Burger King billboard gets diabetes graffiti

201110211203

The Consumerist: "Someone has graffitied this Burger King billboard in downtown Seattle to transform it into criticism about how sugary fast food contributes to diabetes and the obesity crisis."

38

  1. Well done! 

    That bill board was certainly inviting this kind of critical response.  Entree, side, and drink indeed!

    PS: If someone in Seattle could post a link to a high resolution image of this, I’d be extremely grateful.

  2. An elderly gentleman was reportedly seen fleeing the scene on horseback.  Eyewitnesses described him as “portly, folksy, and vaguely walruslike.”

  3. That quote isn’t factual, it should read: sugary food contributes to obesity, and obesity leads to increased risk for diabetes.  The difference is important — particularly to me, given the shitload of sugar I eat every week (accompanied by the necessary exercise).

    Still, the ad is in poor taste given the obesity epidemic, and the graffiti is brilliant.  Well played Sir!

  4. I for one applaud Burger King in their ability to stand up for what they really are.  I think it’s stupid that fast food places try to pretend they are healthy when they are not, like McDonald’s trying to sell salads, and even selling burgers without the buns to get the Atkins crowd.  I applaud the KFC Double Down, and the Burger King ad.  They aren’t trying to hide the truth of what they are.  If you want to go and eat that stuff every day, then you will probably die young.  But the few times I go to Burger King, I order the Double Whopper with cheese and bacon, because otherwise, you might as well not even go there.

  5. Ah yes, rather than add to the discussion, this vandal decided to silence his opposition by vandalizing private property. Way to go!

    1. Token argument as well. He left their entire message, including the logo, in place. How are they silenced? I am pretty supportive of private property, but corporate speech is just . . . commercials.

    2. Ah yes, rather than add to the discussion, this vandal decided to silence his opposition…

      How else do you have a discussion with a billboard?

        1. I’m reasonably sure the person who made that particular counter-point didn’t have a multimillion dollar counter-marketing budget. There’s not a lot of profit to be had in the message “actually, you probably shouldn’t eat that.”

      1. >He didn’t even cover up any messages on the original billbard

        The billbard travels far and wide, singing the praises of his corporate sponsors to the gathered peasants!

  6. The chubbiness of the cheeks coupled with the Xed-out eyes really make this a win.  Had I been the guy who designed the ad in the first place, I’d still be laughing my ass off.

    But man, that entree looks tempting.  I may hit the local BK on my way home tonight.

  7. “silence” was a poor choice of words. Food coma’s suck.

    What I don’t like is when someone tries to silence a critic rather than add to the debate. For example, there were some conservatives back at my university who didn’t like a particular left-wing on-campus magazine. They wanted it shut down or at least prevent on-campus distribution. I had to educate them that that was wrong. They had a right to publish what they did. So instead of trying to shut them down, I encouraged these guys to start their own magazine and put out their own point of view. This elevates the discussion, increases diversity of opinion, and everyone gets to have their say.

    Vandals like the a$$ clown who painted on this billboard are just that, vandals. I don’t care about the billboard, it’s message, or the political points the vandal is trying to make. If he disagrees with the sign, he has a right to his voice, but not to violate another’s property.

    1. Vandals like the a$$ clown who painted on this billboard are just that, vandals. I don’t care about the billboard, it’s message, or the political points the vandal is trying to make. If he disagrees with the sign, he has a right to his voice, but not to violate another’s property.

      Yeah, fuck vandalism.  It’s downright unamerican.

      1. Yeah. People ought to be careful running around supporting vigilantes. We have more Klan rallies in our history than tea parties (although the two do seem to be growing into one . . .) Isn’t it enough to say that the “vandal” here made a point (i.e. furthered the conversation) without obliterating Burger King’s speech?

          1. vigilantes?

            a bit dramatic, don’t you think?

            Well, sure.  This is AdverTerrorism at its most insidious!

            Plus, it’s treasonous against our beloved fast food royalty.  His Majesty is not amused.

    2. Totally irrelevant example. This billboard was not white washed (the equivalent of shutting down the magazine). The billboard was gently modified. Every single person looking at the modified billboard knows exactly what Burger King is saying. Their message is as clear as it was before the vandalism. Given the impracticality of countering billboards with other billboards, this strikes me as pretty harmless activity.

    3. Yes instead of vandalising the billboard that’s driven this discussion and likely many other discussions between people that have seen it, the vandal in question should have decided to start saving his pennies so one day they too could rent a billboard to make his point. Of course, it wouldn’t be allowed to bear the Burger King logo, as that would violate intellectual property.

      I can’t see how anyone could possibly be silenced by following by these rules.

  8. Bloody brill, bro!

    Bust deleterious ads, however you can. It’s one of the most noble forms of vandalism. Culture jamming’s not a style; it’s a weapon.

  9. “What I don’t like is when someone tries to silence a critic rather than add to the debate.”

    Which is exactly what you are trying to do…

  10. Most fast food ads contain two messages. One  is irresponsible, and the other a  responsible explanation. 

    Irresponsible: Eat a complete meal of our only our desserts consisting of an Entree, a side and a drink. (At McDonald’s that would be a burger, fries and pop.) 

    Responsible Answer: We only wanted to send a message that our menu items could be defined in different ways, we never intended this to represent one full meal. That would be just silly, it doesn’t contain all food groups. 

    I believe where they royally screwed up was calling a Sundae an “Entree”. 

  11. This thing, or one just like it, is down the hill from me, I have to see it every day on my commute, and I’m ecstatic to see it defaced. But at least it’s not as bad as the other monstrosity floating around Seattle, the Taco Del Mar cougar billboard.

  12. To those complaining about vandalism, I’d just like to say that huge, corporate billboards like this Burger King ad are vandalizing the earth.   I’m much more offended by that.    (Actually, I’m not offended by the artist’s “vandalism” at all.  It’s hilarious.)

Comments are closed.