The Advertising Standards Authority has received more than 200 complaints about the ad from viewers who said it was "offensive", "inappropriate" and "unsuitable to be seen by children".
Heinz decided to withdraw the ad less than two weeks after it first aired, stating that it was listening to its consumers.
Ben Summerskill, the chief executive of Stonewall, said: "We're shocked that an innocuous ad should have been withdrawn in this way. I can't imagine that Heinz would respond to protests about black people featuring in their adverts.
"Our phones have not stopped ringing with supporters who are deeply upset."
The Heinz Deli Mayo ad, created by Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO, showed a family going about their morning routine with mum making sandwiches for the kids' lunch boxes.
However "mum" turns out to be a male uniformed New York deli sandwich maker and before the husband leaves the house, "she" reminds him to give "her" a kiss goodbye.
The two men kiss and the sandwich maker says: "Love you. Straight home from work sweetcheeks."
The idea behind the light-hearted ad is that Heinz Deli Mayo is so authentic that it tastes as though anyone with a bottle has their own New York deli man in the kitchen.
Nigel Dickie, a spokesperson for Heinz, said that the ad was intended as "a humorous take on a slice of life" but that it had decided to pull it because of "consumer feedback". The campaign had been due to run for five weeks.
The ad already has an ex-kids restriction, meaning it cannot be shown in or around children's programming, because Heinz Deli Mayo comes under Ofcom's restrictions relating to products that are high in fat, salt or sugar.
In March, the advertising watchdog refused to uphold 54 complaints about Stonewall's billboard campaign tackling homophobic bullying.
The campaign, which featured the slogan "Some people are gay. Get over it!", received seven complaints that it was "inappropriate for display where it could be seen by children" and five that the ad was "particularly offensive to Christian and other groups".
Comments
Isn't Stonewalls gripe really with the 200 plus people (homophobic or otherwise) who complained and not with Heinz?
I think Stonewalls is a valuable organization but this is just opportunistic headline grabbing really. It’s only an ad, does it matter? No not really- there are bigger fish to fry.
For instance, did you know it is illegal to be gay in India!
I can't possibly imagine that the ad creators thought that the hoo-hah caused over two men kissing in the advert would cause extra publicity?!
I totally disagree with DP's comments - its the hugely negative message Heinz are sending out by pulling the ad that is objectionable. Will 200 people complaining really adversely affect their bottom line? I don't think so. Infact, many people might have ended up endorsing the brand if the campaign was left to run. There will always be people who are homophobic, racist etc who will object to these sorts of campaigns. Surely Heinz's decision to pander to them does a diservice to the brand's minority clientele? Of which I am one. Daddys sauce for me from now on and shops own brand beans!!
i think more than this being issue with Heinz themselves it probably anger at the fact the people are 'offended' enough by 2 guys kissing to complain about it. as a guy myself I wouldn't mind meeting those who deem it so offensive. they should publish the names of those who complained, that'd be a start! but some perspective is needed by all, it's only 200 people out of a population of millions, we're very lucky to live in a pretty tolerant country where this type of ad could even be considered to be aired.
Maybe Stonewall should concentrate their efforts on Primark and others who use child labour in India, where if we remember, it is illegal to be gay. Less likely to get on the front page of The Daily Mail though, eh guys(and girls)?
I thought they used K-Y Jelly, not Heinz Deli mayo. Seriosuly though, Heinz are spineless for doing this. I hope they get the PR backlash they deserve.
I agree Alex - but Heinz pulled the ad not the bigots. Or rather, the bigots made Heinz pull the ad. Sounds worthy of comment by Stonewall to me.
What surprises me is that Heinz must have been been prepared for some adverse comments, given that the ad's content would offend a few bigots. So were they ready for 10, 20, 50, 100 - but not 200 complaints? If they felt confident enough to make it, they should have the confidence to run it – and then write each of the complainants saying "wake-up we live in the 21st century, even if you don't".
Of course, Heinz may have pulled the ad simply because it's not effective. We can't ask companies to spend money on bad ad campaigns, even if the ads also incidentally promote a worthy cause. Heinz spend money to sell Deli Mayo, not gay equality!
Roger Wisdom
I do have to agree with Roger...surely as part of something potentially controversial (and Im saying that as an open gay male) their PR mechanism would have been primed and ready for a response?
It is sad in this day that a few negative voices put an end to an ad campaign that actually makes marketing Mayo through a humorous piece of creative.
i'm not sure what heinz were thinking of if they hadn't guessed some folk might complain. at the end of the day they're selling sandwich sauce to families. I can't quite understand why they bought the concept.
By pulling the ad it has give more visibility and publicity to both the gay population and Heinz respectively. Both parties should be extremely happy that their voice and their message has been seen and heard without any extra cost or work on their behalf. 21,163 hits on youtube can't be bad!
E K - 25/06/2008
Today's problem is lack of public's common sense and being just followers. They stick to some funny mindsets which doesn't make any sense at all. There are many things in their lives need to be sorted before complaining against Heinz ad. There is a message however in the ad but sadly complainers didn't get it - this is not the fault of creator of the ad but fault of shallow thinking of the compainers.
sorry, I correct myself - 232,373 hits on youtube!
In response to Neil Henthorn’s comments, aren’t Heinz also selling mayonnaise to gay people too, and to their families and to their friends and to their work colleagues too? It could also be argued that said mayo is going to appeal more to a gay market, with its higher disposable income, than your cash-strapped family, looking at the pricing of the product.
The online comments pages of every national newspaper, show that despite only having been shown for a relatively small amount of time, the ad did make an impact and was overwhelmingly thought to be funny and clever.
I suspect that the exec that made the decision to pull a clever and funny ad, which was no doubt going to help shift more of their (as we now all know it to be, extremely unhealthy) product, has got a great deal of explaining to do. This rash exec seems to have managed overnight to have turned Heinz from a hip, fun, forward looking brand into a staid old dinosaur.
Indignation at the axing of the commercial has gone way past the gay community now and it will be interesting to see if anyone has the presence of mind to reinstate the commercial before it all gets too out of hand.
Steve - how long has mayo been considered a gay commodity?!
Steve - I don't really think they'll be flogging much mayo to gays after today. You only buy the ad if you're prepared to stand behind what you're saying. If you're not going to take part in the discussion then you shouldn't get involved. They shouldn't have bought the ad.
This is quite insane. Shakespearian plays featured same-sex kisses because all actors were male. This is exactly the same. A male actor is playing a mum.
Noone other than a nutcase could complain about this. Heinz are exceptionally cowardly not to fight their corner.
There is a small issue here, however. If minority groups want freedom of lifestyle-choice (which they have every right to expect) they need also to respect (even if grudgingly) the lifestyle choices of up-tight, conservative, religious or sanctimonious people too. It is not fair to disdain these people as though they are simply unenlightened or neanderthal while being hyper-sensitive to verbal criticism oneself. Like it or not, this means you must begin to respect their rights to condemn other people's lifestyles in speech and print without claiming this is tantamount to persecution or an incitement to violence.
I might add that the post attributing the objections to this ad to Guildford Tories was a piece of quite spectacular bigotry. Guildford Tories would probably be relatively laisser-faire on these matters, certainly compared to some Labour constituencies I could mention.
Comments
David Pearce - 25/06/2008
Isn't Stonewalls gripe really with the 200 plus people (homophobic or otherwise) who complained and not with Heinz? I think Stonewalls is a valuable organization but this is just opportunistic headline grabbing really. It’s only an ad, does it matter? No not really- there are bigger fish to fry. For instance, did you know it is illegal to be gay in India!
Philippa Mathers - 25/06/2008
I can't possibly imagine that the ad creators thought that the hoo-hah caused over two men kissing in the advert would cause extra publicity?!
SARAH PROBERT-HILL - 25/06/2008
I totally disagree with DP's comments - its the hugely negative message Heinz are sending out by pulling the ad that is objectionable. Will 200 people complaining really adversely affect their bottom line? I don't think so. Infact, many people might have ended up endorsing the brand if the campaign was left to run. There will always be people who are homophobic, racist etc who will object to these sorts of campaigns. Surely Heinz's decision to pander to them does a diservice to the brand's minority clientele? Of which I am one. Daddys sauce for me from now on and shops own brand beans!!
alex parr - 25/06/2008
i think more than this being issue with Heinz themselves it probably anger at the fact the people are 'offended' enough by 2 guys kissing to complain about it. as a guy myself I wouldn't mind meeting those who deem it so offensive. they should publish the names of those who complained, that'd be a start! but some perspective is needed by all, it's only 200 people out of a population of millions, we're very lucky to live in a pretty tolerant country where this type of ad could even be considered to be aired.
Rollie Fingers - 25/06/2008
Maybe Stonewall should concentrate their efforts on Primark and others who use child labour in India, where if we remember, it is illegal to be gay. Less likely to get on the front page of The Daily Mail though, eh guys(and girls)?
Roger OThornhill - 25/06/2008
I thought they used K-Y Jelly, not Heinz Deli mayo. Seriosuly though, Heinz are spineless for doing this. I hope they get the PR backlash they deserve.
SARAH PROBERT-HILL - 25/06/2008
I agree Alex - but Heinz pulled the ad not the bigots. Or rather, the bigots made Heinz pull the ad. Sounds worthy of comment by Stonewall to me.
Roger Wisdom - 25/06/2008
What surprises me is that Heinz must have been been prepared for some adverse comments, given that the ad's content would offend a few bigots. So were they ready for 10, 20, 50, 100 - but not 200 complaints? If they felt confident enough to make it, they should have the confidence to run it – and then write each of the complainants saying "wake-up we live in the 21st century, even if you don't". Of course, Heinz may have pulled the ad simply because it's not effective. We can't ask companies to spend money on bad ad campaigns, even if the ads also incidentally promote a worthy cause. Heinz spend money to sell Deli Mayo, not gay equality! Roger Wisdom
Jon Haywood - 25/06/2008
I do have to agree with Roger...surely as part of something potentially controversial (and Im saying that as an open gay male) their PR mechanism would have been primed and ready for a response? It is sad in this day that a few negative voices put an end to an ad campaign that actually makes marketing Mayo through a humorous piece of creative.
Neil Henthorn - 25/06/2008
i'm not sure what heinz were thinking of if they hadn't guessed some folk might complain. at the end of the day they're selling sandwich sauce to families. I can't quite understand why they bought the concept.
craig lovelidge - 25/06/2008
By pulling the ad it has give more visibility and publicity to both the gay population and Heinz respectively. Both parties should be extremely happy that their voice and their message has been seen and heard without any extra cost or work on their behalf. 21,163 hits on youtube can't be bad!
E K - 25/06/2008
Today's problem is lack of public's common sense and being just followers. They stick to some funny mindsets which doesn't make any sense at all. There are many things in their lives need to be sorted before complaining against Heinz ad. There is a message however in the ad but sadly complainers didn't get it - this is not the fault of creator of the ad but fault of shallow thinking of the compainers.
craig lovelidge - 25/06/2008
sorry, I correct myself - 232,373 hits on youtube!
Steve Hedger - 25/06/2008
In response to Neil Henthorn’s comments, aren’t Heinz also selling mayonnaise to gay people too, and to their families and to their friends and to their work colleagues too? It could also be argued that said mayo is going to appeal more to a gay market, with its higher disposable income, than your cash-strapped family, looking at the pricing of the product. The online comments pages of every national newspaper, show that despite only having been shown for a relatively small amount of time, the ad did make an impact and was overwhelmingly thought to be funny and clever. I suspect that the exec that made the decision to pull a clever and funny ad, which was no doubt going to help shift more of their (as we now all know it to be, extremely unhealthy) product, has got a great deal of explaining to do. This rash exec seems to have managed overnight to have turned Heinz from a hip, fun, forward looking brand into a staid old dinosaur. Indignation at the axing of the commercial has gone way past the gay community now and it will be interesting to see if anyone has the presence of mind to reinstate the commercial before it all gets too out of hand.
Oliver Gandy - 25/06/2008
Steve - how long has mayo been considered a gay commodity?!
Neil Henthorn - 25/06/2008
Steve - I don't really think they'll be flogging much mayo to gays after today. You only buy the ad if you're prepared to stand behind what you're saying. If you're not going to take part in the discussion then you shouldn't get involved. They shouldn't have bought the ad.
Rory Sutherland - 27/06/2008
This is quite insane. Shakespearian plays featured same-sex kisses because all actors were male. This is exactly the same. A male actor is playing a mum. Noone other than a nutcase could complain about this. Heinz are exceptionally cowardly not to fight their corner.
Rory Sutherland - 27/06/2008
There is a small issue here, however. If minority groups want freedom of lifestyle-choice (which they have every right to expect) they need also to respect (even if grudgingly) the lifestyle choices of up-tight, conservative, religious or sanctimonious people too. It is not fair to disdain these people as though they are simply unenlightened or neanderthal while being hyper-sensitive to verbal criticism oneself. Like it or not, this means you must begin to respect their rights to condemn other people's lifestyles in speech and print without claiming this is tantamount to persecution or an incitement to violence. I might add that the post attributing the objections to this ad to Guildford Tories was a piece of quite spectacular bigotry. Guildford Tories would probably be relatively laisser-faire on these matters, certainly compared to some Labour constituencies I could mention.