Cisco's unfortunate airplane commercial during coverage of flight 1549

Let's say you're a big-name advertiser, and one of your TV commercials mocks airplanes, flying and water landings. You probably wouldn't want to run that ad during CNN's coverage of US Airways Flight 1549, which crash-landed Thursday in the Hudson River, right? Unfortunately for tech giant Cisco Systems, it's sometimes difficult to pull such an ad from TV networks across the country in the unlikely event of a water landing.

Cisco's Travel Less, Save More commercial begins with a man talking to the screen, welcoming people to flight 1120. Various people recite familiar flight attendant lines throughout the ad, talking about how to buckle a seat belt, how oxygen masks will drop from the ceiling and what will happen in the "unlikely" event of a water landing. They wear floating devices. They play with oxygen masks. Then the ad ends with a voice-over about the "endless hours" lost to airport delays.

Some people watching real-life coverage of US Airways flight 1549 yesterday on CNN saw the ad during a commercial break. They were treated to the jarring feeling of watching real-life coverage of ...

... the crash followed by a commercial that mocks flying and safety instructions.

"They go right from having some guy interviewed talking about the pilot saying, 'Brace yourself,' to a commercial being sarcastic about the emergency stuff. It creeped me out," said Lauren de la Fuente, a marketing consultant from New York who was fixated on TV coverage of the crash. "I thought, 'This is the most inappropriate commercial for the time.' "

Cisco naturally wasn't too pleased either. Any time there's a big news incident, advertising professionals work to pull ads that may offend viewers by hitting a little too close to home. That's why you probably won't be seeing any airline commercials soon. Unfortunately for Cisco though, planes fall from the sky more quickly than the ad departments of TV networks can move.

"As soon as Cisco became aware of the news of the US Airways Flight 1549 water landing, we asked our advertising agency to pull the Cisco advertisement that references air travel," spokesman David McCulloch said in an e-mail Friday. "Because the campaign was in national distribution it took some time to have all the spots removed, and unfortunately a few spots aired as late as yesterday evening."

Don't blame Cisco, said Mike Sheldon, president of ad agency Deutsch LA. It can be a logistical nightmare to pull spots from networks, especially if they're not running during a live show. Even if you put all of your employees on the task of calling the networks, sometimes that's not enough.

"Nobody’s clairvoyant," he said. "I'm sure Cisco had no intention of offending anyone."

-- Alana Semuels

Photo by Gustav H via Flickr

Comments

[Jim in Tampa]

Well perhaps in light of recent events, we should not portray any references to plane crashes or the like. Most commercials are sickening and repulsive anyway and perhaps this will kick these idiots that produce these commercials in the rear.

I guess it fits the “MBA” acronym. I have defined it as “Masters in Bull S41T Arts” for several years. Most of the crap these idiots come up with is trash and it is just getting worse.

If I (and I am a network engineer) were Cisco, I would take a more intelligent approach in my marketing.

Jim in Tampa

[Web Smith]

Cisco was most likely paying the most for ad spots. In their haste to exploit any tragedy for money, the media only looked at the dollar signs. Hopefully the kids who work for the media will get a grip on their hysteria and not destroy this hero's personal life on behalf of the corporate owners.

[Bob Abooie]

This wouldn't happen at ABC back when we had videotape editors creating reels of commercial for broadcast. We were on the lookout for commercials that would be in bad taste in the event of a death or accident. Now that the operation is automated and programmed by trained monkeys, everything gets through.

[Donna C]

Airlines used to have,and probably still have, crash or incident policies that media buyers would send to every station, newspaper etc. along with the media buy. It covered what to do in terms of running advertising in the event of an airline or military aircraft incident. These were very detailed. The policy was in place and it became the station's responsibility to pull the ad. If the spot or ad wasn't pulled it was a makegood (free).

Having been an airline ad manager at one stage of my career--I wrote, rewrote and implemented these policies for my agencies.

Most advertisers never think of, or think they need, an event policy. It appears the ad was idiotic anyway (as 98% of them are) so Cisco deserves what it gets.

[Richard Mills]

Dan Draper would have figured out a way to pull the CISCO ad.

He did so for Mohawk when the American Airlines flight went down.

[David McCulloch - Cisco PR]

Donna and Web Smith - Interesting to follow the discussion about how and how quickly to pull Ads. As soon as we heard about the US Airways flight ditching in the Hudson (about 5pm ET) we started to pull the ads. Our Ad agency was on it vey quickly, but unfortunately they couldn't reach everyone in time to stop some evening spots running...you know the rest. Sorry if any offence was caused.

[vitalinsightgroup.com]

As the President of a Customer Satisfaction company I have to say best response to date by a company (David at Cisco per above) David kudos for engaging the community. Although unfortunate, Cisco had no way to predict this - they reacted quickly then researched and engaged the community - much more than most companies would do.

Class act Cisco

Jason Tryfon

[RC in Seattle -ex airline crew, ex Boeing]

The issue is not if or when the ad should have been pulled. The real issue is the lack of ethics and integrity in even producing such an ad.
Ad agency creative directors feel they have free rein in the parody of anything they desire.
Airline safety is not legit fodder for a sick joke. I have first hand knowlege of the elitiste business travelers who feel that they are so experienced that they have no need to pay attention to safety breifings. Those are the same types whom I personally had to grab by the arms and with raised voice, "encourage" them to evacuate an airplane filled with toxic smoke; while I was involved in an aircraft evacuation as a working aircrew member.
Pay attention MBA's of the world, you still have not reached the top.

[Scott]

I don't understand the hypersensitivity people, with no direct connection, have to an event. I guess some people just look for ways to get their "fill-wings" hurt. It's a commercial, for crying out loud.

Had CNN not gone overboard with the crash coverage, this ad would probably have occurred between spots on Michelle Obama's dress and the opening of the War Crimes trial for the departing administration. And no one would have noticed.

With no fatalities and few injuries, I don't see how, unless you're a goose, this crash could give you anything but good feelings about flying in an airplane.

[polyGeek]

I can't believe this is even an issue. If I ran over a dog on the way home I wouldn't call my wife and tell her to hide our dogs so that I didn't have to see them for a while.

[Will]

An over reaction at best. The commercial is probably even MORE appropriate now than it was since the message is correct. Work from home, have teleconferences and you can avoid situations like this. You politically correct snobs should all grow up.

[Peter]

Why would any company produce a commercial that mocks airline safety procedures? Seems like they set themselves up for this.

[Jason]

Here is an idea; stop watching commercial television. Try reading a bit more...

[RC in Seattle -ex airline crew, ex Boeing]

Peter, I agree with you. However, Scott seems to have lost the definition of blogging. Nowhere does it say that to participate or express your opinion you need to have a direct connection to an event. To restrict speech is on the road to social engineering. There are going to be a multitude of opinions on any given topic. As a former airline crew member, I am part of the fraternity of airline crews.I have experienced emergencies and have a direct relationship to airline safety with another eighteen years with the largest aerospace company in this country; where safety is job one.

In my opinion CNN did not go overboard with their reporting. This accident had one of the most positive outcomes of a potential disaster we have experienced in aviation history. It deserved extened coverage.
I certainly hope there is not a suggestion that we should be mired in a trial of the soon to be former president. This country does not need any more hate.
I do agree with Scott that this crash should give you encouragement about airline safety.

Will believes that a commercial which mocks flying and airline safety instructions is appropriate. Commercial buys are meant to influence the consumer. So to say something is,"...just a commercial", dilutes the intent of the commerical. Mocking airline safety to encourage folks to stay at home and telecompute is inappropriate. There are far more reasons to
promote the reduction in travel expenses without mocking the airlines.

Jason, gave kudos to Cisco (a fine company with which I have had business dealings),for their quick response to kill the ad and communicate with the public. He misses the point. Cisco would not have to do any of those things if they had an appropriate ad in the queue.

[Paul]

These ads were developed over seven months ago - take a chill pill people...