Toyota Prius

Ad: Toyota Prius

Controversy: The man is shown dragging a dead body into a swamp, but supposedly this is justified by the fact that he drives a nice car. Critics obviously are not okay with finding any type of justification for a murder.

Verdict: Excusing a murder because he has a nice car? Not okay. The ad is in poor taste, but it's clearly trying to be humorous. Not the best, but it could be worse.

Grade: D+

Marc Jacobs

Ad: Marc Jacobs

Controversy: This ad has obvious sexual connotations, which may have been ignored if Dakota Fanning wasn't under the age of 18. Critics slammed this ad for sexualizing children.

Verdict: It is important to be careful when using children for advertising, especially if the ad is going to be controversial, and using a child in a sexual way is never okay. In Marc Jacobs defense, however, Dakota Fanning was just months away from turning 18 when these photographs were taken, which hardly makes her a child. None-the-less, probably not a good idea.

Grade: D

Dove

Ad: Dove Visible Care

Controversy: While Dove's ad campaign was aimed at banishing stereotypes and stepping out of social norms, this ad rubbed people the wrong way. Critics claimed that the image suggested that being a heavy African American woman was the negative "before" image and being a thin Caucasian woman was the positive "after" image. Dove claimed that all women were supposed to be portraying the positive "after effects."

Verdict: The campaign is trying to show all different types of women and body types, so you have to give Dove credit for that. This one was executed pretty poorly, but I still have to applaud Dove for featuring real women in their ads.

Grade: B-

The Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation

Ad: Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation

Controversy: The ad portrays a little girl sitting in a chair, playing with her doll, and smoking a cigarette. This ad was part of a campaign that ran similar ads with children holding cigarettes. This is controversial because, while the ads portray a metaphor, they still show young children smoking.

Verdict: These ads use a shock factor to show just how dangerous second hand smoke is for children, and has the potential to impact parents in a very real way. All in all, I think the ads are very powerful.

Grade: A

Child Health Foundation (Germany)

Ad: Child Health Foundation

Controversy: This ad's controversy lies in showing a very graphic image of a young girls badly beaten back.

Verdict: Ads like these are not only shocking, but extremely realistic. They portray something that is very real and is happening every day. Ads like these make you want to take action to stop this. I could have gone without the "Scream" face cliche, but other than that, I think this ad is extremely powerful.

Grade: A-

Sony

Ad: Sony PSP White

Controversy: These ads portray a white woman grabbing a black woman by the face. Critics obviously attacked the racial insensitivity of the ads, claiming that the white woman dominating over the black woman was racially inappropriate. Sony defended the ads, claiming that they was no issue of race, but they were merely trying to highlight the contrast.

Verdict: If they were just trying to highlight the contrast, they could have put the two people side by side. In fact, that might have been a better representation. Having the white woman being the strong, domineering one in the picture is just racist.

Grade: F

JC Penney

Ad: JC Penney

Controversy: JC Penney received backlash from some people, including a group called One Million Moms, after hiring Ellen DeGeneres, who is openly gay, as a spokesperson. JC Penney stood by their celebrity endorser, and proceeded to produce ads like this, highlighting gay families and single parents, alongside more traditional families. 

Verdict: This bold move by JC Penney is incredibly brave and respectable. Being one of the first corporations to use gay families in their ads is revolutionary and admirable.

Grade: A+

Burger King

Ad: Burger King 

Controversy: This ad takes sexual connotations to a whole new level. There is nothing subtle about this ad, or what it's trying to imply. 

Verdict: The ad isn't very tasteful or appropriate, and I can see how it would be offensive to some women, but at the end of the day, it's still pretty funny. 

Grade: C+