Is the insurance industry above a little suggestive humor?! Are we not all adults here? Let’s step down from the soap boxes and concentrate on some real issues.
Our industry’s lack of humor notwithstanding, it’s simply inappropriate in a business medium. If the article appeared with the same headline in a consumer publication, the audience reaction might be different. Professional communicators (and I presume that Insurance.com and Insurance Journal both employ some) should know better. End of soap box speech :-).
Did it originate with Insurance.com or did an IJ staffer create it?
Did she consider the sexual connotation and decide the benefits (we did all click to it, after all) outweigh the potential to offend (as has been well documented here.)
Dear reader, I’m the editor who posted this headline — Insurance.com had nothing to do with it. I’m sorry it has caused offense. I was aware of the double entendre but thought it was innocent enough, given the insurance spokesdog context. Perhaps I was wrong.
Part of the function of a headline is to attract attention, though this does not justify poor taste or misleading the reader. I leave it to my colleagues and to our readers to judge whether the line was crossed in this instance.
“Doggy Style” is either a sexual position or that CD by Snoop.
The doggy position (also known in Latin as coitus more ferarum (“sex in the manner of a beast”), in the French language as levrette (“greyhound *****”), in the Italian language as pecorina (little sheep), and commonly referred to as doggy style) is a popular sex position. This position is known as the Union of the Cow in the Kama Sutra.
I saw the title in my email, found it to be more than a bit inappropriate for this particular venue in my own *personal* opinion, and came to the article just to see what people had to say about the title.
Kevin O’Reilly’s response closes the whole topic for me, and I deeply appreciate him taking the time to give it. (But I’d recommend staying on the safe side of the line in the future. ;) )
You’re kidding me right? Apparently the folks who were offended by the headline live in some sort of vacuum, and have nothing to do during the workday. Of all the important happenings in our world and industry we choose to beat our chests over a stupid dog reference? By the way…kudos to the outfit who came up with the headline…brilliant.
The use of sexual inuendo to draw attention is pathetic journalism. It’s only a little bit short of putting a bikini-clad dancing girl on the home page. The ends do not justify the means. Besides, if you’re going to trade in some of your ethics for some attention, you could at least do it on something more noteworthy.
I think the headline wasn’t explicit enough. Since we have a dog reference, I think it would have been better to have referred to the old dog chasing cat metaphor. If we are going to pander, lets PANDER.
I think this is refreshing and adds a nice little spice to a campaign in an industry that may need a little “umph” in order to make it stand out and get noticed. It’s called advertising in America. Very creative. It worked! Nice job. I’m sure the site will be quite successful.
Some say the slogan is genius. Let’s hope this means they’re dropping their former slogan, that because you get a cheap quote for your own malpractice on the internet, that you become an “insurance genius”. Too many peddler hawking policies in real life, we don’t need the internet telling people they can skirt real professional consultation by getting a crappy minimum limits policy and be a genius at the same time.
I’m having a hard time understanding why people are objecting to the headline. Lighten up for Pete’s sake. Doesn’t anyone have a sense of humor out there. Goodness!
Obviously, no editor read that headline too closely. What kind of image were they trying to convey?
of course they read the headline and were trying to convey a message that gets everyone to read it. Has our industry sunk to new low levels?
In very bad taste!!!
Is the insurance industry above a little suggestive humor?! Are we not all adults here? Let’s step down from the soap boxes and concentrate on some real issues.
I found the title to be quite misleading.
A little Cleveland humor goes a long way….especially when dogs are involved!
Our industry’s lack of humor notwithstanding, it’s simply inappropriate in a business medium. If the article appeared with the same headline in a consumer publication, the audience reaction might be different. Professional communicators (and I presume that Insurance.com and Insurance Journal both employ some) should know better. End of soap box speech :-).
The headline itself is neither tasteful or tasteless, it is the readers’ own thought process that takes makes it so.
The origin of common usages is often lost:
“joystick” in aviation or “your turn in the barrel” for example.
Look at all the comments this headline has generated. It accomplished its goal–to get people to follow the link and read the article.
Appropriate? Who knows. But this ain’t no boobygate.
It would be interesting hear what she has to say…
Why did they run such a headline?
Did it originate with Insurance.com or did an IJ staffer create it?
Did she consider the sexual connotation and decide the benefits (we did all click to it, after all) outweigh the potential to offend (as has been well documented here.)
This is, indeed, very interesting!
Dear reader, I’m the editor who posted this headline — Insurance.com had nothing to do with it. I’m sorry it has caused offense. I was aware of the double entendre but thought it was innocent enough, given the insurance spokesdog context. Perhaps I was wrong.
Part of the function of a headline is to attract attention, though this does not justify poor taste or misleading the reader. I leave it to my colleagues and to our readers to judge whether the line was crossed in this instance.
Relax. It got me to click on it, even thought I KNEW it was just a play on words.
Thumbs up from me. Sometimes I need to see a little fun in sometimes a too serious day.
Thanks again Kevin
Thanks, Kevin. Appreciate the response. Sounds fair to me.
“Doggy Style” is either a sexual position or that CD by Snoop.
The doggy position (also known in Latin as coitus more ferarum (“sex in the manner of a beast”), in the French language as levrette (“greyhound *****”), in the Italian language as pecorina (little sheep), and commonly referred to as doggy style) is a popular sex position. This position is known as the Union of the Cow in the Kama Sutra.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggy_style
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggystyle
I saw the title in my email, found it to be more than a bit inappropriate for this particular venue in my own *personal* opinion, and came to the article just to see what people had to say about the title.
Kevin O’Reilly’s response closes the whole topic for me, and I deeply appreciate him taking the time to give it. (But I’d recommend staying on the safe side of the line in the future. ;) )
OOPs…I should not have used the word headline! Lets not go overboard over this, insurance people are such tight a$$es.
Thumbs up to the editor…it sure did get everyone’s attention. I think I’ll get a quote from Insurance.com
You’re kidding me right? Apparently the folks who were offended by the headline live in some sort of vacuum, and have nothing to do during the workday. Of all the important happenings in our world and industry we choose to beat our chests over a stupid dog reference? By the way…kudos to the outfit who came up with the headline…brilliant.
The use of sexual inuendo to draw attention is pathetic journalism. It’s only a little bit short of putting a bikini-clad dancing girl on the home page. The ends do not justify the means. Besides, if you’re going to trade in some of your ethics for some attention, you could at least do it on something more noteworthy.
I think the headline wasn’t explicit enough. Since we have a dog reference, I think it would have been better to have referred to the old dog chasing cat metaphor. If we are going to pander, lets PANDER.
on reading the responses I was fascinated by the positions they adopted Missionary
I think this is refreshing and adds a nice little spice to a campaign in an industry that may need a little “umph” in order to make it stand out and get noticed. It’s called advertising in America. Very creative. It worked! Nice job. I’m sure the site will be quite successful.
Some say the slogan is genius. Let’s hope this means they’re dropping their former slogan, that because you get a cheap quote for your own malpractice on the internet, that you become an “insurance genius”. Too many peddler hawking policies in real life, we don’t need the internet telling people they can skirt real professional consultation by getting a crappy minimum limits policy and be a genius at the same time.
It’s amazing the controversy caused by out of the box advertising.
All I can say is…Work it..Own it!
I’m having a hard time understanding why people are objecting to the headline. Lighten up for Pete’s sake. Doesn’t anyone have a sense of humor out there. Goodness!