May 30, 2008
Rachel Ray: International Terrorist
It turns out that fact really is scarier than fiction. The latest case in point is Dunkin’ Donuts decision to pull an online ad promoting the chain’s ice coffee and starring Rachel Ray because some conservative bloggers said the scarf she was wearing reminded them of a traditional Arab headdress called a keffiyeh.
Among those most incensed by Ms. Ray’s black and white scarf with a paisley
design was Fox News’ commentator Michelle Malkin. She wrote in her blog, “It
was with some dismay that I learned last week that Dunkin’ Donuts’ spokeswoman
Rachael Ray, the ubiquitous TV hostess, posed for one of the company’s ads
in what appeared to be a black-and-white keffiyeh.” (See the AdAge.com article
for an image.)
According to Ms. Malkin, the keffiyeh, the traditional headdress worn by Arab men, “has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad.”
Margie Myers, senior VP-communications for Dunkin’ Brands, said the company decided to pull the online ad “because the possibility of misperception detracted from its original intention to promote our iced coffee.”
Ms. Malkin was pleased with Dunkin’ Donuts’ decision. She wrote, “It’s refreshing to see an American company show sensitivity to the concerns of Americans opposed to Islamic jihad and its apologists.”
Ms. Ray had no comment, according to AdAge.com.
Discussion Question: Did Dunkin’ Donuts make the right decision in pulling its online iced coffee ad with Rachel Ray and her black and white scarf?
[Editor’s Commentary] Interestingly, Ms. Malkin is the author of a book entitled Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild. It appears as though people of various political leanings can go a bit overboard.
Based on her own post, Ms. Malkin never sought to determine whether Ms. Ray was actually wearing a keffiyeh (she wasn’t) and wearing a scarf purchased in a retail store in the U.S. (she was).
In this case, it’s safe to say that Ms. Malkin was neither fair nor balanced. Commercials cost money to make and Dunkin’ Donuts wound up having to deal with an issue that distracted it from the business of selling beverages and foods. As a self-professed believer in the free market system, Ms. Malkin should offer the chain a public apology. She made a mistake and got in the way of fair commerce. We don’t need to know what she was wearing to have reached that conclusion.
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
I’d like to think that DD made an impetuous decision, based on fear/emotion of the moment. And that they regretted it 24 hours later. I mean, I’d LIKE to think that. Bullies like Malkin are cowards at heart. I wish DD had swung back. Doing so would have earned the respect of many.
While I understand Dunkin’ Donuts’ decision to pull the Rachel Ray ad in an effort to keep a controversial spotlight off their company, I wish they would use their vast marketing resources to show that this is a made-up issue. It’s clearly a scarf around Rachel’s neck, and all you need to do to confirm this is Google “keffiyeh” and click on images. A keffiyeh has a much more structured pattern and is worn differently from a scarf.
Unfortunately these days, the reputation of good natured Americans are being tarnished by branding them as terrorists, troop haters and now immigrants (whom Michelle Malkin has railed against in her column but really should step away from since her parents were immigrants from the Philippines), just to name a few.
This kind of witch hunt behavior brings back the days of McCarthyism, and we all know how well that turned out. I’m not sure if Michelle Malkin needed to feel powerful in some way, but this kind of behavior is shameful.
It’s a crazy world. My view is that DD was obtuse and a little clueless but certainly not intentionally provocative. Yet, I have to wonder, wasn’t there someone in their ad agency or marketing department that might have looked at the scarf on Rachael and said, “ya know, why don’t we put her in a nice silk Anne Klein for this ad”? The particular scarf shown was soooo incidental to the donuts and the spokesperson, yet it appears no one was mindful that it could even possibly be perceived poorly by some in their target market. Why even take the chance?
Once it was done, however, DD should not have caved, just explained. I have looked at the furor on the net this morning and find that actually many conservative blogs are quite critical of Malkin’s actions, and over-reactions, too.
A few of these firestorms (stupid or not) may actually help raise the antennae and widen the worldview of those producing advertisements. That would be a good thing. (Remember Absolut Vodka?)
What was worse about this ad wasn’t the scarf–it was the cityscape behind Rachel in the ad…it was the capitol building in Salem, Oregon…where they have closed all Dunkin’ Donuts down and was one of the last store closures on the West Coast…kind of a slap in the face to us Oregonians out here that are Dunkin’ Donut-less.
The only person more despicable than Ann Coulter is Michelle Malkin. Malkin is an extreme rightwing nutcase who spews hate and spreads smear wherever she can find it, and if she can’t find it, she’ll make it up.
It’s unfortunate that DD caved in to her ridiculous rants, but maybe they are a little more sensitive because so many of their franchisees and employees are from Pakistan and the Middle East.
Frankly, Rachael Ray annoys me more than any scarf ever could.
Oh puleeeeze.
I can’t believe DD caved, and even more so, I can’t believe anyone here thinks doing so was the right decision. And what’s this about how the agency should have known better? No patterned scarves can be used because a nutcase might take exception?
DD could have have called out this “commentator” on the facts and reaped a positive bonanza in publicity…and in all likelihood, sales. Instead, they have shown they can be intimidated by anyone peddling snakeoil, promising a boycott.
As a small but not unimportant point of information…the relationship between Dunkin’ Donuts and their spokesperson has been anything but yummo. Enormous blog fodder was produced quite recently when RR arrived on set to film a commercial, took a sip of some coffee that had been poured for her, and petulantly cried out “what is this s##t?” Of course the coffee was Dunkin’ Donuts, although a subsequently informed RR still refused to drink it and demanded Starbucks (“my coffee”) as a replacement. Industry pundits have also wondered just why RR was hired at a moment when her show’s ratings had started to sink, not to mention the curious link of a food authority with a donut shop. My guess is that DD is just tired of the relationship and is hardly going to go to bat for their falling star…under contract but clearly no PR prize.
Wow, good thing Rachel Ray didn’t wear that thing through airport security! She might be in Guantanamo as we speak!
Thank goodness she didn’t bite into a powdered donut and get a little white powder on her upper lip. She might have been busted for doing cocaine too!
Uh…excuse me? Who is the terrorist here? The cheery recipe hawker with the funky fashion sense or the poison-keyboard blogger who seems intent on driving personal gain by employing the contemporary equivalent of red-baiting?
Tactics like Ms. Malkin’s stain the profession of journalism to which I have dedicated some 30 years of my life. I could not be more ashamed of her.
As for Dunkin’ Donuts–well I suppose they can claim to be victims of the media, but in point of fact they made more enemies than friends by cutting and running over a flimsy accusation of bad fashion semiotics.
Appeasement can be defined as an attempt to stop complaints or reduce difficulties by making concessions.
Did you notice that RR was not wearing a lapel pin flag?
Did you see the odd shaped building that looks somewhat like a missile left over from the Cuban crisis?
Do you think the clashing purple and orange colors in the DD logo are unusual for an American owned food supplier?
Dunkin’ Donuts would have been brave and maybe well rewarded to accept the role of the truth telling underdog being picked on by the evil media. But to do that, they would have had to trust in the intelligence of their customer base.
They made the wrong choice–maybe the “decider” never dealt with a school yard bully.
I’ve been waiting for years for someone to mention that part of Leviticus. As much as we might think it’s the tight clothes and the makeup that would get those pundits stoned to death if we took that passage seriously, do you know what the most grievous sin in that list is?
The one that would get them stoned to death the fastest?
It’s the mixing of fibers in the silk and wool skirt.
We would also have to execute everyone who has ever bought an easy-care, poly-cotton shirt, also by stoning them to death.
I wonder when we look back on this incident years from now, will it be just one in a number of inanities that no one even remembers, or one of those defining moments when we realized the Republic was doomed.
It’s a shame DD doesn’t have the…um…donut holes to sue Fox and its shill for slander, but from their perspective, it’s probably a risk not worth taking: as much as my heart disagrees, my brain sees the logic in the “appeasement” concept…which I guess makes us all good businesspeople… and bad citizens.
As disturbing at Dunkin’ Donuts knee-jerk retraction of the ad is to my personal sensibilities, I have to concur that doing so is the best business decision. Dunkin’ Donuts is not in the business of opposing bombast from talking heads, making a stand against absurd associations between advertising and terrorism, or defending the aesthetic choices of the ad agency’s wardrobe staff, because none of those activities sell donuts. The company is best off moving on and instructing their ad agencies to issue only solid color scarves.
I agree with Richard. This whole story is nuts.
When someone with an issue like this gets an airing, and a real corporation actually responds, something is terribly wrong.
Rome is burning–we have yet to rebuild New Orleans, we’re involved in a long dead-end war, gas is over $4.00 a gallon, the dollar is upside down to almost every other currency in the industrialized world, and our stature as a nation is in the tank, but thank goodness we’ve got our eyes peeled for things like scarves.
This country is in a very sad, bad way.
It is an appalling, spineless response to media McCarthyism.
Mr. Needel has the right idea; get right back on the offensive and rub their noses in it.
As for Mr. Livingston’s contention that “when you are talking about sales and profits, right and wrong about political correctness goes out the window”. It leaves me speechless with its appeasing tone.
At the risk of making a mountain out of a pile of donuts it would be more appropriate to consider Edmund Burke’s words: “Evil triumphs when good people do nothing.”
News is slow as we slide into summer here in Atlanta and the silly season has clearly begun. Dunkin’ Donuts should have strung this out with denials for all the free publicity it would generate. I’d get a spokesperson on Fox News (even though they would be incinerated), show the scarf, and keep playing this for all it’s worth.
What an un-delish decision!
I say coat the crack-brained critics with some EVOO; saute them until done; mince them and put them between slices of Joe McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover for a quick paranoid “sami.” Any leftover over-reactive material can be dumped as filler into a wonderful cream of conspiracy “stoup.”
And it can all be ready in less than 30 minutes!
Come on! Knock her for being cloyingly bubbly, O.K.–but political???
Dunkin’ Donuts probably made the right decision. They have already been getting a bad rap for having non-English speaking employees and immigrant franchisees. They need to rap themselves in the US Flag. I know it sounds silly but when you are talking about sales and profits, right and wrong about political correctness goes out the window.
In marketing, perception is reality, like it or not. If an extended PR effort/battle was waged, the risk is that for months, both the DD and the RR brands are associated with perception and word of mouth spin that could head in the wrong direction and become a viral nightmare at any moment.
Rachel Ray having no comment is a very safe move for her brand.
Dunkin’ Donuts pulling the ad and staying focused on selling iced coffee without the ad is a safe move for their brand. If they want to stay together as partners, reshoot, and move on.
I do believe an apology is in order from Malkin, however! But let it be private and let the whole issue just go away fast!
I’d love to see the BuzzMetrics or the TNS Cymphony social media tracking stats on this, just to see how much of an impact this had on each brand and for how long!
Fox news has never been fair nor balanced. Scarier than Ms. Malkin never bothering to investigate the facts is that Dunkin’ Donuts so quickly caved into her rant. Somewhere Joe McCarthy must be smiling.
I have decided not to pass judgment on Dunkin’ Donuts’ decision to pull out from the Rachel Ray ad but thank goodness it’s up to them so far, and not a court, to decide how they want to invest and with whom.
Not sure which is worse…Michelle Malkin’s dimwitted objection to the Dunkin’ Donuts ad, or Dunkin’ Donuts “caving” over this issue. Apparently Ms. Malkin hasn’t been in a retail store selling scarves for the past 15 years, nor has she walked around any major city (especially in the Northeast and Midwest) where scarves–fringed or otherwise–are widely worn for more than half of the year. Dunkin’ Donuts’ response smacks of political correctness bordering on fearfulness…not a pretty sight in our free-enterprise system.
Sorry, only reality is reality. Just because I say so doesn’t make it so. If I said Santa Claus existed would that make it true? No. DD set a bad precedent. Absolutely ridiculous.
Malkin fires from the bully pulpit and Dunkin’ Donuts is forced to weigh the benefits of being “right” and not yanking an ad, or pulling it for the sake of expediency in making a bad claim take on greater importance. What is next–claiming that Wilford Brimley is secretly sending a message because he wears “gang colors” in his advertisements for a diabetes test kit?
Much ado over nothing! Shame on DD for caving so quickly!
Dunkin’ Donuts’ response was proper. Companies must be vigilant to separate themselves from anything related to terrorism. Bravado doesn’t sell more donuts.
I’ve noticed that some of the folks labeled “Arab terrorists” on TV wear blue jeans and golf shirts. It’s obvious that any commercial with folks wearing jeans or golf shirts is an endorsement of terrorism. Advertisers should only use naked actors and models from now on, because I’ve never seen a nude terrorist.
I think they were right to pull it.
What they should have done is spent a few hours in the studio and re-released the commercial without the scarf.
Remember, “any publicity is good publicity.”
More Discussions
Are US Small Business Owners Right To Be Optimistic About Sales Growth in 2026?
A recent Comerica survey suggested that American small business owners are optimistic about what 2026 holds…Should Retailers Be Charging Fees for Mail-In Returns?
The question of whether retailers should be charging fees for mailed returns continues to be a…Who Should Lululemon’s Next CEO Be?
Lululemon is being asked to consider a specific CEO candidate. Is this the right pick?
I’d like to think that DD made an impetuous decision, based on fear/emotion of the moment. And that they regretted it 24 hours later. I mean, I’d LIKE to think that. Bullies like Malkin are cowards at heart. I wish DD had swung back. Doing so would have earned the respect of many.
While I understand Dunkin’ Donuts’ decision to pull the Rachel Ray ad in an effort to keep a controversial spotlight off their company, I wish they would use their vast marketing resources to show that this is a made-up issue. It’s clearly a scarf around Rachel’s neck, and all you need to do to confirm this is Google “keffiyeh” and click on images. A keffiyeh has a much more structured pattern and is worn differently from a scarf.
Unfortunately these days, the reputation of good natured Americans are being tarnished by branding them as terrorists, troop haters and now immigrants (whom Michelle Malkin has railed against in her column but really should step away from since her parents were immigrants from the Philippines), just to name a few.
This kind of witch hunt behavior brings back the days of McCarthyism, and we all know how well that turned out. I’m not sure if Michelle Malkin needed to feel powerful in some way, but this kind of behavior is shameful.
It’s a crazy world. My view is that DD was obtuse and a little clueless but certainly not intentionally provocative. Yet, I have to wonder, wasn’t there someone in their ad agency or marketing department that might have looked at the scarf on Rachael and said, “ya know, why don’t we put her in a nice silk Anne Klein for this ad”? The particular scarf shown was soooo incidental to the donuts and the spokesperson, yet it appears no one was mindful that it could even possibly be perceived poorly by some in their target market. Why even take the chance?
Once it was done, however, DD should not have caved, just explained. I have looked at the furor on the net this morning and find that actually many conservative blogs are quite critical of Malkin’s actions, and over-reactions, too.
A few of these firestorms (stupid or not) may actually help raise the antennae and widen the worldview of those producing advertisements. That would be a good thing. (Remember Absolut Vodka?)
What was worse about this ad wasn’t the scarf–it was the cityscape behind Rachel in the ad…it was the capitol building in Salem, Oregon…where they have closed all Dunkin’ Donuts down and was one of the last store closures on the West Coast…kind of a slap in the face to us Oregonians out here that are Dunkin’ Donut-less.
The only person more despicable than Ann Coulter is Michelle Malkin. Malkin is an extreme rightwing nutcase who spews hate and spreads smear wherever she can find it, and if she can’t find it, she’ll make it up.
It’s unfortunate that DD caved in to her ridiculous rants, but maybe they are a little more sensitive because so many of their franchisees and employees are from Pakistan and the Middle East.
Frankly, Rachael Ray annoys me more than any scarf ever could.
Oh puleeeeze.
I can’t believe DD caved, and even more so, I can’t believe anyone here thinks doing so was the right decision. And what’s this about how the agency should have known better? No patterned scarves can be used because a nutcase might take exception?
DD could have have called out this “commentator” on the facts and reaped a positive bonanza in publicity…and in all likelihood, sales. Instead, they have shown they can be intimidated by anyone peddling snakeoil, promising a boycott.
As a small but not unimportant point of information…the relationship between Dunkin’ Donuts and their spokesperson has been anything but yummo. Enormous blog fodder was produced quite recently when RR arrived on set to film a commercial, took a sip of some coffee that had been poured for her, and petulantly cried out “what is this s##t?” Of course the coffee was Dunkin’ Donuts, although a subsequently informed RR still refused to drink it and demanded Starbucks (“my coffee”) as a replacement. Industry pundits have also wondered just why RR was hired at a moment when her show’s ratings had started to sink, not to mention the curious link of a food authority with a donut shop. My guess is that DD is just tired of the relationship and is hardly going to go to bat for their falling star…under contract but clearly no PR prize.
Wow, good thing Rachel Ray didn’t wear that thing through airport security! She might be in Guantanamo as we speak!
Thank goodness she didn’t bite into a powdered donut and get a little white powder on her upper lip. She might have been busted for doing cocaine too!
Uh…excuse me? Who is the terrorist here? The cheery recipe hawker with the funky fashion sense or the poison-keyboard blogger who seems intent on driving personal gain by employing the contemporary equivalent of red-baiting?
Tactics like Ms. Malkin’s stain the profession of journalism to which I have dedicated some 30 years of my life. I could not be more ashamed of her.
As for Dunkin’ Donuts–well I suppose they can claim to be victims of the media, but in point of fact they made more enemies than friends by cutting and running over a flimsy accusation of bad fashion semiotics.
Appeasement can be defined as an attempt to stop complaints or reduce difficulties by making concessions.
Did you notice that RR was not wearing a lapel pin flag?
Did you see the odd shaped building that looks somewhat like a missile left over from the Cuban crisis?
Do you think the clashing purple and orange colors in the DD logo are unusual for an American owned food supplier?
Dunkin’ Donuts would have been brave and maybe well rewarded to accept the role of the truth telling underdog being picked on by the evil media. But to do that, they would have had to trust in the intelligence of their customer base.
They made the wrong choice–maybe the “decider” never dealt with a school yard bully.
I’ve been waiting for years for someone to mention that part of Leviticus. As much as we might think it’s the tight clothes and the makeup that would get those pundits stoned to death if we took that passage seriously, do you know what the most grievous sin in that list is?
The one that would get them stoned to death the fastest?
It’s the mixing of fibers in the silk and wool skirt.
We would also have to execute everyone who has ever bought an easy-care, poly-cotton shirt, also by stoning them to death.
I wonder when we look back on this incident years from now, will it be just one in a number of inanities that no one even remembers, or one of those defining moments when we realized the Republic was doomed.
It’s a shame DD doesn’t have the…um…donut holes to sue Fox and its shill for slander, but from their perspective, it’s probably a risk not worth taking: as much as my heart disagrees, my brain sees the logic in the “appeasement” concept…which I guess makes us all good businesspeople… and bad citizens.
As disturbing at Dunkin’ Donuts knee-jerk retraction of the ad is to my personal sensibilities, I have to concur that doing so is the best business decision. Dunkin’ Donuts is not in the business of opposing bombast from talking heads, making a stand against absurd associations between advertising and terrorism, or defending the aesthetic choices of the ad agency’s wardrobe staff, because none of those activities sell donuts. The company is best off moving on and instructing their ad agencies to issue only solid color scarves.
I agree with Richard. This whole story is nuts.
When someone with an issue like this gets an airing, and a real corporation actually responds, something is terribly wrong.
Rome is burning–we have yet to rebuild New Orleans, we’re involved in a long dead-end war, gas is over $4.00 a gallon, the dollar is upside down to almost every other currency in the industrialized world, and our stature as a nation is in the tank, but thank goodness we’ve got our eyes peeled for things like scarves.
This country is in a very sad, bad way.
It is an appalling, spineless response to media McCarthyism.
Mr. Needel has the right idea; get right back on the offensive and rub their noses in it.
As for Mr. Livingston’s contention that “when you are talking about sales and profits, right and wrong about political correctness goes out the window”. It leaves me speechless with its appeasing tone.
At the risk of making a mountain out of a pile of donuts it would be more appropriate to consider Edmund Burke’s words: “Evil triumphs when good people do nothing.”
News is slow as we slide into summer here in Atlanta and the silly season has clearly begun. Dunkin’ Donuts should have strung this out with denials for all the free publicity it would generate. I’d get a spokesperson on Fox News (even though they would be incinerated), show the scarf, and keep playing this for all it’s worth.
What an un-delish decision!
I say coat the crack-brained critics with some EVOO; saute them until done; mince them and put them between slices of Joe McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover for a quick paranoid “sami.” Any leftover over-reactive material can be dumped as filler into a wonderful cream of conspiracy “stoup.”
And it can all be ready in less than 30 minutes!
Come on! Knock her for being cloyingly bubbly, O.K.–but political???
Dunkin’ Donuts probably made the right decision. They have already been getting a bad rap for having non-English speaking employees and immigrant franchisees. They need to rap themselves in the US Flag. I know it sounds silly but when you are talking about sales and profits, right and wrong about political correctness goes out the window.
In marketing, perception is reality, like it or not. If an extended PR effort/battle was waged, the risk is that for months, both the DD and the RR brands are associated with perception and word of mouth spin that could head in the wrong direction and become a viral nightmare at any moment.
Rachel Ray having no comment is a very safe move for her brand.
Dunkin’ Donuts pulling the ad and staying focused on selling iced coffee without the ad is a safe move for their brand. If they want to stay together as partners, reshoot, and move on.
I do believe an apology is in order from Malkin, however! But let it be private and let the whole issue just go away fast!
I’d love to see the BuzzMetrics or the TNS Cymphony social media tracking stats on this, just to see how much of an impact this had on each brand and for how long!
Fox news has never been fair nor balanced. Scarier than Ms. Malkin never bothering to investigate the facts is that Dunkin’ Donuts so quickly caved into her rant. Somewhere Joe McCarthy must be smiling.
I have decided not to pass judgment on Dunkin’ Donuts’ decision to pull out from the Rachel Ray ad but thank goodness it’s up to them so far, and not a court, to decide how they want to invest and with whom.
Not sure which is worse…Michelle Malkin’s dimwitted objection to the Dunkin’ Donuts ad, or Dunkin’ Donuts “caving” over this issue. Apparently Ms. Malkin hasn’t been in a retail store selling scarves for the past 15 years, nor has she walked around any major city (especially in the Northeast and Midwest) where scarves–fringed or otherwise–are widely worn for more than half of the year. Dunkin’ Donuts’ response smacks of political correctness bordering on fearfulness…not a pretty sight in our free-enterprise system.
Sorry, only reality is reality. Just because I say so doesn’t make it so. If I said Santa Claus existed would that make it true? No. DD set a bad precedent. Absolutely ridiculous.
Malkin fires from the bully pulpit and Dunkin’ Donuts is forced to weigh the benefits of being “right” and not yanking an ad, or pulling it for the sake of expediency in making a bad claim take on greater importance. What is next–claiming that Wilford Brimley is secretly sending a message because he wears “gang colors” in his advertisements for a diabetes test kit?
Much ado over nothing! Shame on DD for caving so quickly!
Dunkin’ Donuts’ response was proper. Companies must be vigilant to separate themselves from anything related to terrorism. Bravado doesn’t sell more donuts.
I’ve noticed that some of the folks labeled “Arab terrorists” on TV wear blue jeans and golf shirts. It’s obvious that any commercial with folks wearing jeans or golf shirts is an endorsement of terrorism. Advertisers should only use naked actors and models from now on, because I’ve never seen a nude terrorist.
I think they were right to pull it.
What they should have done is spent a few hours in the studio and re-released the commercial without the scarf.
Remember, “any publicity is good publicity.”