by Mikey-San at 7:19 PM on February 20, 2007


Nothing poorly punctuated is destined for, greatness.
posted by Bixby23 at 7:27 PM on February 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


If you're going to make an illegal ad campaign for a cause you believe in, at least do a good job. The ad's aren't funny. That comma, sucks.
posted by graventy at 7:33 PM on February 20, 2007


What if Greenpeace knows, but it's such a good idea that they're going through all this red tape to fake it coming from someone else, to gain attention they otherwise wouldn't with just producing this themselves? Coming from someone else means they can say, "See? We aren't that insane, other people are."
posted by taursir at 8:10 PM on February 20, 2007


It's funny because it's true, today.
posted by fenriq at 8:51 PM on February 20, 2007




So the anti-abortionists can use pictures of fetuses to get their point across, but a little profanity and a picture of an oil rig drilling into mother Earth is over the top?

Whatever. Laurie Anderson is right.
posted by ZachsMind at 9:29 PM on February 20, 2007


I'm starting an ad campaign for Metafilter without Matts knowledge. It's called 'Metafilter: Beating you black, blue, green and grey."

I have a team of lowly interns trying to work out how to include Jobs and Projects, but right now we're so busy beating off that it's hard to care.
posted by Effigy2000 at 10:15 PM on February 20, 2007


Whatever. Laurie Anderson is right.

Yup, language is a walrus. Hey, isn't that an old Greenpeace slogan?
posted by Bixby23 at 10:21 PM on February 20, 2007


This ad is appealing to the crudest level of machismo honor culture, where the idea of someone fucking your mother is supposed to be some kind of intolerable insult. (What if my mom likes to get fucked? What, is she supposed to be a virgin?) Not to mention the deep and destructive sexism of the image of the Earth as a passive and vulnerable female.

In other words, the copywriter is a jerk, and he thinks we're jerks too.
posted by ottereroticist at 10:30 PM on February 20, 2007


I'm Goofyy, and I approve of this message.

I think given this topic, the shocking use of the f-bomb is highly appropriate. If folks didn't use the word so casually, it would have a better impact.
posted by Goofyy at 12:13 AM on February 21, 2007


It's wrong to appropriate the organization's name to publicize these wanky little ads. This copywriter is just jerking off. Why didn't he comp this stuff up and pitch it to enviro groups 'til one of them bought it? Oh, right, because it's horrible and tacky, that's why.
posted by Mister_A at 9:16 AM on February 21, 2007


If the guy's a copywriter, how come the copy on these public service announcements is so bad? I smell a conspiracy.
posted by mikeh at 9:18 AM on February 21, 2007


mikeh, he may be one of these people who thinks that typing and writing are the same thing.
posted by Mister_A at 9:21 AM on February 21, 2007


Ah, so it's a homegrown advertisement much in the way that Calvin pissing on the Ford logo on my back window is an advertisement for General Motors.
posted by mikeh at 9:25 AM on February 21, 2007


« Older An Unlimited Supplyyyyyyyyyyyy   |   Bill Richardson forms exploratory committee... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments