DirecTV Apparently Thinks Promoting Child-Killing Is A Cool Way To Sell Subscriptions

/ Jack Marshall

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA3mStfIdMI

Six years ago, I flagged an ugly series of DirecTV commercials. One showed police casually tasering people, yet another approved of stealing stamps from one’s employer. Then there were a series of commercials promoting the satellite company’s NFL package, with the theme that hate is hilarious. Among the incidents featured:

  • In Wisconsin, a Green Bay Packers fan welcomes her 49er fan neighbor by leaving a cake on his stoop. The cake reads “DIRT BAG.”
  • A group of Patriots fans in wintery Foxboro, Mass. grumble about the Miami Dolphin fan next door (“Moron!” says one woman). One of them throws a shovelful of snow on the Miami fan’s door.
  • A Dallas Cowboy fan sends her dog to trash and pee in her Redskin fan neighbor’s house.
  • In another Dallas setting, a diner, the waitress expresses her contempt for Philadelphia Eagles fans by secretly squeezing her dishrag into their beers.

That was mild, however, compared to the vicious sentiments being sold in a new DirecTV commercial.  A married couple sits down in their living room to watch some television when the husband realizes he forgot to record the show. Jon Bon Jovi appears behind them and sings about the power to turn back time with DirecTV, with its new feature that allows viewers to track down and watch  shows after they have been broadcast. to  That’s not the only magic they can accomplish by turning back time, the aging rocks star sings.  For example, they can go back in time and reconsider having their second child, who looks about 7, and is drawing on the walls.

Poof! He’s gone! His crayons fall to the floor. The boy is erased, and the two parents smile at each other as Bon Jovi smirks.

DirecTV does realize that making a living human being vanish forever is just another way of killing him, right? Why isn’t it immediately obvious that this shows antipathy to children, boys, and human beings generally? The human being who was made to go away because he was inconvenient and burdensome couldn’t have been a girl, because it would be a “war on women,” and the family couldn’t be Hispanic or black, because that wouldn’t have been funny, but a white couple erasing their son from existence because he misbehaves—now that’s comedy gold.

I’m not certain whether the commercial reflects our culture having progressively less respect for human life, whether it pushes us closer to such a culture, or is just the product of sick creeps. (Nobody in the management chain said, “Wait, we show a couple turning back time to get milder salsa, and then have them eliminate their child as if it was in the same category?  What the hell is the matter with you people?“) Whichever it is, one thing is clear: DirecTV hasn’t learned anything in six years.

________________________________

NOTE: Comments on this post are now closed. To comment on the topic, including this post, please go to the follow-up post, here.

92 thoughts on “DirecTV Apparently Thinks Promoting Child-Killing Is A Cool Way To Sell Subscriptions”

  2. I suspect this commercial comes from the advertising school built on the theory that “if people talk about our ad, it’s a success.” Fortunately, I think it’s a smallish corner of the advertising industry.

  3. I wonder if people COULD turn back time might not have had children, or as many children? Or infinite other dubious decisions or thoughtless acts over their lifetimes? I’m not quite sure turning back time and not having a child is the same as killing them….but, I suppose it is all subjective and what one finds amusing others find offensive.

    • I don’t get this either. If I had had sex on a fertile day in a different month, my eldest child wouldn’t be here. I would have a totally different child, perhaps a different gender. I would have loved that child just as much. Or, If I had sex on another day that week when my youngest was conceived, maybe I wouldn’t have a second child at all.

      This is akin to those people that try and have as many children as possible in part because they think there are all these little souls out there that they are obligated to bring into this world. Well, I guess I could have had 20 children too (although that would have required a lot of medical assistance). I don’t think I “killed” any children because I stopped at 2.

      And although there are moments in my life when I look at my children and wonder “what the ^$*#^*(*&$# was I thinking,” 99.9% of the time I am grateful and thankful for my children. I think most normal adults are like that, but I don’t think acknowledging that feeling that we have .1% of the time is something that can be turned into a joke.

      • No, there’s a world of difference between choosing to forgo having another child and wishing one of your actual children stopped living.

        And yes, everyone has moments where they wish they were childless, and acknowledging that is okay. Call me old fashioned, but I feel like the Hays Code demonstrates why this ad rubs some people the wrong way: they engage in bad behavior and are all smiles afterward. Everything is better now! No remorse at the loss of a member of the family.

        Of course, doing that would totally ruin the joke, so I get it.

    • Have you not seen “The Terminator”? What do you think “terminate” meant in that film, and who was it the cyborg was ultimately trying to terminate?

  4. “The human being who was made to go away because he was inconvenient and burdensome couldn’t have been a girl, because it would be a “war on women,” and the family couldn’t be Hispanic or black, because that wouldn’t have been funny, but a white couple erasing their son from existence because he misbehaves—now that’s comedy gold.”

    The commercial would have been just as atrocious if it had been a girl. And, I, a die-hard feminist, wouldn’t have seen this as a “war on women.” Good grief Jack.

  5. I have seen the commercial numerous times already. The first time, I just laughed at the preposterousness of it all. The ethics of the disappearing child did not register with me, not the same way it did with Jack. I’ll pay closer attention, if a next time arrives to watch it. At least we are not already seeing Prince or David Bowie doubles in commercials. I know, I know: “It’s not the worst thing.” It could be Elton John dying next.

  6. My mother once asked me, as I stood in a toy strewn living room, if I could remember a time when I didn’t have kids. Heck yes, I could! I could remember sleeping in, dining in restaurants where food was served on plates not trays, taking a 10 minute un-interrupted shower… I don’t know a mom that hasn’t wished she could have those times back – if just for an afternoon. That’s why “Calgon, take me away” worked.

    What I find so offensive about this ad (forget that BonJovi has resorted to doing t.v. commercials) is that there are two children: one sitting at the table, the other writing on the walls. BonJovi flat out says to the couple that they can “reconsider having that second child”; not both children, just the second one. WHAT?

    • (forget that BonJovi has resorted to doing t.v. commercials)

      With the state of the music industry I bet he made more doing the commercial then he would make releasing one song.

  7. You keep using the loaded term children. I believe the current correct term is “post-term fetus.”

    Good catch on why the child had to be a white male, though. Everyone knows that privilege makes them immune to any kind of outrage or hurt feelings.

  8. As someone who has worked for an affiliate of DirecTV and knows a thing or two about their inner machinations, let me assure you that ethical considerations are not anywhere on the radar of that or any other cable provider, at any time, under any circumstances.

    Also, if you subscribe to DirecTV, be sure to always check your bill very carefully each month. Just a heads up.

  9. Not it’s not. Bon Jovi rewrote the time stream into a hypothetical scenario where the couple chose spicy salsa and the conception of the brat drawing on the walls never occurred.
    Plus it’s freaking funny.

  11. Here’s another instance someone gets butt hurt about a joke. ITS FUNNY! A kid drawing on the wall, obviously makes it seem like it’s not the first trouble he’s caused. The problem with America is everyone is too sensitive. Stop being little bitch3s. Have a sense of humor. If not, lose cable, get back to church.

    • Thanks, Jeff: you illustrated so many features of the passively thoughtless on this issue

      1) Oh, I see: the more trouble the child caused, the more he deserves to be killed.
      2) “The problem with America is everyone is too sensitive.” Right, that’s the biggest problem in the country: too much sensitivity to the lives of children.
      3) “Stop being little bitch3s. Have a sense of humor. If not, lose cable, get back to church.” And that comment gets you banned.
      4) You’re a moron.

      • Because ad hominems work so well.

        He’s making the same point I made. “It’s funny” is a veiled attempt at saying “Lighten the fuck up.” Nobody was killed here. It’s a freaking commercial. Obviously no two people view their comedy inputs the same way, but stop making evil where none exists. You’re like so many extreme feminists and control freak religious fundies. How did you even deal with the old Looney Tunes, Harveytoons, and Famous toons that had decidedly more flagrant racist imagery than today’s more PC age if you’re this hyper sensitive about everything?

        • 1. Hey, Mario—here’s your last response to the last comment you get posted here. I don’t make up statistics: http://www.bbc.com/news/health-36266873 World Health Organization, jerk, and perhaps you should do minimal research before accusing me of being as sloppy as you.

          2. I, unlike you, have always understood that contexts matter, and that commercials, aimed for a general audience, make representations about cultural values by their messaging. Sick humor in the context of sick humor vehicles are extremely different.

          3. Perhaps you need to review Roger Rabbit. You see, cartoon kinds aren’t real kids. Maybe someone can explain it to you.

          4. “It’s funny” is a veiled attempt at saying “Lighten the fuck up.” Nobody was killed here.

          Hey look, everyone: Mario Rodgers did a pure Rationalization #22, the mark of ethics depravity. “Nobody was killed here.”

          5. Learn what an ad hominem is. An ad hominen is when the argument is “You are wrong because you are an idiot.” A diagnosis is “You’re an idiot because you are absurdly wrong.”

  12. Its a joke. Not a great one, but still a joke. I don’t get why we have moved as a society into a place where everyone is offended by everything. You are taking attention away from the real problem offenders. It has never been a better time to be a real offensive person, as their actions are watered down by pointing out how everything offends you. You have created a world where Donald Trump’s remarks get brushed off and dismissed like being offended over a silly commercial. Congratulations idiots. Hope you’re proud of yourselves.

    • I’m not offended by everything, or very much at all. Isolated from context, the Bon Jovi gag is OK (it’s hardly hilarious) Jokes have their place, but jokes seen by millions jokes that minimize the value of life, especially children’s lives, when 25% of all pregnancies end in abortion, have real consequences on attitudes and culture.

      Your comment marks you as incapable of observing or understanding material distinctions. Making a joke about killing your child is fine on Saturday Night Live or Comedy Central, or between friends at a bar. From a major corporation addressing the nation to sell a product, its irresponsible.

  13. Amazingly offensive, as a morher of 5, I find rethinking having that second child extremely offensive. Obviously Direct TV has yet to learn their lesson on offending the public. For shame!!!!!!!

  14. Request: Somebody explain to me, if they can, why most people understood why the baby duct-taped to the door was a cruel and ugly ad, but this ad, which shows parents being delighted when their “second child” is wiped from existence, is seen by so many as benign? This ad infinitely worse. I’m also fascinated that so many think that making a life vanish is distinguishable from killing him.

  15. So the parents are watching a show on the couch and ignoring their kid. They refuse to play with him. The kid has to resort to using crayons on a wall in order to get his parents attention. And according to this commercial, and our society, it’s the kid’s fault for acting that way.

    As someone who has gone through the pain of a still born child, this commercial greatly offends me. How about the parents get up and engage with their child, and watch TV later after the kids go to bed like most people.

    • Nah, you know how it is, Cory. Rethink that pregnancy after it happens, just kill the thing. No muss no fuss. Jon just paints a utopian paradise where you can wait and see if you like the kid, and then do it.

      The point is that such an ad inherently suggests that this is good, because the idea of ads is to connect products to positive images.

      This fact eludes the complainers here.

      • Yep. My family was about to switch from Time Warner Cable to DirecTV until we saw this ad. They need to get out of their own way.

        I still can’t believe they equated the choice of mild or spicy salsa to wishing your child was never born. All because child and mild rhymed.

  16. I’m flabbergasted by the overreaction to this ad. For anybody to think the actual implication is that to erase a human being from existence is acceptable is preposterous. As a parent, I’ve had those moments of exasperation due to the trials and tribulations of raising children. There are times when you look back at the relative simplicity of life before having kids. This ad pokes fun at a passing fancy, but no loving parent would change their decisions, nor do I think this commercial is suggesting you should. Rather, I got a chuckle out of it. But, hey, come to think of it, maybe it’s not such a bad idea after all. If only Hitler’s mother had a 72-hour rewind button. Perhaps 6,000,000 Jews wouldn’t have been “terminated.” Or would that just perpetuate the war on white males.

    Ridiculous…

  18. I find this commercial extremely unethical. In the commercial the parents are “erasing” their LIVING child from existence. They don’t choose to go back in time to the moment of the child’s conception and “reconsider” conceiving him, so that they would never know that they had him in the first place (which in my opinion would still be unethical) They know that the child has been living up until that moment. They remember actually having him in their family for about five years or more and still when he just dissapears from this world they are happy about it. They are happy that their child has stopped living (He stopped living, does it really matter how it happened?). That’s what I find offensive.

  19. I just know someone is going to accuse me of censoring critical comments on this post. I’m stretching my standards as it is to allow some the ones that made it.

    A typical example of the reactions from the “Lighten up! Erasing unwanted kids from existence as part of an advertising campaign is just good, clean fun” crowd was the comment I just got, and spammed, from an articulate social critic who calls himself “Brian”:

    “Oh shut the fuck up you stuck up self righteous drama queen bitch”

    Oddly, none of those who see what is troubling about a major communications corporations assuming that this anti-kid sentiment will appeal to affluent Americans express themselves in this manner.

    Now, what might this tell us?

  20. I couldn’t keep reading all of these ridiculous comments!!!! It’s a commercial… our world has gotten so out there that a commercial talking about replaying an already aired show is somehow killing a child/promoting abortions etc. GET A LIFE PEOPLE

    • Delores, when a commercial shows a child being wiped from existance, and represents that this has no more import than switch out picante sauce, a commercial shows a child being wiped from existance, and represents that this has no more import than switch out picante sauce. I’m not making anything up. You and others are so receptive to ugly cultural values that you are inured to them. I’d do something about that. It’s not healthy.

      The people who still known where lines should be drawn in commercials are not the problem. The fact that Direct TV correctly assumes that most Americans think disappearing a family’s child is hilarious is.

Comments are closed.