While the "Darth Vader Kid" ad did not win our Least Shitty Ad award during the 2011 Super Bowl, it certainly was in no danger of winning one of the bad awards. Nor was this year's follow-up, which for most of its length is actually pretty good and might have contended for Least Shitty Ad. Then it takes a turn. Thus, we present:
The Ian Malcolm Memorial "Your Scientists Were So Preoccupied with Whether or Not They Could, They Didn't Stop to Think If They Should" Award
And your winner... that's right, it's Volkswagen!
This ad is a minute long. For the first, oh, 42 seconds, it is at least passably amusing and certifiably adorable. The fat dog is getting himself into shape! It's cute. Sure, it's barely an ad for the car, but we at least see the car, and VW is really counting on the fact that people are generally familiar with the Beetle anyway. Really, so far, so good.
Unfortunately, ads aren't 42 seconds long. It's at this point that we pull out to reveal that the first 42 seconds were actually being watched on a TV in the Mos Eisley cantina from Star Wars (I guess ads are 42 seconds long in galaxies far, far away). And then we get this nonsense:
Evazan: "That was great!"
Ponda Baba: [grunting noises]
Evazan: "No, the dog is funnier than the Vader kid." [begins to choke]
[Darth Vader, across the way, is Force-choking Evazan; finally he relents]
Evazan: "Sorry."
[Vader storms out]
And, scene.
Look, I like Star Wars. I only had to look up one of those character names, even. But what was the point of this? The ad with the dog has nothing to do with Star Wars, nor did it need to. And make no mistake about it, Volkswagen wants you to associate this ad with dogs AND Star Wars - just look at the teaser they put out a couple weeks before the Super Bowl:
Volkswagen is hardly the first advertiser to call back to a commercial of theirs that was popular in a previous year. Really, it happens all the time. But that doesn't make it funny when there's no legitimate tie-in anywhere to be found. All I get from this ad is that VW thought, "Hey, we've already got the rights to use the Star Wars characters in our ads... let's do it again!" But then they couldn't think of anything else to do with them, so they just had two super-fringe characters step in to editorialize on the unrelated ad they'd already created.
Hence why VW gets this additional, made-up award: for doing something that they COULD do without apparently ever stopping to ask whether they SHOULD do it. As much as I like Star Wars, it isn't inherently funny. Volkswagen would do well to remember that.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Baby, baby, baby, no
As usual, there were other ads from the Super Bowl that we easily could have mentioned, and just didn't quite have room for. That doesn't mean they're off the hook. Over the next few days, I've got a few additional "awards" to hand out.
The Chris Hansen "What are You Doing Here?" Award for Most Inappropriate Use of Underage Characters
And the award goes to... E*TRADE!
This is a fairly innocuous commercial - certainly by E*TRADE's low standards - but oh boy, then it gets to the end.
Dad: "I look at her, and I just wanna give her everything."
E*TRADE Baby: "Yeah, you know, 'everything' can cost upwards of [whistle]."
Dad: "I did not wanna think about that."
It really sucks the way stuff costs money and stuff.
E*TRADE Baby: "Relax, relax, relax - look at me, look at me. Three words, Dad: E*TRADE financial consultants."
Dad: "So I can just go talk to 'em?"
E*TRADE Baby: "Just walk right in and talk to 'em. Dude, those guys are pros. They'll hook you up with a solid plan... they'll-"
So far, so boring. Hey, the commercial's almost over! We're 21 seconds in! What could possibly ruin this?
E*TRADE Baby: "Wait, wait, wait a minute. Bobby? Bobby, what are you doing, man?"
Bobby: "I'm speed-dating!"
See, it's funny, because... um... there's a bunch of newborn girl infants lying prone in their bassinets, and this older boy infant is walking around... like... trying to hit on them? That's the... joke...
OH MY GOD THIS IS SO FUCKING DISGUSTING.
E*TRADE, what the fuck is wrong with you? I can maybe forgive babies watching animal mating videos, but you've already had an ad featuring a baby cheating on his baby girlfriend with a slutty, "milkaholic" baby, and now this shit. Given that the girl babies in this ad don't get to talk or move, and that this is happening in full view of one of their fathers, I'm going to go ahead and call this the worst one yet. How much lower can they even go? Anything worse than this I don't think you could even show on television. I'm no big fan of M.I.A. and I had no use for her flipping the bird during the halftime show, but how is that more offensive than E*TRADE implicitly discussing the sex life of babies year after year??? Time to step in, FCC.
The Chris Hansen "What are You Doing Here?" Award for Most Inappropriate Use of Underage Characters
And the award goes to... E*TRADE!
This is a fairly innocuous commercial - certainly by E*TRADE's low standards - but oh boy, then it gets to the end.
Dad: "I look at her, and I just wanna give her everything."
E*TRADE Baby: "Yeah, you know, 'everything' can cost upwards of [whistle]."
Dad: "I did not wanna think about that."
It really sucks the way stuff costs money and stuff.
E*TRADE Baby: "Relax, relax, relax - look at me, look at me. Three words, Dad: E*TRADE financial consultants."
Dad: "So I can just go talk to 'em?"
E*TRADE Baby: "Just walk right in and talk to 'em. Dude, those guys are pros. They'll hook you up with a solid plan... they'll-"
So far, so boring. Hey, the commercial's almost over! We're 21 seconds in! What could possibly ruin this?
E*TRADE Baby: "Wait, wait, wait a minute. Bobby? Bobby, what are you doing, man?"
Bobby: "I'm speed-dating!"
See, it's funny, because... um... there's a bunch of newborn girl infants lying prone in their bassinets, and this older boy infant is walking around... like... trying to hit on them? That's the... joke...
OH MY GOD THIS IS SO FUCKING DISGUSTING.
E*TRADE, what the fuck is wrong with you? I can maybe forgive babies watching animal mating videos, but you've already had an ad featuring a baby cheating on his baby girlfriend with a slutty, "milkaholic" baby, and now this shit. Given that the girl babies in this ad don't get to talk or move, and that this is happening in full view of one of their fathers, I'm going to go ahead and call this the worst one yet. How much lower can they even go? Anything worse than this I don't think you could even show on television. I'm no big fan of M.I.A. and I had no use for her flipping the bird during the halftime show, but how is that more offensive than E*TRADE implicitly discussing the sex life of babies year after year??? Time to step in, FCC.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Super Bored Awards V
Four years ago, the Giants and Patriots met in the Super Bowl, and we published our first Super Bored Awards. This year, the Giants and Patriots met in the Super Bowl again, and here we are with the fifth installment of our yearly look at the worst of the Super Bowl ads. It was sort of a dull year for Super Bowl ads, but I feel like I say that every year, so let's just dispense with the pleasantries. Even if this year's crop of ads wasn't thrillicious, it sure didn't leave us wanting.
The Apple 1984 Memorial Award for Least Shitty Ad
Winner: Pepsi Max
Quivering: Well, we named this award "Least Shitty Ad" for a reason. And this year, perhaps more than ever, it was a real struggle to find an ad we didn't hate. Pepsi has had quite a few of these Pepsi/Coke delivery guy ads (and they've used "Your Cheating Heart" before, too). It's not a bad idea - at least it has a product-based message. This particular version speaks to product benefits as well as product differentiation (lots of Pepsi taste, no calories, better than Coke Zero). The ending is relatively funny - the cameo with Regis is a little over the top, but given the fact that this is the Super Bowl, you have to expect something like that. Overall, it's a fine effort. The Camry Effect commercial was well done, but not quite believable, and the brown M&M commercial was okay, but still goofy (and we're just not fans of that whole M&Ms as living creatures concept). Overall, Pepsi Max edged out the weak competition to win Least Shitty Ad - but don't feel too good for PepsiCo until you read all the way to the end.
Most Overproduced Ad
Winner: Chevrolet
Windier: In the run-up to the Super Bowl, Ford got pissed and demanded that NBC and/or GM pull this ad, though it obviously didn't happen. You can see why they might have been upset. You can also see what makes this ad overproduced. Look at how much must have been spent on set design. And to what end? The commercial really says nothing about Chevy trucks. I know they describe themselves as "the most dependable and longest-lasting" but anyone can toss out adjectives like that, especially when it depends on what standard you're applying (in its beef, Ford claimed that it had more trucks with 250,000+ miles on them still on the road than any other automaker). It basically comes down to Chevy calling its trucks apocalypse-proof (a silly, unsupportable assertion) and taking a cheap shot at Ford. Was that really worth the effort?
Also, where are the wives/children? Or is there just something else going on here that I don't really want to know about? "Where's Dave? He knew we needed six guys for the ideal post-apocalyptic circle-jerk! Man, now I'm going to have to stand all funny."
Cheapest Budget/Clumsiest Execution Award
Winner: TaxACT
Quivering: Around 30 years ago, a young Will Shortz (well before he was crossword editor at the New York Times) submitted a puzzle he had constructed to the NYT editor at the time, a stodgy, mustachioed relic named Eugene T. Maleska. Shortz's crossword was rejected because it had the word "belly button" in the grid. Maleska felt that people doing the crossword puzzle while sipping their morning coffee would find the mental image of a belly button to be objectionable. Well, times have changed and now the navel plays a much more agreeable role in our society. But do you know what doesn't play an agreeable role in our society? Urine. Urine isn't fun to think about at any time. Which is why TaxACT's concept for this commercial is such a head-scratcher.
This commercial certainly looked cheap, but it was its crude toilet humor that sealed its selection for clumsiest execution. I just can't believe that there wasn't a better idea for a commercial about a tax filing website. What people will remember about TaxACT, if they remember anything at all, will be "Oh yeah, the kid who peed in the pool." It won't be "free tax return" or "no restrictions, rebates or gimmicks", or "TaxACT is the best tax site." It'll just be "piss." Please tell me how that's going to help anyone.
Worst Use of "Humor" Award
Winner: Acura
Windier: Several years ago, my (now infrequent) co-author Quivering wrote one of my favorite posts on this site, about maybe the worst ad we've ever covered: the Jerry Seinfeld/Bill Gates laugh-a-minute extravaganza for Microsoft. A decade removed from his heyday, Seinfeld was excruciatingly unfunny in the ad, leading me to write the following in the comments:
"I can't decide whether Seinfeld himself has become impossibly unfunny over the last ten years... or whether it was the brilliant, brilliant minds at CPB who wrote the awful Seinfeld-style ersatz comedy in this ad that makes him sound like a terrible parody version of himself."
Well, having seen Seinfeld in this year's Acura ad, I think we have our answer, and for once, Crispin Porter & Bogusky aren't to blame. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Seinfeld wrote this commercial himself. But there's something extremely sad about watching him try to relive past glories with graying hair and a delivery that simply lacks the pop it had when he was doing a pretty good series of American Express commercials in the late 90s. Also, when an ad has "web extras," that's almost never a good sign.
Why, just look at all the hilarious quips that had to be cut - CUT! - from the final product! I'm pretty sure Seinfeld's laugh at the end of that video is one of the few this spot earned from anyone, anywhere. You have to do more than trot out ancient pop culture references to be funny - just ask Matthew Broderick and Honda. The cherry on top of this bowl of shit masquerading as a sundae, however, is the sudden appearance of Jay Leno, a man who has actually gone longer since last being funny than Seinfeld himself has. Why is he there, anyway? I know he's a car buff, but does anyone care about that? If Seinfeld was going to echo the "Newman!" line, wouldn't it have been at least as funny to have Wayne Knight show up? I'm pretty sure he would have come more cheaply than Leno.
All right, enough about this garbage. Ah, one more.
Frankly, Seinfeld probably did come up with most/all of this material himself. And it's terrible. The best part is that NO ONE IN THE COMMERCIAL THINKS HE'S FUNNY, and he's trying to impress them. Meanwhile, I'm sitting at home, getting more and more tired of him. Money well spent, Acura. I guess when you're selling a car that doesn't really exist yet, there's only so much you can do.
Flimsiest Pretense Award
Winner: TeleFlora
Quivering: The reason this goes to Teleflora, and not Fiat (which basically ran the same ad), is that Fiat at least had a modicum of irony (at the very end). Teleflora's commercial is just a balls-to-the-wall fuckfest. "Give and you shall receive," "Happy Valentine's night," images of lipstick application and stilettos - this is the commercial equivalent of a porno that starts with a pizza delivery guy knocking at the door. Teleflora's subtlety reminded me of this recent South Park. Even within the context of Super Bowl ads, Teleflora makes GoDaddy commercials look like Bronte novels. And also? Everyone knows that diamonds are the only surefire way to get that blow job.
The Carlos Mencia Book Prize for Most Egregious Use of B-List Celebrities
Winner: Skechers
Windier: There were a lot of potential candidates here, really - Century 21's use of Donald Trump, Apolo Ohno and Deion Sanders made for another good one - but I couldn't turn down Skechers solely for how gratuitous, pointless and just plain lame theirs was. Mark Cuban, really? That was your best idea for a coda? And "What do you mean you want a new contract?" is a crushingly unfunny joke. Having the chubby dog turn out to be owned by an actual athlete would have been more clever, though I guess most athletes already have shoe deals with companies whose athletic shoe brands are slightly more valuable than Skechers'. Then, of course, there's the idea that Skechers is comparing its customers to tubby bulldogs... but then we're no longer talking about pointless semi-celebrity cameos.
The Bad Idea Jeans Award for Most Epic Miscalculation
Winner: Bud Light
Knitwear: While this is nowhere near the level of the ad we created this award for (last year's Groupon disaster), it is kind of a bummer that Bud Light is championing a great cause like adopting a rescue dog by implying that the best thing to do with a free, mangy orphan puppy is to turn it into your personal beer slave, Manchurian Candidate-style. I know this ad is supposed to seem fun, but I just feel sad for the dog. He's been so heavily conditioned that he can't even tell the difference between someone calling "Here, Wego!" and someone just yelling out "Here we go," forcing him to roll in a keg at least twice his size just to accommodate the latest round of partygoers. Talk about a dog that could stand to be rescued!
SkyMall Championship Trophy
Winner: Toyota
Quivering: The Skymall Trophy is all about the weirdest attempt to sell a product. Toyota just blew everyone out of the water to take the crown this year. This commercial makes no sense, on any level. We learn not one thing about this "reinvented" Camry. Not one thing. After they show the car, the next 26 seconds are just nonsensical reinventions that A) are not funny (which was clearly the goal of this commercial) and B) have nothing to do with marketing an automobile. Here are just a few thoughts on the "reinvented" products Toyota made up:
* How is a baby that's also a time machine helpful (or funny)?
* The reinvented DMV is just a regular DMV, even staffed by surly, unhelpful federal employees - the only difference is that it's stocked with various time-wasting attractions. Shouldn't a truly reinvented DMV be one that is so efficient you could just walk in and walk right back out (without having to spend time on a mini golf course or at a petting zoo)? Or how about just putting the whole DMV online?
* Reinvented rain that makes you thin just has too many problems to enumerate.
Congratulations, Toyota, on making a commercial that is unfunny, painfully bizarre, and unrelated to your product. Hey, maybe you can start pitching some of those reinvented products to the SkyMall catalog - it might just be a perfect fit.
Worst Super Bowl Ad of 2012
Winner: Pepsi
Windier: If not for Ben Kingsley's appearance in The Love Guru, Elton John would have provided us with the most embarrassing acting role by someone knighted by the Queen of England. But it's not really his fault, aside from accepting the part, since this ad was clearly doomed from the start. What a mishmosh. Elton vamping, a bizarre use of the not-at-all-dated "Hot in Herre," a thoroughly pointless Halle Berry cameo (seriously, why is she even there), an excruciatingly unlistenable dance remix of "Respect" from some woman who won "The X Factor" last year, the nonsense premise of a monarchy based on Pepsi rationing, what seems like a weak homage to Apple's 1984 ad... this isn't an ad, it's like the physical manifestation of one of the clubs described by Stefon.
The icing on the cake is the Flavor Flav cameo that literally has nothing to do with anything. If Flavor Flav had been the first act in the ad, maybe his presence down there would make some sense. Instead it comes completely out of nowhere and clearly signifies Pepsi going for the cheapest laugh there is. (That's right - I hereby declare that "the pointless, otherwise joke-free presence of a goofy B-list celebrity" is a cheaper laugh than "the nut shot.") It's lame, it evidences no thought on the part of the people who wrote this ad, and most importantly, it isn't funny in spite of the fact that it's clearly supposed to be. I would rather hang out with the Coke polar bears and risk getting mauled than watch this shit again. Congratulations, Pepsi: your insane fever dream is the worst ad of the 2012 Super Bowl.
The Apple 1984 Memorial Award for Least Shitty Ad
Winner: Pepsi Max
Quivering: Well, we named this award "Least Shitty Ad" for a reason. And this year, perhaps more than ever, it was a real struggle to find an ad we didn't hate. Pepsi has had quite a few of these Pepsi/Coke delivery guy ads (and they've used "Your Cheating Heart" before, too). It's not a bad idea - at least it has a product-based message. This particular version speaks to product benefits as well as product differentiation (lots of Pepsi taste, no calories, better than Coke Zero). The ending is relatively funny - the cameo with Regis is a little over the top, but given the fact that this is the Super Bowl, you have to expect something like that. Overall, it's a fine effort. The Camry Effect commercial was well done, but not quite believable, and the brown M&M commercial was okay, but still goofy (and we're just not fans of that whole M&Ms as living creatures concept). Overall, Pepsi Max edged out the weak competition to win Least Shitty Ad - but don't feel too good for PepsiCo until you read all the way to the end.
Most Overproduced Ad
Winner: Chevrolet
Windier: In the run-up to the Super Bowl, Ford got pissed and demanded that NBC and/or GM pull this ad, though it obviously didn't happen. You can see why they might have been upset. You can also see what makes this ad overproduced. Look at how much must have been spent on set design. And to what end? The commercial really says nothing about Chevy trucks. I know they describe themselves as "the most dependable and longest-lasting" but anyone can toss out adjectives like that, especially when it depends on what standard you're applying (in its beef, Ford claimed that it had more trucks with 250,000+ miles on them still on the road than any other automaker). It basically comes down to Chevy calling its trucks apocalypse-proof (a silly, unsupportable assertion) and taking a cheap shot at Ford. Was that really worth the effort?
Also, where are the wives/children? Or is there just something else going on here that I don't really want to know about? "Where's Dave? He knew we needed six guys for the ideal post-apocalyptic circle-jerk! Man, now I'm going to have to stand all funny."
Cheapest Budget/Clumsiest Execution Award
Winner: TaxACT
Quivering: Around 30 years ago, a young Will Shortz (well before he was crossword editor at the New York Times) submitted a puzzle he had constructed to the NYT editor at the time, a stodgy, mustachioed relic named Eugene T. Maleska. Shortz's crossword was rejected because it had the word "belly button" in the grid. Maleska felt that people doing the crossword puzzle while sipping their morning coffee would find the mental image of a belly button to be objectionable. Well, times have changed and now the navel plays a much more agreeable role in our society. But do you know what doesn't play an agreeable role in our society? Urine. Urine isn't fun to think about at any time. Which is why TaxACT's concept for this commercial is such a head-scratcher.
This commercial certainly looked cheap, but it was its crude toilet humor that sealed its selection for clumsiest execution. I just can't believe that there wasn't a better idea for a commercial about a tax filing website. What people will remember about TaxACT, if they remember anything at all, will be "Oh yeah, the kid who peed in the pool." It won't be "free tax return" or "no restrictions, rebates or gimmicks", or "TaxACT is the best tax site." It'll just be "piss." Please tell me how that's going to help anyone.
Worst Use of "Humor" Award
Winner: Acura
Windier: Several years ago, my (now infrequent) co-author Quivering wrote one of my favorite posts on this site, about maybe the worst ad we've ever covered: the Jerry Seinfeld/Bill Gates laugh-a-minute extravaganza for Microsoft. A decade removed from his heyday, Seinfeld was excruciatingly unfunny in the ad, leading me to write the following in the comments:
"I can't decide whether Seinfeld himself has become impossibly unfunny over the last ten years... or whether it was the brilliant, brilliant minds at CPB who wrote the awful Seinfeld-style ersatz comedy in this ad that makes him sound like a terrible parody version of himself."
Well, having seen Seinfeld in this year's Acura ad, I think we have our answer, and for once, Crispin Porter & Bogusky aren't to blame. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Seinfeld wrote this commercial himself. But there's something extremely sad about watching him try to relive past glories with graying hair and a delivery that simply lacks the pop it had when he was doing a pretty good series of American Express commercials in the late 90s. Also, when an ad has "web extras," that's almost never a good sign.
Why, just look at all the hilarious quips that had to be cut - CUT! - from the final product! I'm pretty sure Seinfeld's laugh at the end of that video is one of the few this spot earned from anyone, anywhere. You have to do more than trot out ancient pop culture references to be funny - just ask Matthew Broderick and Honda. The cherry on top of this bowl of shit masquerading as a sundae, however, is the sudden appearance of Jay Leno, a man who has actually gone longer since last being funny than Seinfeld himself has. Why is he there, anyway? I know he's a car buff, but does anyone care about that? If Seinfeld was going to echo the "Newman!" line, wouldn't it have been at least as funny to have Wayne Knight show up? I'm pretty sure he would have come more cheaply than Leno.
All right, enough about this garbage. Ah, one more.
Frankly, Seinfeld probably did come up with most/all of this material himself. And it's terrible. The best part is that NO ONE IN THE COMMERCIAL THINKS HE'S FUNNY, and he's trying to impress them. Meanwhile, I'm sitting at home, getting more and more tired of him. Money well spent, Acura. I guess when you're selling a car that doesn't really exist yet, there's only so much you can do.
Flimsiest Pretense Award
Winner: TeleFlora
Quivering: The reason this goes to Teleflora, and not Fiat (which basically ran the same ad), is that Fiat at least had a modicum of irony (at the very end). Teleflora's commercial is just a balls-to-the-wall fuckfest. "Give and you shall receive," "Happy Valentine's night," images of lipstick application and stilettos - this is the commercial equivalent of a porno that starts with a pizza delivery guy knocking at the door. Teleflora's subtlety reminded me of this recent South Park. Even within the context of Super Bowl ads, Teleflora makes GoDaddy commercials look like Bronte novels. And also? Everyone knows that diamonds are the only surefire way to get that blow job.
The Carlos Mencia Book Prize for Most Egregious Use of B-List Celebrities
Winner: Skechers
Windier: There were a lot of potential candidates here, really - Century 21's use of Donald Trump, Apolo Ohno and Deion Sanders made for another good one - but I couldn't turn down Skechers solely for how gratuitous, pointless and just plain lame theirs was. Mark Cuban, really? That was your best idea for a coda? And "What do you mean you want a new contract?" is a crushingly unfunny joke. Having the chubby dog turn out to be owned by an actual athlete would have been more clever, though I guess most athletes already have shoe deals with companies whose athletic shoe brands are slightly more valuable than Skechers'. Then, of course, there's the idea that Skechers is comparing its customers to tubby bulldogs... but then we're no longer talking about pointless semi-celebrity cameos.
The Bad Idea Jeans Award for Most Epic Miscalculation
Winner: Bud Light
Knitwear: While this is nowhere near the level of the ad we created this award for (last year's Groupon disaster), it is kind of a bummer that Bud Light is championing a great cause like adopting a rescue dog by implying that the best thing to do with a free, mangy orphan puppy is to turn it into your personal beer slave, Manchurian Candidate-style. I know this ad is supposed to seem fun, but I just feel sad for the dog. He's been so heavily conditioned that he can't even tell the difference between someone calling "Here, Wego!" and someone just yelling out "Here we go," forcing him to roll in a keg at least twice his size just to accommodate the latest round of partygoers. Talk about a dog that could stand to be rescued!
SkyMall Championship Trophy
Winner: Toyota
Quivering: The Skymall Trophy is all about the weirdest attempt to sell a product. Toyota just blew everyone out of the water to take the crown this year. This commercial makes no sense, on any level. We learn not one thing about this "reinvented" Camry. Not one thing. After they show the car, the next 26 seconds are just nonsensical reinventions that A) are not funny (which was clearly the goal of this commercial) and B) have nothing to do with marketing an automobile. Here are just a few thoughts on the "reinvented" products Toyota made up:
* How is a baby that's also a time machine helpful (or funny)?
* The reinvented DMV is just a regular DMV, even staffed by surly, unhelpful federal employees - the only difference is that it's stocked with various time-wasting attractions. Shouldn't a truly reinvented DMV be one that is so efficient you could just walk in and walk right back out (without having to spend time on a mini golf course or at a petting zoo)? Or how about just putting the whole DMV online?
* Reinvented rain that makes you thin just has too many problems to enumerate.
Congratulations, Toyota, on making a commercial that is unfunny, painfully bizarre, and unrelated to your product. Hey, maybe you can start pitching some of those reinvented products to the SkyMall catalog - it might just be a perfect fit.
Worst Super Bowl Ad of 2012
Winner: Pepsi
Windier: If not for Ben Kingsley's appearance in The Love Guru, Elton John would have provided us with the most embarrassing acting role by someone knighted by the Queen of England. But it's not really his fault, aside from accepting the part, since this ad was clearly doomed from the start. What a mishmosh. Elton vamping, a bizarre use of the not-at-all-dated "Hot in Herre," a thoroughly pointless Halle Berry cameo (seriously, why is she even there), an excruciatingly unlistenable dance remix of "Respect" from some woman who won "The X Factor" last year, the nonsense premise of a monarchy based on Pepsi rationing, what seems like a weak homage to Apple's 1984 ad... this isn't an ad, it's like the physical manifestation of one of the clubs described by Stefon.
The icing on the cake is the Flavor Flav cameo that literally has nothing to do with anything. If Flavor Flav had been the first act in the ad, maybe his presence down there would make some sense. Instead it comes completely out of nowhere and clearly signifies Pepsi going for the cheapest laugh there is. (That's right - I hereby declare that "the pointless, otherwise joke-free presence of a goofy B-list celebrity" is a cheaper laugh than "the nut shot.") It's lame, it evidences no thought on the part of the people who wrote this ad, and most importantly, it isn't funny in spite of the fact that it's clearly supposed to be. I would rather hang out with the Coke polar bears and risk getting mauled than watch this shit again. Congratulations, Pepsi: your insane fever dream is the worst ad of the 2012 Super Bowl.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Oh, hi there
Yeah, I guess it's been a while. You know how it goes. Fortunately for us, if there's one thing that can generate a bunch of posts in a pretty short time, it's the Super Bowl. Expect the Super Bored Awards (the fifth edition!) sometime next week, hopefully sooner rather than later. For now, let's discuss something else.
Did you ever notice that ads that describe themselves as "banned from the Super Bowl!" usually had no hope of airing in the first place? Did you further notice that they usually aren't very good? One suspects that the ad agencies are expected to come up with something that can be posted online as "banned!" and don't exactly assign their best people to the task. How else would you end up with something like this?
Where do you even start with this one?
Let's pretend for a second that its premise isn't stupid and appalling. Isn't it just way over the top? We really couldn't get across the idea that this guy is a bad apple without things like the leering pre-rape-and-murder grin or the sounds of a kitten being burned alive? I suppose that is "the worst that could happen" but putting it in an actual commercial (even a "banned" one, and clearly one that knew it was going to be banned) just strikes me as untoward.
Beyond that, of course, the premise is fucking retarded. Mostly because, by making your "worst-case scenario" so monstrously over the top, you've trivialized the importance of condoms. I don't want to get up on a sexual health high horse here, but yeah, condoms have a purpose, and it's a purpose slightly more realistic than "preventing the next Hitler." There are myriad reasons why a young woman may not want to get pregnant by some random schmuck, and "dying in childbirth while producing the most evil human of all time" is pretty fucking far down the list. And even beyond the pregnancy issue, if you're just kind of having sex with whoever, hey, how about diseases? Besides, did you ever notice how most condom ads focus on the selling point "Hey! Sex with condoms can still be totally pleasurable!" That's because everyone knows there are reasons to wear condoms, and when people don't, it isn't because they're ignorant of those reasons but because they're weighing them up against sex with condoms not feeling as good as sex without. So focusing a condom ad on scare tactics is pointless.
But perhaps the biggest problem with the ad, from an ad standpoint, is that it basically negates the product's usefulness by implying that the only reason to use it is to prevent the unlikeliest scenario of all time. It's like running an ad for car insurance that shows a car being hit by a meteor, then stomped on by a T. Rex. Maybe that's a passably diverting commercial, but if you don't have car insurance, you're not watching that thinking "My God! Terrible things really do happen every day! I need to be covered!"
So what are we left with? An ad that's too creepy to be funny, too outlandish to be convincing, and just plain too stupid to be effective. I'm guessing Durex is perfectly fine with saving the millions it would have cost to actually air this ad anywhere near the Super Bowl.
Did you ever notice that ads that describe themselves as "banned from the Super Bowl!" usually had no hope of airing in the first place? Did you further notice that they usually aren't very good? One suspects that the ad agencies are expected to come up with something that can be posted online as "banned!" and don't exactly assign their best people to the task. How else would you end up with something like this?
Where do you even start with this one?
Let's pretend for a second that its premise isn't stupid and appalling. Isn't it just way over the top? We really couldn't get across the idea that this guy is a bad apple without things like the leering pre-rape-and-murder grin or the sounds of a kitten being burned alive? I suppose that is "the worst that could happen" but putting it in an actual commercial (even a "banned" one, and clearly one that knew it was going to be banned) just strikes me as untoward.
Beyond that, of course, the premise is fucking retarded. Mostly because, by making your "worst-case scenario" so monstrously over the top, you've trivialized the importance of condoms. I don't want to get up on a sexual health high horse here, but yeah, condoms have a purpose, and it's a purpose slightly more realistic than "preventing the next Hitler." There are myriad reasons why a young woman may not want to get pregnant by some random schmuck, and "dying in childbirth while producing the most evil human of all time" is pretty fucking far down the list. And even beyond the pregnancy issue, if you're just kind of having sex with whoever, hey, how about diseases? Besides, did you ever notice how most condom ads focus on the selling point "Hey! Sex with condoms can still be totally pleasurable!" That's because everyone knows there are reasons to wear condoms, and when people don't, it isn't because they're ignorant of those reasons but because they're weighing them up against sex with condoms not feeling as good as sex without. So focusing a condom ad on scare tactics is pointless.
But perhaps the biggest problem with the ad, from an ad standpoint, is that it basically negates the product's usefulness by implying that the only reason to use it is to prevent the unlikeliest scenario of all time. It's like running an ad for car insurance that shows a car being hit by a meteor, then stomped on by a T. Rex. Maybe that's a passably diverting commercial, but if you don't have car insurance, you're not watching that thinking "My God! Terrible things really do happen every day! I need to be covered!"
So what are we left with? An ad that's too creepy to be funny, too outlandish to be convincing, and just plain too stupid to be effective. I'm guessing Durex is perfectly fine with saving the millions it would have cost to actually air this ad anywhere near the Super Bowl.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Full of the milk of human creepiness
If you think about it, if you only include national advertisements, how many brands do you really see ads for on even a yearly basis? I'm guessing it's less than two hundred. And whenever you see an ad for a brand you've never seen an ad for before - especially if it's a product you had heard of despite not seeing any ads - doesn't it always seem a little strange? Like, "Oh, I guess they're advertising now." That's how I felt about this Muscle Milk ad, right after I got done hating the shit out of it.
No.
Host: "So! All-Star left fielder. What's on your mind?"
We're just dropped into this, so there's really no explanation for why the host is such a complete freak show. But if you pretend for a second this is a real show, would Muscle Milk really want to sponsor it?
Ryan Braun: "A female doctor asked me to take my shirt off yesterday... for an eye exam!"
Ladies and gentlemen, the Friar's Club Roast of Ryan Braun's Pecs! Seriously though, is that a zippy one-liner or what? And delivered with such verve!
Host: "Ryan, a little lesson. Life is like a river. But for guys like us, life is like a river that's also a hot tub!"
At this point he pulls his shirt out and rubs his stomach. The guy is in average shape, I guess you'd say, but I think clearly the idea is that he's supposed to be unappealing. Or is it?
Host: "Now! It's clear to me that you drink Muscle Milk after you work out. And you are just going to have to deal with women trying to get into your hot tub river!"
Cut to the guy in a hot tub with two women. Cut back to the guy on the set making a creepy noise. Fin.
I mean, what the fuck was that? Look, Ryan Braun is clearly not an actor, but if that's all you're going to do with him it seems pointless to even have him in the ad. At least he seems like a likable guy, unlike the actual pitchman, although who wouldn't seem like a cool dude next to this lunatic? (By the way: bargain-basement Ed Helms. Tell me I'm wrong.)
This ad is obviously aimed at men, so they don't really care if their attitude towards women is a little questionable. But who is watching this and thinking, "I want to be like that guy! I bet he's a big success with the ladies." No one. And I don't think this guy is supposed to be cool or attractive. Look how confused Braun looks when the guy starts pulling his shirt out. But with that being the case, WHY IS HE YOUR PRIMARY PITCHMAN???? For a product that is trying to associate itself with being hot and in great shape????
The last couple years have seen a lot of products using really unappealing spokespeople. I didn't get it when Toyota did it, I didn't get it when McDonald's did it, and I don't get it now. I mean, obviously this is just supposed to be funny, but (a) it isn't, (b) it's trying way too hard, and (c) the goal, ultimately, should be to sell product, not just be funny. Aside from making you aware of the product's existence, I don't see how this ad moves product. At least in that McDonald's ad, you could imagine people recognizing the main character as an exaggerated version of how they feel in the morning when they haven't had their coffee. Who is going to identify with this shithead? "Muscle Milk: preferred protein shake of creepy guys with hairy stomachs who make gross throaty sounds to indicate they're happy with something!" Yeah, uh, pass.
No.
Host: "So! All-Star left fielder. What's on your mind?"
We're just dropped into this, so there's really no explanation for why the host is such a complete freak show. But if you pretend for a second this is a real show, would Muscle Milk really want to sponsor it?
Ryan Braun: "A female doctor asked me to take my shirt off yesterday... for an eye exam!"
Ladies and gentlemen, the Friar's Club Roast of Ryan Braun's Pecs! Seriously though, is that a zippy one-liner or what? And delivered with such verve!
Host: "Ryan, a little lesson. Life is like a river. But for guys like us, life is like a river that's also a hot tub!"
At this point he pulls his shirt out and rubs his stomach. The guy is in average shape, I guess you'd say, but I think clearly the idea is that he's supposed to be unappealing. Or is it?
Host: "Now! It's clear to me that you drink Muscle Milk after you work out. And you are just going to have to deal with women trying to get into your hot tub river!"
Cut to the guy in a hot tub with two women. Cut back to the guy on the set making a creepy noise. Fin.
I mean, what the fuck was that? Look, Ryan Braun is clearly not an actor, but if that's all you're going to do with him it seems pointless to even have him in the ad. At least he seems like a likable guy, unlike the actual pitchman, although who wouldn't seem like a cool dude next to this lunatic? (By the way: bargain-basement Ed Helms. Tell me I'm wrong.)
This ad is obviously aimed at men, so they don't really care if their attitude towards women is a little questionable. But who is watching this and thinking, "I want to be like that guy! I bet he's a big success with the ladies." No one. And I don't think this guy is supposed to be cool or attractive. Look how confused Braun looks when the guy starts pulling his shirt out. But with that being the case, WHY IS HE YOUR PRIMARY PITCHMAN???? For a product that is trying to associate itself with being hot and in great shape????
The last couple years have seen a lot of products using really unappealing spokespeople. I didn't get it when Toyota did it, I didn't get it when McDonald's did it, and I don't get it now. I mean, obviously this is just supposed to be funny, but (a) it isn't, (b) it's trying way too hard, and (c) the goal, ultimately, should be to sell product, not just be funny. Aside from making you aware of the product's existence, I don't see how this ad moves product. At least in that McDonald's ad, you could imagine people recognizing the main character as an exaggerated version of how they feel in the morning when they haven't had their coffee. Who is going to identify with this shithead? "Muscle Milk: preferred protein shake of creepy guys with hairy stomachs who make gross throaty sounds to indicate they're happy with something!" Yeah, uh, pass.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Bad ads at Ridgemont High
The Dr. Pepper Ten ad that briefly set the internet on fire last week - including this very blog - was roundly denounced as being sexist. But I don't think that everyone caught that the ad was, really, just as sexist against men as it was against women. Women, in fact, got off pretty easy - all they were told was that Dr. Pepper Ten was not "for" them. (Oh no!) Men, by comparison, were told that they were more or less obligated to like action movies, hate romantic comedies, and refuse to pick up any soda with "diet" in the name - or they simply were not real men.
Well, welcome to Ad World. As many ads as are sexist against women, there are just as many that negatively stereotype the hell out of men. For instance: men cannot cook! No, seriously, men cannot fucking cook. Men are romantically incompetent. Men are total douchebags. Men are slavering pigs who lose control at the sight of an attractive woman. Etc.
The irony, of course, is that while most commercials that are actively sexist against women are marketed towards men, most of the commercials that are actively sexist against men are ALSO marketed towards men. For proof, let's just look at the latest example of this phenomenon, from JC Penney:
I didn't look very closely, but it seems like there's some discussion in the YouTube comments over whether the ad objectifies women.
Yes. It does. I mean, of course it does. How could you even dispute this? In case you don't know, in the film from which the clip is taken, Fast Times at Ridgemont High - by the way, this film is nearly 30 years old, so way to stay relevant there, JC Penney - Phoebe Cates actually opens her bikini for a topless scene which is taking place in the imagination of the main male character, played by Judge Reinhold. For him, she is absolutely a lust object and little more. In the film, however, Reinhold gets his comeuppance when Cates walks in on him masturbating to this fantasy. Nothing like that happens in this ad, nor really could it. So, yes, it's obviously objectification, or at any rate the male viewer is invited to objectify Phoebe Cates.
But - and I'm sure you already guessed that I was going here - the ad is in many ways at least as offensive to men.
Kenny Mayne: "JC Penney understands that you don't like advertising for clothes."
I... I don't? I must admit, this is a new stereotype of men to my ears. Men hate advertising for clothes? They're just making stuff up now, aren't they? "JC Penney understands that you hate oak trees! I mean, fucking acorns, right?"
Mayne: "Who does?"
Honestly, who likes advertising of any kind? Why do you think people get so excited about DVRs and internet browsers with ad-block functions? But really, who thinks enough about advertising for clothes not to like it? There have been about 380 posts in this site's history and I think three of them talk about an ad for any kind of clothing.
Mayne: "Tell you what, though - if you look at these smart fashion choices from Van Heusen, we're gonna show you this. That way everybody wins."
Nine seconds into the spot and out comes the Fast Times footage. Here's the thing, guys: if the expectation is that men will be looking at the footage on the left, that means NO ONE IS LOOKING AT THE FOOTAGE ON THE RIGHT. You really can't focus on two things at once, and if it was true that men hated clothing ads, why would they even bother trying to look back and forth between them? And especially consider that Phoebe Cates is wearing a bright red bikini, whereas the clothes on the right are in fairly nondescript colors and the prices are in white text on a white background! You couldn't sufficiently check out the clothes offered in this ad if you wanted to.
So, sure, it's kind of a sexist ad. But maybe the real problem is not just that it's sexist but that it is so exquisitely committed to being sexist at the expense of even trying to sell the product. There are eight million ways you could make a commercial for men's clothing that featured a hot female sex object, and literally all 7,999,999 others would do less to completely distract the attention away from any and all information about the men's clothing that was ostensibly the point of the spot than this one does.
And that's really where you get into the area of "reverse sexism." Hey, men - you don't care about clothes, right? You'll probably just wear whatever your wife buys you or something. So, we're going to pretend we're running an ad for clothes you might wear - but we both know that's ridiculous. So check out these sweet tits! Don't get me wrong, I like that sort of thing as much as the next (straight) guy, but I know when I'm being pandered to. This ad isn't going to endear me to JC Penney and it does nothing to sell the product in question. And as it turns out, the only thing it was effective at was being quickly pulled from the airwaves due to complaints of sexism.
Mayne: "JC Penney: It is seriously hot in here."
"JC Penney: You are seriously dumb in here."
Well, welcome to Ad World. As many ads as are sexist against women, there are just as many that negatively stereotype the hell out of men. For instance: men cannot cook! No, seriously, men cannot fucking cook. Men are romantically incompetent. Men are total douchebags. Men are slavering pigs who lose control at the sight of an attractive woman. Etc.
The irony, of course, is that while most commercials that are actively sexist against women are marketed towards men, most of the commercials that are actively sexist against men are ALSO marketed towards men. For proof, let's just look at the latest example of this phenomenon, from JC Penney:
I didn't look very closely, but it seems like there's some discussion in the YouTube comments over whether the ad objectifies women.
Yes. It does. I mean, of course it does. How could you even dispute this? In case you don't know, in the film from which the clip is taken, Fast Times at Ridgemont High - by the way, this film is nearly 30 years old, so way to stay relevant there, JC Penney - Phoebe Cates actually opens her bikini for a topless scene which is taking place in the imagination of the main male character, played by Judge Reinhold. For him, she is absolutely a lust object and little more. In the film, however, Reinhold gets his comeuppance when Cates walks in on him masturbating to this fantasy. Nothing like that happens in this ad, nor really could it. So, yes, it's obviously objectification, or at any rate the male viewer is invited to objectify Phoebe Cates.
But - and I'm sure you already guessed that I was going here - the ad is in many ways at least as offensive to men.
Kenny Mayne: "JC Penney understands that you don't like advertising for clothes."
I... I don't? I must admit, this is a new stereotype of men to my ears. Men hate advertising for clothes? They're just making stuff up now, aren't they? "JC Penney understands that you hate oak trees! I mean, fucking acorns, right?"
Mayne: "Who does?"
Honestly, who likes advertising of any kind? Why do you think people get so excited about DVRs and internet browsers with ad-block functions? But really, who thinks enough about advertising for clothes not to like it? There have been about 380 posts in this site's history and I think three of them talk about an ad for any kind of clothing.
Mayne: "Tell you what, though - if you look at these smart fashion choices from Van Heusen, we're gonna show you this. That way everybody wins."
Nine seconds into the spot and out comes the Fast Times footage. Here's the thing, guys: if the expectation is that men will be looking at the footage on the left, that means NO ONE IS LOOKING AT THE FOOTAGE ON THE RIGHT. You really can't focus on two things at once, and if it was true that men hated clothing ads, why would they even bother trying to look back and forth between them? And especially consider that Phoebe Cates is wearing a bright red bikini, whereas the clothes on the right are in fairly nondescript colors and the prices are in white text on a white background! You couldn't sufficiently check out the clothes offered in this ad if you wanted to.
So, sure, it's kind of a sexist ad. But maybe the real problem is not just that it's sexist but that it is so exquisitely committed to being sexist at the expense of even trying to sell the product. There are eight million ways you could make a commercial for men's clothing that featured a hot female sex object, and literally all 7,999,999 others would do less to completely distract the attention away from any and all information about the men's clothing that was ostensibly the point of the spot than this one does.
And that's really where you get into the area of "reverse sexism." Hey, men - you don't care about clothes, right? You'll probably just wear whatever your wife buys you or something. So, we're going to pretend we're running an ad for clothes you might wear - but we both know that's ridiculous. So check out these sweet tits! Don't get me wrong, I like that sort of thing as much as the next (straight) guy, but I know when I'm being pandered to. This ad isn't going to endear me to JC Penney and it does nothing to sell the product in question. And as it turns out, the only thing it was effective at was being quickly pulled from the airwaves due to complaints of sexism.
Mayne: "JC Penney: It is seriously hot in here."
"JC Penney: You are seriously dumb in here."
Monday, October 17, 2011
Tacos are for closers
During last year's baseball playoffs, Taco Bell managed to come up with an ad that actually was not completely stupid.
Sorry about the video, but I couldn't dig up a better example on YouTube. Anyway, that's not too bad, right? You could argue that Joe Girardi and Mariano Rivera aren't famous enough to lead a commercial like this, but it did play mostly during baseball games, and obviously that audience is going to recognize two well-known Yankees figures. Rivera's acting is pretty bad, but hey, he's not an actor, nor is English his first language, so I think we can cut him some slack. The concept of the ad is moderately clever, it's not overwritten, and there's some amusing little touches like Rivera taking a last sip of his drink before running over. It's not some masterpiece, but given how bad most ads are, I can live with one like this.
Unfortunately, this year Taco Bell did this instead:
The weird thing is, I'm quite sure I saw an ad with Brian Wilson in it this year where he was basically doing a similar thing to what Rivera did last year - "hey, I'm the closer, I'm here to finish your overly large chalupa." That's the whole joke, after all, since Wilson only gained fame as the closer for the Giants during last year's World Series. But I can't find that one on YouTube, and it seems like it didn't run very much, almost like Taco Bell felt like they needed a pretense to get to this one but liked this one so much more that they abandoned the pretense as soon as possible.
Why is this ad so bad? Well, perhaps the biggest problem is that it seems like Wilson wrote it himself. For God's sake, Mariano Rivera, the best closer in history and certainly one of the most famous, gets two lines in his ad. Yet here's Wilson, unaccountably given nearly every line in the ad in spite of the fact that he's less famous than Rivera, is also not much of an actor and comes off like a total maniac. (That was likely the point, but that doesn't mean it was a good idea to do it.)
The whole "let's go meta on our own ads" thing is pretty trite, too. And since the only point of having Wilson there is to continue the "you need a closer to finish this huge chalupa" theme, and since Wilson, no matter how much of a character he is by baseball standards, is not a professional comedian and therefore incapable of selling a pretty dire script, it makes no sense to change the entire concept and yet STILL KEEP BRIAN WILSON IN THE AD.
I mean, "black ops?" "Inner deliciousness?" Really? What's with the props? This is like the world's most sedate Robin Williams routine, only performed by a baseball player and even less funny. Nothing Wilson "comes up with" ties into the idea of the chalupa being especially large - which, again, is pretty much the only reason these ads exist in the first place. I guess there's the "these monsters are stacked" line, but compared to everything else he says that's basically a non sequitur, so I'm not even going to count it.
Really, I imagine it would have cost Taco Bell a lot less to cast any old commercial actor in this spot, cut out the "Brian Wilson just decided to change the concept" framing device and shoot it as some wacky doofus vamping around while his friend attempts to eat the XXL Chalupa. Would that have been fucking retarded? Of course it would have. But so is this, and if you're going to insist on making a stupid ad, I'm guessing not paying whatever Wilson's endorsement fee is would at least have been cheaper.
Sorry about the video, but I couldn't dig up a better example on YouTube. Anyway, that's not too bad, right? You could argue that Joe Girardi and Mariano Rivera aren't famous enough to lead a commercial like this, but it did play mostly during baseball games, and obviously that audience is going to recognize two well-known Yankees figures. Rivera's acting is pretty bad, but hey, he's not an actor, nor is English his first language, so I think we can cut him some slack. The concept of the ad is moderately clever, it's not overwritten, and there's some amusing little touches like Rivera taking a last sip of his drink before running over. It's not some masterpiece, but given how bad most ads are, I can live with one like this.
Unfortunately, this year Taco Bell did this instead:
The weird thing is, I'm quite sure I saw an ad with Brian Wilson in it this year where he was basically doing a similar thing to what Rivera did last year - "hey, I'm the closer, I'm here to finish your overly large chalupa." That's the whole joke, after all, since Wilson only gained fame as the closer for the Giants during last year's World Series. But I can't find that one on YouTube, and it seems like it didn't run very much, almost like Taco Bell felt like they needed a pretense to get to this one but liked this one so much more that they abandoned the pretense as soon as possible.
Why is this ad so bad? Well, perhaps the biggest problem is that it seems like Wilson wrote it himself. For God's sake, Mariano Rivera, the best closer in history and certainly one of the most famous, gets two lines in his ad. Yet here's Wilson, unaccountably given nearly every line in the ad in spite of the fact that he's less famous than Rivera, is also not much of an actor and comes off like a total maniac. (That was likely the point, but that doesn't mean it was a good idea to do it.)
The whole "let's go meta on our own ads" thing is pretty trite, too. And since the only point of having Wilson there is to continue the "you need a closer to finish this huge chalupa" theme, and since Wilson, no matter how much of a character he is by baseball standards, is not a professional comedian and therefore incapable of selling a pretty dire script, it makes no sense to change the entire concept and yet STILL KEEP BRIAN WILSON IN THE AD.
I mean, "black ops?" "Inner deliciousness?" Really? What's with the props? This is like the world's most sedate Robin Williams routine, only performed by a baseball player and even less funny. Nothing Wilson "comes up with" ties into the idea of the chalupa being especially large - which, again, is pretty much the only reason these ads exist in the first place. I guess there's the "these monsters are stacked" line, but compared to everything else he says that's basically a non sequitur, so I'm not even going to count it.
Really, I imagine it would have cost Taco Bell a lot less to cast any old commercial actor in this spot, cut out the "Brian Wilson just decided to change the concept" framing device and shoot it as some wacky doofus vamping around while his friend attempts to eat the XXL Chalupa. Would that have been fucking retarded? Of course it would have. But so is this, and if you're going to insist on making a stupid ad, I'm guessing not paying whatever Wilson's endorsement fee is would at least have been cheaper.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
The vegetarian's nightmare: sentient produce
Jewel-Osco is the branch of Albertson's that exists here in the Chicagoland area. YouTube suggests that this ad runs in all their markets with the different store names subbed in, but this is the one I've seen so this is the one I'm posting. I'm also posting it because GODDAMN is it creepy.
(NOTE: This is now a version of the ad that was used in Albertson's markets, since the original vanished from YouTube. I haven't otherwise edited the post text.)
Here is what the description says on YouTube (emphasis mine): "By popular request, here is our newest TV commercial featuring our lovable Fruits & Vegetables! Enjoy!"
Okay: I cannot believe that people actually called, or e-mailed, or whatever the fucked Jewel-Osco and demanded that this commercial go up on YouTube. I mean: this commercial? I'm not sure I can think of ten more boring ads in existence. It's not like it's funny, or raunchy, or even particularly interesting - the reason ads usually get posted online. If you read the comments on YouTube, people seem to be talking mostly about how much they like the song - which is appropriate, since it's a cover of "Fresh" by Kool and the Gang, a song that was a top ten hit... in 1985. Of course, it's pretty obvious that most of the people commenting on this ad weren't born yet in 1985, so that probably explains a lot.
Lovable fruits and vegetables, though? That is weird. That is creepy. Some (though certainly not all) vegetarians don't eat meat in part because they can't bear the thought of a living animal being slaughtered for their consumption. What kind of heartless bastard tries to freak them out by making their vegetables (and fruit) into a singing, dancing nightmare straight out of the uncanny valley?
Honestly, look at these things. They're fucking terrifying.
"Ba ba ba, we're the singing tomatoes... we're hanging in the store just singing our song..."
"OH DEAR GOD WE'VE BEEN CHOPPED IN HALF AND OUR INSIDES ARE VISIBLE! THIS IS LIKE THE WORST KIND OF MEDIEVAL TORTURE!"
"Peppers / just a bunch of singing peppers / what in this life could be better / than to be a singing pepper..."
"OH FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT'S HOLY THEY CUT OFF THE TOP OF OUR HEADS AND STUFFED US WITH RICE!!! WHAT KIND OF CRUEL GOD ALLOWS THIS TO HAPPEN???"
(NOTE: This is now a version of the ad that was used in Albertson's markets, since the original vanished from YouTube. I haven't otherwise edited the post text.)
Here is what the description says on YouTube (emphasis mine): "By popular request, here is our newest TV commercial featuring our lovable Fruits & Vegetables! Enjoy!"
Okay: I cannot believe that people actually called, or e-mailed, or whatever the fucked Jewel-Osco and demanded that this commercial go up on YouTube. I mean: this commercial? I'm not sure I can think of ten more boring ads in existence. It's not like it's funny, or raunchy, or even particularly interesting - the reason ads usually get posted online. If you read the comments on YouTube, people seem to be talking mostly about how much they like the song - which is appropriate, since it's a cover of "Fresh" by Kool and the Gang, a song that was a top ten hit... in 1985. Of course, it's pretty obvious that most of the people commenting on this ad weren't born yet in 1985, so that probably explains a lot.
Lovable fruits and vegetables, though? That is weird. That is creepy. Some (though certainly not all) vegetarians don't eat meat in part because they can't bear the thought of a living animal being slaughtered for their consumption. What kind of heartless bastard tries to freak them out by making their vegetables (and fruit) into a singing, dancing nightmare straight out of the uncanny valley?
Honestly, look at these things. They're fucking terrifying.
By the way, sloppy bagging job, whoever.
I'm not sure what exactly it is that creeps me out so much, although it might be the lack of noses on the faces of the fruits and vegetables. Or maybe it's just THE FACES ON THE FRUITS AND VEGETABLES. Good Lord. This is a crime against nature.
But is that the weirdest part of the ad? Not quite. It's more the way the fruits and vegetables are gleefully singing about THEIR IMMINENT DEMISE. There are other commercials out there like that (see this post and my comment below it), and sure, it's weirder when it's animals practically begging you to eat them. But this isn't much better. I mean, think about the contrast of some of the shots in this commercial for a second.
"Ba ba ba, we're the singing tomatoes... we're hanging in the store just singing our song..."
"OH DEAR GOD WE'VE BEEN CHOPPED IN HALF AND OUR INSIDES ARE VISIBLE! THIS IS LIKE THE WORST KIND OF MEDIEVAL TORTURE!"
"Peppers / just a bunch of singing peppers / what in this life could be better / than to be a singing pepper..."
"OH FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT'S HOLY THEY CUT OFF THE TOP OF OUR HEADS AND STUFFED US WITH RICE!!! WHAT KIND OF CRUEL GOD ALLOWS THIS TO HAPPEN???"
Friday, October 14, 2011
'Cause if I were an Oscar Mayer wiener, buns would all be having sex with me
The GrubHub ads on the CTA have really been getting more and more questionable. They started off depicting people pleased with the fact that they can order food from just about anywhere. That's fine. Then they turned a corner with one that showed what was clearly intended to be a post-coital couple in bed, with the woman's toplessness blocked only by her laptop as she declared her desire for "something spicy!" A bit much, but I guess workable. But now... there's this.
Ahem.
THINKING ABOUT THE FOOD I'M ABOUT TO EAT AS THE PRODUCT OF A SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP IS NOT APPETIZING.
I mean, this just doesn't seem like that hard of a concept. I don't care how phallic hot dogs already are - I don't need an ad for your food-related service that shows a hot dog attempting to bed a hot dog bun, with the bun thinking "I hope he brought condiments!" That is gross. Surely there is no one out there who sees this ad and thinks, "Oh man, that hot dog and bun are about to GET IT ON!!! Shit, I just got hungry."
Yes, I know it's supposed to be a joke. Ha ha, hot dogs kind of look like penises! And the word "condiment" sounds like the word "condom!" The phrase "do it" could be a generic description of performing an action, but it could also refer to fucking!!!
But even if it were funny - and it's not - it's utterly lazy and just wrong for the product in question. Look, I'm capable of enjoying sex-themed jokes. But they have their place and this ain't it. All I see is an online menu service making a cheap fuck joke because they think it'll make their brand seem cool. "Oh man, can you believe what GrubHub got away with putting in the train station?" Is that really as high as our standards are?
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Oy Ge-Volt
"Use our product and be the subject of mockery and annoying questions everywhere you go" is probably not the exact sales pitch I would use to sell something, especially something as expensive as a car. But sure, Chevy Volt, give it a shot.
Kid: "Hey, I thought these were electric."
Big ol' editorializing right off the bat. What's this kid, 12? He really recognizes the Chevy Volt on sight? Whatever.
Guy: "Uh, it is, yeah, it's a Chevy Volt."
Hey, genius, the kid obviously knows it's a Chevy Volt. And yes, I know they have to get the product name in there, but why not just have the kid say it? I'm pretty sure you can write an ad that makes sense and still get the car's name in there.
Kid: "So what are you doing at a gas station?"
I really find the writing in this commercial to be almost embarrassingly clumsy. First of all, there are various things you can do at a gas station besides buy gas. Second of all, wouldn't it make WAY more sense to have the guy putting gas in the car and the kid being like, "Wait, you're putting gas in there? I thought it was electric?" Oh, but then the commercial would just be a straightforward description of the car and wouldn't get to include a hilarious joke about the bathroom.
Guy: "Uh, well, it, it still takes gas, to go farther."
Kid: "But you're not getting gas."
Guy: "True! Not this time... uh, don't have to gas up very often."
Kid: "So you have to go to the bathroom."
Guy: "...no."
The BATHROOM, you guys! The bathroom. God, the humiliation associated with having to urinate in a semi-public area. I should probably lie to this sixth-grader so he won't think I'm doing something that literally everyone on the planet does, multiple times every day.
Kid: "Yes you do."
Guy 2: "I thought these were electric!"
Guy: "Yes. It's a, uh, it's a Chevy Volt."
Guy 2: "So what are you doing at a gas station?"
The slogan on the screen is "Electric when you want it, gas when you need it." On the one hand, it's smart of Chevy to address what I would assume are concerns that a lot of people have about electric cars, stuff like "what if the battery suddenly runs out" or "how powerful can it really be?" On the other hand, the attitude of this ad is "But you're probably going to want to stop only at gas stations where no one else is, because otherwise, HOLY SHIT are people going to annoy you."
Guess what, though. It gets worse.
Guy 2: "I thought these were electric."
Guy: "Uh, yeah, it's a Chevy Volt."
Guy 2: "So you're just here rubbing our noses in the fact that you don't have to buy gas?"
What? Is there a person on the planet who would say this? Seriously, everyone knows that YOU CAN DO OTHER THINGS AT A GAS STATION, right? This can't be that hard of a concept. Also, what the fuck is wrong with these people?
Guy 2: "Just plug in and go? That makes you feel better?"
Better than what? This ad was written by someone raised by wolves, with no concept of actual human interaction, right?
Guy: "Well, I still pay about a dollar fifty a day in electricity... on average..."
Not the response I would have gone with. I think "IT ALSO TAKES GAS, FUCKWAD" would have been the way to go here. But I guess they used that feature up in the other spot.
Kid: "You know, he's just here to use the bathroom."
"He thinks he's better than us, but he's not. That filthy gas station bathroom will bring him down to our level."
Attendant: "Customers only. No gas, no bathroom."
Guy: "Okay, I'll buy gas!"
OR BUY A FUCKING BAG OF SKITTLES BECAUSE THERE ARE EIGHT GODDAMN MILLION THINGS YOU CAN BUY AT GAS STATIONS THAT ARE NOT GAS.
Some Other Guy: "Whoa, what are you doing? I thought these were electric!"
That's right, America: the Chevy Volt. Prepare to get bombarded with stupid questions, harassed by smug pre-teens and denied the right to perform basic excretory functions, all because you have the good sense to drive an electric car. Now there is a flawless sales pitch! Honestly, short of running an ad that shows a Chevy Volt broken down on the side of the road, could you have made the ownership experience look any less appealing?
Kid: "Hey, I thought these were electric."
Big ol' editorializing right off the bat. What's this kid, 12? He really recognizes the Chevy Volt on sight? Whatever.
Guy: "Uh, it is, yeah, it's a Chevy Volt."
Hey, genius, the kid obviously knows it's a Chevy Volt. And yes, I know they have to get the product name in there, but why not just have the kid say it? I'm pretty sure you can write an ad that makes sense and still get the car's name in there.
Kid: "So what are you doing at a gas station?"
I really find the writing in this commercial to be almost embarrassingly clumsy. First of all, there are various things you can do at a gas station besides buy gas. Second of all, wouldn't it make WAY more sense to have the guy putting gas in the car and the kid being like, "Wait, you're putting gas in there? I thought it was electric?" Oh, but then the commercial would just be a straightforward description of the car and wouldn't get to include a hilarious joke about the bathroom.
Guy: "Uh, well, it, it still takes gas, to go farther."
Kid: "But you're not getting gas."
Guy: "True! Not this time... uh, don't have to gas up very often."
Kid: "So you have to go to the bathroom."
Guy: "...no."
The BATHROOM, you guys! The bathroom. God, the humiliation associated with having to urinate in a semi-public area. I should probably lie to this sixth-grader so he won't think I'm doing something that literally everyone on the planet does, multiple times every day.
Kid: "Yes you do."
Guy 2: "I thought these were electric!"
Guy: "Yes. It's a, uh, it's a Chevy Volt."
Guy 2: "So what are you doing at a gas station?"
The slogan on the screen is "Electric when you want it, gas when you need it." On the one hand, it's smart of Chevy to address what I would assume are concerns that a lot of people have about electric cars, stuff like "what if the battery suddenly runs out" or "how powerful can it really be?" On the other hand, the attitude of this ad is "But you're probably going to want to stop only at gas stations where no one else is, because otherwise, HOLY SHIT are people going to annoy you."
Guess what, though. It gets worse.
Guy 2: "I thought these were electric."
Guy: "Uh, yeah, it's a Chevy Volt."
Guy 2: "So you're just here rubbing our noses in the fact that you don't have to buy gas?"
What? Is there a person on the planet who would say this? Seriously, everyone knows that YOU CAN DO OTHER THINGS AT A GAS STATION, right? This can't be that hard of a concept. Also, what the fuck is wrong with these people?
Guy 2: "Just plug in and go? That makes you feel better?"
Better than what? This ad was written by someone raised by wolves, with no concept of actual human interaction, right?
Guy: "Well, I still pay about a dollar fifty a day in electricity... on average..."
Not the response I would have gone with. I think "IT ALSO TAKES GAS, FUCKWAD" would have been the way to go here. But I guess they used that feature up in the other spot.
Kid: "You know, he's just here to use the bathroom."
"He thinks he's better than us, but he's not. That filthy gas station bathroom will bring him down to our level."
Attendant: "Customers only. No gas, no bathroom."
Guy: "Okay, I'll buy gas!"
OR BUY A FUCKING BAG OF SKITTLES BECAUSE THERE ARE EIGHT GODDAMN MILLION THINGS YOU CAN BUY AT GAS STATIONS THAT ARE NOT GAS.
Some Other Guy: "Whoa, what are you doing? I thought these were electric!"
That's right, America: the Chevy Volt. Prepare to get bombarded with stupid questions, harassed by smug pre-teens and denied the right to perform basic excretory functions, all because you have the good sense to drive an electric car. Now there is a flawless sales pitch! Honestly, short of running an ad that shows a Chevy Volt broken down on the side of the road, could you have made the ownership experience look any less appealing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)