Talk:Jeppson's Malört

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Chicago (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-Class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
WikiProject Spirits    (Inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirits, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
 

Marketing joke and boycott[edit]

In the last few days there have been some edits such as this one, saying that the Jeppson's marketing team made some April Fools jokes about rape, and that as a result there is a boycott of Jeppson's Malört. The reference that's been provided is a photo of the April Fools ad, showing fictional Malört wine coolers, one of which is labeled "G"RAPE. That in itself does appear to be a joke about rape, but it does not substantiate that there were jokes by the marketing team about "the use of Jeppson's Malört in inducing rape", and it doesn't substantiate that there's a boycott. What's needed are reliable sources for those statements, showing their verifiability. I did a google search to try to find some, but all I came up with were two references to the ad itself, without any rape-joke related commentary: this one on Chicagoist, which is the source of the image referenced in the article, and this one on Zagat, also just showing the joke itself. On the Chicagoist page, people have posted comments complaining about the rape joke, but comments posted by readers on a web site are generally not considered reliable references. So, in my view, for that material to remain in the article, there would need to be one or more reliable references that verify what it actually says -- that the marketing team joked about using Malört in sexual assaults, and that there's a boycott. Of course, other editors are encouraged to give their opinions here. Mudwater (Talk) 01:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mudwater,
I'm new to this, so sorry if I'm not using correct syntax.
A little background; this occurred through facebook. The listing has since been taken down by Malort probably due to overwhelming backlash. Being a fan of Malort on facebook, I was privy to it. The person running the Malort site, throughout the thread, argued pretty extremely and offensively with those that didn't care much for the ad. After spending the day deleting postings and outright banning most women, no official apology was given. Several organizations, including a few that I'm a part of, have put in motion some pretty large plans in the coming weeks to make the public more aware of the incident. Several bars we've been in contact with have already agreed to take Malort off the shelves. The update might have been premature, but it's still happening. The information is not "bad". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegandork (talkcontribs) 02:02, 4 April 2013‎ (UTC)
I believe you, but as things stand now I think we don't have any reliable references for adding this to the article. If this story gets picked up by any news sources -- like RedEye, Chicago Reader, Windy City Times, or something along those lines -- that would be different. Mudwater (Talk) 02:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi All.

I too was upset about the post on April 1st and emailed their company website. They took a few days to reply, but their response was okay and they owned up to some things they failed to do on facebook and twitter. I'm not sure who sent the email but I can post it below for you to see. I've been drinking the stuff for years and I can only assume the old woman who owns the company had no idea about the post and whoever did, it looks from the letter that they got chewed out or worse. That's why I made my edit. That said, here's the letter, take a moment and read it:

Dear Mr. XXXXXXXX,

I visited the link you posted in response to a message thread and it looks as though this may be the best way to get a hold of you. Thank you for posting these links and making yourself available for contact.

We would like to offer a full apology to anyone we hurt with the image we posted on April 1st. Rape is not funny in any context, so attempting to utilize it for satire was nearsighted, insensitive and shameful. While the word "rape" and the act of rape are distinct and different, we have now come to the realization that the word itself will inevitably lead anyone who has been affected by this appalling act of violence to relive this unfathomable trauma, and for that; there is no apology great enough.

We genuinely value your feedback and your comments and we will make certain that everyone under our employ does as well. Those who do not, will be no longer work for this company. Period. This will never happen again and we will strive to become better people to deserve your business or favorable consideration, if you will allow it.

Sincerely, The Employees of Carl Jeppson Co. — Tiberiusjim (talk) 08:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jeppson's Malört. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)