This story ran on the Xinhua wire yesterday (hat tip: China Digital Times):

KFC Sullies Chinese Classic

BEIJING, July 15 — Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) is
under fire, for its latest video advertisement depicting an old Taoist
surrounded by his apprentices excitedly holding a chicken burger and claiming it
as a masterpiece. Some cultural experts are criticizing KFC for dishonoring
Chinese history, the China Business Post reported Thursday.

    I haven’t seen a clip of the ad (if anyone has a link, send it along, please), but KFC apparently copied the sets and costumes of a movie, Seven Swords, which recounts the life of, Fu Qingzhu, a Taoist-freedom fighter (the article states, "Fu was a national hero who defended ethnic groups
from invasion in central China during the late Ming and early Qing dynasties.") and, at the critical moment, has him, and his followers chomp down on some fried chicken.

    Here is the controversy:

Yin Cheng’an, a leading Taoist in the Beijing Baiyun
Taoist Temple, said that the old Taoist Fu Qingzhu in the fiction Seven Swords
is a real historical figure, and that it is ridiculous to have Fu recommend
chicken burgers because he and most Taoists are vegetarian and the faith
dictates killing animals is wrong.

…. How Fu is portrayed in the commercial is deemed unacceptable not only by the
Taoist community but also many Chinese.

On the other hand, some people speak highly of the advertisement’s ideas, advocating it successfully followed the popular film and
successfully promotes the new burger among youngsters.

The controversy has raised concerns that Chinese
culture will be further undermined if phenomena like this are not changed.

"In cultural exchanges between China and the western
countries, the latter always appears in a dominant position, and our culture and
traditions are not given full respect," Han Yunbo, a professor of the Southwest
University Literature Department, told the China Business Post.

"This event tells us to better protect our traditions
and to keep them pure against tacky reconstructions," he added.

 First, it is notable that the story copies the usual journalistic formula of discussing two sides of the story ("On the other hand…").  But I want to focus in on Professor Han’s statement. 

    While the ad might offend some religious Taoists (though, if you think about it for a while, if one is really a Taoist, then he or she would likely be detached from such emotion and not engage in being offended….), we are too far down the reform-and-opening road to return to some notion that culture is off limits to advertising.  Yes, there may be some symbols that are held in such high esteem that their commercial use may spark outrage.  Think of the image of Jesus in the US.  But outrage simply becomes a part of a marketing strategy, as Kayne West and Rolling Stone know:

      The problem here is not really one of imperialist power (i.e. Chinese culture not being given due respect).  It is simply what happens as commercial interests come to dominate cultural production.  I am sure Professor Han remembers the famous line from the Communist Manifesto: "…all that is sacred is profaned…all that is solid melts into air."  Get used to it. 

     I don’t think Chuang Tzu would be too upset, however:

….honor and dishonor, slander and praise… such are the transformations of this world, the movements of its inevitable nature.  They keep vanishing into one another before our very eyes, day in and day out, but we’ll never calibrate what drives them.  So how can they steal our serenity…? (75).