Groupon forgot one key thing: Most Americans do NOT “get” satire.

As a society they tend to be very open, friendly, and trusting—which ties in with the sentiments carved on the Statue of Liberty. But this also means that if you say something satirical or sarcastic, you need to give them a wink & a nudge to let them know you don’t really mean what you’re saying.

They like their humour laid out in front of them, with no need to think beyond the top layer to see the true intent beneath. This is why we have such a glut of gross-out comedies & TV shows. You don’t have to think to “get” the humour of a guy getting hit in the crotch with a football, or using ejaculate as hair gel. “The Simpsons” is successful because of its multi-layered humour—with a layer for every taste, from the simple & straight-up to the deep & multi-faceted.

By failing to make it absolutely crystal-clear that the ads were satirical, Groupon set itself up for this debacle.

One small note: I hate to be the typo nazi here, but towards the end you wrote:

You’re about being quirky, irrelevant, and laughing at yourself and the seriousness of life.

I think you meant “irreverent,” right? Because I don’t think too many people or companies want to be about being irrelevant :)

With that said, I think that people discard the notion that humor can actually educate. Humor can put information in front of some people that wouldn’t normally see it.

You also must understand that in many instances, dramatic outcry against attempts at humor like this is distracting from the issue just as much as the humor itself. On the other hand, the offended who outcry may actually be serving a purpose in spreading awareness about the very thing being mocked. The more fuel added to the flame, the more people will pay attention.

This is what Lisa meant by using polarization to get people talking about your brand/an issue. You may say that morally, “we can market better than this” but using an unorthodox approach may actually be better in some instances. Our media desensitizes us to the point that many don’t even pay attention to what goes on anymore. Our news media is numbing. Finding a way to create a conversation (whether or not someone got offended) may do us all some good.

It doesn’t necessarily devalue the Tibetan issue and Lisa’s not arguing that it’s not important, it’s just perspective on how this situation could of been a lot better for Groupon (and even the causes they were trying to promote) if they hadn’t retracted.

The people of Tibet have suffered under occupation – torture, imprisonment, rape, and murder. This is something we want to poke fun at? Would it have been OK to have a Nazi-themed commercial making fun of the Jews? No, this would have been highly offensive. If the argument goes that GroupOn’s ad is OK because it polarizes, then you’re actually arguing that the Tibetan issue is just not that important.

How about an ad with grotesquely fat people, and it’s a GroupOn for a health club? Or a woman that can’t stay in her own lane, and a GroupOn for driving school. NO!

I’m not faux-offended. They just ran a really crappy ad that doesn’t accurately represent their brand (or does it?) At the very least, the ad is in extremely poor taste. At worst, it’s making light of human atrocities a world away. We can market better than this.

Groupon has proven that they are brilliant online marketers. Folks commenting on a blog like this know exactly who they are and may have used their services. Certainly they are aware of the company rebuffing Google.

But the reason to go wide as they did during the Super Bowl was to grow their audience to the mainstream. Kudos for trying. But they had to retract and retrench to avoid being seen as those snarky Internet people who aren’t good businesspeople because the mainstream world likely doesn’t understand Mason, the Groupon model or why the company turned down so much money.

And if their goal wasn’t to raise awareness among mainstream America, they bought the wrong media. I don’t think that happened. The ad wasn’t run to say, “Maybe the online world will laugh so much at our clever spot that they’ll buy even more.” It was run to capture the American market who moved from thinking AOL was the Internet to Facebook is the internet with software called Google.

Just go back to last year’s Read Write Web thread on that month’s new Facebook and how they attracted so many non-marketers. Remember some big percentage of American citizens still believes the President was born in Kenya and the culmination of an elaborate 50 year conspiracy.

And that’s why I think Groupon had no choice.

For those gargantuan brands – those that have passed the levels of acceptability, such as Google, or those running for President – creating polarizing campaigns is the exact opposite of what they want to accomplish. Presidents aim to be left or right, yes, but also as close as humanly possible to the middle to pull in the most votes. At no point does Google offending people potentially make them more remarkable – they have the opportunity to pull in everyone.

To begin, I think this polarization has to occur, and Groupon did that to gain traction. Google was also something that was polarizing. But past that entry to mid-level stage in a business where polarization can actually help the bottom line, it can now negatively impact your great goals.

Groupon has the ability to pull in everyone. They can be Google for that market need. They don’t have to splinter. To polarize is to corrupt potential market share in that instance.

Do I believe that these kinds of things suck? Yes. They absolutely do. But those things that suck and also help the bottom line are frequently on the same side of the balancing beam.

The fact they were raising money for Tibet, whales or rain forest was completely invisible and as such those ads were shocking. I don;t think Groupon should bear all the responsibility for this – The creatives should also face their mistakes.

I also wonder what the “celeb’s” (it’s been a long time since I’ve seen C. Gooding Junior or Elisabeth Hurley in a movie – I mean a good one) ahve thought when they have seen the ads?