O Come All Ye Faithful, Come and Buy a Hyundai

Hyundai's "Duh" ads, you may recall from this very site some months ago, suck. They're supremely annoying, curiously vague, and obnoxiously smug. But at least they didn't used to look like this:



Here is how the conversation went when this ad first came on:

Knitwear M. Groundhog: At least they picked secular songs. Oh wait, here comes a lamb. Where's God?
Windier E. Megatons: Maybe God's the car.

I mean, way to go, Hyundai. Take the worst of your own ads - the stupid faux-scat-singing, the awful smugness of your announcer - and then combine that with the worst of Mazda's ads! The choir, the positioning of the car as a religious icon being worshipped... seriously, nice job. Utterly savvy marketing sense. As usual, nothing says Christmas like crass commercialism.

Of course, you'll note that Hyundai pointedly uses only secular songs - other ads I've seen in this series have used "O Tannenbaum" and "Carol of the Bells," neither of which is overtly religious in the way that, say, the otherwise mainstream "Joy to the World" is. "Winter Wonderland" is particularly secular in that it doesn't even mention Christmas by name (nor does the ad itself), and for that matter it's not even set in a specific month; the lyrical happenings could well be taking place in February (ironically, that link calls it a Christmas song several times despite the fact that it's nowhere in the lyrics).

The question becomes this: is it more sacrilegious or less sacrilegious if you use a totally secular Christmas song and then put a traditional representation of Jesus - the lamb - into the middle of your ad? I think it's pretty bad either way. There are only two explanations here. One is that Hyundai didn't know that the lamb is a common representation of Jesus (unlikely); the other is that they actively wanted that association. If they wanted it, are they really trying to suggest that Jesus would want you to buy a Hyundai? Even in the Mazda tradition, that seems awfully blasphemous. So let's give Hyundai the benefit of the doubt; maybe we should be seeing the lamb being brought forward as part of a presentation scene. Perhaps the car is for the lamb - i.e., Jesus.

[Setting: Nazareth, 16 AD]
Balthasar: Happy birthday, Jesus.
Jesus: Oh man, a car! This rules! Thanks, Balthasar, you're the greatest!
Melchior: Hey, uh, Balthasar, can we talk to you for a minute?
Balthasar: What's up, guys?
Caspar: I thought we went over this, dude. You were supposed to get him myrrh, just like I got the frankincense, and Melchior got the gold... same thing we do every year.
Balthasar: Okay, you know what, you guys got the useful gifts. Myrrh? Fucking myrrh? That's like the shittiest gift ever. "Here you go, Jesus, something that's only useful if you want to work in a funeral home." And you guys won't ever let me give him the gold once and say it's from me. So yeah, I saved up and got him a car. He's 16, he's got his license now, whatever!
Melchior: Just... you know, we're gonna seem like cheapskates now.
Caspar: Whatever, man, you get him gold every year! How do you think I feel?
Melchior: You see, Balthasar? Now Caspar's crying. I hope you're feeling really good about yourself.

I hope Hyundai is feeling really good about themselves as well. It's bad enough you're going to insult the intelligence of the viewer - now you're trying to imply that Jesus himself approves of your cars? Next time maybe stick with that first secular impulse and display your Motor Trend award like Mazda did. Oh, I guess you didn't win one. Duh.

Non-linear narrative.

I get that this woman is enjoying her whirlwind of holiday cheer:



But what in God's name is going on with the child's makeup in the very first shot? For the entire rest of the commercial I was distracted from all of the other products Kohl's seems to be promoting because I didn't understand why the five year old's face was tarted up like a Vegas showgirl. In addition, why the one poor little boy whose parents dressed him as a toy soldier while the other children seem to be wearing normal (if a bit festive) clothes? Why the oversized chalkboard in the dining room, which is, for some reason, a giant skating rink?

I like to think that this is a dream sequence from a woman who's really in a nuthouse somewhere, twirling around in an empty cell.

Dressing up is hard to do

Wendy's is really starting to piss me off.



I don't think it's even worth addressing how fucking stupid the Wendy's hair is at this point. It's stupid, we all know it's stupid, I'm sure even Wendy's knows it's stupid but is willing to stay the course for branding purposes. Whatever. What annoys me about this one is it's a classic example of that brilliant logical fallacy, the false dichotomy. Wendy's presents two options - their burger, and this ridiculous, nonexistent other burger. Because the other burger is ridiculous, Wendy's must be great, right? Right?

This actually goes beyond the false dichotomy, because it starts from a stupid premise. A burger that sings Air Supply songs is retarded and an obvious ploy ("Hey, remember Air Supply? They sucked, right? Burger King fucking loves Air Supply!"), but it's not what's stupid here, since we can all recognize it as a joke, if a terrible one. (Surprise.) What's stupid is that Wendy's is making fun of other chains for "dressing up" their burgers. Two questions:

(1) What does that even mean? Pickles?
(2) What could it possibly mean that wouldn't encompass the act of "dressing up" a burger with bacon and jalapeños as well? Answer: nothing. Note to Wendy's: if you're going to set up your commercial as an attack on your competitors, do us all a favor and attack in a way that makes a lick of sense.

One last thing: why does Wendy's have to make their spokesperson such a douchebag? First he names the burger (smugly), then describes all the ingredients - in that way no one does - and then puts the cherry on top by sticking the burger into his friend/coworker's face in apparent gloating fashion. If someone did that to me with their lunch I'd fucking spit on it. They'd probably be mad now, but later, when they're not dying of a heart attack, they'd thank me.

Whymall?

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. I know that SkyMall posts are kind of Quivering's thing, but he's not the only one who gets on a plane from time to time. And SkyMall posts are so easy - there's fish in a barrel, and then there's frozen fish fillets that you get at the supermarket, take into your backyard, allow to defrost, then drop on the ground and blast with a shotgun. That's SkyMall.



Jesus, finally. You know how many times I've been setting up a puppet show and thinking, "This bulky wooden theater requires too large a dedicated space and definitely too extensive a setup?" Put it this way: if I had a nickel for every time that happened, I'd have something on the order of zero nickels. But those days are history thanks to this incredibly useful product, which in no way appeals to only ten people on the entire planet. I love how they open with "This is the puppet theater that fits into a doorway as small as 28" in seconds." The puppet theater. "Oh yeah, I heard about that! It was the lead story on the news last week - someone finally invented a puppet theater that fits into a doorway as small as 28" in seconds! And this is the puppet theater they were talking about! I can't believe SkyMall got the rights to it!"



I guess I would believe that children will find a way to spill onto just about anything, but the placement of this forkful of spaghetti and meatballs really has me wondering. Wasn't the kid sitting on the chair? How on earth did that food end up in a location that should have been, I don't know, directly underneath the kid's butt?

Mom: Gosh, it only just occurred to me, Paul - we could probably save a lot of messes if we actually allowed the kids to sit on the chairs, rather than eating their dinner while standing over them.
Dad: No need, Diane. I got these 12-dollar pieces of plastic from SkyMall. We're eating just how we always eat.
Mom: Oh, Paul! I love you!



I'm pretty sure that "no need to leave your case of wine behind when traveling" refers to people who buy wine while on trips and have a hard time getting it home, but I think it's a lot funnier - since it's not especially clear - to read it the other way.

Businessman 1: If you think I'm going on this business trip without my twelve bottles of wine, you're crazy.
Businessman 2: Wait, Jim! Check out this SkyMall catalog!
Businessman 1: Well, it's about time someone met my embarrassing, drunken needs! San Diego Airport Hilton, here we come!



There is a serious problem with the scale in this picture. If the machine is actually next to the pile of what I'm taking to be regular-sized donuts at the left, then the mini-donuts at the right are probably about the size of a fingernail. You're going to sell these?

Kid: Mister! Mister! Want to support my basketball team by buying this Ziploc bag full of donuts?
Man: You mean those twelve tiny donuts that are each about the size of a dime? Uh, okay, how much?
Kid: Four dollars. ... Hey, where are you going?



This one kills me, because it's been in the SkyMall catalog for years and either no one has noticed the mistake or they just refuse to admit it's wrong.



Jackson apostrophe S. That's right. Apostrophe S. No! That is not how it works! Multiple Jacksons live at 1735 Highland Blvd, clearly. Either you want just The Jacksons, or to indicate possession you want The Jacksons'. The Jackson's doesn't mean anything unless one person lives there and his name is The Jackson. Which I really doubt. And it's not like SkyMall just hasn't changed the picture - I saw one of these signs in real life a few weeks ago and it had the misplaced apostrophe just like in the picture. Ye gods. Spellcheck is sending this country's grammar to hell in a handbasket.



Infomercial Straight Man: I love cats, but they're so much work. Can't I get all the benefits of owning a cat - food and veterinary expenses, nasty litterbox smells, hair all over the furniture - without any of the hassle of playing with one?
Infomercial Pitch Man: Now you can, with the revolutionary Safe Laser Beam Toy! It'll keep your cat busy playing for hours, freeing you to do other things until the next time you have to bend over and scoop his shit into a bag.
Infomercial Straight Man: Finally, a product that works for me! [gives camera a thumbs-up]

I can't legally tell you that I'm handsome and this post is hilarious

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

From the Dept. of Faint Praise...

I saw this banner ad on cnn.com today...



Makes you wonder what the other guys were saying, doesn't it?

"A wholly passable automobile manufacturer."
- Car and Driver

"Buick has become the Bette Midler of the car industry."
- Automobile

"B-minus."
- Popular Mechanics

"While everyone else was taking risks and reimagining the automotive landscape, Buick has been making their same slightly above-average cars."
- Auto World Magazine

"Yeah, no."
- Lowrider

"This just in -- Buick has revolutionized the car world. Move over, Ferrari! Take a seat, BMW! Buick is the new gold standard, and the car company against which all other car companies ever will be judged."
- Effusive Hyperbole Monthly

"Not as good as 'GO ZOOM ZOOM!'"
- Crazy Mazda Fan Digest

Ingmar Bergman's "Skittles" (1958)

I know that theoretically there is no such thing as bad publicity. Still, I can't help but wonder what Skittles was thinking here.



Aside from that awful GM robot one that ran during the Super Bowl, this might be the most depressing ad I've ever seen. Ads for Skittles and Starburst have tended to be exceedingly random, but this is five steps beyond simply "silly/goofy" and well into "bleak/terrifying." My question is, how smart is it to depict your product as the cause of someone's suffering? Shouldn't you want your brand associated only with good things? Sure, we all know that the idea of someone with this affliction is pure fancy, but a lot of existentialist fiction starts from somewhat fanciful premises, using them as allegories to discuss the human condition. Skittles tells a story in which its product generates serious human misery and doesn't seem to think anything of that. I think that's a little weird.

It kind of reminds me of the promotional short story that the National Licorice Company published in 1952, where the first line was, "Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams and found he had transformed into a giant Twizzler." That story is fucking dark.

Which came first, the stupid commercial, or the really stupid commercial?

It's possible that two people, completely separate from one another geographically, demographically, etc., could simultaneously dream up the same idea. People in ancient China and pharaonic Egypt, for example, both invented paper thousands of miles apart from each other. It's also possible, however, to completely rip someone off. One of these two scenarios occurred with these two similarly-themed commercials. The problem is, they both suck:

Burger King's Offering


Visa's Offering


Synopsis of both ads: Everyone engaged in fake juggling. Pointless, unbranded scenes of people juggling different crap -- heavy use of Power Rangers-grade CGI. All of a sudden, one person in ad does something totally normal (i.e. writing a check, being a klutz) -- everyone drops what they're juggling. Branded product to the rescue! Obnoxious juggling resumes.

Note to Burger King: Office professionals who are that busy probably don't eat at a grease trap like Burger King. They'd be bringing their own lunches and microwaving them to save time. Why don't you just stick with your usual pandering to the 18-25 fat American guy demographic?

Note to Visa Check Card: You've already been written up once before here in this blog for this very campaign. You have learned nothing. Now you're at it again, making what is, frankly, a creepy commercial. Look at the costumes for the clerks at this store! And the nightmarish robot? Which Russian Futurist did you hire to direct this ad?

Two ads, same concept, same plot, equally shitty execution -- each done by different agencies representing different companies. I can't really say which is worse. I'll probably go with whichever one came first (I think it's Burger King's), since that seems to have spawned this whole trend. I just hope we don't have to suffer another juggling commercial after these two.

You mean the fender didn't come off a Datsun?

There are good slogans, there are bad slogans, and then there are slogans that, God help them, just don't make a lick of sense. See if you can figure out which one of these the following ad uses.



Technically, the slogan is "Have fun out there," which is fine if wholly uninspiring. But of course what I'm referring to is "the new all Jeep Liberty." Hey, it's like "all new," but backwards! Ha ha ha! That's so awesome! Hey, Jeep, guess what? Every model you make is "all Jeep." That's the fucking name of your brand. It's not like the Wrangler was cobbled together from spare parts found in a junkyard. It's just nonsense, with the added bonus that it's nowhere near as clever as Jeep clearly thinks it is.

The ad itself isn't much better. What is the one thing everyone knows about Jeeps? That they have good off-road capability. So what are you getting out of intentionally interrupting your discussion of the other features (pretending it was an accident, wakka wakka!) to just show that it can go off-road? Also, commercial voice-overs aren't done live. Also, I think I'm pretty well-established as hating ads that time-waste like this in lieu of saying much of anything about the product. Hey, how about ten seconds of empty road while the voice-over guy stutters? That'll get the word out!

[Jeep exits the road again]
Voice-over: *sigh* "You gotta be kidding."

Yeah, what are the odds that a Jeep - known for going off-road! - would drive off the road? Especially in an ad for a Jeep! Maybe it's just me, but I fail to see how it's good marketing to act surprised when your product works like it's supposed to. I'll buy "Check out how Jeep goes off-road," but you're really testing my patience when you run with "Wait, Jeeps go off-road? How did we, the makers of Jeep, not realize that?" We all know that's what they do. Maybe instead of jokily cutting off the description of the car's interior, you might actually want to use that, given that that is what would actually distinguish your product from competing brands like Land Rover and Hummer. Crazy, I know.

So, you want me to do your job for you, at home, for free.

If there's anything worse than a bad ad campaign, it's one that desperately wants to enlist you, the viewer, to do the legwork. And better yet, to do the legwork and pay for the privilege.

AT&T has set up a site where you can now - get this! - make three-place-name stupid mashups of your very own, and then get those put on a t-shirt, which you can then wear, for the low low price of $17.95 plus shipping (which adds an astonishing six bucks to the total, meaning you're actually paying nearly $25). And won't you be proud when someone asks about your shirt and you have to explain to them not only that you're an embarrassing corporate shill but that you actually paid money to be an embarrassing corporate shill?

It took a lot of chutzpah on AT&T's part to push something like this, especially since the name generator isn't even very good. Would it really have been that difficult to, say, write into the code something that would keep letters from repeating if they were ones that didn't look good doubled up? I tried inputting Philadelphia, Delaware and Prague like in the ad, but instead of getting Philawareprague, I ended up with "Philaawue." Terrific. You couldn't even set it up to make the ones you used in your ads? Putting in Virginia, Colorado and Sacramento - which I assume are the constituent parts of "Virgicolomento" - gives me "Virorento."

The bad, albeit unsurprising, news is that you can't just type in swear words; AT&T recognizes them and tells you that you "owe the swear jar 25 cents" - at least it's not 25 dollars - and requests you try again, without even letting you see your creation in lights. The good news? It can still be tricked. See if you can figure out how I feel about this "viral" campaign from the following screenshot, which was not doctored in any way:



The last two aren't close to being real place names, of course, and I get the feeling they wouldn't print this even if I were willing to buy it, but I think I made my point. Population: 1, indeed.