In an attempt to advertise burger flavors from cross-border regions, Texican Whooper from Europe has been faced with criticism from Mexico. Mexicans have protested against this advertisement claiming it shows disrespect to their national flag. The people of Mexico feel so since in the advertisement, a short man is seen dressed in a wresting artier that resembles Mexican flag while another taller person stands right beside him in cowboy clothes. The idea to show a blend of flavors from Texas and Mexico might have been on point if only Texican Whooper did not use that flag.
Analyzing Texican Whooper Advertisement
In this advertisement, the individual representing Mexican flavor is seen to be short while the Texas one is tall. The Mexican character is dressed as a wrestler implying strength which is portrayed as he helps the other open a jar (‘NY Daily News”). The Texas character, on the other hand, is tall and can be seen during the advertisement raising the other to clean heightened windows. The two are combined to show how this burger blend compliments each other in taste and preference hence the slogan “The taste of Texas with a little spicy Mexican.”
The entertaining advert also shows how the two flavors are blended in quantity with Mexico being in little supply and Texas in large. However, even with such exemplary ideologies, they went a mile further to dress the character in a manner that consumers will identify with. By dressing the Mexican representative in its respective flag and Texas as a cowboy, people from Mexico saw that as a disrespectful move on their national symbol (‘NY Daily News ‘).
Ethical Issue in the Advertisement
According to Mexicans, the use of a very short man to represent them showed stereotype. There could have been a better way in which their identity could have been communicated. With the country’s high regard for its flag, using it to advertise burgers and entertain people was wrong and disrespectful to the entire Mexican community. Ethically, the Mexican people felt violated extensively when Burger Kings did not oblige to the ambassador’s words (Singh, 18).
Although both sides can easily be justified in their viewpoints, it is, however, more ethical to support the Mexican people. In this opinion, the Mexican government has set strict rules on not defiling their national flag. A big company as Burger King should have therefore thought their advertisement through before being in breach of this rule. Again, when the Mexican Ambassador in Spain reached out to Burger King’s offices and demanded the advert be taken down, it was not heeded hence showing disrespect and disregard to authority.
On the Mexican side of view, there was no any repercussion since the citizens by demonstrating this advertisement were protecting their national interest against exploitation. In almost every nation, the flag has deep meaning and when it is used in the wrong manner especially by an outsider, it almost feels like an insult to the entire country (Singh, 18).
On the other hand, Burger kings had a lot to lose if the Mexican government decided to sue. In a case witnessed before, the Mexican government fined a foreign publishing firm for disrespecting their flag by having it on capes.
The characters in the advertisement might have been doing their job but those responsible for the creation should have been more careful with the visual message they were sending. The mistake may have occurred accidentally hence Burger Kings should have acted responsively and heeded to the ambassador’s request to avoid unnecessary consequences.