They should have replaced the mobsters with Rahm Emmanuel and Barney Frank immitators offering "protection." You know, we give you a couple billion of the taxpayers' money and ya shut up and do what you're told. Whoa!

Da boss says we want universal healthcare, control over da car companies, da banks, everyting. And we want unions in every workplace. Got it?

You gotta serve, you know, mandatory for da family (aka da government), and if one of da boys or dolls from ACORN comes knocking, you know what to do. Play nice, or else.

My guess is it's a question of where you pick your battles. There's probably several different factors figuring into this. When considering a particular stereotype to protest, one could ask:

1) How offensive is the stereotype?
2) How far-reaching is the stereotype across various media?
3) Will the protest have an effect?

Conversely, when considering a celebrity ambassador, one could ask:

1) How supportive is the ambassador of our brand?
2) How far-reaching is his influence?
3) Does his ambassadorship have an effect?

Ads, for example, are pretty offensive in my opinion, far-reaching because they're commercials, and easy to influence because advertisers fear a backlash.

The celebrity ambassador in question seems to be a big supporter, has far-reaching influence precisely because he's played stereotypes, and as a result makes an effective ambassador.

Is there a brand-disconnect? That really depends on how the brand is presented, I suppose. The nuance seems to be in how closely connected the stereotype is to making money. As an Italian-American who has a famous relative murdered by the Mob, I consistently find the ads offensive, but Fat Tony makes me laugh.

So yeah, cartoons don't bother me, but ads that perpetuate Italians as thugs does. You can play it up for laughs and I'll laugh with you, but I'd rather you didn't make a quick buck off of my nationality shilling your crappy beer.

I agree with Mr. Rago and the IAHRF. Given the number of bars and restaurants that have been the unfortunate victims of the protection racket, there really is nothing funny about the ad; even if intended as a spoof, the ad instead cuts to a sad truth. It's no joking matter, and the ad further perpetuates a stereotype in the mass media that unfortunately has few portrayals of Italian-Americans without referencing the Mafia. Braun has an ad for an electric razor featuring a supposed Mafia don which I find equally offensive.

For those who think the IAHRF--and MillerCoors--needs to lighten up, actor Frank Vincent, who stars in the commercial, agrees with you.

In a follow-up article in the Chicago Sun-Times, Vincent is quoted saying, "I think both of these groups should have a better sense of humor."

Here's a link to the story: http://tinyurl.com/r2vdcn

I'm an Italian American and have no problem with the stereotypes. The IAHRF needs to lighten up.

With the exception of the "protection" part of this, I grew up with these guys and they were some of my best friends, and this is hardly an exaggeration. Why does everyone need to be offended by this stuff? Does this mean no more mob movies? Pacino and DiNiro have to retire? Scorsese can't film any more pictures? C'mon! It's a pretty funny commercial that seems to be making fun of mob movies and TV characters more than real life.

Kevin, did you watch this commercial and make associations with actual human beings? (If you answered yes, what line of business are you in?)

So if that commercial were a cartoon TV show that wasn't trying to directly motivate people to buy anything then it would be OK? What if DraftFCB had animated the commercial, would it then be OK?

While I understand the point made here, it does seem a little bit apples-and-oranges to me - comparing a depiction by a real human being in advertising to a cartoon person in an entertainment program, a program in which *every single character* is an exaggerated stereotype.

The basic philosophical question of whether stereotyping is ever okay is valid, but there's the secondary question of whether it's more or less harmful in certain places and when done in certain ways. It's far easier to see behavior displayed by an actual human being and to then form associations when we see or hear similar looking or sounding people. (And forming associations is what advertising does--it's all about manipulating behavior.) Whereas I think it'd be a stretch for someone to see Fat Tony and then make associations with actual human beings.

Advertising is the application of psychological tactics applied, sometimes aggressively, to people to change their beliefs and behaviors. Entertainment could be said to do similar things, but for a much less focused purpose.

Maybe it's all relative, but when you consider format, context, and purpose, these two examples seem fairly different to me. I'm not saying either is alright or wrong, but I'm not sure the point of this blog is ultimately valid.

When can we be a little more laid back and understand it's meant to be silly. Why does everyone need to be so uptight and PC? The actor is out to make a living as well and if he thought it was disrespectful to his heritage, I'm sure he would've passed up the role.

Hypocronic, nice.

It doesn't matter to me who the group's celebrity spokesperson is. These mafia characters in commercials are dull and tired. Fat Tony, on the other hand, is funny, and it's done so tongue-in-cheek that Mantegna can get away with it.

But I do like hypocronic.