I don't know what kind of TV loyal reader Tyler watches, but he sure finds some weird stuff to recommend to us. Case in point:
What the fucking shit is that?
There must be a trimmed-down version for actual broadcast, because at a minute long this is a waste of my fucking time. The first 25 seconds tells us nothing except that these two are dating and that she likes her family's cat. Yawn. Then there's the creepiness/utter insanity of the rest of it.
No one's house needs a goddamn cat room. Okay? It just doesn't. Especially if the cat is the size of a gerbil. (I know, I know, it's going to get larger. Still doesn't need its own room.) But that's nothing next to the idea of using a kitten to propose, creepy on a number of levels. First of all, he apparently thinks that just because she loves her family's cat, she'll love any cat. It's not clear to me this follows. Second, he's basically using cuteness to guilt her into this engagement. "Well, if you won't marry me, will you at least marry Mr. Snuggles and me?" Third, that poor kitten looks terrified while she's holding it. And fourth, the ad ends with what looks like "Our Wedding Album, Brought to You by Fancy Feast."
And Fancy Feast has FUCK ALL to do with any of this. What's even the pitch here? Feed your cat Fancy Feast or you don't love it? Feed your cat Fancy Feast or you don't love each other? Only Fancy Feast is good enough for your cat when the cat is the fulcrum on which your relationship balances? And, fuck, are there really people who feed their cats from fancy glass dishes? God, I hope not. Really, the idea of pretending that canned cat food is fancy when it looks like shit and smells like a wet pile of rotting fish just annoys me. But when you go out there and try to sell cat food with a treacly human story... that's just retarded.
Showing posts with label utterly bizarre. Show all posts
Showing posts with label utterly bizarre. Show all posts
Monday, May 2, 2011
Sunday, March 13, 2011
What the Hawk?
I sympathize with makers of local commercials. You're tasked with standing out amid a sea of high-budget national ads that never fail to make your spots look even cheaper than they already would. With that in mind, I can see why a company might opt to borrow ideas from a national campaign for their local ad. However, the eTrade baby is not the one I would have gone with.
Baby: "I'm looking cool in this car! This thing is a stroller magnet! I should work on my pick-up lines."
First of all: no. You should not do that, because you are a baby. Also, note that the baby's body never moves, which is kind of disturbing and just makes him look like a tiny quadriplegic.
Baby: "Hey girl, you need a nap? 'Cause you been crawling through my mind all day."
As awful as the eTrade ads were with their implications of babies having sex with each other, I'm not sure this isn't more blatant than any of those. Baby pick-up lines? Someone really thought this was a good idea?
Baby: "Wow. I'm slaying it!"
[Mom in front seat rolls her eyes]
"Ha! Man. My infant son thinks he's, like, the hottest shit. And he's so not. I would never fuck him if he used that line on me."
Baby: "How about, dang, girl! That diaper's looking good on you."
How about not? How about I'm three seconds away from clawing my own eyes out and shoving them into my ears?
Baby: "What are you, a size 18 months? Yeah, I like my girls a little chubby."
Announcer: "You want some chubby?"
What? What the fuck are you talking about? If this is reliant on me having seen previous ads in whatever fucking series this is, or knowing Hawk Ford's shitty dealership slogan, that is a BAD idea, because I live in Chicago, watch a lot of TV, write about ads as a hobby, and yet can't recall ever seeing one of their ads before. If it's not reliant on that... WHAT?
Announcer: "Chubby discounts. Chubby savings."
WHAT. THE. FUCK. ARE. YOU. TALKING. ABOUT.
Does Hawk Ford know that "chubby" is also a slang term involving the penis? Were they going for that pun? When the baby says that he likes his girls "a little chubby," is that intended to be a play on words, in that he might also have a "little chubby?" Because if so, I want to drive down to Oak Lawn and light that entire dealership on fire.
And if they don't know that, and they weren't going for that pun... what in the hell were they going for?
By the way: "Chubby discounts, chubby savings" isn't even Hawk Ford's normal slogan, as evidenced by these other ads in this campaign. So... a baby calling another baby fat was just so hilarious we had to alter our whole ad to be built around it, in spite of the fact that it makes no goddamn sense? For fuck's sake, at least those other ads use the baby for semi-legit reasons. With this one it just seems like there was a bet in the office about how horrible a commercial they could make and still get it on the air.
Baby: "I'm looking cool in this car! This thing is a stroller magnet! I should work on my pick-up lines."
First of all: no. You should not do that, because you are a baby. Also, note that the baby's body never moves, which is kind of disturbing and just makes him look like a tiny quadriplegic.
Baby: "Hey girl, you need a nap? 'Cause you been crawling through my mind all day."
As awful as the eTrade ads were with their implications of babies having sex with each other, I'm not sure this isn't more blatant than any of those. Baby pick-up lines? Someone really thought this was a good idea?
Baby: "Wow. I'm slaying it!"
[Mom in front seat rolls her eyes]
"Ha! Man. My infant son thinks he's, like, the hottest shit. And he's so not. I would never fuck him if he used that line on me."
Baby: "How about, dang, girl! That diaper's looking good on you."
How about not? How about I'm three seconds away from clawing my own eyes out and shoving them into my ears?
Baby: "What are you, a size 18 months? Yeah, I like my girls a little chubby."
Announcer: "You want some chubby?"
What? What the fuck are you talking about? If this is reliant on me having seen previous ads in whatever fucking series this is, or knowing Hawk Ford's shitty dealership slogan, that is a BAD idea, because I live in Chicago, watch a lot of TV, write about ads as a hobby, and yet can't recall ever seeing one of their ads before. If it's not reliant on that... WHAT?
Announcer: "Chubby discounts. Chubby savings."
WHAT. THE. FUCK. ARE. YOU. TALKING. ABOUT.
Does Hawk Ford know that "chubby" is also a slang term involving the penis? Were they going for that pun? When the baby says that he likes his girls "a little chubby," is that intended to be a play on words, in that he might also have a "little chubby?" Because if so, I want to drive down to Oak Lawn and light that entire dealership on fire.
And if they don't know that, and they weren't going for that pun... what in the hell were they going for?
By the way: "Chubby discounts, chubby savings" isn't even Hawk Ford's normal slogan, as evidenced by these other ads in this campaign. So... a baby calling another baby fat was just so hilarious we had to alter our whole ad to be built around it, in spite of the fact that it makes no goddamn sense? For fuck's sake, at least those other ads use the baby for semi-legit reasons. With this one it just seems like there was a bet in the office about how horrible a commercial they could make and still get it on the air.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Hamstering it up
It's about time I got around to this one.
This ad, from early 2009 or so, is a good commercial. It's a clever use of interesting visuals to communicate, getting across the idea that the Kia Soul is distinct from the many cookie-cutter cars on the road. It even gets in a couple facts about the car at the end.
Unfortunately, Kia bought into the hamsters maybe a little too much.
What the hell is that mess?
It seems pretty clear that I'm not in this ad's target demographic (the references to 145th Street and Amsterdam Avenue place the setting quite conspicuously in Harlem). But it's still baffling. First of all, Kia makes the pretty bold assumption that you remember their earlier hamster ad - it was a good ad, but it wasn't exactly "Have you had your break today?" Even beyond that, the two ads have virtually nothing in common beyond the hamsters - the hamster wheels make only a fleeting appearance in the sequel, the hamsters have now been dressed up in all manner of clothing, and Calvin Harris' "Colours" (an electronica song from 2007) has been replaced with Black Sheep's "The Choice is Yours" (a hip hop song from 1991). Really, why did they even bother to keep the hamsters? Surely the branding from the first commercial wasn't that valuable if they just threw out everything else.
Gone is the clever suggestion that the competition is like a bunch of identical hamster wheels; in its place are comparisons to a toaster and a cardboard box. Is this still supposed to represent the competition? Is it supposed to represent the used cars that might be the only other alternative for someone shopping in the Kia Soul's price range? It's impossible to say for sure when Kia is dealing entirely in metaphors. I don't know. Maybe if I lived in Harlem this ad would make perfect sense... but somehow I doubt that.
It's also worth noting that by giving the hamsters so much more to do, Kia has successfully called attention to the not-especially-good CGI they're employing in that department. The first ad seemed like it might have been mostly real hamsters until the end; I can't imagine there's a real hamster for even a frame in this commercial, and it's painfully obvious. Does that really matter? Probably not. But it looks cheap. I don't know, maybe that was the point.
This ad, from early 2009 or so, is a good commercial. It's a clever use of interesting visuals to communicate, getting across the idea that the Kia Soul is distinct from the many cookie-cutter cars on the road. It even gets in a couple facts about the car at the end.
Unfortunately, Kia bought into the hamsters maybe a little too much.
What the hell is that mess?
It seems pretty clear that I'm not in this ad's target demographic (the references to 145th Street and Amsterdam Avenue place the setting quite conspicuously in Harlem). But it's still baffling. First of all, Kia makes the pretty bold assumption that you remember their earlier hamster ad - it was a good ad, but it wasn't exactly "Have you had your break today?" Even beyond that, the two ads have virtually nothing in common beyond the hamsters - the hamster wheels make only a fleeting appearance in the sequel, the hamsters have now been dressed up in all manner of clothing, and Calvin Harris' "Colours" (an electronica song from 2007) has been replaced with Black Sheep's "The Choice is Yours" (a hip hop song from 1991). Really, why did they even bother to keep the hamsters? Surely the branding from the first commercial wasn't that valuable if they just threw out everything else.
Gone is the clever suggestion that the competition is like a bunch of identical hamster wheels; in its place are comparisons to a toaster and a cardboard box. Is this still supposed to represent the competition? Is it supposed to represent the used cars that might be the only other alternative for someone shopping in the Kia Soul's price range? It's impossible to say for sure when Kia is dealing entirely in metaphors. I don't know. Maybe if I lived in Harlem this ad would make perfect sense... but somehow I doubt that.
It's also worth noting that by giving the hamsters so much more to do, Kia has successfully called attention to the not-especially-good CGI they're employing in that department. The first ad seemed like it might have been mostly real hamsters until the end; I can't imagine there's a real hamster for even a frame in this commercial, and it's painfully obvious. Does that really matter? Probably not. But it looks cheap. I don't know, maybe that was the point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)