BenQ apologizes for WTC ads, kind of

So Ben Chu, BenQ America's President, has apparently sent out an apology letter to people who wrote in to complain about the totally tasteless WTC ad from the other day. While we'd have liked to have seen BenQ be a little more forthright with its apologies and maybe send them to, say, media outlets that covered the flub, at least Ben was kind enough to draft a boilerplate and send it en masse to the offended. Thanks. Text after the break.

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]

[Quoted]
Dear [name],

I am writing to you in response to your email below. BenQ deeply regrets the running of the ad in China. We have taken immediate action to remove it.

BenQ apologizes for the feelings this regretful incident may have caused.

We assure you that we have put a process in place to prevent this type of incident from happening again.

Sincerely,

Ben Chu
President
BenQ USA Corp.

[El Burro @ Dec 6th 2006 2:35PM]

Anyone notice that "I believe", not "I belive"... As if the ad wasn't dire enough already...

[Reginald @ Dec 6th 2006 2:49PM]

No, it's not misspelled. It's perfectly correct Engrish.




(Touch�, Mr. Chu)

[Smilesaurus @ Dec 6th 2006 2:36PM]

Great, now if we can only get everyone else who's exploiting tragedies for profit to apologize ^_^ (*cough*richard mcShotgun*cough*)

[Shawn McClelland @ Dec 6th 2006 2:49PM]

I see no problem with their ad? Why is it taboo to talk about WTC? Heck they made a movie of it. If the movie wasn't up to par, then would people have demanded an apology (some people did)? Bad taste... whatever, I think the cell phone companies are all in bad taste, I demand an apology from all the US cell phone companies!

[Jeff @ Dec 6th 2006 3:00PM]

"I see no problem with their ad? Why is it taboo to talk about WTC?"

Do you not understand the difference between "talking" and "marketing"?

[JRA219psu @ Dec 6th 2006 3:04PM]

are you on some kind of drug? are you not an American?? dude, if you don't see a problem with using one of the greatest tragedies to befall our great nation then you have some serious issues.

[Fancypants @ Dec 6th 2006 7:34PM]

I would argue that making the movie is FAR worse. You are producing a product (the movie) based entirely on the tragedy in order to make profit. Guess what, the movie was marketed! Commercials, posters, magazine ads, celebrity endorsements, you name it. Somehow that is OK, but one bad ad in China sparks an uproar? Priorities people, "justdave" gets it, all you have to do is look around a little for things a hundred times worse than BENQ.

[justdave @ Dec 6th 2006 3:36PM]

It's a bit slack to be using the attacks for financial gain, but it's not like Halliburton KBR, Blackwater, Caci, Titan etc aren't doing the same on a daily basis. But everyone get's upset about Benq? It's really quite depressing. When are the public in the US going to wake up to what's really going on? Watch 'Iraq for Sale' by Greenwald, it's a good place to start.

[Chris @ Dec 6th 2006 7:57PM]

You know that people from other countries can access this site, right? They aren't separate...internets. So potentially, he could possibly be-
*gasp* not an American.

[Kevin @ Dec 6th 2006 3:14PM]

They also put the apology up on their website http://www.benq.com.cn/musiq/

[Christian Martin @ Dec 6th 2006 3:46PM]

It's sort of like stating your opinion about a PMP other than an iPod, or practicing a religion other than Christianity: Those of us without blinders on have our opinions dismissed as irrelevant in favor of the view that carries the most mass appeal.

[pf0t0n @ Dec 6th 2006 4:16PM]

BFD..........it ran on a small Chinese website and they pulled it as soon as they found out about it. I'm guessing this is a slow news week and Engadget doesn't have any better news (or views). So what do you want the guys to do, they pulled it, they apologized.......didn't get the handwritten apology? bummer.

At least most of the posters here have a good sense of proportion and called this non-story for what it is...

[Leoedin @ Dec 6th 2006 4:19PM]

compared with some of the brutal and tasteless stuff you see on TV all the time, I doubt these are really that offensive.

[ECM @ Dec 6th 2006 4:49PM]

justdave: "Watch 'Iraq for Sale' by Greenwald, it's a good place to start."

And out come the conspiracy theories in less than the 1st page. Bravo!

[justdave @ Dec 6th 2006 5:20PM]

ECM - what conspiracy theory? It's a fact that many large US companies (but particularly those I mentioned) are profiting (hugely) off the back of the war. 'Iraq for sale' is a factual documentary about where your (presuming you're from the US) tax dollars are going. Call it a conspiracy if you want, but you're just proving my earlier point in doing so.

[Cory @ Dec 6th 2006 4:49PM]

It would be like Sony running an ad for, say, the MyLo in Israel and it having a bunch of German-looking soldiers goosestepping.

This is why it's a problem.

[Trish @ Dec 6th 2006 4:58PM]

OK...so let's see if I have this right:

BenQ runs one in china, pulls it, and apologizes...Engadget runs the same ad twice (as news?) and feels that's ok?

Come clean here engadget....you guys gonna donate to the wtc fund for every page view on this...or are you guys just making some money off this as well... get real, nothing like hypocracy...

[Mr. Me Too @ Dec 6th 2006 5:09PM]

I don't know why everyone is being so overly sensitive about the ad. Was the WTC being intentionally use to sell the product? I don't see cops, fireman and people running for their lives in the ads. To me it looks like a post apocalypse scene that we offend see. The ad wasn't made for american, so most chinese people wouldn't even recognize it or even care in the first place.

I think it's more offensive with some of the racist comment from the last post.

[Foof @ Dec 6th 2006 5:34PM]

To those who say anyone has a right to show ads with the WTC:

You're right. But by the same token, people have a right to be offended, and to object. And BenQ, which sells products worldwide, has a name and goodwill to protect even if the ad is showed only in China. And to protect the value of their brand and their business, from the potential of something like this getting away, they issued an apology and new policy to make sure they offend as few people as possible.

So chill out. Nobody's saying they can't run these ads if they want. The response to the ad is a business consideration, and given the emotions around it, it was the correct business decision.

[darshanmathew @ Dec 6th 2006 7:08PM]

why exactly do u say this is the wtc ruins? its just a place that got an asswhoopin. insignificance of the ad is .... hmmm. creative ad agency portraying a dumb(?) asian teen.

[Harry @ Dec 7th 2006 1:04PM]

"To those who say anyone has a right to show ads with the WTC:

You're right."

Thanks, Foof. :-)

[lUp @ Dec 6th 2006 5:38PM]

i for my part reside from ever again buying anything from BenQ, mainly because of the things they've been doing here in Germany to the workers at Siemens-Mobile. This ad only ads up to this.

[Tony @ Dec 6th 2006 6:42PM]

I don't get it, what is offensive about this ad? Nobody but engadget said anything about WTC and then other's jumped on board.

I think engadget owes a public apology to benq for jumping to a conclusion - the add says nothing about WTC and I cannot tell that there was any intent to create such an association.

Even if it the pic is of WTC, so what? As a human and an America, I am still not offended, why should I be?

Go back to blogging about cool gadgets, that is the only reason I visit. Leave politics alone unless your are going to grow up.

[Todd @ Dec 6th 2006 7:04PM]

Well said Tony....

[Foof @ Dec 6th 2006 8:11PM]

darshanmathew,

The facade of the WTC wreckage is very distinctive - once you've seen it, it's VERY hard to argue it's just some anonymous wreckage. Just do a google image search on WTC ruins, WTC wreakage, WTC facade, or more directly, check out http://www.sannerud.com/places/WTC/after/WTC-facade.jpg http://www.darleenclick.com/weblog/archives/wtc_ruins.jpg or the front page to http://www.ca911memorial.org/ .

Add the fact that BenQ all but admitted it in their apology - they didn't even try to say it was intended to be some church or other generic scene; it's clear they were evoking the image of the remains of the towers.

But in the end, they apologized, and it was more direct than a lot of other apologies we've seen ("I'm sorry you feel somehow offended") so for me, as far as BenQ is concerned, it's all water under the bridge.

[THEKorean @ Dec 6th 2006 7:22PM]

this thing hasnt even been released in US nor does it seem they even have the intention to (which brings up the question : why the Enlgish ad if they arnt gonna sell the product to us?). But anyways, i so want one.. the BenQ china site dosnt accept major credit cards or paypal, so i guess im never going to get one :\

[Foof @ Dec 6th 2006 8:24PM]

"all you have to do is look around a little for things a hundred times worse than BENQ."

Fancypants,

I can't stress enough how right you are on that last point. However, motion pictures, including documentaries like Fahrenheit 9/11, often have an important, and recognized social and artistic role and objective in American culture - they're protected by the laws and the Constitution of the United States, and despite the popcorn Hollywood fluff that everybody thinks about, they play an important role in educating us, provoking us, and demonstrating what we felt is important in any given point in our history.

The simple fact that BenQ used the WTC isn't what's in controversy. The fact that it was just some unwitting backdrop for the peddling of consumer goods can be, and was, considered insensitive. If instead, they were advertising "The BenQ Tribute to the role of Music and Media Defining 9/11" or even the "BenQ Exposition on the role of America and the West Leading to 9/11," the responses here might have been very different, because the goal, including profit or not, at least would match the movies, books, television shows, and news reports more in making some kind of socially directed statement, pro-US or not.

[Chris @ Dec 6th 2006 8:30PM]

Also, Fancypants, those movies' proceeds went to charities. The production companies made very little profit off those.

[Pal @ Dec 6th 2006 8:33PM]

Ah, a tasteless ad packaged together with a tasteless talk-bubble commentary. The irony.

[JimD @ Dec 6th 2006 10:03PM]

Mike @ Dec 6th 2006 3:05PM
So many idiots so few bullets. The ad had nothing to due with the WTC unless you thought it did. It looks like one of the thousands of buildings bombed out in WW2. And people actually wonder why the rest of the world laughs at us......

You are kidding me right. You can clearly see the piece of one of the WTC building in the center left of the picture. Those that are laughing are laughing at people like you.

[Ben @ Dec 6th 2006 10:51PM]

JimD @ Dec 6th 2006 8:58PM
"You are kidding me right. You can clearly see the piece of one of the WTC building in the center left of the picture. Those that are laughing are laughing at people like you."

Um.. dude. That looks absolutely nothing like the WTC. Until somebody said WTC, that thought never crossed my mind, and even with people saying it, it looks like an old european cathedral wall.

And absolutely NOTHING like the WTC. I mean the only thing they have in common is that it's one side of a wall standing up with windows it. Come on people. That's insane.

But if that's WTC, why is there barb wire. And why would BenQ use that. Doesn't make any sense. I can't imagine them going, "hey let's use the WTC as a backdrop so we can drive off all our American customers." And the fact that they weren't making excuses about it wasn't that they were admitting to it being WTC, it was more like they are sorry that people are taking some random wreckage scene (barb wire?! where is there barb wire in WTC attack?!) is just ri-fucking-diculous. I'm sorry for the profanity, but it really is.

This is quite sad in my opinion.

[Dustin @ Dec 7th 2006 12:21AM]

Ben,

I don't feel one way or another about this story, but I'll have to agree with the others and say that it's definitely a photo of trade center wreckage. It's very distinctive, the architectural design was unique.

-Dustin

[Justin @ Dec 6th 2006 11:21PM]

I don't know why this made everyone so mad. I saw this ad, and WTC didn't even come to mind until someone mentioned it. Everyone needs to just stop being oversensitive, and learn to move on. And what about all the anti chinese racism in America for like the last 40 years. It's okay for us to constantly make fun of them with all the "ching chang" talk, but we can't take it when they put up an ad that MIGHT have been making light of something bad that happened to the U.S.? Ridiculous.

[CaptSaltyJack @ Dec 7th 2006 12:24AM]

For the last time.. that's not the WTC. Compare images of the WTC towers with that building in the ad. It looks nothing alike. Geez.

[Foof @ Dec 7th 2006 12:51AM]

Wow. Are you people even looking at the same ad?

I don't care about your politics, in fact I probably agree (let them run the ad, big f'ing deal). But you can honestly look at the picture, look at WTC wreckage, and say it's not the same thing? Even after BenQ admits it themselves??

Last chance: Take a look at this:
http://img295.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wtczn6.jpg

BenQ ad on the left, WTC photo taken by Ira Sapir in the middle, and pre-2001 on the right.

What are you going to say next, that it's not the WTC because the BenQ wreckage is mirrored?

[CaptSaltyJack @ Dec 7th 2006 12:57AM]

Ahh. I stand corrected. I did a Google images search for the WTC and never saw those curved arches at the base.

[Tony @ Dec 7th 2006 1:39AM]

I find it sad how people that I presume to be American can be so enraged over this incident and believe it is some kind of of Chinese or corporate conspiracy; but will never turn the same critical eye toward their own government. And exactly who did that photo hurt?

For those of you with that attitude that all people of all nations (6.5 billion) should care about 9/11 and further should immediately recognize and refrain from using imagery of a DAMN BUILDING are out of touch.

I regard this attitude as national chauvinism.

[MercWorks @ Dec 7th 2006 9:41AM]

I'm sick of people bashing Engadget for "slow news day" posts ... bugger the fuck off and skip over the ones that are of no interest to you, lamers, and let alone reading all of the goddamn comments (you're doing it right now, AREN'T YOU?!) ...

I thought that selling the 9/11 shit in all of the ways people did was bad from the get-go. Come on, those talentless country singers with their 15 minutes of fame, thanks solely to bleeding-heart Americans willing to listen to bad music simply to indulge in the emotion of tragedy. AWESOME. Point is people have been marketing 9/11 since it happened .... not that that makes it right.

[Cameron @ Dec 7th 2006 4:51PM]

WTC images are sooooo 2001....

[cloud811 @ Dec 7th 2006 9:17PM]

Am I stupided or something...? Because no matter how much I stare at this picture I just see ruins...Where does it say or signify that this is WTC?? And also...the movie can be argued. One side they made a profit from it, which is sick. And on the otherside is there trying to get the real message across to show you the real horrers of what happend. And by the way guys....not everybody on engadget is american. =_= I personaly don't find the picture that offencive...BUT i'm sure i would be pretty pissed if I was american, or if i lost a friend in that attack.

[artifex @ Dec 8th 2006 4:13PM]

I don't think we need to look as far as China to find ads that on the surface exude sympathy over 9/11 but are used to keep an advertiser's name in public view. Every September for the last 5, businesses have put ads in the paper doing the same thing. They just usually say things like 'our hearts go out to,' etc.

Even "proceeds going to charity" doesn't change the exploitative nature of this crap.