My first thought when seeing the ad was, "This will be banned in China."
My second thought when seeing the ad was, "That was an extremely clever way of raising (general public) awareness about Tibet on a massive scale while still advertising their service.
The fact some people are angry, and talking about it, is actually a good thing for Tibet. --It's far better than the usual silence.
It might be in poor taste and enable financial gain, but it still does some good... --Then again, having HN blocked in China would be an unfortunate side effect.
I mean, really, who did these anger? I think the media only writes articles saying that these angered people to make people think others are angry. But really, who is angry? It's a commercial.
Edit: Making fun of genocide and deforestation is completely out of line. CEO should have known better, ad agency should have known better, advisors should have known better, VCs should have known better, the list goes on and on.
If it's a choice between ignoring and acknowledging/raising money/pissing people off, at least Groupon is doing something.
Not offending people is a surprisingly ineffective policy for change, believe it or not.
I'm amazed they would degrade their brand that way. Marketing director should be fired immediately, They need to spend way more on charitable donations now than the $3m they spent to insult a variety of popular causes and the people who support them.