Tesco and Asda remove fancy dress costumes

rjsterry

Not sure I buy the idea that Tesco couldn't name the costumes after the film characters. If you look at the tidal wave of Disney-related merchandise, clearly it's not that difficult or expensive to get permission to use trademarked characters. There also plenty of Batman/Spiderman/Bob the Builder/whatever costumes available at similarly cheap prices.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Sketchley wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

The secondary question is do you think the reaction of people is correct to be "outraged" about this? I find the marketing offensive (but as I said not the costume) but I do have first hand expierence of mental health issues. If you don't agree with and I'd quite like to understand your argument why you don't think the marketing was offensive?

As someone has said since this post (and as I hinted in the OP), I don't see how this can be offensive and yet (eg) Hallowe'en and Silence of the Lambs not be. Both were films about psychopathic and violent killers who were mentally ill and at one point or another in hospitals for mentally ill. Both films positively rejoiced in the carnage that such people can leave behind them when rampaging, violently, in the community.

The marketing to me isn't "here's a costume that will make you look like an person who is a mental hospital inpatient", and let's face it, no one would buy it if that were the case. It's "here's a costume that will make you look like Jason/Hannibal Lecter/The Joker". Obviously the makers can't use those names because they're trade marked up the kazoo and they'd be shut down faster than you can slaughter a group of college kids in an unlocked suburban house. But really, how can anyone understand these costumes to be anything other than "dress up like a scary film character". I just don't see how they are either intended, or sensibly could be understood to be "dress up like that slightly odd bloke round the corner in number 37 who has clinical depression and by the way he has a secret desire to go on a axe-wielding killing spree. Just like everyone else who's ever had any form of mental illness".

Interesting. I wouldn't find them offensive if labeled as a Jason/Hannibal Lecter/The Joker costume as it's about that specific character and I do have an issue with them being generic "mental health patient" and "pyscho ward" costumes as it implies all people in them are like this. The argument that an intelligent person knows the difference doesn't wash with me they could have labelled these "Serial Killer Costume" or "Blood Stained Axe Murderer" and the intellegent people would still know they are based on film character there wouldn't be causing any offence in doing so and would stll sell them. At best it's insensative and lazy on the part of the stores / manufacturers.

My last point if someone created Huggy Bear outfit but didn't want to use the name due to copyright, would it be acceptable to call it a "blackman fancy dress costume"?

Probably not, but were it to be labelled "70s Harlem Pimp Costume", you'd pretty readily assume the skin colour of the character, wouldn't you? Likewise, if it's labelled "Serial Killer Costume" or "Blood Stained Axe Murderer" costume, you've not going to assume that the character is mentally normal.

It's pretty obvious (at least to me) that the labels under which the costumes are sold are irrelevant. Equally, the costumes themselves, with or without their marketing, aren't saying "all people suffering from mental illness are violent killers". Getting upset about the labelling/marketing seems to me to be a bit pointless. If there's a genuine issue, it's one about how violent serial killers are portrayed in Hollywood films. Which is something no one's complained about.

As for the use of the word "psycho", I think the pass has been sold on that one courtesy of Hitchcock. Just as Hoover hated it when "hoover" became a generic label for vacuum cleaners, rather than a trade mark identifying vacuums made by Hoover, so "psycho" has become a generic and pejorative description. It's a bit shit, no doubt, if you're now on a psychiatric ward, but life is full of bad luck.

greg66_tri_v2.0

rjsterry wrote:

Not sure I buy the idea that Tesco couldn't name the costumes after the film characters. If you look at the tidal wave of Disney-related merchandise, clearly it's not that difficult or expensive to get permission to use trademarked characters. There also plenty of Batman/Spiderman/Bob the Builder/whatever costumes available at similarly cheap prices.

Bottom line is that yes, it's possible to get the licences, but it's a giant PITA to operate under them. You get done over by QC standards, minimum royalty provisions, minimum contractual terms, accounting obligations, restrictions on use, lawyers' fees in drafting and negotiating licence terms blah blah blah. It all drives your product price up, and these costumes are low quality, wear-once, make once a year pieces of tat that no one wants to spend too much making. It's quicker to produce some knock-off crap.

sketchley

You are of course correct "70s Harlem Pimp Costume" would be less offensive. As would "Serial Killer Costume" or "Blood Stained Axe Murderer" as names for the outfits seen today. That is my point. Most blackmen are not 70s Harlem Pimps therefore to call the costume "blackman fancy dress costume" would be offensive and wrong, simularly most mental patients are not serial killer so to call the custume that is also offensive and wrong.

rjsterry

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Not sure I buy the idea that Tesco couldn't name the costumes after the film characters. If you look at the tidal wave of Disney-related merchandise, clearly it's not that difficult or expensive to get permission to use trademarked characters. There also plenty of Batman/Spiderman/Bob the Builder/whatever costumes available at similarly cheap prices.

Bottom line is that yes, it's possible to get the licences, but it's a giant PITA to operate under them. You get done over by QC standards, minimum royalty provisions, minimum contractual terms, accounting obligations, restrictions on use, lawyers' fees in drafting and negotiating licence terms blah blah blah. It all drives your product price up, and these costumes are low quality, wear-once, make once a year pieces of tat that no one wants to spend too much making. It's quicker to produce some knock-off crap.

The volume of Disney Princess branded tat accumulating in my house says it's not actually *that* difficult.

lockstock666

What did the charities get out of it? A "sizable donation" and their name in the news and a chance to spout some rubbish about offence.

What did Asda get out of it? Lots of news time and the chance to spout how they regret the incident and wish to give a donation.

For the rest of us (those with a soul at least) the amusement that it was a careless oversight, I don't actually think it is newsworthy.

DonDaddyD

Kieran_Burns wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

My personal view is that it is offensive.

Mental health carries a huge stigma, born from ignorance - as demonstrated by some of the responses in this thread, what the name of the costume suggests is that is a depiction of a personwho receives mental health services.

It is insensitive and unkind.

The problem being Don is that you do not know the background of the people making the jokes. Which displays your own ignorance and readiness to judge others unfairly.

Utter nonsense, just because you may have had a bout of poor mental health, you may have been a mental health patient for decades, it does not absolve you of the ignorant comments you made earlier.

tailwindhome

I'm inclined to side with the charity on this one.

Part of the problem with the overwhelming desire to be offended is that genuine issues like this get lost in the mire. This is further compounded by the cheap apologies.

Daz555

Nowt wrong with the costumes themselves - the names are problematic. The one called "mental patient" is very shocking. What muppet thought it was ok to call it that?

Kieran_Burns

DonDaddyD wrote:

Utter nonsense, just because you may have had a bout of poor mental health, you may have been a mental health patient for decades, it does not absolve you of the ignorant comments you made earlier.

Wait? What?

So saying something like "I'm a cured schizophrenic but where am I now when I need me?" is offensive and ignorant?

Really?

DonDaddyD

I actually don't want to argue about this. If you say something ignorant, then being called ignorant doesn't make the person calling you ignorant, ignorant simply because they didn't know your history. Having a history that ties you to the thing you are being ignorant about doesn't absolve you from it.

I actually agree and disagree with Greg_66_v2_tri or whatever he is now.

il_principe

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I always think it odd that people get outraged about supposed fake outrage.

If you don't feel strongly about mental health issues, then I have no clue how this story can affect you at all.

Well, I see it as an example of two large organisations rolling over in response to adverse social media reaction, rather than saying "Hold on. Back up. We don't think this is offensive, and our argument is x/y/z".

Rolling over as soon as the twat-o-sphere starts to twitch strikes me as a quick way to set yourself up as an easy target.

OTOH - 'Never argue with an idiot' probably applies here.

Mikey23

Another concerned professional here. Offensive and insensitive.. I'm not quite sure how anyone could argue otherwise

stu-bim

Daz555 wrote:

Nowt wrong with the costumes themselves - the names are problematic. The one called "mental patient" is very shocking. What muppet thought it was ok to call it that?

Probably the manufacturer. Costumes made in a non English speaking country and a lot lost in translation

Mikey23

Don't get this Halloween industry that's built up over the last few years. New ways by supermarkets to fleece the punters by celebrating evil.

tailwindhome

http://news.uk.msn.com/trending-blog/te ... ts-website

pinno

I am not of the PC vein. I do work with adults with mental health problems. The social stigma and ignorance towards mental health problems is so distorted and unrealistic, it puts added pressure on people who do suffer from one psychological ailment or another. It is particularly bad in small communities - people are tarred with he same brush and can never shed the labels that are so candidly and vicariously handed out.
In the 8 years doing what I do, I have yet to come across a person with a mental health issue who has a tendency to violence. In fact, they tend to be over sensitive - probably more so that the general public.
Why they couldn't have labelled the costumes without reference to psychological tendencies, I have no idea.

Kieran_Burns

Mikey23 wrote:

Don't get this Halloween industry that's built up over the last few years. New ways by supermarkets to fleece the punters by celebrating evil.

Where on Earth do you get the idea that All Hallows Eve has ever been about celebrating evil???

rolf_f

Well I stopped going into Asda when they started selling black pudding.

cornerblock

Rolf F wrote:

Well I stopped going into Asda when they started selling black pudding.

And as a northerner did you find the costume offensive?

Stevo_666

Sketchley wrote:

Possibly the most offensive thing is the price - £20 for that tat...

rolf_f

Cornerblock wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Well I stopped going into Asda when they started selling black pudding.

And as a northerner did you find the costume offensive?

Hang on a moment, I find your implication offensive - that's what we all wear up here!

daviesee

Can someone please supply a list of people that we can make fun off for the sake off clarity?

MisterMuncher

People who can't tell "of" from "off".

daviesee

MisterMuncher wrote:

People who can't tell "of" from "off".

That open's it up too quite a few! :P

rolf_f

daviesee wrote:

MisterMuncher wrote:

People who can't tell "of" from "off".

That open's it up too quite a few! :P

Steady on, you're over egging the joke!

daviesee wrote:

Can someone please supply a list of people that we can make fun off for the sake off clarity?

I think basically nobody. Except possibly white, middle class males who are in no way classifiable as a minority in respect of any part of their physical and mental status nor in terms of any interests they may have.

daviesee

Rolf F wrote:

I think basically nobody. Except possibly white, middle class males who are in no way classifiable as a minority in respect of any part of their physical and mental status nor in terms of any interests they may have.

That'll be me then.
Although some may argue otherwise.

rolf_f

daviesee wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

I think basically nobody. Except possibly white, middle class males who are in no way classifiable as a minority in respect of any part of their physical and mental status nor in terms of any interests they may have.

That'll be me then.
Although some may argue otherwise.

Excellent. Just to let you know, I'm laughing at your expense right now.

simonhead

daviesee wrote:

Can someone please supply a list of people that we can make fun off for the sake off clarity?

4x4 drivers that are confused by the off road nature of their vehicle, anyone driving a goods vehicle, the French and men with girls names and vice are all fair game.

ballysmate

I'm in two minds about this.