4 Responses

1. Ryan Stout says:

   March 17, 2011 at 12:30 pm

   Dear SHECKYmagazine,

   From a comedy business perspective, I agree that Gilbert did not make a strong choice.

   However, from a huge corporation perspective, I’m curious about the timing of AFLAC’s decision. It seems like they disassociated themselves from Gilbert prematurely. I didn’t hear the masses or the media calling for blood; we don’t know of the company receiving complaints from customers about Gilbert’s jokes BEFORE the company made their association with him an issue. They could have easily held off, ignored the whole thing, and waited to fire him if/when the subject came up. But, they fired him as soon as they had the chance. The saying, “Any press is good press,” comes to mind. Almost as if this kind of story was a great opportunity to remind people how much business they do and their position in the global market.

   My real issue, however, is this: Gilbert has a reputation of making bad jokes too soon after a tragedy. A lot of the press on this topic notes that he was joking about the terrorist attacks of September 11th a mere three weeks after the event. With that in mind, I think people should note, he was, in fact, the voice of the AFLAC duck at that time and the insurance company didn’t fire him over obscenity then. So, what’s the logic behind that? What, AFLAC wasn’t the main insurance provider in that tragedy, so they were willing to let his jokes slide? I don’t see how they can ignore one instance and get uppity about another.

   For AFLAC, clearly, there is a number between 2,000 deaths and 10,000 deaths where it’s no longer acceptable to make “humorous” remarks. What’s that magic number? I just want to know for next time…

   Sincerely,

   Ryan Stout

   http://www.ryanstout.com
   http://www.youtube.com/ryanstout
   http://www.twitter.com/StoutRyan
   http://www.facebook.com/RyanStoutFanPage

   Reply
   • Brian McKim & Traci Skene says:

     March 17, 2011 at 1:38 pm

     Dear Ryan:

     Gilbert Gottfried does not have a right to hold the position as the voice of the AFLAC duck. He holds that position at the pleasure of his employer, AFLAC. They didn’t need to poll America, they didn’t need to cite a stack of negative letters, they didn’t need to wait and see if the whole incident blew over. They canned him because they were displeased with his tweets.

     AFLAC said, in their statement:

     Gilbert’s recent comments about the crisis in Japan were lacking in humor and certainly do not represent the thoughts and feelings of anyone at Aflac …

     There’s nothing in their statement, as far as we can tell about their revenue, their association with Japan, etc. We included that information in our posting as a possible rationale for the company’s actions.

     Your conclusion, “Almost as if this kind of story was a great opportunity to remind people how much business they do and their position in the global market,” is ludicrous. Were it not so silly, we’d say that it’s the most cynical statement we’ve come across in quite some time. Japan is their only non-U.S. market, and their position is quite well-known among the folks who care about such things.

     As for their failure to fire Gottfried after 9/11, few people outside of the company or The Kaplan Thaler Group (who created the campaign) were aware that Gottfried was voicing the duck. Google “Gilbert Gottfried” (in quotes) and customize the range of dates to go from 9/11 to the following September 11 and you’ll see that there are no articles within that time frame that mention his association with AFLAC. An April 2002 article on TVacres.com talks about the campaign in detail, yet never mentions Gottfried.

     In February of last year, Gottfried showed up at the Webby Awards clutching a white duck. This picture has been circulated throughout the internet and accompanied many of the stories of his firing. The comedian was associated with the company in recent months/years. When he decided to make jokes about the tragedy (either knowing or not knowing the company’s association with Japan), he did so as the voice of one of the most famous advertising icons in history. And, by association he did so as the voice of AFLAC.

     But, like we said, Gottfried doesn’t have a right to the gig. And AFLAC doesn’t really have to justify the firing.

     They could have let him go for any reason, at any time. The timing of the firing is the least suspicious or curious thing about this entire incident. We might have less respect for AFLAC had they dithered, then canned Gottfried. And we’ll have a whole lot less respect for them if they take him back.

     Keep in mind, we love Gilbert Gottfried and think he’s a very funny, very clever and unique comedian. But he made a mistake and he paid for it.

     Reply
2. Ryan Stout says:

   March 19, 2011 at 8:24 am

   Dear Shecky,

   Wow! You responded as though I disagreed with your entire post! My comment didn’t contradict anything you wrote and, yet, you replied as though I were debating you.

   I never said Gilbert had a right to the position. I never said he shouldn’t have been fired. I understand that this is a business move; I know AFLAC can do whatever they want.

   I also think Gilbert is a kind, gentle soul as a human and agree that he is a “very funny, very clever and unique comedian.”

   Now, as far as my silly/ludicrous/cynical suggestion, I am aware that AFLAC’s statement did not include their association with Japan or their market share of that nation. However, all of that information was readily apparent from, probably, every news source who reported on this situation (certainly from each one I read).

   It’s my understanding that when a company releases a statement, that statement doesn’t just get printed on it’s own. Journalists analyze it and write an entire story around it. So, the first step of a journalist is to say, “Why would AFLAC care about Gilbert’s tweets about Japan? Oh, it’s because of their association with him AND it’s because of their association with Japan. I wonder how much business they do in Japan; perhaps I could include that information in my article.” It’s not a big stretch. AFLAC knows it’s not a big stretch.

   AFLAC was like a baby sitter. And the journalists were like children. The baby sitter gave the kids crayons and paper and said, “Here. Do something with this.” Sure enough, the kids colored the pages.

   My position remains: AFLAC knew the kids would color. They know how the media works. They are professionals.

   Japan is the center of the news right now. And because of this incident with Gilbert, AFLAC is the only insurance company I’ve heard associated with this global news event. That’s pretty good press. Fact.

   And though AFLAC’s market position may have been known to “the folks who care about such things,” it was not widely known to the most important people: The consumers. You know, the people reading all this press and buying AFLAC’s product.

   It used to be that a consumer would need see a brand three times before it stuck in their heads. That number has inflated over the years and, now, it’s over seven. Having your brand talked about in the media really helps. AFLAC knows that. They are professionals.

   Am I a tad cynical in my thinking? Sure. I don’t deny that. This is not a conspiracy theory, though. I’m not trying to take you 15 steps down the rabbit hole; just one step. And I’m not implying that AFLAC choreographed this whole thing down to the detail for some press. I’m just saying that they, a well-ingrained corporation, were able to put some spin on this situation in a way to capitalize on it. That’s not silly; it’s not ludicrous.

   Now, as far as all of the information you provided concerning Gilbert and 9/11, let me be clear: I’M NOT ARGUING WITH YOU ON ANY OF THAT! I agree.

   In fact, all of that info helps my point:

   AFLAC doesn’t care about the offensive jokes, they care about what people might think of the offensive jokes. And the only reason they care what people think is because they might lose money.

   When Gilbert had a smaller profile and made offensive jokes about 9/11, the company was less likely to lose money. Now that his profile is much larger, and much more closely associated with them, the company would be far more likely to lose money. And so, now the company finds his humor potentially problematic.

   That is a moral double-standard that I would like the public to recognize. It’s morals based on money– A very corporate trait, but far from being a positive trait.

   If a company is going to take a moral position on humor, that position should hold strong no matter how public the connection to the joke teller.

   Notice above when I said “potentially problematic.” It is based on this same idea that I found it curious that AFLAC fired Gilbert before there was any real public outcry– Before any real threat of money loss.

   I’m sure that had AFLAC ignored this, far fewer people would’ve known about it. And the company would’ve gotten far less press.

   Best,

   Ryan Stout

   Reply
   • Brian McKim & Traci Skene says:

     March 24, 2011 at 6:29 am

     Our heads spin.

     Reply