A few years ago, Dodge ran a campaign that I tore into on this here blog. The premise of that campaign was, predominantly, that Dodge cars were manly cars for men. (The kind of cars you could drink a Dr. Pepper Ten while driving, perhaps.) The ads were laughably inconsistent - when marketing the Charger, Dodge implied that it was unmanly to drive a minivan, but as soon as it had to sell the Grand Caravan, suddenly driving a minivan was the manliest thing on God's green earth. It was really kind of pathetic. Fortunately, Dodge has backed down from this embarrassing stance. Unfortunately, here comes Chevy to fill the void.
A version of this ad, though perhaps not the exact same one, aired during the Super Bowl. And Chevy's pitch is right there on the table: buy a truck or you're a loser.
Announcer: "Can a truck change how people feel about a guy?"
Maybe? People feel different ways about people for all sorts of reasons. The real question is whether said guy should make important purchasing decisions based exclusively on that.
Announcer: "We talked to real people. Not actors."
The lady doth protest too much, methinks. But let's assume these are real people; who gives a shit? Real people are just as likely to give you the answer they know you want to hear as an actor you've handed a script. Especially when giving the right answer is going to get them on television.
Announcer: "We showed them two pictures of the same guy in the same location."
Right away you can see the problem with this, right? People aren't stupid. You think they didn't know this was the same guy? You think they didn't know the only difference in the photos was that one guy was standing in front of your truck and one was standing in front of a Honda Civic or whatever? So with that in mind, how much weight do you REALLY want to put in their answers? Oh, all of it? Okay.
Interviewer: "Which man is sexier?"
Women: "Truck."
Woman: "That one has way more sex appeal."
That's right, guys: unless you drive a Chevy Colorado, no woman will EVER want to fuck you. Mark it down!
Woman: "This [car] guy is definitely the guy your mom wants you to marry, and this [truck] is the guy you're gonna run off to, and leave him, to be with him."
I'm thinking car guy dodged a real bullet on this one. Seriously, though, am I supposed to be taking any of this seriously? These women know why they're there. Fuck, the truck has a prominent Chevy logo while the car isn't even marked. We're here to talk about a truck. And then they get asked an insipid question like judging the sex appeal of two identical guys based solely on the vehicle photoshopped in behind them. What are they gonna say?
Announcer: "You know you want a truck."
I hated it when Kraft tried to use this kind of slogan, and I hate it now. Trying to tell me, the consumer, what I want is just the most embarrassing kind of desperation. You can't just encourage me to buy your product? You have to try and be like, "I know you don't think you want this. But you do! Secretly you do. Chevy sees into your dreams and we know your darkest fears. Buy a Colorado... unless you want people to find out what happened at summer camp in 1994?"
Here's the thing about this when it comes to the Colorado (or any truck) in particular. If you need a truck, go ahead and get a truck. Like, do you have a boat you need to haul out to the lake and back? Great! Get a truck! No problem here. But you don't need to sell trucks to those people with this angle because (a) they probably already have a truck if they need it for real reasons and (b) they do know they want a truck and so don't need to be told that. So who is this marketing to? Guys in general. Guys who drive compact, or maybe midsize, cars like the total weenies that they are.
For instance, take a look at this spot:
This doesn't even make a ton of sense, really. So we have this one guy arriving at the office on what is presumably supposed to be a Monday morning, and he's driving what looks like a Honda Civic or similar. He gets to be represented by a Carpenters song. But then he crosses paths with our bad-ass hero, represented by AC/DC, who drives the Chevy Colorado. But what is the deal with his work schedule? Has he been there all night? All weekend? Or does he just get to come and go as he pleases, because... he drives a truck? Also, there's no visible reason in the ad for him to have or need a truck. He has one because he wants to, I guess. Which is fair enough. But is that really practical? Am I really supposed to be super impressed by a guy who drives a truck in the city for no reason?
Just to ram it home, here's Chevy's copy below that ad on YouTube:
"When you're behind the wheel of Motor Trend’s 2015 Truck of the Year, you sit differently and you walk differently. And suddenly the world is different. The world is yours for the taking."
Look, bullshit, okay? You walk differently? Come on. I know advertisers are pretty much obligated to pump the shit out of their products, but this is just nonsense.
(Oh, and lest we think that Chevy is not completely serious about pushing this angle to the limit, just check out some of the ancillary content they've got on YouTube, which includes "We gave this guy a truck and it improved his dating profile" and, no shit, "We made a fake deodorant and some people bought it, therefore trucks are cool." I really don't even have anything to add here.)
Let's get back to fundamentals for a second. Back when I wrote that Dodge post, I cited market research showing that women made more than 50% of all new vehicle purchases and influenced 80% of all vehicle sales overall. That was five years ago, but I can't imagine things have changed TOO much since then. In addition, according to this review of the 2015 Colorado by one of the editors at AutoGuide.com, the midsize truck segment has been "withering away for years." If you're trying to kickstart it, do you really want to market yourself so narrowly? You're pretty much ignoring women entirely! Of course, you're also marketing your truck almost exclusively to the kind of man who doesn't really need a truck but is worried about being seen as less sexy, or as the kind of pansy who owns birds instead of a German shepherd, or as soul patch guy instead of mutton chops guy. (Side note: holy FUCK these ads are embarrassingly reductive.) So, not really opening up a big segment of the market there, maybe?
I'd guess the midsize truck market is kind of a tough sell. If you need a truck regularly, you might prefer a larger truck (like Chevy's Silverado, the GMC Sierra, the Dodge Ram, etc.) that can handle a wider range of activities. And if you rarely if ever need a truck, there's not much reason to buy a truck, is there? One can't help but wonder if GM's push here is based on the hope that plummeting gas prices will make people more willing to buy enormous, impractical cars again. (I mean: remember how ubiquitous Hummer was for a while? Did you know that brand became completely defunct five years ago? There's a reason for that.)
But of course, people aren't just going to buy big-ass trucks they don't have any need for, no matter how cheap gas is. So what's the next move? Try to make it about image. Sure, you may not NEED a pickup truck. But aren't they cool? Aren't they rugged? Wouldn't you feel like more of a man if you were driving one? Look, Chevy, I can get a German shepherd for a lot less than the cost of a truck that will apparently make children think I own one. Building a whole ad campaign around lazy stereotypes aimed at insecure single men in the 25-45 age range might work, I suppose. But you guys better pray that gas prices don't rebound any time soon.
What really kills me about the whole thing is that Chevy's first piece of Colorado-related content on YouTube (which I've never seen on TV, needless to say) is actually pretty good:
Like, that's an acceptable amount of swagger for a car commercial. And it actually shows the truck being used in places where I'd expect to need or want a truck. It shows some things it's good for. It shows people of both sexes using the truck! And most impressively, it doesn't bother trying to call you a wuss if you aren't interested. So, obviously, Chevy dumped it when it came time to truly market the Colorado. I mean, advertising that isn't insulting to the viewer's intelligence? Who'd want that?
Thursday, February 5, 2015
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
Screw you and the tweet you rode in on
I will confess to being very confused about what this ad is trying to accomplish.
First of all, I continue to be impressed that Papa John's is utterly incapable of making a commercial for their cheeseburger pizza that makes it look even slightly appealing. Look at that thing. It looks like a real chef overturned his scrap bucket onto it. And that cheese looks like Elmer's glue. I ate a lot of Papa John's pizza in college and it was fine, but who is really demanding these complex, evoking-other-foods recipes anyway? Well, I guess we're about to find out.
Papa John: "When we stopped selling the cheeseburger pizza, boy did I hear about it. @BiggBill7 writes..."
Well, we can all see what he wrote. This is an actual Twitter account with literally just those three tweets, posted back in November. The account has also favorited 13 tweets, 12 of which were posted by Papa John's (the last one merely references Papa John's). In other words, this account was almost certainly created by some Papa John's marketing intern (or an intern at their ad agency) several months ago JUST to set up this AMAZING ad.
So anyway, Papa John reveals "Big Bill" as... some eight-year-old kid or whatever. That is the punchline to this ad. The question is, what's the joke here? Who or what is it on? Is it:
(a) Poking fun at the kind of people who would go on Twitter to complain about not being able to get a specific variety of pizza anymore by implying that they're all children?
Ineffective, if so, since Papa John is openly suggesting that he brought the pizza back at least partly in response to such complaints. Also maybe kind of needlessly insulting to what I'd think would be a key demographic?
(b) Suggesting that the best market for a "cheeseburger pizza" is grade school children?
Kind of a problem since children don't usually make household purchasing decisions.
(c) Just a lazy joke with no real thought behind it at all, which frankly is what you'd expect from a guy who thinks he should appear in all his own ads and that putting pickles on a pizza was somehow a good idea?
Maybe!
First of all, I continue to be impressed that Papa John's is utterly incapable of making a commercial for their cheeseburger pizza that makes it look even slightly appealing. Look at that thing. It looks like a real chef overturned his scrap bucket onto it. And that cheese looks like Elmer's glue. I ate a lot of Papa John's pizza in college and it was fine, but who is really demanding these complex, evoking-other-foods recipes anyway? Well, I guess we're about to find out.
Papa John: "When we stopped selling the cheeseburger pizza, boy did I hear about it. @BiggBill7 writes..."
Well, we can all see what he wrote. This is an actual Twitter account with literally just those three tweets, posted back in November. The account has also favorited 13 tweets, 12 of which were posted by Papa John's (the last one merely references Papa John's). In other words, this account was almost certainly created by some Papa John's marketing intern (or an intern at their ad agency) several months ago JUST to set up this AMAZING ad.
So anyway, Papa John reveals "Big Bill" as... some eight-year-old kid or whatever. That is the punchline to this ad. The question is, what's the joke here? Who or what is it on? Is it:
(a) Poking fun at the kind of people who would go on Twitter to complain about not being able to get a specific variety of pizza anymore by implying that they're all children?
Ineffective, if so, since Papa John is openly suggesting that he brought the pizza back at least partly in response to such complaints. Also maybe kind of needlessly insulting to what I'd think would be a key demographic?
(b) Suggesting that the best market for a "cheeseburger pizza" is grade school children?
Kind of a problem since children don't usually make household purchasing decisions.
(c) Just a lazy joke with no real thought behind it at all, which frankly is what you'd expect from a guy who thinks he should appear in all his own ads and that putting pickles on a pizza was somehow a good idea?
Maybe!
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
The perfect beer for people with no tastebuds
The Budweiser ad with the dog and the horse was probably the most popular of the Super Bowl, for obvious reasons - people love cute dogs. Sure, those ads have nothing to do with Budweiser, but it doesn't matter. Fortunately for our purposes, Bud wasn't satisfied with just having a cute ad and getting out.
Remember: Bud spent nine million dollars to air this. Let's play a little game of Text/Subtext, shall we?
Onscreen text: "Budweiser - proudly a macro beer"
"Proudly produced in a giant factory. Proudly made by a soulless multinational. Proudly indifferent to craftsmanship."
Text: "It's not brewed to be fussed over"
"It's not brewed to taste good. It's not brewed to taste like ANYTHING. It's brewed to go down quickly and easily. It's brewed to get slammed. It's brewed to be sold in a 24-pack."
Text: "It's brewed for a crisp, smooth finish"
"It's brewed so you don't have to think about it. Down the hatch! Here comes the alcohol, bloodstream!"
Text: "This is the only beer beechwood-aged"
"Please don't ask what it means that no one else cares about beechwood-aging. Like, really, if that were so great someone else would probably do it, right?"
Text: "There's only one Budweiser - it's brewed for drinking, not dissecting"
"What kind of flavor profile are you getting?"
"Uh, absolutely zero."
"Yeah, me too. Basically just tastes like piss water."
"But hey! It's got alcohol in it! Let's just pound this shit and get wasted!"
"Aw yeah, bro!" *bottles clink*
Text: "The people who drink our beer are people who like to drink beer"
"The people who drink our beer are people who like to use beer as a way to wash down chicken wings."
Text: "Brewed the hard way"
"Just kidding. Brewed in enormous brewing plants that have been set up to streamline the creation of beer over years of mass production."
Text: "Let them sip their pumpkin peach ale"
"Beer isn't for SIPPING like some nancy boy! It's for CHUGGING! Swallowing by the GLUG. Finishing a bottle in UNDER THIRTY SECONDS. Because this is about taste! And how we lack it entirely."
(Also, as has been pointed out in many places already, Anheuser-Busch recently bought a microbrewery that makes a beer almost identical to the supposedly hyperbolic concoction they're making fun of here. Awkward!)
Text: "We'll be brewing us some golden suds"
"Our beer looks and tastes like it came out of a mop bucket that someone pissed in! THIRSTY?"
Text: "This is the famous Budweiser beer"
"Proving vaguely acceptable to millions of palates, truly enjoyed by none."
Text: "This Bud's for you"
Tiny fucking text: "Enjoy responsibly"
"Budweiser! Produced in huge quantities so you can DRINK IT in huge quantities! But uh, you know, don't have TOO many. We guess. Someone made us write this. So we wrote it as small as possible. Just keep drinking."
Ad Age published some quotes from Budweiser VP Brian Perkins that, much like this ad itself, are almost hilariously clueless. Perkins claims the ad is not an attack on craft beer - which I suppose he'd have to claim, given that Anheuser-Busch now owns a number of craft breweries. It's an attack on pretentiousness! The pretentiousness of wanting your beer to have character, I guess, and not be made to wash down without a second thought. Soooo snobbish.
We've talked about this kind of ad a number of times over the years: the ad that markets itself only to people who already use the product. It's like a high-five to the dude who's tossing cases of Bud into the back of his truck in the middle of Nebraska, or whatever. Which of course is ironic because the ad primarily shows people drinking Buds in upscale urban bar settings, which is probably the last place in America where a group of friends comes in and asks for a round of Budweiser. In fact, that Ad Age article reveals that Bud has had trouble gaining traction in the under-30 set, and suggests that going back to the old "This Bud's for you" slogan is actually a way of turning their focus back to older people. Older people who, I guess, just want to throw back a few.
But you can see why Bud would go on the attack. This is a very political way of selling something - if you're not with us, you're against us. Should we try to win over new customers? Nope. And that's not wrong - if you're a "pumpkin peach ale drinker" (excuse me, "sipper"), you're not seeing a Budweiser ad and thinking, "You know, I'm really getting bored with drinking interesting beer! How about the single most boring, mass-produced lager on the planet instead?" It's like McDonald's running an ad that makes fun of molecular gastronomy. The Venn diagram was already two perfect circles. This isn't a conversion exercise. It's the beer ad equivalent of Donald Trump demanding to see President Obama's birth certificate - red meat to try and fire up the base.
Bud claims this is still about winning over new customers, but no. If you had a bunch of friends but knew a few people who didn't like you, would you spend time trying to make those people into your friends? Or would you hang out with your actual friends and talk shit about those people? Most people would do the latter, and that's what this is. Bud isn't reaching a hand out to non-Bud drinkers. It's flipping them the bird. "This Bud's not for you. Because you don't want it anyway. So fuck you." I guess that was worth nine million dollars.
Remember: Bud spent nine million dollars to air this. Let's play a little game of Text/Subtext, shall we?
Onscreen text: "Budweiser - proudly a macro beer"
"Proudly produced in a giant factory. Proudly made by a soulless multinational. Proudly indifferent to craftsmanship."
Text: "It's not brewed to be fussed over"
"It's not brewed to taste good. It's not brewed to taste like ANYTHING. It's brewed to go down quickly and easily. It's brewed to get slammed. It's brewed to be sold in a 24-pack."
Text: "It's brewed for a crisp, smooth finish"
"It's brewed so you don't have to think about it. Down the hatch! Here comes the alcohol, bloodstream!"
Text: "This is the only beer beechwood-aged"
"Please don't ask what it means that no one else cares about beechwood-aging. Like, really, if that were so great someone else would probably do it, right?"
Text: "There's only one Budweiser - it's brewed for drinking, not dissecting"
"What kind of flavor profile are you getting?"
"Uh, absolutely zero."
"Yeah, me too. Basically just tastes like piss water."
"But hey! It's got alcohol in it! Let's just pound this shit and get wasted!"
"Aw yeah, bro!" *bottles clink*
Text: "The people who drink our beer are people who like to drink beer"
"The people who drink our beer are people who like to use beer as a way to wash down chicken wings."
Text: "Brewed the hard way"
"Just kidding. Brewed in enormous brewing plants that have been set up to streamline the creation of beer over years of mass production."
Text: "Let them sip their pumpkin peach ale"
"Beer isn't for SIPPING like some nancy boy! It's for CHUGGING! Swallowing by the GLUG. Finishing a bottle in UNDER THIRTY SECONDS. Because this is about taste! And how we lack it entirely."
(Also, as has been pointed out in many places already, Anheuser-Busch recently bought a microbrewery that makes a beer almost identical to the supposedly hyperbolic concoction they're making fun of here. Awkward!)
Text: "We'll be brewing us some golden suds"
"Our beer looks and tastes like it came out of a mop bucket that someone pissed in! THIRSTY?"
Text: "This is the famous Budweiser beer"
"Proving vaguely acceptable to millions of palates, truly enjoyed by none."
Text: "This Bud's for you"
Tiny fucking text: "Enjoy responsibly"
"Budweiser! Produced in huge quantities so you can DRINK IT in huge quantities! But uh, you know, don't have TOO many. We guess. Someone made us write this. So we wrote it as small as possible. Just keep drinking."
Ad Age published some quotes from Budweiser VP Brian Perkins that, much like this ad itself, are almost hilariously clueless. Perkins claims the ad is not an attack on craft beer - which I suppose he'd have to claim, given that Anheuser-Busch now owns a number of craft breweries. It's an attack on pretentiousness! The pretentiousness of wanting your beer to have character, I guess, and not be made to wash down without a second thought. Soooo snobbish.
We've talked about this kind of ad a number of times over the years: the ad that markets itself only to people who already use the product. It's like a high-five to the dude who's tossing cases of Bud into the back of his truck in the middle of Nebraska, or whatever. Which of course is ironic because the ad primarily shows people drinking Buds in upscale urban bar settings, which is probably the last place in America where a group of friends comes in and asks for a round of Budweiser. In fact, that Ad Age article reveals that Bud has had trouble gaining traction in the under-30 set, and suggests that going back to the old "This Bud's for you" slogan is actually a way of turning their focus back to older people. Older people who, I guess, just want to throw back a few.
But you can see why Bud would go on the attack. This is a very political way of selling something - if you're not with us, you're against us. Should we try to win over new customers? Nope. And that's not wrong - if you're a "pumpkin peach ale drinker" (excuse me, "sipper"), you're not seeing a Budweiser ad and thinking, "You know, I'm really getting bored with drinking interesting beer! How about the single most boring, mass-produced lager on the planet instead?" It's like McDonald's running an ad that makes fun of molecular gastronomy. The Venn diagram was already two perfect circles. This isn't a conversion exercise. It's the beer ad equivalent of Donald Trump demanding to see President Obama's birth certificate - red meat to try and fire up the base.
Bud claims this is still about winning over new customers, but no. If you had a bunch of friends but knew a few people who didn't like you, would you spend time trying to make those people into your friends? Or would you hang out with your actual friends and talk shit about those people? Most people would do the latter, and that's what this is. Bud isn't reaching a hand out to non-Bud drinkers. It's flipping them the bird. "This Bud's not for you. Because you don't want it anyway. So fuck you." I guess that was worth nine million dollars.
Shh, don't tell 'em
Do you think Nissan actually knows what "Cat's in the Cradle" is about?
A quick refresher: "Cat's in the Cradle" is a song about a father who never has any time for his kid. The kid nevertheless talks about wanting to grow up to be like his father - and then, lo and behold, he does, growing into a man who is constantly busy and never has time to spend with his father, who has aged into a regretful old man upset with himself for ignoring his son all those years. That song is BRUTAL AS FUCK. That it's somehow turned into a fatherhood anthem just because the word "Dad" is in the lyrics is right up there with "Born in the USA" in the all-time "no one listened to these lyrics besides the chorus" rankings.
The question is what Nissan is even trying to do here. The plot of this ad: race car driver has a kid. He's never at home because he's off nearly getting killed in his race car. Then at the end he actually shows up for a change! And he gets a hug. The end.
This could have been a contender for the SkyMall Championship Trophy in our Super Bored Awards. Because what the fuck. The dad is a race car driver in a Nissan car. So, in other words, all the anguish and emotional distance being experienced by this family is at least partly Nissan's fault! "Yeah, sorry I missed your birthday, son, but I was off driving around in my sweet-ass Nissan race car!"
I suppose Nissan has to know what "Cat's in the Cradle" is about since the plot of the ad basically dovetails exactly with the plot of the song (though really just the first two and a half verses). But how did they think this was going to sell cars? This is one of those "the only important thing is getting our name out there" ads, which I've never thought made a lot of sense coming from companies whose names are already well known. If you're Nissan, I don't think there's a ton you can do to boost your Q rating compared to, say, Mophie. But you can probably screw it up! And one way to do that is by making a weird, depressing ad that has nothing to do with your actual products. I guess we see a new-looking Nissan at the end. You need eagle eyes to spot the model name, though. Worth it.
In case you think that Nissan really gave any significant thought to this "#withdad" campaign they're running, check out this thing that supposedly was intended as a "teaser" for their Super Bowl ad:
Setting aside the fact that this barely constitutes a "prank," this video of an apparently stay-at-home dad having fun with his kids is literally as far as possible from the plot of Nissan's Super Bowl ad as I can even imagine.
And the cat's in the cradle and the silver spoon
Little boy blue and a ball-filled room
When ya comin' home dad, I'm home right now
I don't have an actual job, son, so I'm here all the time
Also: the idea of filling a non-ball-pit room with balls? Not new. I'm sure your wife appreciates how annoying you've made her life after her 40-minute commute, though.
And here's another video (this one part of a series on YouTube) about the Matthews family, who have been playing in the NFL for three generations. This isn't bad for like, a SportsCenter piece. But what value does it have as Nissan content? Oh, but there are dads in it! So hashtag that shit up, man!
This is just incoherent, right? It has nothing to do with anything. Nissan wants to make a bunch of branded content with dad stuff because... what? Are dads their key demo now? "Nissan! The perfect boring mid-size car for your boring middle-age dad life!" I guess it's a change of pace from the usual push to market everything to the 18-to-34 demographic, but linking a bunch of totally unrelated stuff together with a dad-related hashtag is super uninspiring. You can practically see the marketing meeting in which this was conceived.
Exec 1: "Okay, here's the pitch: dads."
Exec 2: "What do you mean, dads?"
Exec 1: "Dads! Hashtag, 'dads.' 'Nissan: the boring car for boring dads.'"
Exec 3: "Yeah, we're not gonna-"
Exec 1: "Okay, forget the boring part. But trust me: dads. What do you think of when you think of dads?"
Exec 2: "Um... football?"
Exec 1: "Great! What about you?"
Exec 3: "Miserable absentee bastards."
Exec 1: "Oh! That's, uh, that's very specific..."
Exec 3: "Lousy, no-good, never home, never said he loved me, missed all my soccer games, rat-fu-"
Exec 1 [jotting down notes]: "Yeah, no, this is good stuff, Phil. I think we can make this work."
Exec 2: "And this is going to sell Nissans?"
Exec 1 [shrugging]: "I mean... it might?"
A quick refresher: "Cat's in the Cradle" is a song about a father who never has any time for his kid. The kid nevertheless talks about wanting to grow up to be like his father - and then, lo and behold, he does, growing into a man who is constantly busy and never has time to spend with his father, who has aged into a regretful old man upset with himself for ignoring his son all those years. That song is BRUTAL AS FUCK. That it's somehow turned into a fatherhood anthem just because the word "Dad" is in the lyrics is right up there with "Born in the USA" in the all-time "no one listened to these lyrics besides the chorus" rankings.
The question is what Nissan is even trying to do here. The plot of this ad: race car driver has a kid. He's never at home because he's off nearly getting killed in his race car. Then at the end he actually shows up for a change! And he gets a hug. The end.
This could have been a contender for the SkyMall Championship Trophy in our Super Bored Awards. Because what the fuck. The dad is a race car driver in a Nissan car. So, in other words, all the anguish and emotional distance being experienced by this family is at least partly Nissan's fault! "Yeah, sorry I missed your birthday, son, but I was off driving around in my sweet-ass Nissan race car!"
I suppose Nissan has to know what "Cat's in the Cradle" is about since the plot of the ad basically dovetails exactly with the plot of the song (though really just the first two and a half verses). But how did they think this was going to sell cars? This is one of those "the only important thing is getting our name out there" ads, which I've never thought made a lot of sense coming from companies whose names are already well known. If you're Nissan, I don't think there's a ton you can do to boost your Q rating compared to, say, Mophie. But you can probably screw it up! And one way to do that is by making a weird, depressing ad that has nothing to do with your actual products. I guess we see a new-looking Nissan at the end. You need eagle eyes to spot the model name, though. Worth it.
In case you think that Nissan really gave any significant thought to this "#withdad" campaign they're running, check out this thing that supposedly was intended as a "teaser" for their Super Bowl ad:
Setting aside the fact that this barely constitutes a "prank," this video of an apparently stay-at-home dad having fun with his kids is literally as far as possible from the plot of Nissan's Super Bowl ad as I can even imagine.
And the cat's in the cradle and the silver spoon
Little boy blue and a ball-filled room
When ya comin' home dad, I'm home right now
I don't have an actual job, son, so I'm here all the time
Also: the idea of filling a non-ball-pit room with balls? Not new. I'm sure your wife appreciates how annoying you've made her life after her 40-minute commute, though.
And here's another video (this one part of a series on YouTube) about the Matthews family, who have been playing in the NFL for three generations. This isn't bad for like, a SportsCenter piece. But what value does it have as Nissan content? Oh, but there are dads in it! So hashtag that shit up, man!
This is just incoherent, right? It has nothing to do with anything. Nissan wants to make a bunch of branded content with dad stuff because... what? Are dads their key demo now? "Nissan! The perfect boring mid-size car for your boring middle-age dad life!" I guess it's a change of pace from the usual push to market everything to the 18-to-34 demographic, but linking a bunch of totally unrelated stuff together with a dad-related hashtag is super uninspiring. You can practically see the marketing meeting in which this was conceived.
Exec 1: "Okay, here's the pitch: dads."
Exec 2: "What do you mean, dads?"
Exec 1: "Dads! Hashtag, 'dads.' 'Nissan: the boring car for boring dads.'"
Exec 3: "Yeah, we're not gonna-"
Exec 1: "Okay, forget the boring part. But trust me: dads. What do you think of when you think of dads?"
Exec 2: "Um... football?"
Exec 1: "Great! What about you?"
Exec 3: "Miserable absentee bastards."
Exec 1: "Oh! That's, uh, that's very specific..."
Exec 3: "Lousy, no-good, never home, never said he loved me, missed all my soccer games, rat-fu-"
Exec 1 [jotting down notes]: "Yeah, no, this is good stuff, Phil. I think we can make this work."
Exec 2: "And this is going to sell Nissans?"
Exec 1 [shrugging]: "I mean... it might?"
Monday, February 2, 2015
Would you like mawkish sentiment with that?
You'll sometimes hear it said that certain companies or products are so ingrained in the cultural consciousness that they don't need to advertise. That's probably true to some extent, but logically, if it were really true, those companies wouldn't be among the most prominent in the ad world, would they? Coke is one that comes to mind - what's the longest you've ever gone without seeing a Coke ad on TV? McDonald's is another. There are thousands of McDonald's locations all over the country. Do they need to advertise? Maybe not. But they ALSO don't need to do shit like this. And yet here they are doing it anyway.
Let me pre-empt the lovefest by getting this out of the way: McDonald's does not give a fuck about you, except inasmuch as you are a person with money.
Cashier: "Hi, welcome to McDonald's, how can I help you?"
Guy in Knit Cap: "Two hash browns and a small coffee?"
Cashier: "You know what, for your payment today - do you have your cell phone with you?"
Guy [warily]: "Yeah."
That guy is right to be suspicious, IMO. How often do you go to some store and they want your e-mail so they can send you coupons every day for the rest of eternity? He's probably expecting them to be like "Do you have your cell phone with you? Well if you install our app you can save EIGHT CENTS on this order!"
Cashier: "Dial up your mom, tell her you love her."
Dude continues to stare at the cashier. And he's correct to! Because this is weird.
Here's a question I have about this. It does seem like these might be real people. But what weird Stage McDonald's are they walking into where all the cashiers are these super-peppy, good-at-selling-this-bizarre-concept non-sullen-teenagers? Maybe this was shot in Los Angeles where every McDonald's is probably stacked to the brim with Juilliard graduates.
[Twinkly piano music starts.]
Guy in vest: "Excuse me?"
That guy actually seems like he might be a little pissed. "My mom died two years ago, you fuckhead! Just give me my damn hash browns!"
Woman in coat: "Hey mom, just wanted to let you know that I love you..."
"Hey mom, just wanted to let you know that I would never have made this call if I weren't being forced to do so by a multinational corporation pretending it cares about family values!" Seriously, how pissed must that woman's mother have been when she saw this commercial for the first time? "Wait a second! I thought that was just a spontaneous call from Megan! It was so sweet! And she really only did it to get a free hamburger? GOD DAMN IT."
Guy [looking vaguely embarrassed]: "Te quiero mucho."
Old guy: "How about you just tell me how much it is?"
Cashier: "That is how much it is! Boom!
What percentage of the time was that the initial response? "Quit fucking around and just give me the total, man."
Female cashier: "Your payment today will be... tell me what you love about your son."
Starts to get a little suspicious here. How was this arranged? They're acting like they're reading it off the screen, but it's not like the screen is going to know that the person who just walked up has a son, much less that he's conveniently standing there. If this was improvised because these cashiers are really actors, then I somehow doubt - even if McDonald's legitimately runs this promotion across the United States - that your experience will match this one. (Also, McDonald's is franchised. I wonder if a lot of franchise owners - who can pretty much do whatever the fuck they want within reason, as evidenced by the recent revelation that the McPizza is still being sold at two stores in the Ohio River valley - are lining up to give away free shit by telling their 16-year-old register drones to ask every 500th customer to hug their kids or whatever. Remember, prices and participation may vary!)
Mom: "I love... his compassion for other people."
[Other patrons applaud]
Oh come on. This didn't fucking happen. Unless McDonald's is treating this like waiters at a chain restaurant announcing a birthday. "Attention McDonald's guests! We know you had to pay for your food, but up front here we have Cheryl, and we've decided to let her pay using a sappy challenge question! Cheryl... name something you love about your son!" And the other diners are... happy she loves her son? Really pleased they got to partake in this spectacle? Or... taking direction from the person who brought all the cameras into the restaurant? I'm thinking it's that one. If I were just sitting in a McDonald's you can bet I wouldn't start clapping for ANYTHING that happened, not least because I'd be too busy feeling pissed off that I had to eat at a McDonald's.
Other female cashier: "The total says that she has to dance, right now!"
Women: "No!"
I hear ya, ladies. Oh, and then you see several cashiers dancing with the customers, and again you hear cheers and applause in the background. McDonald's REALLY wanted people to know this was happening. Or, more likely, everyone there knew a commercial was being shot. Much like that Bud Light ad from last night, it's almost impressive how quickly we go from "hidden cameras" trying to make the whole thing seem as real as possible to some obviously fake, scripted bullshit. Even if the people in this ad are real people who happened to walk into a McDonald's that day, and even if they didn't know they were going to get free food for embarrassing themselves on national television, I'm pretty sure they had some idea they were on camera.
Other female cashier: "That strawberry sundae's waiting on you!
Raising the roof guy: "Strawberry sundae!"
And again, CHEERS AND APPLAUSE. "Hey, we gave away one of our cheapest items! LOVE US."
Other female cashier: "You paid with lovin', that's all we need."
And finally we get to the point of this gross, cynical campaign. "Pay with lovin'." There's an onscreen graphic right after this which says, "Through February 14, McDonald's will randomly select customers to Pay with Lovin'." Wow, less than two weeks. You spoil us. (The fine print, which states that no purchase or order is necessary, is curious. I suppose that's a legal necessity but how would that even work? I walk into a McDonald's and go "Hey, can I get some free food if I hug my family? No? THEN I'M FUCKIN' OUTTA HERE.") What's "lovin'" about raising the roof anyway? Did they try asking that guy to tell various family members he loves them and he just kept going "Dead. They're dead. She's dead too. Can I just have my sundae?"
Female cashier: "Your total is one big family hug."
Sorry, but if you need McDonald's to inspire you to display any affection towards your family members, you've got way bigger things to worry about than the three bucks you're saving on your free Big Mac.
Let's be clear here: McDonald's does not care about you. They don't care if you love your mom. They don't care if you hug your kids. They care about your money. This ad campaign/promotion, by suggesting that they DO care if you love your mom and DON'T care about your money, is the most revolting kind of calculated, manipulative bullshit there is. It's true that McDonald's isn't going to worry too much about your money on a single trip. They can afford to give away a few thousand orders, or however many are going to fall under this 12-day promotion. What they want is for you to associate them with "lovin'." If hugging your mom gets you free food at McDonald's, that just might encourage you to go back to McDonald's! Because (a) you might get something free again (spoiler: you won't) and (b) you feel like McDonald's cares somehow. They don't. This whole campaign is basically a social psychology experiment with your money as the dependent variable.
Why should McDonald's care about you, of course? They're a company, and they have a bottom line. Getting you to come in and spend money there is part of that bottom line. And that's fine. But it's the WAY they want to get you in the door that I have a problem with. As annoying as I found ads like "The Quarter Pounder with Cheese knows you're eye-fucking it" - oh, did I ever - at least those dealt with McDonald's products. The only products even mentioned in this ad: hash browns, coffee, and a strawberry sundae. Because for the purposes of this ad, it is irrelevant what McDonald's sells. They could be a fucking hardware store for all we care. This is about manipulating the consumer. This is about getting you in the door not because you really like the product but because you've formed certain mental associations about the people behind the product. Yeah, advertising is all about social psychology in a lot of ways. But it's rarely quite this craven.
Just remember, this is the same corporation that is run on the backs of people who it even admits will need a second job just to make ends meet. (If you've ever wondered why McDonald's is staffed largely by teenagers, it's because only people who don't pay rent can afford to fucking work there.) Maybe instead of giving away food to people who, having walked into the restaurant with the intent of ordering and paying, can obviously afford it, they could use that money to pay their employees a living wage. Sure, it's not as warm and fuzzy as two weeks of food for hugs, but it would sure do a lot more to show "lovin'" in the long run. Oh, but if they started paying people more they'd probably have to do that forever! And that, unlike manipulating you into going to McDonald's more often, is going to cut into profits. Oh well!
Let me pre-empt the lovefest by getting this out of the way: McDonald's does not give a fuck about you, except inasmuch as you are a person with money.
Cashier: "Hi, welcome to McDonald's, how can I help you?"
Guy in Knit Cap: "Two hash browns and a small coffee?"
Cashier: "You know what, for your payment today - do you have your cell phone with you?"
Guy [warily]: "Yeah."
That guy is right to be suspicious, IMO. How often do you go to some store and they want your e-mail so they can send you coupons every day for the rest of eternity? He's probably expecting them to be like "Do you have your cell phone with you? Well if you install our app you can save EIGHT CENTS on this order!"
Cashier: "Dial up your mom, tell her you love her."
Dude continues to stare at the cashier. And he's correct to! Because this is weird.
Here's a question I have about this. It does seem like these might be real people. But what weird Stage McDonald's are they walking into where all the cashiers are these super-peppy, good-at-selling-this-bizarre-concept non-sullen-teenagers? Maybe this was shot in Los Angeles where every McDonald's is probably stacked to the brim with Juilliard graduates.
[Twinkly piano music starts.]
Guy in vest: "Excuse me?"
That guy actually seems like he might be a little pissed. "My mom died two years ago, you fuckhead! Just give me my damn hash browns!"
Woman in coat: "Hey mom, just wanted to let you know that I love you..."
"Hey mom, just wanted to let you know that I would never have made this call if I weren't being forced to do so by a multinational corporation pretending it cares about family values!" Seriously, how pissed must that woman's mother have been when she saw this commercial for the first time? "Wait a second! I thought that was just a spontaneous call from Megan! It was so sweet! And she really only did it to get a free hamburger? GOD DAMN IT."
Guy [looking vaguely embarrassed]: "Te quiero mucho."
Old guy: "How about you just tell me how much it is?"
Cashier: "That is how much it is! Boom!
What percentage of the time was that the initial response? "Quit fucking around and just give me the total, man."
Female cashier: "Your payment today will be... tell me what you love about your son."
Starts to get a little suspicious here. How was this arranged? They're acting like they're reading it off the screen, but it's not like the screen is going to know that the person who just walked up has a son, much less that he's conveniently standing there. If this was improvised because these cashiers are really actors, then I somehow doubt - even if McDonald's legitimately runs this promotion across the United States - that your experience will match this one. (Also, McDonald's is franchised. I wonder if a lot of franchise owners - who can pretty much do whatever the fuck they want within reason, as evidenced by the recent revelation that the McPizza is still being sold at two stores in the Ohio River valley - are lining up to give away free shit by telling their 16-year-old register drones to ask every 500th customer to hug their kids or whatever. Remember, prices and participation may vary!)
Mom: "I love... his compassion for other people."
[Other patrons applaud]
Oh come on. This didn't fucking happen. Unless McDonald's is treating this like waiters at a chain restaurant announcing a birthday. "Attention McDonald's guests! We know you had to pay for your food, but up front here we have Cheryl, and we've decided to let her pay using a sappy challenge question! Cheryl... name something you love about your son!" And the other diners are... happy she loves her son? Really pleased they got to partake in this spectacle? Or... taking direction from the person who brought all the cameras into the restaurant? I'm thinking it's that one. If I were just sitting in a McDonald's you can bet I wouldn't start clapping for ANYTHING that happened, not least because I'd be too busy feeling pissed off that I had to eat at a McDonald's.
Other female cashier: "The total says that she has to dance, right now!"
Women: "No!"
I hear ya, ladies. Oh, and then you see several cashiers dancing with the customers, and again you hear cheers and applause in the background. McDonald's REALLY wanted people to know this was happening. Or, more likely, everyone there knew a commercial was being shot. Much like that Bud Light ad from last night, it's almost impressive how quickly we go from "hidden cameras" trying to make the whole thing seem as real as possible to some obviously fake, scripted bullshit. Even if the people in this ad are real people who happened to walk into a McDonald's that day, and even if they didn't know they were going to get free food for embarrassing themselves on national television, I'm pretty sure they had some idea they were on camera.
Other female cashier: "That strawberry sundae's waiting on you!
Raising the roof guy: "Strawberry sundae!"
And again, CHEERS AND APPLAUSE. "Hey, we gave away one of our cheapest items! LOVE US."
Other female cashier: "You paid with lovin', that's all we need."
And finally we get to the point of this gross, cynical campaign. "Pay with lovin'." There's an onscreen graphic right after this which says, "Through February 14, McDonald's will randomly select customers to Pay with Lovin'." Wow, less than two weeks. You spoil us. (The fine print, which states that no purchase or order is necessary, is curious. I suppose that's a legal necessity but how would that even work? I walk into a McDonald's and go "Hey, can I get some free food if I hug my family? No? THEN I'M FUCKIN' OUTTA HERE.") What's "lovin'" about raising the roof anyway? Did they try asking that guy to tell various family members he loves them and he just kept going "Dead. They're dead. She's dead too. Can I just have my sundae?"
Female cashier: "Your total is one big family hug."
Sorry, but if you need McDonald's to inspire you to display any affection towards your family members, you've got way bigger things to worry about than the three bucks you're saving on your free Big Mac.
Let's be clear here: McDonald's does not care about you. They don't care if you love your mom. They don't care if you hug your kids. They care about your money. This ad campaign/promotion, by suggesting that they DO care if you love your mom and DON'T care about your money, is the most revolting kind of calculated, manipulative bullshit there is. It's true that McDonald's isn't going to worry too much about your money on a single trip. They can afford to give away a few thousand orders, or however many are going to fall under this 12-day promotion. What they want is for you to associate them with "lovin'." If hugging your mom gets you free food at McDonald's, that just might encourage you to go back to McDonald's! Because (a) you might get something free again (spoiler: you won't) and (b) you feel like McDonald's cares somehow. They don't. This whole campaign is basically a social psychology experiment with your money as the dependent variable.
Why should McDonald's care about you, of course? They're a company, and they have a bottom line. Getting you to come in and spend money there is part of that bottom line. And that's fine. But it's the WAY they want to get you in the door that I have a problem with. As annoying as I found ads like "The Quarter Pounder with Cheese knows you're eye-fucking it" - oh, did I ever - at least those dealt with McDonald's products. The only products even mentioned in this ad: hash browns, coffee, and a strawberry sundae. Because for the purposes of this ad, it is irrelevant what McDonald's sells. They could be a fucking hardware store for all we care. This is about manipulating the consumer. This is about getting you in the door not because you really like the product but because you've formed certain mental associations about the people behind the product. Yeah, advertising is all about social psychology in a lot of ways. But it's rarely quite this craven.
Just remember, this is the same corporation that is run on the backs of people who it even admits will need a second job just to make ends meet. (If you've ever wondered why McDonald's is staffed largely by teenagers, it's because only people who don't pay rent can afford to fucking work there.) Maybe instead of giving away food to people who, having walked into the restaurant with the intent of ordering and paying, can obviously afford it, they could use that money to pay their employees a living wage. Sure, it's not as warm and fuzzy as two weeks of food for hugs, but it would sure do a lot more to show "lovin'" in the long run. Oh, but if they started paying people more they'd probably have to do that forever! And that, unlike manipulating you into going to McDonald's more often, is going to cut into profits. Oh well!
Super Bored Awards VI
Oh hey there.
You may (probably not) have noticed we haven't posted in a while. But if there was one thing that was going to drag us out of retirement, it was another Super Bowl with its terrible, terrible "event" advertising. So of course here we are.
The Apple 1984 Memorial Award for Least Shitty Ad
Winner: BMW
Celebrity cameos are rarely inspiring. And it's slightly annoying for BMW to compare its electric car to the entire internet. But despite that, this ad is pretty clever. The Gumbel/Couric clip is infamous for how hilariously tone-deaf it sounds twenty years later (let's face it, it sounded tone-deaf five years later), and BMW does a pretty good job playing it off against the continuing struggle that people have with getting into the concept of electric cars. (While no one is quite as confused about them as this ad, or that old Chevy Volt one, would imply, it's certainly true that they have not gained the traction they probably should.) Also, this is an ad that is VERY direct about its product, a relative rarity during the Super Bowl. Credit where credit is due.
Most Overproduced Ad
Winner: Mophie
Mophie should also probably win an award that we don't give out (although the Cheapest Budget award gets halfway there) called "Who knew that was something that could afford to advertise during the Super Bowl?" But really, just look at this thing. All that CGI. All those apocalyptic sets. They had to build at least one set that could rotate, by the looks of it. And for what? A mediocre joke about God's phone battery running low. (And they didn't even go for the bonus "Me darn it" joke! What's up with that?) Also, doesn't God live up there? Like, he has a power cord, right? This premise isn't even internally consistent.
Cheapest Budget/Clumsiest Execution Award
Winner: Chevrolet
Frankly, Chevy's "You know you want a truck" pitch annoyed me all night. This probably wasn't the worst of their ads, but considering that nearly all of it is a black screen with text on it? It's a shoo-in for Cheapest Budget. Also, the suggestion that I go sit in a car to watch the Super Bowl is entirely comical. Why wouldn't I just go out somewhere at that point? What if I'm hosting a Super Bowl party? Complete nonsense. I suppose it gets its point across - this truck has built-in wi-fi! - but it does so in the laziest fashion possible.
Worst Use of "Humor" Award
Winner: Pizza Hut
This one actually aired before the Super Bowl, but it came on again during the game, so here it is. I must admit I don't totally hate this ad, but it makes several key mistakes. For one thing, I find it strange that the ad makes a completely unattributed reference to the Dez Bryant non-catch in the NFC Divisional round game between the Cowboys and Packers yet thinks you WON'T know who Rex Ryan is. (If you need to have a character say your celebrity cameo's name out loud, you should not be using that celebrity for your cameo. Also, if you don't know who Rex Ryan is, will hearing his name help you? It's like this is just to impress the non-football fans. "I don't know who that dude is, but he must be a famous coach because they said his name out loud! Pizza Hut is obviously great!") But the simple reason it ends up in this spot? The utterly gratuitous nut-shot, which is only there in an attempt for the cheapest possible joke. You didn't have to go there, Pizza Hut.
Flimsiest Pretense Award
Winner: Game of War
Word to the wise: "Free to play" means very little coming from an ad for a game that evidently had FOUR AND A HALF MILLION BUCKS to drop on this ad (and that's just for the ad space itself). But seriously, look at the "game play" at the end of the ad. That's what the game looks like. It doesn't look like a complex battle on a movie set. And it SURE doesn't have anything to do with Kate Upton's heaving bosom. But, give it to these guys: they know who they're marketing to.
The Carlos Mencia Book Prize for the Most Egregious Use of B-List Celebrities
Winner: T-Mobile
This is always one of the most competitive categories, because advertisers seem convinced that as long as you vaguely recognize a person in their ad, you're more likely to buy their product. Snickers inserting Danny Trejo and Steve Buscemi into the Brady Bunch - a double "Hey I know those things/people!" - was a strong contender, especially since that "You're not you when you're hungry" gimmick is wearing super thin. Lindsay Lohan's appearance in an Esurance ad was also right up there (and man, Lohan is looking rough). But I had to go with T-Mobile because "egregious" is right there in the name of the award. And why did these mildly famous people need to be in this ad? At least the Snickers ad is dependent on having famous people in it. The only joke here that is even remotely dependent on these women being sort of famous is the idea that they MIGHT have mansions (albeit not actually having them). But it's still not necessary. Any two commercial actresses could have handled this and probably would have come cheaper. Maybe they wrote this ad themselves? That's about the only explanation I can think of.
The Bad Idea Jeans Award for Most Epic Miscalculation
Winner: Nationwide
If you were on Twitter during the game, you would have noticed that this almost immediately became one of the most talked-about ads. And not in a good way. I'm actually reminded quite a bit of the ad we started this category for: that Groupon ad from a few years ago that actually ran in the opposite fashion. That one pretended to be serious, then pulled the rug out and made a joke out of its subject. This ad, meanwhile, starts with a whimsical premise and then rug-pulls into abject horror. The bigger problem, of course, is that this is an insurance company - in other words, you give them money to cover your losses if something bad happens. You know, something like your KID DYING. Nationwide claims that this was just about "starting a conversation," but conversations aren't normally started by warning someone about their child dying and then staring at them until they back away uncomfortably.
SkyMall Championship Trophy
Winner: TurboTax
As always, the SkyMall trophy goes to the weirdest attempt to sell a product. And as always, you could frankly give this to almost any Super Bowl ad. Skittles is pretty much a lifetime WTF achievement winner at this point, for example. But I had to go with TurboTax here, because... um. The premise of this ad is that if TurboTax had existed in 1776, the American Revolution wouldn't have happened. Which, uh, means we would all be living as British subjects right now. Was this ad written by Benedict Arnold? Bonus points for how overdone this ad is. You went to all that trouble and literally the only message is "TurboTax makes doing your taxes easier," which is a message I think most people get simply from hearing the name TurboTax. Coulda saved you NINE MILLION BUCKS since apparently this ad was sixty seconds long? This ad also sucks because of how weirdly glib it is. "Sure the US tax code is notoriously byzantine, but at least we don't charge you to file!" Way to clear the lowest possible bar, dudes.
Worst Super Bowl Ad of 2015
Winner: Bud Light
Plenty of strong contenders for this one as well. Could've been the Fiat ad that was basically a nine-million-dollar dick joke. Could've been the Mercedes-Benz ad that rewrites the ending of the Tortoise and the Hare so that the tortoise not only wins but also gets to fuck the hare's wife for some reason. Could've been the Fifty Shades of Grey or Ted 2 trailers just on principle because I can't fucking believe EITHER of those movies exists. Or it could have been the mawkish claptrap that was McDonald's pretending it cares about you as anything other than a revenue stream. But in the end, I had to go with Bud Light.
As I tweeted, "Bud Light: the perfect beer for when you are so clearly an actor it's painful." I don't know why they even bothered saying "Hidden cameras!" at the beginning as if the way the commercial proceeds is going to lead me to think I'm actually watching events that just spontaneously unfolded. Well, obviously they didn't - even if this were real, Bud Light had to set them up. But you know what I mean. Listen to that guy's incredibly unconvincing response when he comes across a giant quarter sitting on the sidewalk. But then, when you're tasked with being handed a Bud Light and selling the line "This is all I've wanted all day," I can see where it would be hard to convince. Look, this concept was kind of funny (if similarly unconvincing) the first time they tried it, with that dude bouncing from one random encounter to the next. But this is literally one thing - Human Pac-Man - being played by a guy who isn't famous but also does not come across as a convincingly real person who was actually just thrown into this weird situation. Also, Human Pac-Man isn't that funny or interesting. Also this ad is NINETY SECONDS LONG. Bud Light spent $13.5 million to remind me that their product exists and that there are people out there who are so desperate for shitty beer that they'll leave a bar they just walked into, walk down the street, blunder into a human-sized video game that Anheuser-Busch could get the rights to, and then act super excited because as their prize for having to go through all this rigmarole they received ONE BOTTLE of shitty beer. Congrats, Bud Light: your tedious slog through a fake urban wonderland was the worst Super Bowl ad of 2015.
You may (probably not) have noticed we haven't posted in a while. But if there was one thing that was going to drag us out of retirement, it was another Super Bowl with its terrible, terrible "event" advertising. So of course here we are.
The Apple 1984 Memorial Award for Least Shitty Ad
Winner: BMW
Celebrity cameos are rarely inspiring. And it's slightly annoying for BMW to compare its electric car to the entire internet. But despite that, this ad is pretty clever. The Gumbel/Couric clip is infamous for how hilariously tone-deaf it sounds twenty years later (let's face it, it sounded tone-deaf five years later), and BMW does a pretty good job playing it off against the continuing struggle that people have with getting into the concept of electric cars. (While no one is quite as confused about them as this ad, or that old Chevy Volt one, would imply, it's certainly true that they have not gained the traction they probably should.) Also, this is an ad that is VERY direct about its product, a relative rarity during the Super Bowl. Credit where credit is due.
Most Overproduced Ad
Winner: Mophie
Mophie should also probably win an award that we don't give out (although the Cheapest Budget award gets halfway there) called "Who knew that was something that could afford to advertise during the Super Bowl?" But really, just look at this thing. All that CGI. All those apocalyptic sets. They had to build at least one set that could rotate, by the looks of it. And for what? A mediocre joke about God's phone battery running low. (And they didn't even go for the bonus "Me darn it" joke! What's up with that?) Also, doesn't God live up there? Like, he has a power cord, right? This premise isn't even internally consistent.
Cheapest Budget/Clumsiest Execution Award
Winner: Chevrolet
Frankly, Chevy's "You know you want a truck" pitch annoyed me all night. This probably wasn't the worst of their ads, but considering that nearly all of it is a black screen with text on it? It's a shoo-in for Cheapest Budget. Also, the suggestion that I go sit in a car to watch the Super Bowl is entirely comical. Why wouldn't I just go out somewhere at that point? What if I'm hosting a Super Bowl party? Complete nonsense. I suppose it gets its point across - this truck has built-in wi-fi! - but it does so in the laziest fashion possible.
Worst Use of "Humor" Award
Winner: Pizza Hut
This one actually aired before the Super Bowl, but it came on again during the game, so here it is. I must admit I don't totally hate this ad, but it makes several key mistakes. For one thing, I find it strange that the ad makes a completely unattributed reference to the Dez Bryant non-catch in the NFC Divisional round game between the Cowboys and Packers yet thinks you WON'T know who Rex Ryan is. (If you need to have a character say your celebrity cameo's name out loud, you should not be using that celebrity for your cameo. Also, if you don't know who Rex Ryan is, will hearing his name help you? It's like this is just to impress the non-football fans. "I don't know who that dude is, but he must be a famous coach because they said his name out loud! Pizza Hut is obviously great!") But the simple reason it ends up in this spot? The utterly gratuitous nut-shot, which is only there in an attempt for the cheapest possible joke. You didn't have to go there, Pizza Hut.
Flimsiest Pretense Award
Winner: Game of War
Word to the wise: "Free to play" means very little coming from an ad for a game that evidently had FOUR AND A HALF MILLION BUCKS to drop on this ad (and that's just for the ad space itself). But seriously, look at the "game play" at the end of the ad. That's what the game looks like. It doesn't look like a complex battle on a movie set. And it SURE doesn't have anything to do with Kate Upton's heaving bosom. But, give it to these guys: they know who they're marketing to.
The Carlos Mencia Book Prize for the Most Egregious Use of B-List Celebrities
Winner: T-Mobile
This is always one of the most competitive categories, because advertisers seem convinced that as long as you vaguely recognize a person in their ad, you're more likely to buy their product. Snickers inserting Danny Trejo and Steve Buscemi into the Brady Bunch - a double "Hey I know those things/people!" - was a strong contender, especially since that "You're not you when you're hungry" gimmick is wearing super thin. Lindsay Lohan's appearance in an Esurance ad was also right up there (and man, Lohan is looking rough). But I had to go with T-Mobile because "egregious" is right there in the name of the award. And why did these mildly famous people need to be in this ad? At least the Snickers ad is dependent on having famous people in it. The only joke here that is even remotely dependent on these women being sort of famous is the idea that they MIGHT have mansions (albeit not actually having them). But it's still not necessary. Any two commercial actresses could have handled this and probably would have come cheaper. Maybe they wrote this ad themselves? That's about the only explanation I can think of.
The Bad Idea Jeans Award for Most Epic Miscalculation
Winner: Nationwide
If you were on Twitter during the game, you would have noticed that this almost immediately became one of the most talked-about ads. And not in a good way. I'm actually reminded quite a bit of the ad we started this category for: that Groupon ad from a few years ago that actually ran in the opposite fashion. That one pretended to be serious, then pulled the rug out and made a joke out of its subject. This ad, meanwhile, starts with a whimsical premise and then rug-pulls into abject horror. The bigger problem, of course, is that this is an insurance company - in other words, you give them money to cover your losses if something bad happens. You know, something like your KID DYING. Nationwide claims that this was just about "starting a conversation," but conversations aren't normally started by warning someone about their child dying and then staring at them until they back away uncomfortably.
SkyMall Championship Trophy
Winner: TurboTax
As always, the SkyMall trophy goes to the weirdest attempt to sell a product. And as always, you could frankly give this to almost any Super Bowl ad. Skittles is pretty much a lifetime WTF achievement winner at this point, for example. But I had to go with TurboTax here, because... um. The premise of this ad is that if TurboTax had existed in 1776, the American Revolution wouldn't have happened. Which, uh, means we would all be living as British subjects right now. Was this ad written by Benedict Arnold? Bonus points for how overdone this ad is. You went to all that trouble and literally the only message is "TurboTax makes doing your taxes easier," which is a message I think most people get simply from hearing the name TurboTax. Coulda saved you NINE MILLION BUCKS since apparently this ad was sixty seconds long? This ad also sucks because of how weirdly glib it is. "Sure the US tax code is notoriously byzantine, but at least we don't charge you to file!" Way to clear the lowest possible bar, dudes.
Worst Super Bowl Ad of 2015
Winner: Bud Light
Plenty of strong contenders for this one as well. Could've been the Fiat ad that was basically a nine-million-dollar dick joke. Could've been the Mercedes-Benz ad that rewrites the ending of the Tortoise and the Hare so that the tortoise not only wins but also gets to fuck the hare's wife for some reason. Could've been the Fifty Shades of Grey or Ted 2 trailers just on principle because I can't fucking believe EITHER of those movies exists. Or it could have been the mawkish claptrap that was McDonald's pretending it cares about you as anything other than a revenue stream. But in the end, I had to go with Bud Light.
As I tweeted, "Bud Light: the perfect beer for when you are so clearly an actor it's painful." I don't know why they even bothered saying "Hidden cameras!" at the beginning as if the way the commercial proceeds is going to lead me to think I'm actually watching events that just spontaneously unfolded. Well, obviously they didn't - even if this were real, Bud Light had to set them up. But you know what I mean. Listen to that guy's incredibly unconvincing response when he comes across a giant quarter sitting on the sidewalk. But then, when you're tasked with being handed a Bud Light and selling the line "This is all I've wanted all day," I can see where it would be hard to convince. Look, this concept was kind of funny (if similarly unconvincing) the first time they tried it, with that dude bouncing from one random encounter to the next. But this is literally one thing - Human Pac-Man - being played by a guy who isn't famous but also does not come across as a convincingly real person who was actually just thrown into this weird situation. Also, Human Pac-Man isn't that funny or interesting. Also this ad is NINETY SECONDS LONG. Bud Light spent $13.5 million to remind me that their product exists and that there are people out there who are so desperate for shitty beer that they'll leave a bar they just walked into, walk down the street, blunder into a human-sized video game that Anheuser-Busch could get the rights to, and then act super excited because as their prize for having to go through all this rigmarole they received ONE BOTTLE of shitty beer. Congrats, Bud Light: your tedious slog through a fake urban wonderland was the worst Super Bowl ad of 2015.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Mensa membership guaranteed!
I really wish I could find the longer version of this commercial, which is AGGRESSIVELY TERRIBLE while this one is merely stupid and annoying. But you work with what you have.
So. The reason I would rather have shown you the longer version is that in that one, I think it's pretty clear that both of these people are insufferable, rather than basically just the dude.
[Guy is sitting looking at a statue]
Woman: "Are you a fan of DeMoissier?"
Guy's Internal Monologue: "DeMoissi-who? Okay, you know you're smart. You just ordered a premium roast coffee and a savory Sausage McMuffin for only a dollar each off McDonald's Dollar Menu at breakfast, so..."
Please note: if it takes you this many seconds to come up with what is at best a halfway coherent response, everyone will know you're full of shit. Look at the woman - she's already gotten bored of waiting for an answer and is writing something down in her planner, presumably "Do not ever, ever fuck this guy."
Guy: "He has a certain... je ne sais quoi."
Fuck you. Since when does "being smart" have to equate to "having heard of, and formed an opinion on, every modern sculpture artist in existence?" This is the kind of shit someone who thinks they are extremely smart came up with. Ooh, and French! The language of smart people, right? That's what I heard.
In the extended version of this commercial, the woman replies, "Oh, tu parles français!" Let's be clear here: "Je ne sais quoi" is a well-enough-known phrase in English that I don't believe for a second that someone who actually spoke French as a second language would hear it and assume that the person they were talking to was bilingual. Also, as someone who actually does parle un peu de français, it's pretty shitty for that woman to immediately use the singular tu form of the second-person rather than the plural vous form, which is more typically used in formal address, like, you know, when you're speaking to some stranger in the park. Perhaps she's just being patronizing because she recognizes he's full of shit, but I don't think that's the intent. Although if you type "Oh, you speak French" into Google Translate, it (properly) gives you the more formal "vous parlez français" form. I guess this ad was written by someone who took French, but just not since sophomore year of high school.
Oh, the guy's response to that, by the way, is "Oh yeah, all the time," which is just a continued stream of bullshit. McDonald's: it won't make you smarter, but it'll sure make you feel like you have to pretend to be a genius everywhere you go! But this really is a commercial all about behaving weirdly in front of strangers. The guy feels intimidated by the woman's seeming intellect and has to try and impress her even though she's a total stranger because, I don't know, smart woman in business suits are inherently emasculating, right, fellas? But meanwhile, the woman is sort of a bitch here, between assuming the guy just chilling on a park bench must be a fan of modern art, assuming he speaks French for no good reason (forcing him to keep bullshitting), and using tu like she's talking to a five-year-old. Other than that, though, a couple of winning characters here, McDonald's. Maybe we could have a whole series of ads where the guy has to keep feigning expertise to avoid looking like a schmuck, while internally feeling confident in his own intelligence because hey, he didn't buy a seven-dollar Sausage McMuffin at the artisanal breakfast co-op like some sucker.
Most delightful aspect of this ad: the supremely awkward way the guy is required to hold the cup of coffee just so the "McCafe" logo is not obscured by his hand. In case you're deaf and wanted to know what this was an ad for, I guess.
So. The reason I would rather have shown you the longer version is that in that one, I think it's pretty clear that both of these people are insufferable, rather than basically just the dude.
[Guy is sitting looking at a statue]
Woman: "Are you a fan of DeMoissier?"
Guy's Internal Monologue: "DeMoissi-who? Okay, you know you're smart. You just ordered a premium roast coffee and a savory Sausage McMuffin for only a dollar each off McDonald's Dollar Menu at breakfast, so..."
Please note: if it takes you this many seconds to come up with what is at best a halfway coherent response, everyone will know you're full of shit. Look at the woman - she's already gotten bored of waiting for an answer and is writing something down in her planner, presumably "Do not ever, ever fuck this guy."
Guy: "He has a certain... je ne sais quoi."
Fuck you. Since when does "being smart" have to equate to "having heard of, and formed an opinion on, every modern sculpture artist in existence?" This is the kind of shit someone who thinks they are extremely smart came up with. Ooh, and French! The language of smart people, right? That's what I heard.
In the extended version of this commercial, the woman replies, "Oh, tu parles français!" Let's be clear here: "Je ne sais quoi" is a well-enough-known phrase in English that I don't believe for a second that someone who actually spoke French as a second language would hear it and assume that the person they were talking to was bilingual. Also, as someone who actually does parle un peu de français, it's pretty shitty for that woman to immediately use the singular tu form of the second-person rather than the plural vous form, which is more typically used in formal address, like, you know, when you're speaking to some stranger in the park. Perhaps she's just being patronizing because she recognizes he's full of shit, but I don't think that's the intent. Although if you type "Oh, you speak French" into Google Translate, it (properly) gives you the more formal "vous parlez français" form. I guess this ad was written by someone who took French, but just not since sophomore year of high school.
Oh, the guy's response to that, by the way, is "Oh yeah, all the time," which is just a continued stream of bullshit. McDonald's: it won't make you smarter, but it'll sure make you feel like you have to pretend to be a genius everywhere you go! But this really is a commercial all about behaving weirdly in front of strangers. The guy feels intimidated by the woman's seeming intellect and has to try and impress her even though she's a total stranger because, I don't know, smart woman in business suits are inherently emasculating, right, fellas? But meanwhile, the woman is sort of a bitch here, between assuming the guy just chilling on a park bench must be a fan of modern art, assuming he speaks French for no good reason (forcing him to keep bullshitting), and using tu like she's talking to a five-year-old. Other than that, though, a couple of winning characters here, McDonald's. Maybe we could have a whole series of ads where the guy has to keep feigning expertise to avoid looking like a schmuck, while internally feeling confident in his own intelligence because hey, he didn't buy a seven-dollar Sausage McMuffin at the artisanal breakfast co-op like some sucker.
Most delightful aspect of this ad: the supremely awkward way the guy is required to hold the cup of coffee just so the "McCafe" logo is not obscured by his hand. In case you're deaf and wanted to know what this was an ad for, I guess.
Friday, September 7, 2012
Tomato sauce for the soul
I hate to be sort of on the same side of an issue as that awful "One Million Moms" group, which apparently wants this commercial to be banned, but this shit is just dumb.
Look, I'm all for people dumping on One Million Moms for attacking this commercial, but a quick Google search includes comments like "one of the funniest, most endearing ads I've seen in a long time." Whoa. Back the fucking train up here. Yeah, the ad isn't offensive like the dopes at One Million Moms seem to think it is. But I do think it is (a) weird and (b) bizarrely inappropriate for the product being marketed.
Like, the ad seems a little tongue-in-cheek, but not really enough to completely get away with it. It seems fairly serious in its suggestion that Ragu is some sort of magic elixir - serve your kids pasta with this sauce poured all over it, and they'll totally forget about their hard day! Which included, apparently, seeing you having sex like, minutes earlier.
Doesn't the timeline in this ad not really work? And just generally not make sense? I mean, when are these people eating dinner that the parents were off fucking at 8 pm, pre-dinner? I know it doesn't take a long time to cook pasta but still. I guess we're supposed to assume that the kid is getting home from a friend's house (a friend who also eats dinner super late, apparently?), and the parents thought they could squeeze in some evening action before he arrived only to be proven WRONG. I don't have any kids, so I guess I'm not familiar with that whole aspect of one's marital sex life. It does seem weird though. Also, how about locking your fucking door, people? Why are we blaming the kid for this one?
Also, I'm sure that kid loves eating pasta, but he seems REMARKABLY unfazed by sitting at the same table as his parents given that he looked horrified to have seen them fucking like, what, 15 minutes earlier? He's really over it already? Either it wasn't that hard a day of childhood or Ragu is actually some sort of mind-erasing product. "Are your kids upset with something you did? Feed them Ragu! RAGU TO FORGET."
One Million Moms are awful, and I think it's a bit much to attack this ad since it's frankly far less explicit in its suggestion of sex than plenty else that's on the air, to say nothing of even most family sitcoms. At the same time, I do find it an odd way to sell pasta sauce, and just kind of creepy. By comparison, here's another ad in the series:
See, that's actually kind of cute. I know that "the replaced pet" and "walking in on the parents having sex" are both pretty stereotypical "bad childhood experiences," but I think one is a lot less weird to have on primetime television. No, sex isn't weird or gross or inappropriate to even allude to on television. But it still seems like a strange way to sell pasta sauce.
Look, I'm all for people dumping on One Million Moms for attacking this commercial, but a quick Google search includes comments like "one of the funniest, most endearing ads I've seen in a long time." Whoa. Back the fucking train up here. Yeah, the ad isn't offensive like the dopes at One Million Moms seem to think it is. But I do think it is (a) weird and (b) bizarrely inappropriate for the product being marketed.
Like, the ad seems a little tongue-in-cheek, but not really enough to completely get away with it. It seems fairly serious in its suggestion that Ragu is some sort of magic elixir - serve your kids pasta with this sauce poured all over it, and they'll totally forget about their hard day! Which included, apparently, seeing you having sex like, minutes earlier.
Doesn't the timeline in this ad not really work? And just generally not make sense? I mean, when are these people eating dinner that the parents were off fucking at 8 pm, pre-dinner? I know it doesn't take a long time to cook pasta but still. I guess we're supposed to assume that the kid is getting home from a friend's house (a friend who also eats dinner super late, apparently?), and the parents thought they could squeeze in some evening action before he arrived only to be proven WRONG. I don't have any kids, so I guess I'm not familiar with that whole aspect of one's marital sex life. It does seem weird though. Also, how about locking your fucking door, people? Why are we blaming the kid for this one?
Also, I'm sure that kid loves eating pasta, but he seems REMARKABLY unfazed by sitting at the same table as his parents given that he looked horrified to have seen them fucking like, what, 15 minutes earlier? He's really over it already? Either it wasn't that hard a day of childhood or Ragu is actually some sort of mind-erasing product. "Are your kids upset with something you did? Feed them Ragu! RAGU TO FORGET."
One Million Moms are awful, and I think it's a bit much to attack this ad since it's frankly far less explicit in its suggestion of sex than plenty else that's on the air, to say nothing of even most family sitcoms. At the same time, I do find it an odd way to sell pasta sauce, and just kind of creepy. By comparison, here's another ad in the series:
See, that's actually kind of cute. I know that "the replaced pet" and "walking in on the parents having sex" are both pretty stereotypical "bad childhood experiences," but I think one is a lot less weird to have on primetime television. No, sex isn't weird or gross or inappropriate to even allude to on television. But it still seems like a strange way to sell pasta sauce.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
I'm really, really hating it
For a long time, McDonald's was not just the unquestioned leader in its industry, it was also responsible for a lot of memorable ads. The last couple of years... not so much. First we had this ridiculousness, then we had the biggest asshole in commercial history, and then we had... hand dancing. Oh, did we ever have hand dancing.
Yet overall I would still have said that McDonald's was probably the least offensive ad maker in its cohort, if only because of sheer volume - yeah, the coffee guy is a huge asshole, but it's not like that was the only ad McDonald's was running. Recently, though, they've just gone completely off the rails.
For instance, what the hell is this?
Let me say right off the bat that I LOATHE the entire "the simple joy of X" campaign. I hate everything about it. The "simple joy" of cheap, shitty food cranked out by minimum-wagers on behalf of a multinational corporation? Fuck off. But that's just the start of the indignities perpetrated by this series of ads.
Husband: "I'm home! ...oh."
Wife: "Where were you?"
Husband: "Uh, I was just in the car."
Wife: "The car? What's that on your collar?"
Husband: "Hm? Oh... tie?"
Wife: "Why do you seem happy?"
Husband: "I'm not..."
Wife: "Come here."
Husband: "Okay."
Wife: [smells him] "Mint. Wow."
Husband: "I had a Shamrock Shake."
Wife: "I hate you."
Husband: "And I got one for you, too..."
Wife: "I love you!"
This is deranged. This is mental patient level shit. The wife almost certainly has some sort of personality disorder, probably something in Cluster B. Also, she mouths "I love you" at the shake as she walks away. She has PROBLEMS. But McDonald's doesn't seem to see anything wrong here. To them, this is perfectly acceptable behavior where the Shamrock Shake is concerned. See:
Announcer: "The magical minty flavor you'll covet with all your heart."
GET. THE. FUCK. OVER. YOURSELVES. I guess it's probably hard not to be supremely arrogant and self-centered when you're a company like McDonald's. They are the dominant global force in fast food. In 2010, McDonald's had revenues of more than $24 billion, a figure greater than the gross domestic products of nearly 100 countries. So, you could argue, McDonald's doesn't really have anything left to sell. They could never run another ad and they'd probably do just fine. And when they run ads implying that people are functionally addicted to their food, I guess they have the sales figures to back that up. But FUCK is it annoying.
What's really grating is the straight-facedness of it all. These commercials seem designed to appeal to a younger crowd, and they have the vibe of post-modern ads that are all about joking and almost playfully undermining the product. But if there's one thing McDonald's does not do, it's undermine its products. No, McDonald's inflates them to almost godlike statures.
THIS IS ANNOYING. It is annoying and terrible. This is a lot like that "bigger than the Big Mac" ad from five years ago that was actually the first McDonald's ad to make this site. See, McDonald's, here's the thing. You're really famous. Everyone recognizes the arches, everyone knows the Big Mac song in spite of the fact that it hasn't been the centerpiece of a campaign in like decades. But NO ONE uses your food as a reference point. NO ONE. "It's the Egg McMuffin of X" is not something that ANYONE has EVER said in ANY context, outside of the actors during the filming of this commercial. And are there really even people who think of the Egg McMuffin as the most delicious food item ever invented, such that this ad would begin to make a lick of sense? I feel sad for them, if so.
You can't even claim it's tongue in cheek. It's not tongue in cheek. McDonald's has the clout to say that their products are fantastic and addictive and world-defining, and they are totally serious about it. Maybe they're not wrong. But it's extremely obnoxious.
My two least favorite McDonald's ads at the moment, of course, I can't find on YouTube (not copies worth posting, anyway). If anyone can turn up a decent copy of the ad with the two old guys or the "I've been around" ad, let me know.
Yet overall I would still have said that McDonald's was probably the least offensive ad maker in its cohort, if only because of sheer volume - yeah, the coffee guy is a huge asshole, but it's not like that was the only ad McDonald's was running. Recently, though, they've just gone completely off the rails.
For instance, what the hell is this?
Let me say right off the bat that I LOATHE the entire "the simple joy of X" campaign. I hate everything about it. The "simple joy" of cheap, shitty food cranked out by minimum-wagers on behalf of a multinational corporation? Fuck off. But that's just the start of the indignities perpetrated by this series of ads.
Husband: "I'm home! ...oh."
Wife: "Where were you?"
Husband: "Uh, I was just in the car."
Wife: "The car? What's that on your collar?"
Husband: "Hm? Oh... tie?"
Wife: "Why do you seem happy?"
Husband: "I'm not..."
Wife: "Come here."
Husband: "Okay."
Wife: [smells him] "Mint. Wow."
Husband: "I had a Shamrock Shake."
Wife: "I hate you."
Husband: "And I got one for you, too..."
Wife: "I love you!"
This is deranged. This is mental patient level shit. The wife almost certainly has some sort of personality disorder, probably something in Cluster B. Also, she mouths "I love you" at the shake as she walks away. She has PROBLEMS. But McDonald's doesn't seem to see anything wrong here. To them, this is perfectly acceptable behavior where the Shamrock Shake is concerned. See:
Announcer: "The magical minty flavor you'll covet with all your heart."
GET. THE. FUCK. OVER. YOURSELVES. I guess it's probably hard not to be supremely arrogant and self-centered when you're a company like McDonald's. They are the dominant global force in fast food. In 2010, McDonald's had revenues of more than $24 billion, a figure greater than the gross domestic products of nearly 100 countries. So, you could argue, McDonald's doesn't really have anything left to sell. They could never run another ad and they'd probably do just fine. And when they run ads implying that people are functionally addicted to their food, I guess they have the sales figures to back that up. But FUCK is it annoying.
What's really grating is the straight-facedness of it all. These commercials seem designed to appeal to a younger crowd, and they have the vibe of post-modern ads that are all about joking and almost playfully undermining the product. But if there's one thing McDonald's does not do, it's undermine its products. No, McDonald's inflates them to almost godlike statures.
THIS IS ANNOYING. It is annoying and terrible. This is a lot like that "bigger than the Big Mac" ad from five years ago that was actually the first McDonald's ad to make this site. See, McDonald's, here's the thing. You're really famous. Everyone recognizes the arches, everyone knows the Big Mac song in spite of the fact that it hasn't been the centerpiece of a campaign in like decades. But NO ONE uses your food as a reference point. NO ONE. "It's the Egg McMuffin of X" is not something that ANYONE has EVER said in ANY context, outside of the actors during the filming of this commercial. And are there really even people who think of the Egg McMuffin as the most delicious food item ever invented, such that this ad would begin to make a lick of sense? I feel sad for them, if so.
You can't even claim it's tongue in cheek. It's not tongue in cheek. McDonald's has the clout to say that their products are fantastic and addictive and world-defining, and they are totally serious about it. Maybe they're not wrong. But it's extremely obnoxious.
My two least favorite McDonald's ads at the moment, of course, I can't find on YouTube (not copies worth posting, anyway). If anyone can turn up a decent copy of the ad with the two old guys or the "I've been around" ad, let me know.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Live from New York, it's creative bankruptcy
I've commented a few times in the past about how an ad has reminded me of a Saturday Night Live parody commercial. But I'm pretty sure this is the first time in the five years I've been writing this blog (yep, we're FIVE years old now) that an ad has actually stolen its entire concept from one of those SNL ads.
Did Verizon think they were just going to get away with this? Did they think no one would remember the Bad Idea Jeans spot from SNL because it aired so long ago? Guess what: WE REMEMBERED. The top two comments on YouTube both call Verizon out for being ripoff artists, which means that not only did two people notice it, but so did dozens of other people who subsequently voted up those two comments.
The real question is: does Verizon think they were just doing a "playful homage"? I mean, the similarities are hardly just limited to the basic "bad idea" concept:
They're both playing basketball too! Of course, that makes me think that Verizon wasn't trying to hide anything, and that they just thought we'd find it funny if they referenced a previous bit of humor. The problem is that while I'd expect that from, say, some douchebag's internet ad blog, I tend to think that maybe professional ad writers could actually come up with their own jokes. (Don't bother pointing out how they had to write new things that were bad ideas and how that counts as coming up with jokes. For starters, anyone with a sense of humor could come up with three or four "things that are obviously bad ideas." Then there's the fact that Verizon's are pretty toothless - granted, this is a national ad campaign and not a late-night comedy show - and the fact that there seems to be a pretty clear thematic connection between some of the jokes, like the two that are about the guy's kids or the one about where surgery is dirt-cheap - clearly some third-world country - and the original one about Haiti.) Everything about this ad screams laziness, if not just outright plagiarism. It's like whoever had the Verizon account woke up late on the day of the pitch meeting, ran out the door without his notes, and had to make something up for the client on the spot.
Oh, and extra negative points to this current Verizon series for reusing multiple commercial actors I already hate, including the doofus from the State Farm "Journey" ad right below this post and, in another ad in the series, the biggest of the three idiots from those old Raisin Bran Crunch spots. Like it wasn't bad enough they were already reusing someone else's concept.
Did Verizon think they were just going to get away with this? Did they think no one would remember the Bad Idea Jeans spot from SNL because it aired so long ago? Guess what: WE REMEMBERED. The top two comments on YouTube both call Verizon out for being ripoff artists, which means that not only did two people notice it, but so did dozens of other people who subsequently voted up those two comments.
The real question is: does Verizon think they were just doing a "playful homage"? I mean, the similarities are hardly just limited to the basic "bad idea" concept:
They're both playing basketball too! Of course, that makes me think that Verizon wasn't trying to hide anything, and that they just thought we'd find it funny if they referenced a previous bit of humor. The problem is that while I'd expect that from, say, some douchebag's internet ad blog, I tend to think that maybe professional ad writers could actually come up with their own jokes. (Don't bother pointing out how they had to write new things that were bad ideas and how that counts as coming up with jokes. For starters, anyone with a sense of humor could come up with three or four "things that are obviously bad ideas." Then there's the fact that Verizon's are pretty toothless - granted, this is a national ad campaign and not a late-night comedy show - and the fact that there seems to be a pretty clear thematic connection between some of the jokes, like the two that are about the guy's kids or the one about where surgery is dirt-cheap - clearly some third-world country - and the original one about Haiti.) Everything about this ad screams laziness, if not just outright plagiarism. It's like whoever had the Verizon account woke up late on the day of the pitch meeting, ran out the door without his notes, and had to make something up for the client on the spot.
Oh, and extra negative points to this current Verizon series for reusing multiple commercial actors I already hate, including the doofus from the State Farm "Journey" ad right below this post and, in another ad in the series, the biggest of the three idiots from those old Raisin Bran Crunch spots. Like it wasn't bad enough they were already reusing someone else's concept.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)