Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Canadian screen ad gets call for boycott

This is topic Canadian screen ad gets call for boycott in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003888

Posted by Ron Keillor (Member # 1790) on 02-09-2005, 02:03 PM:

from cbc.ca
Same-sex ad sparks call for boycott
Last Updated Wed, 09 Feb 2005 12:42:38 EST
CBC Arts
TORONTO - A group that opposes same-sex marriage is calling for a boycott of Famous Players because of an ad being shown in the chain's theatres.

The ad in question, which began running Feb. 1, is part of the slide show before each movie.

Lasting 10 seconds, it calls on theatre patrons to contact their member of Parliament to say they support the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"We are deeply saddened by Famous Players Theatres' decision to subject unsuspecting moviegoers to ads promoting same-sex marriage," Charles McVety, president of Calgary's Canada Family Action Coalition – which belongs to the Defend Marriage Coalition – said in a statement.

"It is a betrayal of the trust accorded to Famous Players by their viewing public, including parents who send their children to see a film."

Prime Minister Paul Martin has said that supporting same-sex marriage is an issue of defending the Charter.

McVety said the Defend Marriage Coalition is asking moviegoers to boycott Famous Players to show their feelings about the ad.

But Nuria Bronfman, an executive with Famous Players, said the ad is like any other that runs in theatres.

"We are a medium, an advertising medium, before our shows. That's what our screens are used for. So, like other media – newspapers, magazines, TV – the message doesn't necessarily reflect our point of view," she told the Canadian Press.

The ad was paid for by Salah Bachir, a leader in Toronto's gay community and the head of Famous Players Media, the independent company that sells advertising space in Famous Players theatres and on its screens.

Bachir bought the ad on behalf of Canadians For Equal Marriage, an organization that supports passing the legislation currently before Parliament.

"It's not a PSA [public service announcement] by any means," Bronfman said.

Bronfman said that McVety's group had asked for free equal time for its own message, but was turned down. She didn't know if it was now trying to buy an ad.

The Canada Family Action Coalition describes itself as a Bible-centred organization "with a vision to see Judeo-Christian moral principles restored in Canada."

The Defend Marriage Coalition also includes the Catholic Civil Rights League, Campaign Life Coalition and Real Women of Canada.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-09-2005, 03:04 PM:

At least it's not an ad for Filmguard starring Brent. You'd need Bruce LaBruce to direct that one!

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 02-09-2005, 06:18 PM:

Put it to a vote. Let's see what happens....

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 02-09-2005, 07:18 PM:

While Canada is WAY ahead of the US in gay rights and equal rights for all, I personally do not think that a "captured" audience as in a movie theatre is the proper place for such "ads." (It's bad enough that WE have to endure ANY ads in a theatre!)

I think it is just as wrong in that venue as if they played some ad that said marriage is between one man and one woman blah blah blah. Or some asinine religious ad ...Ummmm like "Do you know what hell is? Come in and hear our organist play this Sunday."

Posted by Floyd Justin Newton (Member # 1316) on 02-09-2005, 07:33 PM:

Phil--

I AGREE> [Wink]

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-09-2005, 08:19 PM:

Okay... Although I have made some very opinionated posts in the past, you'll notice that my opinions on some subjects have been conspicuously absent. My opinion about the ostensible subject of this debate (gay marriage) shall continue to remain absent.

The true subject of this debate SHOULD be about whether it's ethical for a movie theater to accept payment for advertisements (and subsequently display said ads) which contain a political message.

I say that it's NOT okay for a theater to show ads which have a political message... AT ALL!

It basically puts the theater manager in a position not unlike a nuclear arms dealer. No matter WHAT he sells or to WHOM he sells it, SOMEBODY is going to get hurt. (Or offended.)

Think for a sec. A theater manager's job is to put as many butts in the seats as possible. Offending 50% of your customer base is not a good way to do that.
(Assuming 50% of the people will be either for or against said political message.)

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 02-09-2005, 08:30 PM:

I think that's what I said too, Randy. But, I also added any religious ad to the unacceptable ads.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-09-2005, 08:43 PM:

This sounds like a good argument for getting rid of cinema advertising! [thumbsup]

I don't personally think that there is anything unethical about showing political or religious advertisements in a theatre (or any other environment where paid advertisments are displayed), but I agree with Randy that it doesn't make very good business sense to accept ads on highly controversial topics (which includes politics and religion).

There are definitely double standards in the advertising industry--a quick look at the NCN web site implies that ads featuring guns (for example) are not acceptable, but when I last worked at a theatre that ran NCN film ads (two years ago), it seemed like every week there was some sort of "join the army" or "join the marines" ad in the program. Hmm....

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 02-09-2005, 08:59 PM:

Sorry Scott, I don't agree. As a patron that PAID bux to be entertained, I sure the hell do not want to be barraged by ANY fucking political OR religious "message" from ANYONE! Fuck 'em!

Is that clear enough now to yous?

Posted by Wayne Keyser (Member # 2420) on 02-09-2005, 10:08 PM:

Language, language, sir!

Maybe the issue of "supporting gay marriage" lies in the TIMING of the message, but simple support for the Charter (Canada's "Bill of Rights") is one's simple patriotic duty, without further context (unless further information is supplied). It's every bit like the occasional PSA slide that suggests that the Marines are looking for a few good men to protect our freedom, and you don't hear a lot of fuss and feathers about those!

What's the "spin" on reminding people unobtrusively that it's a good idea to support Canada's proudly-held guarantees of "Fundamental Freedoms, Democratic Rights (like the right to vote), Mobility Rights, Legal Rights, Equality Rights" and the like?

What gives idiotic, autocratic conservatives the right to put homophobic spin on it? Perhaps their fear of (and I quote the Charter's "fundamental freedoms") "freedom of conscience and religion; freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press... and freedom of association."

[Sigh...] It's always the "moral police" who want to deny everyone freedom but themselves.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-10-2005, 12:36 AM:

It's still a political message even though it's by a group which claims it is a religious organization. It's goal is to affect government. It just uses a quasi-religious disguise to do it.

I am not against a (tasteful) advertisement which says, for instance:

Come to the Community Christian Church. (Or Synagogue... Or Mosque... Or Hindu shrine... Or B'Hai Temple... Or what have you.) Then, for instance, the ad might list times, dates and places to find the church.

This is plainly a religios ad but it's not political. It does not say that one should behave in a certain way, nor does it advocate that anybody petition the government to pass a law. An ad like that would not be objectionable as long as, A) It is, as I said, tasteful. And, B) any (authentic) religious group had the same opportunity to place a similar tasteful ad.

No, it is NOT that an ad contains even a hint of a religious message which makes it objectionable. It IS that an ad, under the guise of religion, beseeches the viewer to take some political action.

I'll be honest. I think that groups who pretend to be religious and who say things like, "You will behave in a certain way or else you are an "outsider" are DETESTABLE! They have no right to lay claim to the Bible.

And, if you REALLY want to lay some "smack" down idiots like that you can quote a verse from the King James Bible:

Second Epistle of Peter -- "But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again."

This was given to me by my minister when I asked her about what to do when confronted with people like that. She opened my Bible to this page and directed me to read it. Ever since then, whenever I meet a religious kook, I think about dog vomit, turn around and walk away. They would NEVER guess what I'm smiling about. [Big Grin]

Posted by Jarryd Beard (Member # 2543) on 02-10-2005, 06:33 PM:

quote: Randy Stankey
I say that it's NOT okay for a theater to show ads which have a political message... AT ALL!

quote: Phil Hill
But, I also added any religious ad to the unacceptable ads.

Private company, private choice as to whether or not they're allowed to show the ads. Loss of business from a boycott might get the point across. However, keep the government out of our theatres. I mean, if they don't regulate movie ratings, why should they regulate the ads? (I'm not sure either of you meant this as a legal issue, but I just wanted to ad my thoughts in relation to government involvement.)

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-10-2005, 07:23 PM:

"if they don't regulate movie ratings, why should they regulate the ads?"
Sorry but in canada as in most of the rest of the world they are rated by a government agency some that have the full authority to make cuts as well

When one choses to a see a movie they make a choice to see a specific movie they don't have the option of knowing what "comercials" they are to be subjected to

Personally I don't believe if I pay for a viewing of a film that I should be subjected to any advertisments

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-10-2005, 07:26 PM:

quote: Gordon McLeod
Personally I don't believe if I pay for a viewing of a film that I should be subjected to any advertisments

That really is the bottom line here. I mean, how many subscribers to pay-per-view channels would keep paying every month if they had to sit through commercials? Not an awful lot. If the government steps in, they should step in with a "no advertising on ticketed shows" law.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-10-2005, 07:46 PM:

The MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America), which assigns ratings to the vast majority of theatrical films (and trailers) released in the US market, is not a government agency. It's a privately-operated industry trade association.

Just think we should be clear about that.

Posted by Jarryd Beard (Member # 2543) on 02-10-2005, 08:43 PM:

I was posting with the reference intended for U.S. government as well. However, Gordon, in reference to your point about not knowing of the presence of commercial in front of a feature, once you do find out about the ads, don't go back if they bother you. A collective loss of business may make a point to the company. Where do you draw the line for ads, though? Are pre-show slides ads? Aren't previews ads more movie studios? What about a company policy spot before the feature? Moviegoer preferences will shape what the companies do in the long run, not government regulation.

If I had to choose between a theatre running ads, 10 trailers, and a sing-because-you're-happy-at-loew-shittyplex policy or a theatre with no ads and two or three previews, I'd choose the latter. (Most people probably would.) Hopefully Loews would then see this trend when they're reanalyzing their future during the next Chapter 11 and realize this. On the other hand, if a theatre showed some ad, a few previews and saved me a buck or two from their extra income, I think I'd choose that theatre.

I pay for cable. Why do I put up with commercials on Comedy Central? They aren't broadcasting anywhere, they're only available via cable or dish, both of which we have to pay to watch. Should government put a stop to this? These annoying commercials actually INTERRUPT THE PROGRAM!!! At least ads at theatres don't interrupt the movie in progress.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 02-10-2005, 08:51 PM:

I basically agree that political stuff should maybe not be in ads in movie theatres. On the other hand, that coalition's reaction and all the fuss they apparently make is not right either. If they too think it is not right, why do they demand free advertising slots for their own message?

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 02-10-2005, 10:16 PM:

Jarryd, while your platitudes and intent is well-meaning, you fail to understand that WE consumers have NO CONTROL of this issue just like the logos on the TV. It really is annoying... especially all the animated ones or the ones that take a full 25% of the screen! There is no other option if ya wanna watch the show. A "boycott" is a really dumb idea. They very seldom work.

It's a typical example of the money/corporate jerks shoving all this down our collective throats because they can. There is NO other option IF you want to see the "entertainment" that they have full control over and because they feel they have to tout themselves.

THAT'S why the gov should get involved in this form of air pollution and stop being sex police. Ya can turn off the TV, but you are a captured person in a movie theatre.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-10-2005, 10:50 PM:

quote: Jarryd Beard

Hopefully Loews would then see this trend when they're reanalyzing their future during the next Chapter 11 and realize this.

I agree in principle but not in practice. Too many people are like sheep. They go in, sit down, let the ads permeate their grey matter and walk out when the movie is done. Many people ARE offended. If they thought about it for a while they probably WOULD choose not to go to that theater again.

The problem is that too many people don't walk out or stay away when they know they should. No boycott can work if few people are participating in it.

If you went to a convenience store and bought a carton of milk, some bread, a few other things and a pack of cigarettes but, when you walked up to the counter, they didn't have your brand what would you do? Would you:

1) Take a second choice brand.
2) Not buy any cigarettes?
3) Leave everything behind and walk out?

I would choose #3. In fact, I have done it many times before. I will do it again.

Why should I reward a store by spending my money there when they don't have the things I want to buy? This is a CONVENIENCE store. Is it not? Is not having ALL of the things you want to buy in stock convenient? NO! There are so many friggin' convenience stores that sell bread, milk and cigarettes on just about every street corner that you can't swing a dead cat without hitting one! If the first store doesn't have what I want, the one right across the street WILL! I'll give THEM my money!

I do the same thing in Wal-Mart or any other store. If the store doesn't have the things I stock that I want to buy (assuming they carry the item in the first place) I won't buy anything.

Too many consumers don't understand that concept. Too many clerks in stores don't get it either. More people should get with the program.

If they go to the theater and they don't like what goes on they should either get a refund (before the movie starts) and leave or not go there in the first place. After all, the movie will be out on video two weeks from now, anyway!

Or... If you REALLY want to hit a theater where it hurts... Go to the dollar theater on 50¢ night and refuse to buy popcorn! Just one day of customers boycotting the concession stands would make a theater manager take notice. A WHOLE WEEK of that could potentially bring management to its knees!

But it all depends on enough customers having the same attitude and following through with their convictions.