Tom Colicchio's new Coke Commercial

[Miami Danny]

"I also think Colicchio does a decent job holding himself above and away from the extensive product placements on Top Chef"

whatttt?????

Colicchio is a GIANT PRODUCT PLACEMENT AD for himself and his chain of eateries...

come on, in for a penny, in for a pound...the only reason ANY of these folks is doing Top Chef is to sell themselves...

To paraphrase Winston Churchill..We have determined Collichio is a "sell out", we are merely quibbling over the price....

←

Then I guess you consider his restaurants on par with Macaroni grill and Olive Garden?

Tom Colicchio is the main reason Top Chef has any culinary credibility or relevance.

←

"Tom Colicchio is the main reason Top Chef has any culinary credibility or relevance." OOWHAAAAT??? Possibly the funniest sentence I have ever read!

[Heartsurgeon]

The Onion does it again!

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28135

Coke Mandatory!

[slkinsey]

I have to say that I find myself reading this thread with a smile of amusement. I mean, is this all serious? People are seriousloy questioning whether Colicchio is "taking an unfair swipe" at Achatz, Adria, et al. in this commercial?!

Come on, guys. It's a joke. And the chances are that he didn't write it anyway. I mean, are we really thinking that Colicchio approached Coca Cola and suggested that it would be great to make an ad so he could trash some of his colleagues in the restaurant world? I hardly think so.

He is a famous chef on TV with enough name/face recognition that it's not a surprise Coca Cola would like to have him endorse their product. More and more people are being introduced to culinary gimmickry through shows such as Top Chef and other media. Coke would like to get across the message that good flavor is better than whatever the hell it is that they make things like Red Bull out of. So they put Colicchio in a restaurant full of "weird looking food" and had him talking about how he thinks flavor comes before trickery. I have enough friends who have done commercials to have plenty of doubts as to whether he advised them on any of this. Most likely, he agreed to the concept and then showed up, read his lines and went on about his business.

Meanwhile, as to "selling out" -- I don't see it. Diet Coke is a perfectly good product, if you're going to take money for endorsing a megaproduct like this. It's not like Diet Coke is some kind of awful swill. And I don't see his appearance in this commercial as any more of a "sell out" than the legions of celebrichefs who endorse crappy knives and cookware -- less so, since Colicchio isn't exactly implying that he would serve Diet Coke as the beverage to accompany a tasting menu at Craft. He's just saying it's a good-tasting diet cola. There really is no point of comparison between Colicchio appearing in this commercial and Bayless's appearance in Burger King commercials. What made Bayless's BK commercials bad is the fact that Burger King's practices stand in direct oposition to many of his most vehemently and publicly stated beliefs and political positions. It was like being an anti-apartheid activist in 1990 and doing a De Beers commercial (my recollection is that any diversion of monies from those commercials to a charity was a post facto reaction to the backlash, but may be misremembering).

Edited March 4, 2009 by slkinsey (log)

[Chris Amirault]

There really is no point of comparison between Colicchio appearing in this commercial and Bayless's appearance in Burger King commercials.  What made Bayless's BK commercials bad is the fact that Burger King's practices stand in direct oposition to many of his most vehemently and publicly stated beliefs and political positions.  It was like being an anti-apartheid activist in 1990 and doing a De Beers commercial (my recollection is that any diversion of monies from those commercials to a charity was a post facto reaction to the backlash, but may be misremembering).

←

Be careful: that post just made the comparison you criticized others for making! And besides, Colicchio's position in his restaurants, marketing, on Top Chef, and even in the commercial is that taste matters above everything else. Given that Diet Coke tastes horrible, your comparison to Bayless seems utterly apt.

Of course, if you don't think Diet Coke tastes awful -- which you suggest here -- then it's not apt at all. YMMV.

[Shinboners]

Be careful: that post just made the comparison you criticized others for making! And besides, Colicchio's position in his restaurants, marketing, on Top Chef, and even in the commercial is that taste matters above everything else. Given that Diet Coke tastes horrible, your comparison to Bayless seems utterly apt.

Of course, if you don't think Diet Coke tastes awful -- which you suggest here -- then it's not apt at all. YMMV.

←

I wouldn't have thought that how you, me, slkinsey, or anyone else's opinion of the taste of diet coke would matter. The key issue would be Colicchio's opinion of diet coke. If he enjoys diet coke and likes the taste of it, then the advertisement is consistent with his view of the value of taste. If he doesn't like the taste of it, then he's just motivated by the money.

[slkinsey]

Chris, the comparison I was making was to compare Bayless's endorsement of Burger King to another (hypothetical) person's endorsement of a company whose practices the endorser has publicly decried -- in this case, the endorsement of an apartheid-supporting and profiting company by an anti-apartheid activist. It is an apt comparison.

It is not an apt comparison to compare Colicchio's endorsement of Diet Coke -- rather, it is appropriate to contrast Colicchio's endorsement of Diet Coke. If you believe that Diet Coke tastes so bad that Colicchio couldn't possibly truthfully enjoy it, then the proper comparison would be to, say, Emeril Legasse's endorsement of the not-so-great "Emeril Ware" line of cookware (although Legasse has dug himself into a considerably deeper hole here).

As Daniel points out, the only ethical concern that is important with respect Colicchio's endorsement of Diet Coke is whether he thinks it's a decent enough product to endorse. Perhaps if he had been on record numerous times railing against the evils of the Coca Cola corporation and the disgusting taste of Diet Coke there would be a problem here -- but this isn't the case. It's no more an ethical conflict than Dale DeGroff and Gary Regan designing cocktails for the likes of Alisé. Whether or not Colicchio's opinion of Diet Coke differs from your own matters not one whit.

Edited March 5, 2009 by slkinsey (log)

[Shinboners]

As Daniel points out, the only ethical concern that is important with respect Colicchio's endorsement of Diet Coke is whether he thinks it's a decent enough product to endorse. 

←

In the end, I'm not sure why it matters anyway. Actors, sports stars, and musicians are all used to promote products.

Even if you argue that Colicchio is a chef, and thus has a greater responsibility when choosing what food products to promote, the thing is, that for us obsessed foodies, his ads won't change our minds. For the rest of the people who aren't obsessed about food, they're more likely to know Colicchio for his TV appearances (thus putting him in the realm of being an entertainer than a chef) than for his restaurants. Ask Joe Public about Colicchio and I reckon they're far more likely to answer, "He's that guy on TV" than "He's the executive chef at Craft".

[Andrew Fenton]

As Daniel points out, the only ethical concern that is important with respect Colicchio's endorsement of Diet Coke is whether he thinks it's a decent enough product to endorse.  Perhaps if he had been on record numerous times railing against the evils of the Coca Cola corporation and the disgusting taste of Diet Coke there would be a problem here -- but this isn't the case.

Right-o. And unlike Bayless and BK, this would be trivial to test out. Just go to one of Colicchio's restaurants, sit down at the bar, and order a Diet Coke. If they don't serve it, then Colicchio's got some 'splainin to do. But I suspect that they do serve it. And if it's good enough to serve to his customers, surely it's good enough to endorse?

[Miami Danny]

Celebrities don't do endorsements because they like the products-they do endorsements because they are paid to do them. They do not write the script, etc., or tell their agent-hey, get me a commercial with Coke. They are prostitutes-the only differences between them and your average street-walker is the money and the johns (products). I am okay with that, just as I am okay with prostitution in general. But please, know the facts, and let's be honest about it. TC could either love the product, hate the product, or be indifferent towards the product (john). Just like any street-walker. He could be getting a little money, or a lot of money. Just like any street-walker, And in the end, he may feel ashamed, or just be happy to get drunk and count his money. Just like any street-walker. Whether he serves the drink or not, or it tastes good or not, or if he likes it or not, is moot. And whether the Coca-Cola Corporation is evil is also moot. This is an exchange of services for money. Period.

Edited March 7, 2009 by Miami Danny (log)

[Holly Moore]

Assertions based on one's stereotypical judgment of a group are wrong as often as they are correct. Celebrities are not all this or all that. Celebrities who do commercials are not all this way or all that way. Many celebrities will only endorse products they believe to be good or, at least, products that will not detract from their image.

Ah, that old, reliable streetwalker comparison. Damning, trite, so easy to apply, especially when not face to face with the accused - even better when one is anonymous on an internet discussion forum. How is taking money for endorsing a product the same as taking money for a sexual service? One is legal, one is not. One is safe, one is dangerous. One does not risk the spread of disease, one does. One society accepts, one society generally finds abhorrent.

Then it is the exchange of services for money that proves prostitution? Should I expect my doctor to throw in a happy ending with my prostate examination?

Edited March 7, 2009 by Holly Moore (log)

[slkinsey]

I think that for the most part, the thesis of Danny's post is correct: People appear in commercials -- and this includes people who are appearing in a commercial as known public figures rather than "anonymous" actors -- because they are compensated for doing so, and for no other meaningful reason. Of course, everyone has the option of not appearing in a commercial for a product or on behalf of a corporation if they find that product, corporation or endorsements in general morally repugnant, distasteful, harmful to the public or professional persona they would like to project, or simply because they don't believe in commercials or endorsements. These choices are no less true for the "anonymous" actors as they are for the public figures. Plenty of commercial actors, for example, would not appear in a commercial on behalf of a tobacco company. But it's nowhere written or implied that these things are done, when they are done, for any reason other than financial remuneration. To believe otherwise is naive about how these things work. I abhor Olive Garden, but if they had approached me to be that "opera singer guy who just loves Olive Garden" in their commercials, I would have taken it in a second and never looked back. It would never have crossed my mind to care that I didn't like their food, and no one who knows anything about commercials would have ever suspected it might be true or cared whether it was -- because that's just not how it's done.

Edited March 7, 2009 by slkinsey (log)

[Holly Moore]

To believe otherwise is naive about how these things work.

Naivete and disagreement are not the same. Having worked in marketing for ten years including a few years as an account supervisor for an advertising agency, I probably have a better understanding of commercials and celebrity endorsement than many on this board.

Better known celebrities receive many more offers than they accept. One way some celebrities screen such offers is how it will affect their image. Another is whether they believe in the product. Another is which pays the best.

For some celebrity endorsers money is not the prime motivator. Sometimes the endorsement is a favor for a business associate or a friend. Sometimes the endorsement is an opportunity for heavy national exposure either to expand one's celebrity or to remind people that one is a celebrity. And sometimes it is all about the money.

I abhor Olive Garden, but if they had approached me to be that "opera singer guy who just loves Olive Garden" in their commercials, I would have taken it in a second and never looked back. It would never have crossed my mind to care that I didn't like their food, and no one who knows anything about commercials would have ever suspected it might be true or cared whether it was -- because that's just not how it's done.

Some opera singers would likely worry if such an endorsement would detract from their credibility - both among their peers and their public - and decide not to associate their image with a faux Italian restaurant chain.

[slkinsey]

Certainly perceived "prestige" and what they feel it would do to their image is part of the consideration that many "celebrities" make in deciding whether to accept an offer for a product endorsement (along with other considerations such as overexposure, dilution, etc.). This is one reason why so many Western celebrities refuse to do commercials or print advertisements in the Western media, but happily take big bucks in Japan and elsewhere in Asia. Whether or not they "really like Diet Coke" is pretty near the bottom of the list, in my experience -- and this is supported by just about all the examples you make (which all, in the end, boil down to money considerations).

As for your little jab... let ms just say that, in my experience, the primary consideration most opera singers would have about appearing in an Olive Garden commercial would be whether or not being associated with the chain would negatively impact their "highbrow" and "luxury-associated" image. This would only apply to the top 1% of 1% (e.g., Placido Domingo, et al.) who are "famous" and making huge money. You take 1,000 tenors working in the regional market, make that offer, and 999 of them will take it. The other one guy missed the message from his manager. Believe it or not, musicians don't generally feel that one's credibility as a performing artist depends upon one's culinary preferences.

Edited March 7, 2009 by slkinsey (log)

[skipper10]

To believe otherwise is naive about how these things work.

Naivete and disagreement are not the same. Having worked in marketing for ten years including a few years as an account supervisor for an advertising agency, I probably have a better understanding of commercials and celebrity endorsement than many on this board.

←

Perhaps you can answer my question although it is not really food realted. I can understand why former president Reagan recorded greeting that sounded every time someone opened the door at a Japanese fair, I suppose he was already overtaken by Alz and Nancy needed money for another red dress. I am not judging them. I am not judging the Doles either, but why would someone with Senator's stature, a highly visible wife, senator active in national politics and no children (ie, no need for extra money for college or weddings or extreme medical care ) would do an ad for Viagra? I would die of shame if my spouse did that...

Colicchio does a coke commercial and a bunch of us foodies take it seriously, but we live in a country that did not consider Reagan and Dole commercials odious.

[Tri2Cook]

why would someone with Senator's stature, a highly visible wife, senator active in national politics and no children (ie, no need for extra money for college or weddings or extreme  medical care ) would do an ad for Viagra?  I would die of shame if my spouse did that...

←

If viagra does what it's supposed to do then it has made life better (or, at least, happier) for a lot of people. Wouldn't bother me to advertise it if I believed in it. Wouldn't be much more difficult for me to advertise it if they showed me the right numbers... whether I actually needed the money or not. It's easy for people to say their endorsement is not for sale when nobody is offering to buy it.

[Holly Moore]

...

As for your little jab... let ms just say that, in my experience, the primary consideration most opera singers would have about appearing in an Olive Garden commercial would be whether or not being associated with the chain would negatively impact their "highbrow" and "luxury-associated" image.  This would only apply to the top 1% of 1% (e.g., Placido Domingo, et al.) who are "famous" and making huge money.  You take 1,000 tenors working in the regional market, make that offer, and 999 of them will take it.  The other one guy missed the message from his manager.  Believe it or not, musicians don't generally feel that one's credibility as a performing artist depends upon one's culinary preferences.

←

Sorry if you took it that way Sam, but my statement

Some opera singers would likely worry if such an endorsement would detract from their credibility - both among their peers and their public - and decide not to associate their image with a faux Italian restaurant chain.

was in response to the point you raised:

I abhor Olive Garden, but if they had approached me to be that "opera singer guy who just loves Olive Garden" in their commercials, I would have taken it in a second and never looked back. It would never have crossed my mind to care that I didn't like their food, and no one who knows anything about commercials would have ever suspected it might be true or cared whether it was -- because that's just not how it's done.

and to my point that not everyone shares the same motivation. In no way was it intended as a personal poke - big or little.

I would also say, using your comparison above, that Tom Coliccho as a chef is closer in stature to one of the top 1% of 1% of chefs as opposed to being just one of 1000 chefs working in a regional market.

My objections leading to my jumping into this thread are some of the positions taken such as:

1. A chef who appears in a commercial is a prostitute selling out for vulgar money.

2. Tom Colicchio couldn't possibly like Diet Coke because a poster doesn't like Diet Coke and therefore Diet Coke is crap.

3. Tom Colicchio was taking a cheap shot at Grant Achatz and is a bad person for doing so.

Many celebrities, including many celebrity chefs have worked extremely hard - paid a lot of dues to achieve their stature. Product endorsements are a perk of celebrity. Of the wide range of sponsors out there, the Coca Cola company is about as powerful and popular a brand name with which one could associate.

And as Grant seems to realize, sometimes a Diet Coke commercial is just a Diet Coke commercial.

In the interest of full disclosure, Diet Coke is my backup soft drink when Canada Dry Diet Ginger Ale is not available - I am speaking to you, US AIR. Diet Coke is an acquired taste, like fine scotch or South Carolina mustard based barbecue sauce, that not everyone is capable of appreciating.

Edited March 7, 2009 by Holly Moore (log)

[slkinsey]

I take exception with those arguments as well, Holly. I simply also believe that Colicchio's primary motivation for doing the Coke commercial is that they gave him a bunch of money for doing so. That said, I don't believe there is anything wrong with that, and I agree with you that being able to get paid for doing things like this Diet Coke commercial are a perk (or rather the just reward) one gets for all the hard work that resulted in his "celebrity" status.

[Miami Danny]

Assertions based on one's stereotypical judgment of a group are wrong as often as they are correct.  Celebrities are not all this or all that.  Celebrities who do commercials are not all this way or all that way.  Many celebrities will only endorse products they believe to be good or, at least, products that will not detract from their image.

Ah, that old, reliable streetwalker comparison.  Damning, trite, so easy to apply, especially when not face to face with the accused - even better when one is anonymous on an internet discussion forum.  How is taking money for endorsing a product the same as taking money for a sexual service?  One is legal, one is not.  One is safe, one is dangerous.  One does not risk the spread of disease, one does.  One society accepts, one society generally finds abhorrent.

Then it is the exchange of services for money that proves prostitution?  Should I expect my doctor to throw in a happy ending with my prostate examination?

←

First-Your touching defense of 'celebrities' is a breath of fresh air in a society that simply does not value celebrities enough.

Second-I think we all know what the word prostitution means. And if not, certainly-as a great Supreme Court Justice once said about pornography-we know it when we see it.

Third-I am not any more or less anonymous than you or anyone else here-but I do think the facts speak for themselves. Someone gives TC money to do or say something that TC would not do or say if someone were not paying him to do or say whatever they are paying him to say. And you know, your average prostitute might really like sex-might have sex all the time for free-but when you do it for money, when you pimp for a product for money, well, as I said, I think we know it when we see it.

Four-Prostitution is illegal therefore wrong is a bad argument. Would you say the same thing about Foie Gras? And prostitution IS legal in some places anyway, just as Foie Gras is.

Five-If you don't think bad food can spread disease faster than prostitution, you haven't been watching the news lately

Six-I don't think there is anything intrinsically wrong with prostitution nor with product endorsement-just as there is nothing wrong with getting paid commensurate with one's experience, hard work, education, etc. They may, however, involve a moral judgement, just one of many we make all the time, that allow us to live with ourselves and our decisions.

[gfweb]

There is an incorrect assumption implicit in many of the posts, namely that getting paid constitutes "selling out" or prostituting oneself.

If one is paid to do/say something that one agrees with, then it is hard to see that as a moral failure. That TC did it isn't a failure, it is just one of the perq's of celebrity.

The question I'm asking myself right now is why I cared enough to post on this issue.....