MissCegenation (see her take over at Reciprocal Crap Exchange), Miguel E. (of El Forastero), Breck C. (also of Reciprocal Crap Exchange), Rachel N., Laura M.D., and Z. (of It’s the Thought that Counts) all sent in links to Burger King’s “Whopper Virgins” viral video campaign (we’ve never had so many people send in the same thing; clearly it touched a nerve):
There are several interesting things going on here. One is the exoticization of the “whopper virgins.” The taste tests were conducted in Thailand, Romania, and Greenland. We’re clearly supposed to find it charmingly cute that they’re unfamiliar with hamburgers. They don’t even know how to eat them! We get to see people taking their “first bite of a hamburger,” and wonder at their unfamiliarity with how to pick one up and eat it. This short video about the Thailand taste tests illustrates this with the dramatic voiceover about people who have “never even seen a burger. Who don’t even have a word for burger.”
There’s also a certain level of ethnocentrism here; note the comment that these are people who “really live outside of things.” That all depends on what you mean by “things,” which here seems to be defined by exposure to TV and hamburgers. The implicit understanding, of course, is that these are people who live in a backward, “traditional” culture, which is fascinating to outsiders but, ultimately, very bizarre. However, I am sure that if asked these people would feel they live “inside of” many things, just not the things considered important to this marketing team.
You might also use this to talk about the pervasiveness of advertising. As the video makes clear, they went to Thailand, Romania, and Greenland in hopes of finding people who hadn’t been exposed to Burger King or McDonald’s advertising, since it would be “impossible” to find such people in the U.S.
I also think the documentary element to the video is fascinating. I’m assuming the teams did travel to these areas, and the video claims they are all “real people,” not actors (who are, apparently, imaginary). But I have a suspicion that some elements were staged. Of course the taste-tests were staged, but I notice that almost everyone in the videos is wearing “traditional” clothing. I might be wrong, but it doesn’t strike me as the type of clothing people would wear every day–they seem like pretty fancy clothes that you’d wear for special occasions, but maybe I’m wrong. If anybody knows more about how people in these areas usually dress, let me know. Of course, it’s entirely possible that people dressed up in their fancier clothes entirely on their own because they wanted to look nice when being filmed. But I wonder if they were encouraged to dress in clothing that would make them seem more exotic, rather than showing up in a t-shirt (which is, by now, fairly universal, though I’m certain there are still groups who have not adopted t-shirts).
The second half of the video, where the Burger Team goes to villages in each country and makes them Whoppers, is also interesting in the way it portrays the team as philanthropists giving these communities a unique cultural experience. I mean, I guess they are, and I don’t want to fall into the trap of romanticizing “traditional” groups and implying that they should be shielded from “modern” innovations because it would ruin their culture. And it doesn’t seem like the marketing team is really trying to build brand loyalty, since it’s unlikely they’re going to be opening stores in any of these areas (although they do make sure to wrap the burgers in Burger King wrappers). It does, on the other hand, make the video seem more like a documentary and less obviously like a commercial, which adds to its effectiveness as a viral ad. I dunno. Maybe this is just an example of a corporation doing something nice, and I can’t get over my general distrust of marketers.
Another interesting angle you might bring up in discussion is the spread of fast-food culture and standardized, relatively cheap production processes in general, often referred to as “McDonaldization.” There’s also an entire book on the subject of McDonald’s in Asia, called Golden Arches East: McDonald’s in East Asia (edited by James L. Watson). I sometimes assign the chapter “McDonald’s in Hong Kong: Consumerism, Dietary Change, and the Rise of a Children’s Culture” in my intro classes to talk about cultural change; it’s fascinating how McDonald’s is to some degree undermining parental authority by appealing directly to children and empowering them to demand their favorite meals.
Laura sent us a link to a story about criticism of the campaign, found here.
And just an aside here: What’s the difference between a “village” and a “small town”? The word village seems to bring up certain assumptions about both quaintness and backwardness (and cultural isolation). I grew up in a town of slightly less than 300 people. Nobody ever called it a village. Is it a village if you don’t have paved roads, and a small town if you do? I’m just askin’.
Thanks to everybody who sent the video in!
Comments 25
steff_ — December 10, 2008
Wow! That's a really ugly science-documentary(-commercial)!
I think it's a strategy of colonization.
(please recognize the irony in the following sentences) Instead of bibles: eat a burger! (It's the American way!)
Go (if you're a white western wo_men) to simple-minded low-experienced people und give them a big bite with the sweet taste of civilization and Aufklärung/enlightment. And you can see (like an anthropologist) that they immediately start to use their brains and begin to wonder what might be out there in this huge wide (whopper) world.
Uuuuh! Disgusting!
I'm wondering why they didn't go to a "village" in an african country.
While I'm writing this my stomach still feels sick. There is much more to comment, but first I've got to arrange my thoughts and feelings.
lgreen — December 10, 2008
I think it's obviously not just a big corporation being nice, because that's not what big corporations do. Also, considering that fast food burgers are basically poison. Here: have some clogged arteries and high sodium! Smallpox blankets, anyone?
Europeans speaking English seem to use the phrase "my village" to describe where they grew up in a way that Americans don't. Dunno why.
Bruxa — December 10, 2008
Romanians pictured as primitive "traditional" people? Who have never seen a burger? Really? In the heart of Europe? Well, here are some pictures from Romanian McDonald's
http://www.procer.ro/more/mcdonag_en.htm
http://picasaweb.google.com/simbreaz/BucurestiHardRockCafe#5175841946639870114
Elena — December 10, 2008
In 2004 I spent two weeks in Târgu Mureş, Transylvania. Of course they had a McDonalds besides the town movie theater. These guys must've travelled to really remote places to get people who hadn't heard of hamburgers.
You'll find stands selling gogoşi (doughnuts) fresh from the oven everywhere, though.
magista — December 10, 2008
In Canada, the provinces set the standards for what is a city, town, village or hamlet (hee). In Alberta, where I live, a hamlet is 30% of the residents) from 300 to <1000, a town is <10,000 and above that is a city. Just an amusing factoid.
I agree, though, that "village" and "town" have different connotations to them aside from (to me) just the size aspect. "Village" seems to connote something more quaint or less developed, and possibly much greater age. Like referring to countries in Europe as the "old" country.
I wonder if here in North America we use town more than village because of our short histories, and because even small populations began since we've been in an industrial age ?
K — December 10, 2008
In Britain, a village could have up to a few thousand people and still not be a town. (If it doesn't have paved roads... it's probably "a few houses"). A town, historically speaking, had to have a marketplace.
I don't think there is a population level at which a settlement officially becomes a town, but we keep calling them towns until they're quite large. "City" used to refer to a settlement with a cathedral, though now there are a few "official" cities without. City status is granted by the goverment by Letter Patent.
Styskel — December 10, 2008
Perhaps it's just my home town, but I come from the Village of Valley View, in Northeast Ohio. I remember everything we got in the mail from the local government always had the village part printed as large as the rest, and fairly obvious.
According to wikipedia, in Ohio a village is "In Ohio, a village is an incorporated municipality with fewer than 5,000 inhabitants."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_(United_States)#Ohio
Benjamin Lobato — December 10, 2008
Wow. I can't believe someone just compared Whoppers to Smallpox blankets.
As far as the video is concerned, the serious tone--with the dramatic violins playing in the background-- is pretty ridiculous for a Burger King commercial. Also, I find it pretty hard to believe that their are very many Romanians who have never even heard of a Hamburger.
Dusk_Blue — December 11, 2008
As for all the people agreeing Woppers are good, that could possibly be attributed more to politeness to foreigners with cameras than to the enlightening fast food.
Tim — December 11, 2008
Just because Romania is in Europe doesn't mean every single citizen is aware of fast food. Much of Romania is very poor, the supposed Kazakhstan from Borat is in fact Romania.
I like at the end how the guy prefers seal to the Whopper.
kasia — December 11, 2008
It's also worth pointing out that in the first half, they're looking for people who are SO off the grid that they've never seen or even heard of a burger... but who live within 15 minutes of a burger place?
Elena — December 11, 2008
Tim, I've been in rural Transylvania, and believe me, they have TVs, and movies, and cellphones, and game consoles, and all the amenities of modern life, even it that means going over to the county capital. And that's without taking into account that people from the poorest regions in Romania are the ones who migrate to countries in Western Europe, or have relatives there who send money and things to the old country.
And, frankly, I doubt a bland mass-produced burger rates high against a nice platter of grilled mici (sausages, also known as mititei). It's not as if burger chain food is the highest exponent of American cuisine, for goodness' sake.
For contrast, here's a NY times article about why American burger chains haven't fared so well in Germany: döner kebap places have already won the market. It's a pity that it's from 1996, but since then döners have taken half of Europe, so...
Megan — December 11, 2008
I'm wondering why it would intrinsically constitute a problem to make a semantic distinction between "small town" and "village." I know it's a minor point, but it's painted in the original blog post as some vaguely negative manipulation on the part of the makers of the commercial. These sorts of distinctions are not only natural but completely necessary to keep languages rich in shades of meaning. Why should we paint this word choice as a negative one? It seems that this is a case of leading one's audience to an opinion about the media presented rather than allowing them to draw their own conclusions.
dominika — December 11, 2008
i fully agree with steff, i hate this ad. it seems condescending. also, it's very easy to market fast food to poor people, no matter where in the world - especially in the countries which don't require food producers to inform customers about the content of their products, and where people won't sue McDo for increasing their cholesterol levels.
Gwen — December 11, 2008
Megan--
I don't think language is natural. And "village" seems to be a word we use to make a distinction between us in the Western world and groups that we think of as possibly cute or neat, but ultimately culturally backward. Pay attention to who gets called a "villager" (or, for that matter, a "tribesman"). It seems to be a cultural marker of sorts. We occasionally use the term village in to name places in the U.S., and it sounds like they use it in Canada, but rhetorically, most of the time I hear it, it's used to describe people in less-developed countries. And I think that's worth thinking about.
That doesn't mean it's *intrinsically* a problem. It means that, in the context of an ad where I felt that people were being depicted as exotic, isolated, and quaint, the use of that word just might be meaningful.
Lydia — December 11, 2008
I grew up in a suburb of New York City, population 8000, that refers to itself as a village.
sassafras — December 11, 2008
I grew up in rural Wisconsin, where to be incorporated as a city, a community has to have 1000 citizens, and to be incorporated as a village, a community has to have 150 citizens. So to me "village" doesn't have any negative connotations. I imagine the political subdivisions vary by state.
“whopper virgins” | A Collage of Citations — December 12, 2008
[...] Sociological Images also discusses the video, calling attention to the framing of people as “outside of [...]
Village Idiot — December 12, 2008
"Villain" and "vile" were derived from the word village. In feudal times, a village was a collection of people thought to be socially inferior to those who ruled them (they were literally known as "villains" at the time). I can't find the source, but I recall that the negative connotations were ascribed to the terms (and the people they represented) by the Catholic Church when they were trying to stamp out paganism, and "pagan" was just a latin word (paganus) that roughly meant "country dweller" and was similarly demonized.
The villains or pagans were much more likely to resist Christianity in favor of their traditional animist beliefs than the urban dwellers of the time, so they were obviously very bad people in need of barbecuing. Ironically, I used to live near a place called "The Village Inn Barbecue" but they didn't serve pagans (as entree's I mean).
The following quote is from English Etymology, Or, a Derivative Dictionary of the English Language By George William Lemon (published in 1783):
VILLAIN i vicus, domus ; u t pro Oivo», vi- num ; aflreet, row of houfes, or a country town; and a villain in our antient law books fignified no more than ,; villager, or one who inhabited only a fmall country'town, and was a client, or vaffal to his patron, who lived at the metropolis.
I have no idea how the term villain managed to remain so negative while village ended up mostly referring to quaint and often high-end retail areas (ironic!) or places where people have never seen hamburgers (or some places in Wisconsin that aren't cities, I guess). I suppose the term doesn't really mean much at all anymore.
Maybe I should just be "The Idiot" then? Naw, it's a great filler word that's sort of like a Rorschach word-blot when used in the context of my pseudonym (or so I've noticed).
Jamie — December 12, 2008
I think that there are some really beautiful moments here: let's not assume the people tasting these burgers for the first time are somehow being duped and do not themselves have agency and the understanding of being manipulated. While I agree that the notion of "off the grid" and the idea of not being in touch with things is a rather euro- and american-centric view of what the "grid" is and what matters, there is a great moment on this video. When the people of the town make food for the Burger King folks and share it. This is real cultural exchange. And I think these people are not meant to be portrayed as stupid; I think that may be our own biases working. I think the video portrays them as interested in a new, exotic thing, which I always commend, and I see them as hospitable and welcoming. This doesn't mean the video has some serious problems, but travel is often a dicey ordeal...
karen — December 12, 2008
There is a genuine cultural exchange going on here among these folks, but the idea behind it... the idea that Burger King is not just trying to share what a burger is with these people, but that the motive is simply to test whether a Whopper is better than a Big Mac. It doesn't exactly warrant the level of seriousness this film portrays.
Starchy Grant — December 13, 2008
In defense of gwen "maybe this is just an example of a corporation doing something nice" comment, I'd certainly enjoy it if people from another culture came to my town and gave me a chance to try the food they sell for free, even if it were something unhealthy that I wouldn't be wise to eat very often (if ever) afterward. That said, if they went on to package it up in a video which implied I was a freak-show worthy aberration due to the fact that I didn't already eat this particular food on a regular basis, I would stop calling it "nice" faster than you can say, well, "nice."
I couldn't stomach even a full minute of the first video, myself, but I also wanted to echo that there are parts of Romania (like the uplands toward Moldova) that remain more remote on average than relatively well connected Transylvania.
Gwen — December 13, 2008
For the record, my feeling was that the video was creepy and exploitative in at least some ways, but that I'm sure some people were just excited for a free, (possibly) exotic meal and do have agency and stuff, and I'm often accused of hating ads and etc. etc., so I figured commenters might do a better job of working all that out than I was doing. And I think you all did.
angyalom — December 15, 2008
I'm from a transsylvanian small town, and look, I'm here... my english is not perfect, but forgive me, the last semester I've been busy learning Spanish in Granada, and learning Romanian has also taken a part of my energies (I'm part of the hungarian minority).
I've just read today, that 70 % of romanian kids do have an Internet acces.
Romania is part of the EU and the globalized world, and it's becoming harder and harder to find local food here... the multinationals are using every dirty trick possile to get the market, and the EU regulations helps them a lot (a lot of usual things and processes becames illegal, based on irreal standards, which favors big businesses). All kind of poisons are forced on us, the miracles of Monsanto and so on. I'm part of a consumer coop, so I can get ecological, local food, and there still are food courts, but there is a strong lobbying against them.
There are McDonad's and Burger King's all over the place, paying their employees like shit, and... ok, you all know the story about them.
so then they get in some village, find some people who still own traditional clothes, pays them to wear it, and to pretend, that they haven't been exposed to all this... and then even in a blog like this, the comments are still talking bullshit like "When the people of the town make food for the Burger King folks and share it. This is real cultural exchange".
No, dear, this is no cultural exchange. It's colonializaton, first exploiting the land and forcing our sustainable ways of production (ok, it's a long story, actually, but still) in their toxic, non-sustainable, but form some companies highly profitable ways... then using the rest as a theme park.
I'm no longer part of this traditional culture, and I have no motivation for pretending that I was (I have no traditional clothes, or no folk music in my laptop - ok, maye with the exception of some tracks from evan greer, and I also have some flamenco, bu that's a personal story...), but this kind of explotiation really makes me... maybe not angry, but disgusted.
Stephen McTaggart — December 20, 2010
This Webpage is an amazing resource for undergraduate students.It shows critical thinking in action. I will be using it as within my course in 2011.