Skip to main content

Is Burger King SG inciting violence against the elderly?

(Update: Burger King SG has made this video private and is no longer publicly accessible.)

You know an ad campaign has gone terrible wrong when it needs explaining.

Burger King SG recently launched an interactive Youtube video re-enacting an incident in Singapore where a young man was film pushing an elderly woman on the bus. This video aimed to promote its flame grill chicken products.



Though the video has not reached viral status yet, comments have been against the video.

Commented on MC Trave on Facebook, "In regards to the advertisment of the Furious Man about to hit the elderly, i demand Burger King to take it down and issue an apology. The incident is not something you can just simply capitalise on to sell your food."

At the YouTube site, sgxpress95 wrote, "hi BK, on behalf of the people involved in the fight, i hope you do not release the videos as,they (including me) find it as offensive."

Burger King Singapore has since replied on its Facebook Page.

Wrote Burger King Singapore,

"The King would like to thank everyone for your feedback. Our recent re-enactment video is part of a bigger campaign idea of "Control your fire" which is in response to the increasing number of public outbursts in Singapore. Burger King Singapore believes that fire, when controlled, can lead to a better outcome (and of course, better flame-grilled burgers). The intention is purely focused on the positive redirection of the act itself and not at the expense of any particular individual. The King hopes that everyone can write in to suggest more ways on how to positively redirect fire."

(Spoiler alert) On clicking the three options on the Youtube interactive video, you will get some what Burger King Singapore consider as humourous responses to the incident.

However, what struck me was when you click onto the "Ignite your fire" option, this young man who is about to commit an act of violence is being decorated as a celebrity.

Really Burger King? You are celebrating bullying, especially against the elderly?



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why is Ramly Burger banned in Singapore?

Yahoo Singapore ran an article of the Ramly Burger by highlighting that it is ban in Singapore.

Yet, the writer from Makansutra failed to address the most important issue of why the Ramly meat patty is banned in Singapore.

A search online easily did highlight that the famous Malaysian meat patty is banned by the AVA but didn't go into details.

Wrote Arlina Arshad for The Straits Times in January 2004,

"But the importing of beef and beef products from Malaysia is not permitted, said theAgri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA).

Selling and supplying them without a permit is also an offence, and offenders can befined as much as $50,000 or jailed two years, or both, said the AVA."

In May of the same year, another article highlighted that a man was even charged in court for "smuggling" the Ramly burger in 2004.


"The AVA said that meat products processed in Malaysian food factories which it had notapproved were banned here.Suzali was yesterday jailed for four month…

Those Who Gamble Online Have Poorest Control - NCG Survey In 2012

Singapore will soon exempt local operators, Singapore Pools and Turf Club, from online gambling ban and the sites will be ready in November 2016.

Ministry of Home Affairs explained that a complete ban on remote gambling drives demand and activities underground, and may create larger incentives for criminal syndicates to target Singapore."

Yet in a 2012 survey by the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCG) found that those who gamble online have the poorest control.

 Source: https://app.msf.gov.sg/Portals/0/Summary/research/EDGD/Gambling%20participation%20survey%202011.pdf
For those who indulged in online gambling, 30.4% said they gambled for a longer period than they planned to, 33.3% gambled with more money than they planned and 29.2% gambled more frequently they planned to. 
Will launching the online gambling sites be like opening a Pandora Box that will create more issues in the future?

Did She Run Or Did She "Just Fake It" For Adidas?

Andrea Chong, a Adidas appointed influencer, posted a photo of herself in the middle of the Standard Chartered Singapore Marathon 2015 and captioned how she was "all smiles" during the run.

Unfortunately for Andrea or the PR agency, one of her readers checked her bib number #75148  at the Marathon's website only to find it to belonging to somebody else.

That somebody else is Kuvin Kuar, a intern at Edelman PR and the bib number had a status "DNF" or did not finished.

This raised the first red flag as one of the rules stated that "A Participants is strictly not allowed to transfer his or her race entry to another party".

This cascaded into perceptions that Andrea herself did not even start or complete the race and was only "planted" by Adidas or the PR agency, Edelman PR, to look pretty in the marathon.

Marketing Magazine noted that Adidas declined to comment about the incident which lead to further speculation that Andrea was possibly just …