Just WHY does everyone hate that dang Snuggles Bear so much? It's just a bear, what did it ever do to you?
Some people were brought up especially sheltered and are thus easily traumatized. That's why they take offense to "just a bear" — and a cuddly-looking teddy bear too.
That's just it, Snuggles is just a little too cute, too sweet, too cuddly-uddly to take for more than a few seconds. Personally I always wanted him to take a ride in the washing machine. Tastes Like Diabetes indeed.
Because he's constantly too happy with the idea of laundry. Well, he can do mine if he wanted!
His voice is also rather irritating.
According to Old Spice Man logic, does the scent make you more -manly-, and therefore more attractive to those that like masculinity (implying that gay/bi men will also be attracted to you), or does it just make you more attractive to women (and therefore could conceivably work when worn by a lesbian/bi woman)? [I asked this of @OldSpiceMan when they were doing the Youtube videos - "I'm a woman who likes women, would Old Spice work for me?" - but regrettably got no answer.] Possibly more WMG, but still enough to niggle at me.
Guessing from the template Old Spice has laid out: yes, but you will only attract straight women.
Nice to have it cleared up, I thought it would only attract people who enjoy receiving penis.
Seriously. Doesn't "went to Jared" sound like some sort of Unusual Euphemism the longer they play the commercials? Originally it just seemed like a poorly set up attempt to make Jared's Diamond Jewelry "Jared The Galleria Of Jewelry" synonymous with (high-priced and/or high quality) diamond jewelry, which is a perfectly normal trope, but recent commercials seem to go out of their way to say, "Oh, yeah, he totally went to Jared." Wink wink, nudge nudge. (Quote marks used to indicate a quote or quotes from the ad campaign. The Monty Python bit is just because it's impossible to accurately convey the tones via text.)
It's probably not an accident. The exchange rate of diamonds to panties has always been fairly high, at least in some people's minds, and Jared (not to mention all the other diamond companies) is probably hoping to sell them to gullible men on that basis. Sexual euphemisms sell, after all. Of course, that leads me to my own IJBM, to wit...
Am I the only one insulted by the implication that a man doesn't love his wife/fiancee/girlfriend unless he buys her a big giant rock? Material wealth =/= personal worth or integrity. Of course, as stated above, I'm fighting against a perception that's been around since people first decided that diamonds were pretty, but still...
Considering the political (Blood diamonds, look it up, you'll never want to buy a diamond again.) and the economical (diamonds are made from the most abundant element in the universe. they are not that rare, the only reason they're so valuable is that a cartel of sellers has a stranglehold on the market and only lets a little trickle out.) combined with ads like tis. No, no you are not the only one annoyed with that.
Comedian Juston McKinney offered a great rebuttal: the bigger the diamond, the more likely it is that he doesn't love her. If he can plunk down $5,000 for a goddamn rock, then he doesn't need to keep her around and can afford to cheat.
You're not the only one. I'm equally insulted by the notion that a woman doesn't love her significant other unless he buys her jewelry.
And. conversely, that he doesn't love her unless he spends thousands of dollars on useless trinkets.
The first Sex and the City film (which was far superior, IMO, to the TV series) actually played on this. Instead of asking Mr. Big for an engagement ring, Carrie Bradshaw proposed instead that he give her an engagement walk-in closet. Now, considering John's budget, he probably sank just as much money on the lavish closet as he would've on an elaborate diamond-and-platinum concoction, but to Carrie the closet meant more to her and would've gotten used far more. I think that was a fantastic spin on the idea of engagement rings and was pleasantly surprised to see this with a character that was portrayed on TV as being obnoxiously, senselessly materialistic.
Of course, getting her a walk-in closet also conveys an implicit promise to fill up that closet with clothes he'll most likely be paying for, in the years to come. So perhaps the rock would've been the less materialistic option...
The fact that Axe even has those commercials anymore and that I keep going to the logical problems with every women who smells you trying to sex you up.
Their primary audience is insecure man-children who are (a) obsessed with sex, (b) terrified that they'll never get to have it, and (c) desperately hoping that there's a magic wand (so to speak) that they can wave to have it whenever they want. The idea that commitment > cheap sex never enters into it, nor does the idea that women are just a wee bit more complex than that. Of course, that only leads to...
Where do they find the women who act in those commercials anyway? Their parents must be so proud.
It bugs me that people assume that I'm a sex obsessed frat boy because I use axe. I use it because it smells good, OK?
Money's money. And their primary audience seems to be 13-year-old boys.
The ones that bother me are the ones that have dudebro spraying on the Axe and suddenly every hot chick within smelling distance literally pounces on him and starts groping him. If the sexes were reversed and it was men pouncing on and groping women, everyone would get the creeps and rightly so.
In This Troper' s college-town experiences, nearly everybody he knew who used Axe used it to cover up the smell of marijuana smoke. Worked just as good and cost a lot less than an air purifier.
The thing that bugs This Troper the most is the fact that Axe (blatantly sexist) is owned by the same corporation that owns Dove (love your body campaigns and all that jazz). What?
I can understand how that would bug someone, but in the end money speaks higher than morals,oh, and Axe is targeted towards men while Dove is targeted towards women.
On this theme, there was once a TV advertising campaign for Lynx (took me a while to work out LYNX in the UK is the same thing as AXE in other countries. Maybe the different name here is because we have a very staid unsexy insurance company called AXA...). In this series of ads, bloke and his girlfriend are getting up in the morning. In a hurry, she doesn't look at what she's firing up her armpits. It turns out to be boyfriend's LYNX/AXE. Much hilarity ensues as it turns every otherwise hetero female within sniffing distance into a rampant lezzie. (Maybe this answers the original poster's q about Old Spice?). Disappointingly, this ad campaign only lasted a few weeks prior to Christmas one year and vanished without trace - I can find no trace of it, not even on You-Tube. Yet these were far and away the horniest adverts Lynx ever ran, and the ones I suspect were furthest removed from reality... anyone else recall them, were they shown outside Britain, and where did they go?
The answer is most likely because it works. At the end of the day, it helps shift units. People see the ad and buy the product. Simple as that. Why change the formula if it gets results? Of course, what that says about those people is another matter altogether...
Does bread ever get advertised? Fancy Pepperidge Farm crud aside, when have you ever had to watch a commercial to know to buy bread?
I used to see them a lot on CBS during The Price Is Right and my grandma's soap operas. It's been a while since I've spent the morning at my grandma's house, though, so I don't know if they're still around.
There are lots of bread commercials in Sweden. About as many as say, shampoo commercials (depending on the time of day).
Wonderbread (and anything else Hostess sells), Sarah Lee, Pillsbury [whatever]s, and regional stuff, apart from "fancy pepperidge farm crud" (I've never actually seen anything from Pepperidge Farm apart from cookies/biscuits, so if you mean those, there's also Chips Ahoy, Keebler, and anything for which Nabisco is known). Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to scrub the corporate gunge from my soul for having said all that.
In England we have a few, (but mostly for things like Warburton's, and Hovis though).
Maybe only in Texas (haven't seen them in Louisiana), but This Troper has seen ads for Mrs. Baird's Bread. Also remember seeing a few for Sunbeam.
Louisiana Troper here. Saw one local ad for Sunbeam bread about 14 years ago. Haven't seen anymore since. Maybe they figured out that there isn't enough regional competition for them to bother with advertising.
One of the Target ads that's a bit cleverer than the rest (not that that's saying much) shows a boy standing by an open jar of Market Pantry peanut butter and an open jar of Market Pantry jelly that are on the kitchen counter. He reaches one hand into the peanut butter and gets a handful. He reaches the other hand into the jelly and gets a handful. He brings the two hands together and begins trying to eat the mess while jelly drips out of his hands. Scene switches to a picture of Market Pantry bread on a red background with the caption "80¢". Cue Target logo. His mother really should have known to buy bread.
I remember commercials for Whitewheat, though it's been a while.
The Chef Boyardee commercial, where the little girl asks her mom to have the titular ravioli, only to be denied on the grounds that she always eats it. While the two are leaving, the can hops off the shelf and follows them all the way home. The mother asks her daughter what she wants for dinner, and the little girl picks up the can and smiles. There are a few problems with that. The mother would automatically assume she shoplifted it, and become quite angry with her. The other problem is how absolutely nobody noticed a can of ravioli rolling uphill.
Not to mention, if the mother's reasoning is that she has it all the time, how is acquiring a can anyway, legally or otherwise, going to change her mind?
WHY DID SHE FEED HER KID THE DAMN STUFF FOR THE MAJORITY OF A WEEK?! Do they just have no other types of food in their house other than Boyardee? It would explain her going shopping.
Couldn't she just buy some for a later day? Or do they go shopping everyday of the week?
I am the only one wondering HOW THE HELL THE CAN FOLLOWED THE GIRL IN THE FIRST PLACE?
EVERYTHING about the McDonald's "what can I get for a dollar" commercial. First of all, he gets all these crappy things for his dollar, but the dollar is never taken...he still has the dollar at the end of the commercial. Second of all, who walks into a tanning salon or a travel agency asking what can he get for a DOLLAR? And finally, there's the fact that the Dollar Menu would NOT cost exactly one dollar, because there's the whole thing with taxes and whatnot.
That last sentence Just Bugs Me. Oregon has no sales tax and most of the state has no restaurant tax, so the dollar menu actually is $1. Clearly all McDonald's commercials are set there.
Since in the USA sales tax is set by the state/local governments, it's not technically false advertising because you arenít paying more than $1 for the item. You pay your $1 for the item. You are obligated to pay sales tax to the state. McDonald's collects that on the state's behalf, but you arenít paying it to them and it is not part of the official cost of the item. Simple way to see this in action is if you have ever bought a car from a friend. Say your friend sold you a car for $2000. When you go to register the car in your name, you'll discover that you have to pay the sales tax on the $2000 at that time, since the default assumption is that $2000 was the price of the car, not including tax.
There is a newer ad that's worse, with the person in question declaring that buying a burger off the dollar menu was the best dollar she ever spent. I get that McDonald's wants to tell us that their food is good, but it's just ludicrous for them to expect anyone to believe its so good that it's the greatest thing you will ever spend money on, EVER.
The first UK equivalent of this ad (advertising a menu with 8 choices for £1 each) boasted "40,312 combinations". This was a serious case of Advertising Copywriters Cannot Do Maths — they presumably were trying to calculate the number of ways one can make a purchase consisting of at least two items from the menu, but not more than one of any item, and instead of the correct calculation (the sum of 8C0 through 8C8, which with a little thought is obviously 28=256, and then subtract 1 for 8C0 (the number of "combinations" containing no items) and 8 for 8C1 (those containing only one item) (because those two cases are "combinations" only to mathematicians) to arrive at the correct answer of 247), they for some unfathomable reason calculated 8!-8 — not even close to any feasible statistical calculation.
Not to mention the obnoxious sounding colloquial language makes me want to deck the voiceover man.
Statistics 101 (well, maybe statistics 99.7): There are, simply, 265 combinations. The 40,312 number is based on the assumption that the order of your...erm...order matters. When ordering it doesn't matter if you get fries and a shake or a shake and fries. The number in the commercial assumes it does matter. (Maybe it does for you. YMMV)
This has to do more with movie posters than any actual commercials on television, but here goes. Is there ANY film that's come out recently that hasn't used an overwhelming amount of orange and blue on their posters? It's ugly and makes them all look the same. Not to mention insulting, as the orange/blue contrast is supposed to be the most subliminally pleasing to our eyes, and is somehow more likely to make us purchase movie tickets. (Because you know, actual trailers/actors/directors don't generate any interest in said film, no sir) I'm a big collector of movie posters, and there's hardly any from the past decade I find worth owning because of this hideous trend.
Movie posters almost always use contrasting colors, just because it's more "vivid". The orange/blue thing is a selection bias originally and a perception bias subsequently.
Also, as Cracked noted, orange is the closest primary or secondary color that matches the skin tone of (white) people, and blue contrasts with it, so its usage makes sense.
The AXA/Equitable commercials with the gorilla. They feature a large talking gorilla trying to talk oblivious people into preparing for their retirement or what have you, ending sarcastically with: "But don't listen to me, I'm just the 800lb gorilla in the room". It mixes TWO different metaphors. The correct phrase to describe a looming issue that people ignore is: "The Elephant in the Room". The phrase: "800lb Gorilla" refers to an authority figure, or just a badass in general. It comes from the old riddle: Q: "Where does an 800lb gorilla sit?" A: "Anywhere it wants". "800lb gorilla in the ROOM" is just confusing the issue. That Other Wiki mentions that the two terms are confused enough to be interchangeable, but It still bugs me
I think the idea was that he was the "authority" (on the subject) in the room (gorilla), yet he was being ignored (elephant).
Why is it that only women seem to eat yogurt in commercials?
Because yogurt is now being promoted to lose weight. And we all know only women want to lose weight.
I think the real question is-Why in all the universe is Jamie Lee Curtis doing yogurt commercials? I mean, she's a talented actress, she's still quite hot...So why, Why, WHY is she selling a food product that regulates your digestion? Look,I know celebrities endorse various products before, but it's usually when they're past their prime (No offense to said celebrities).
What? Celebrities poop too, don't they? Don't they?? Besides, some very recent yogurt commercials are showing guys eat it. They still pitch it exclusively to women, but: baby steps.
The AT&T ads with Luke Wilson. Okay so you have smart phones, so does every other carrier nowadays. What, you cover 97% of all Americans? You didn't say that 97% coverage was "3G COVERAGE". Nevertheless do you have to sound like such a Jerkass?
The one that bugged me was the one where he's listing all the cities that the network covers... a list that includes Chicago, Houston and Phoenix, three of the 10 largest cities in the U.S. Was that supposed to impress people?
That they have such large populations means the largest amount of people can think, "That's where I live! I get coverage there!" I don't know if that's how people actually reacted for the most part though.
Why is it I can't remember how to do algebraic formulas, but I can remember a deodorant commercial I haven't seen since I was five?
Either math is really not interesting to you or that commercial might've wowed you so much, you remember it to this day.
You are probably definitely right on that first part. The second part, it was the jingle "Raise your hand...raise your hand if you're Sure!" and it featured an image of the Statue of Liberty. (Who, at the time, was big in the news due to being retouched.)
Because commercials are designed to stick in your head to the verge of suicide, whereas algebraic formulas are not.
(-b +- sqrt(b^2 - 4ac))/2aaaaaaaaaah!
Me: giggles uncontrollably
The new commercials for Twix candy bars. Someone gets in an awkward situation, a voice says "Need a moment? Have a Twix," the person freezes time around them and eats the candy bar, and then time unfreezes and the person has thought of a clever lie to get them out of the awkward situation. A fine concept, but the issues have involved:
A guy is reading a book on getting "Mega Hotties" with his friend. A woman he knows recognizes him, he eats the Twix, and then scolds his friend for being juvenile, despite him enjoying the book before being caught reading it, and the girl is so impressed that she asks him on a date.
It's implied that the women thinks the guy is reading his friends book and is disgusted by it, which is the whole point, having a second to think and turn a bad situation into a good one.
A man meeting a woman at a party and, after a couple lines of dialogue, inviting her over to his apartment, implying that he wants to have sex with her. After she is rightfully bugged by this, he uses his time freeze to craft a lie about how he wants to blog with her, and she goes with him to his apartment.
Somehow "want to blog" just sounds worse.
A man's wife/girlfriend finds a message on his phone from someone named Terri saying "I need you." The rest of the commercial consists of him lying and saying she's his boss, despite the commercial clearly implying that he's having sex with Terri, including him telling his girlfriend/wife that the second message telling him to "bring whipped cream" was "for his boss's coffee." See here.
A recent one has a guy looking at some random "sexy" women, who seem to be playing in the street. The man's wife/girlfriend, with was is presumed to be their newborn child, yells at him, asking "What do you think you're doing?!" Then, after eating a Twix bar, he says, "I was just looking at... potential baby sitters!" She then KISSES him, and says, "You are SOOOOOOO sweet!" Also, the girls wag their fingers to him ("Come here..."). Apparently, his wife/girlfriend didn't notice him pausing before responding, doesn't think why he would be looking at these girls, and thinks that some random bimbos would be good candidates for baby sitters.
Perhaps it's a masked "take that" at said demographics stating that if they take a moment to shut their damned mouths and think for once, then they wouldn't even be in those situations to begin with.....
Um, no. They get into these situations by being total pervs, and they get out of them by being unrepentant liars. It's insulting and needlessly exclusive (I'd be interested to see how many female customers they lost after those stupid commercials began airing) and inexcusable.
And the women they're with are so dumb that they're satisfied with the simple lies. Wouldn't a normally suspicious woman ask, "Aren't you going to call your boss and ask what he/she needs?" after the guy explains that Terri/Terry is his boss?
Yeah, because being a reasonable individual with a good moral compass, or in layman's terms: THINKING ABOUT YOUR ACTIONS BEFORE YOU MAKE THEM, won't keep you out of the trouble these people are in. They messed up with these commercials and hit the mark all at once. They made a commercial that won't sell their product, but they took daily occurrences and showed us just how horrible they are. Once you're done laughing, you stop and say "wait...what? THAT'S NOT FUNNY, THAT'S HORRIBLE!!!"
The ad campaign actually started innocuously. A guy is chilling at home when his wife comes out and asks, "Do these pants make my butt look big?" (The pants in question are tacky, skintight gold things that make her hindquarters look like she's packing bowling balls in said pants.) An announcer says, "Need a moment? Chew it over with Twix." The guy stuffs his mouth with Twix and gives an unintelligible answer his wife can't understand because his mouth is full, she assumes he said no, and hugs him. So it was still a guy lying to his wife (or else being honest but obscuring the truth with a full mouth) but it was truly funny, because he was trying to preserve her feelings and not being an asshole. It seems really odd to me that the marketing folks at Twix thought that it would be a good idea to go from, "Guy tells white lie to preserve his wife's feelings" to "Guy lies to his wife to not get busted in an affair."
Brad Jones did a very funny spoof of how that type of strategy would go over IRL. Watch it here.
Undoubtedly, these commercials were designed to appeal to men who would wish they could get away with the situations listed above. "Eat Twix, and you can be like them!" I wouldn't be surprised if the people who made these commercials wished they could be like them too.
And what about the new new commercials? Like... Right Side vs. Left Side? What??? No, like seriously, what?? There is literally no point to this nonsense. No one thinks that the left side is any different than the right or that there are two factories, each making only one side. That just breaks any level of suspension of disbelief for This Troper. And then there was the one that was a ripoff of Charlie and the Chocolate factory... Sigh. The whole thing is just nonsensical.
And the Twix in the wrapper aren't arranged so that there's one bar on the left, and one on the right. Assuming the bars are "right-side-up" when you're looking at the word "Twix" on the wrapper, there's one bar on the top and one on the bottom. Left vs. right implies a "left side" in the place with the letters "TW" and a "right side" in the place with the letters "IX"; not two bars that both stretch from the left edge to the right edge.
Why are commercials so much louder than the show you're watching? I always have to mute my TV because they blast the dang commercials through the speakers. Just because it's louder doesn't mean I'm more likely to pay attention to it!
The FCC allows any commercial to be as loud as the loudest part of the program your watching, and it also includes, oh, let's say, explosions. So advertisers take full advantage over this.
Because during commercial breaks, people get up to use the bathroom or make food. If they kick up the volume, you'll still hear the ad.
The marketing departments disagree with you. You are more likely to listen if it's louder.
I don't know if the likelihood of listening is linked to volume as much as the ability to hear is.
In Germany it is especially bad when you are watching a quiet movie and the scene goes on several minutes with a ordinary, quiet conversation or several second pure silence... and this bitch from the Yogurette ad scares me with her scream. Scaring customers was never a good way to sell something or is it?
Scaring customers is exactly what a lot of companies do, but I agree with your point.
FYI: Not anymore (in the US, at least). A bill was passed in the US at the very end of 2012 (December 29th-ish) stating that commercials have to be the same volume as the program.
A similar law was introduced some years ago, in the Uk. However, they exempted station promos from it. With the result that the ad blocks are now the same volume as the shows...but the five minutes of promos either side will blast your ears off if you fail to grab the remote quickly enough.
And while we're talking about Old Spice, what's up with so many advertisers blatantly ripping off their formula now? The "confident, absurdly successful guy walks toward a camera while sexified women do menial tasks behind him" format has popped up all over the place lately, and all it does for me is remind me of the Old Spice commercials, which defeats the purpose of this other brand running their ad in the first place.
OP seemed to have a good point, because these commercials stopped soon afterward. Probably because if someone sees your advertisement and thinks "Hey, this is just like Old Spice," it means your ad failed to do its job.
Why the hell is a famous footballer qualified to tell us which brand of razor blade to buy?
It's your typical "quality by association" schtick coupled with Brand Names Are Better. For example, let's say that a commercial has, oh, Bruce Campbell saying that "Trope Brand Razors give me a close shave while making my face feel fresh and rejuvenated" (or something like that). A person would see said commercial, say "Oh, Bruce Campbell uses Trope Brand Razors so they must be a better quality product than Brand X Razors" and then go out to buy them. It's really nothing new.
And why the hell are they sold like they are the most powerful biggest machines around, that can go from here to the moon in 60 seconds and produce explosions bigger than a jillion big bangs? The Fusion Gamer! The Fusion Power Phenom! Ultra mega turbo destroyer warpspeed blaster! We're talking about little blades that trim the hair on your face!
Also, what's with that ever-present anonymous woman rising up out of nowhere to feel the guy's chin after he shaves? What was she doing down there where we couldn't s- ...Oh.
What makes men's razor commercials even MORE annoying is that they never have cool stuff like this for woman's razors. They got all of these "technologically advanced" " razors that makes shaving comfortable and prevents "pulling and tugging" so the razor will "glide", but woman's razors? Nope. They're plastic handles with small knifes sticking out for you to cut and razor burn your legs with, so you can " release the goddess in you!" My goddess is currently "Goddess of constantly lotioning my legs to help the razor cuts and burns"
Use the pink Venus razors (the ones specifically for sensitive skin) with white Dove Soap as a lather and use only a fresh razor every time. I have to do that or else I have the same problem. My guess on why women just have to shut up and deal with it is that a man can have a tasteful beard and still be presentable, while a woman who never shaves is probably 1. a scary hippy or 2. a scary feminist, according to cultural norms. So men have more choice and therefore their razors have to be more competitive.
It gets worse. The ad with the trees changing into triangles and such seems to imply that it's not meant for your legs (I'm sure you get where I'm going there). If what you said was true about what they do to your legs I (as a straight male) REALLY don't want to see the aftermath of those things.
No no, those aren't trees, they're BUSHES. My God, they're not even being coy about it anymore!
Those Super Cuts commercials are horrible. The message is supposed to be, "If you get a haircut from us, you will have the confidence to do anything." Okay, that may work for the running of the bulls, but I don't think it would work for winning an arm-wrestling competition. Confidence or not, you're still not as strong or skilled as other competitors.
Hint: Confidence =/= Strong, skilled, or winner.
At least the Clearasil commercials remind you that confidence can make you look stupid too.
Another similar one: ever noticed how ads targeting male insecurities are always so incredibly Anvilicious? Granted, female insecurities are always in the crosshairs, but the "no one will like you unless you buy our crap" message is more implicit. For instance, products that hide gray hair will say things like "get your confidence back" or "feel young again" if aimed at women, subtly implying that you're a musty old crone who people will only love if you dye your hair. Ads aimed at men, however, flat out depict gray-haired guys getting rejected by women until they use the product, at which the exact same woman will then jump his bones. There was one diet plan ad that, no bullshit, had a satisfied male customer raving that "I don't disgust my wife anymore!" All advertisers think Viewers Are Morons, but these commercials stand out as especially cruel and insulting.
If I were to be completely cynical about it, I'd say that when it comes to beauty and diet products, women have already been successfully trained from youth to believe that they're ugly and unlovable unless they buy Brand X. Men, however, need to be beaten over the head with it because they are more likely to have been raised to have this crazy thing called "self-esteem" and will need more convincing.
Whenever a hotel commercial advertises that "Kids get in free!" my sister and I always point out that you pay per room not per person so the price is completely unaffected.
Hotels also charge for the number of occupants. I would guess the hotel doing the advertising is one of these.
Those ads on "The N" network that are obviously cell phone scams. The worst has to be the one were a girl texted the company (which is just a machine dealing out random numbers and answers) if she and her boyfriend were "meant to be". The answer was "No." She laughs at this, and they keep dating. Flash forward six months later, and he RUNS AWAY FROM THEIR WEDDING, as she cries on the chapel steps. First off, why would she trust a random answer generator for marital advice? Second, how much faith does she have to go along with this in the first place?
because they believe teens will do ANYTHING that will help them get closer to the possibility of having sex. Because our PHONES will guide us to the way of true love!
There's one I've seen where the girl texts the service and is told they have a 3% compatibility rate. She gets pissed and picks up her purse. Then she throws her drink in the guy's face! Fair enough if you want to believe the silly text messaging service, I guess, but he literally did nothing wrong! Even the cell phone service is only claiming you're incompatible, not that he's a horrible person!
That sounds similar to the cell phone commercial that suggests that if you use their phone and data service, you will have a happy marriage and raise the future president.
which is also annoying...
Seconded. Really, service provider? You suggested my kid will be president if I sign up? You went there? Y'know, if you wanted my business that badly, you could have maintained some dignity if you had just cried and soiled yourself instead.
Those damn Special K commercials. "Uh-oh, you're about to eat something that's BAD and has FAT and SUGAR IN IT!! Good thing YOU know Special K's got you covered with our crunchy paper and colored sugar water!" They almost seem like they want to make you think that by having their product instead of that eeeevil coffee drink or ice cream or cookie you're taking some sort of moral high road. I do love Special K, but their ads suck ass.
Because the worst thing a women can do is *gasp* EAT SOMETHING THAT TASTES GOOD! Nooooo! Women can't eat real food! They might gain weight! And we can't have THAT, now can we? Women MUST be in an eternal task of losing weight so they can be hot! Hot women matter most, and they can't enjoy a coffee because they could gain a fourth of a pound and men won't want them anymore!
You silly geese. We don't eat! Eating makes you poop, and everybody knows girls don't poop.
Then what's Activia for?
I Knew It! So do you stay in the bathroom for so long just to throw us off the trail?
Oh shit, HE'S ONTO US. Quickly, the Female Fraternity must be protected! *headshot*
The Female Fraternity? It that like the Male Sorority?
Exactly like it. Now pass the aloe; she used a .25 caliber on my head and it's itching like crazy.
Or they take pretty pretty ponies point of view. "Pastries and other great tasting foods make us fat!"so we only draw pictures of them or eat artifical,factory made robot bars that are supposed claimed to keep us full and satisfied but make us hungry the next hour."
The Dairy Queen Blizzard commercials where the family stalks the Blizzardmobile. First off, is a Blizzard really Serious Business? Two, the parents actually have Blizzards in a new one. Isn't that enough?
They also act as if it's an ice cream truck, with a DQ employee just ready to hand them out a Blizzard. If the mom had actually reached the Blizzard mobile, she would probably just see a box filled with unmade ice cream.
There was an old commercial for I Can't Believe It's Not Butter with Fabio and a Satellite Love Interest in a Faux Medieval setting. He hands her a muffin with some I Can't Believe It's Not Butter On It, she takes one bite and says "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter," and there is a big romantic buildup. The problem, she obviously CAN believe it's not butter, as she immediately identifies it as not butter.
YMMV. I'd like bodice-ripper fiction a lot better if they always just talked about food.
Would it be the eating of food that causes the bodice to rip?
Those fucking Go Compare adverts. Why do they keep making them? Everyone hates them. When I think of 'Go Compare' I think of violently killing that moustached bastard, not...whatever the hell they're advertising.
George M. Cohan is spinning in his grave. It's too bad "Over There" is public domain these days.
Skittles commercials. Why do they focus so incredibly heavily on breeding nightmares, rather than taste? The closest thing to "our candy tastes good" they ever get is "people are so addicted to our product that they are willing to do horrible, horrible things to get some", which doesn't make me want to buy skittles, but rather contact the FDA. So why have ads like that?
"Hit me again, tube sock," isn't very appealing to you, either?
What about the Sheep Boys? Or the Scottish-Korean Guys? Yeah, they're pretty bad.
The Scottish-Korean guy was from the Starburst commercials.
They appear to be going for that Adult Swim-style non sequitur humor, but they forget to be humorous. If you're the sort of person who doesn't find randomness inherently funny, then all you're left with is a weird, creepy commercial that doesn't connect with the product it's shilling.
I love randomness, but the commercial with the dude's beard is just seriously disturbing. What makes it even worse is something I read comparing it to Michelle Duggar's hair.
There's a new Lucozade Sport drink out which advertises as being 'low in calories'. Thing is, Lucozade Sport is an energy drink, which means it's supposed to supply you with quick energy. A calorie is a unit of energy (it's 4.2J or 4.2kJ depending on which scheme you use). Therefore, the ad's saying "Our energy drink is awesome because it supplies very little energy!"
You can have an energy drink that has zero calories. An energy drink isn't necessarily supplying you with the energy itself. It may be making the claim to boost your level of energy with vitamins or caffeine.
On one British consumer show, they talked about some cereal which proudly boasted of being "high protein, low calorie". They'd asked a nutritionist about this, and not surprisingly he told them it was nonsense — "high protein means high calorie".
Well, I couldn't think of a better place, and it's sort of like advertising because of the bottle shape being a trademark of Coca-cola, but I'm bugged by how they have their special bottle shape which is enough taller than regular bottles that they don't fit in my refrigerator standing up. Do they want me to buy their competitor's instead?
Even more irritating: Why do all Coke commercials show people drinking Coke from glass bottles, when those bottles are difficult if not impossible to find, at least in the U.S.? You can find glass bottles imported from Mexico, and sometimes six-packs of small glass bottles, but they are far more expensive... and you certainly can never find glass Coke bottles in vending machines, or Diet Coke in glass bottles, both regularly pictured in commercials. I think it's false advertising.
Brand recognition. The shape of glass Coke bottles has been an easy way to identify the product for years. When Pepsi first introduced larger "family" sized bottles, one benefit was that Coke couldn't produce the same iconic shape in that size (at least at first). Using the glass bottle remains a war to be distinct, with few if any other brands using similar materials. Also, glass bottles can seem more luxurious and imply a higher quality product.
Why, oh, why can't GEICO just pick a damn mascot already? First it was the gullible dude (IE: "People do stupid things (guy gets flattened by a steamroller). Paying too much for car insurance shouldn't have to be one of them."). Then it was the gecko. Then it was the caveman/cavemen (IE: "It's so easy, a caveman can do it. *cue caveman walking away in disgust*"). After that it was the money with the googly eyes (IE: "That's the money you could be saving by switching to GEICO."). And, finally they have that announcer guy (IE: "Can switching to GEICO really save you 15% or more on car insurance? Does (insert person/place/thing here) do (insert action here)?"). I say they should just combine all of their mascots into one mascot and get it over with-IE: A gullible cave-gecko made of money with googly eyes that's an announcer. Problem solved.
As of 10/18/10, there's a new commercial made with Xtra Normal, possibly beginning a new series of commercials.
Maxwell the Pig is turning up more often, too.
Technically the caveman was specifically for GEICO.com.
The new Pepsi Max commercial that aired during the Super Bowl (#XLV) where a couple is sitting on a bench. A single woman sits on the bench next to them and the woman of the couple thinks the guy is checking her out, so she throws her Pepsi can, which then hits this innocent woman in the head, knocking her out cold. She falls on the ground. The couple gets up and runs off without checking to see if she's okay. What kind of a shitty move is this? Never mind the racial implications.
The people who made the commercials definitely weren't concerned. If you're thinking hard enough to be concerned over the characters in these commercials, then you must be one of those anal Mike Teavee know-it-all nerds.
In McDonald's commercials, why do Ronald and the gang willingly hang out with a masked man who admittedly calls himself "the Hamburglar"? In McDonaldland, that's got to be the same as asking a convicted break-and-enter offender to watch over your jewelry store.
The Onion referenced the Hamburglar's strange implications with McDonald's unveiling and then quickly dropping their new "Hammurderer" character.
Satisfied OP is satisfied.
Hey, they also hang out with a guy whose name means "A sharp contortion of the face expressive of pain, contempt, or disgust." Yeah, he used to be evil (at least, in the sense of food theft), but you'd think he wouldn't continue to have a name like that after his rehabilitation (and amputation).
Amputation? What the hell did they cut off?
Two of his arms (not during a commercial, of course, it was a character redesign).
There is political campaign in Missouri right now between Roy Blunt and Robin Carnahan. Both of their ads are attack ads against the other, and neither candidate is saying anything positive about himself. Not only that, these ads are in practically every commercial break. I live in Illinois and I have to put up with this!
I assume you're still in St. Louis media jurisdiction, which is why you're seeing those commercials. Sadly, a lot of times these fear-inducing ads are far more effective than positive ones, because no matter what a candidate can promise, they want you under the impression that it's way better than what their incompetent, self-righteous, money-grubbing fool of an opponent will bring to this [country/state/county/city.]
The strangest thing is that there is another series of ads for some other candidate that says something along the lines of "while candidates X and Y sling mud and throw accusations around, our candidate never slings mud and throws accusations around, and focuses on the issues that matter. Vote for Candidate Z." Longer cuts of the commercial mention things like abortion and voting, but never the stance. How can these people think they're actually helping by implying that their candidate approves of implied hypocrisy, and may or may not be highly controversial in some vague, undefined way? No Such Thing as Bad Publicity doesn't even start to explain it, unless they're actuallyon the other side.
Why do "Heat Surges" (those devices that look like a fireplace) claim they are built by the Amish? Didn't the Amish forego electronic technology to be closer to God, or am I missing something here?
Short answer: No. (Long answer: Noooooooooooooooooooo.) It varies from one Amish community to another, but most use technology to some degree. Anyway, even if they didn't, there's still the fact that not using technology doesn't preclude you from building it for the use of others.
The heating elements come form a factory. The wood frames come from the Amish. If you see that on a heater without a wood frame, a marketer screwed up.
When it comes to advertising on tv for God-knows how many times, isn't there usually a HUGE cost to dominate the airwaves? Let's take Crazy Frog (Or as I prefer to call it, Stupid Bastard), how did it make so much money in the first place to get played so many damn times? I understand after it got "popular" because people bought it but what about before?
The internet and word of mouth.
Sometimes a company has bought a lot of airtime on a particular channel. Their commercial runs during nearly every commercial break. This is fine. Occasionally, it runs twice in the same break. Annoying, but not a show stopper. But every now and then, a channel will run the same exact commercial back-to-back with itself. FUUUUUUUUUUUUU--
The first airing is broadcast nationally, the second is purchased from the local station.
I once saw a commercial break where every other commercial was the same yogurt commercial. I think the frickin ad played 8 times before the show came back.
There was this moustetrap commercial in which a woman tells his husband she just killed a mouse using the mousetrap. What bugs me was that she was so flipping calm about, she acted like she just made a sandwich!
Well, if she'd flip her shit, that would raise Unfortunate Implications about how women can't handle dead animals but MEN can. And if she'd been distressed about the dead mouse, well, who wants to sell their product with "and it will make you cry, too :D" ?
Who buys mouse traps that kill mice? People who want to kill mice. Who isn't going to cry that they've killed a mouse? Someone who wanted to kill a mouse and bought a device designed to kill them. I don't understand why this is in this section, surely if anything it's a Just Bugs Me about life- that people use mousetraps.
The Time-Warner commercial with two girls trying to tame an out-of-control washing machine is supposed to show the benefits of having Time-Warner's high-speed Internet service. After the girls fail to find the solution to the problem with the washing machine, one of the girls calls her dad through a webcam. Without seeing the problem (supposedly the benefit of the fast Internet service), he asks them if they've tried unplugging the washer. How the web chat is supposed to help two stupid girls is beyond me.
This is also a bit of a broken aesop and a failing of the supposed purpose of the commercial in the first place. The commercial promises, "get the answers you need - fast!" However, the girls have to call (by webcam) the dad of one of the girls because the Internet searches have suggested using a coupling wrench and other solutions. They only succeed after getting the common sense directions from the dad.
The idea that advertising is some sort of evil manipulation used by companies to con people into buying products. Look, there's unethical practices in advertising, sure, but mere persuasion is not morally wrong. And that's all adverts try to do; convince you to buy [x] product instead of [y] product. Stop blaming advertising and just don't buy it.
Except that there are enough manipulative, misleading, generally dishonest, and downright untruthful advertisements that buyers should always be wary of any form of advertising. Besides, so many things are advertised, the just don't buy it solution wouldn't work.
A guy accidentally sends an e-mail response to "all" instead of just one person. He runs around smacking the computers out of people's hands, stealing some laptops, and any way he can think of to keep them from reading the message. He uses his car to get from point to point, but his car isn't a central point of the commercial. Then, he gets back to his office and his co-worker tells him he didn't reply to everyone after all. The commercial: Bridgestone Tires
How much do advertisements actually affect the viewers besides making them annoyed or helping them decide what sort of food they want to cook for dinner?
I've always wondered that, too. Advertising can be for many purposes, like awareness or differentiating your product from the competition, but I've always wondered how much awareness you need, especially for products that you use regularly, like sodas. How much more awareness do you need for a brand of soda and how effective is the competition's advertising? If I've been drinking Coke for years, Pepsi (or another competitor) has an uphill battle that may never sway me to their products. Their products are already everywhere. If I'm not buying it when it's available to me almost everywhere I go, what chance does advertising have to get me to buy the product? Am I really going to forget to try Pepsi if I don't see a commercial or sign for it every 15 minutes?
Advertisements work on a number of levels, and when you actually learn about all of them you're response will be somewhere between deep respect and further IJBM. Even those who think that they are most hardened against them are affected more than they think. Now, when it comes to soda, you seem to be under the impression that they are targeting every single person. While it might be nice to sway you, they're just targeting the tautological group of people they are able to sway. The sad part? In general, this group isn't really large enough to justify normal advertising costs (new products and promotions obviously alter this), but it is large enough that Pepsi letting Coke dominate the advertising realm would be significant to them. It's essentially a case study of the Prisoner's Dilemma.
It's simpler than that. Most advertisements don't affect most viewers at all. Individual sales are worth more than the advertiser lets on. So let it now bug you even more that all of that annoyance and wasted time and energy really is for nothing. If you think you're immune to advertising... you are. It's no longer targeted at you.
Most advertising actually cancels each other out, ie If Coke and Pepsi are both yelling about how great they are, you're in exactly the same situation as if neither of them were. Unfortunately neither can stop, because that would give the competitor an advantage. This let to a strange situation in the UK, when tobacco advertising was banned it was actually beneficial to the tobacco companies, as they all suddenly saved millions on their advertising budget without really losing out.
The Snickers Squared shark commercial, because the Let's Meet the Meat of talking cows and candy wasn't disturbing enough, we had to have the human version apparently. I couldn't sleep the night after the first time I saw that damn thing, and I have to change the channel every time I see it now, given that one of my terrifying and irrational phobias is of being eaten alive. How the hell is saying, "Our company is run by murderous assholes who feed people to sentient sharks just for pointless research?" and "this will make you taste better to predators" supposed to make us want to buy your product, Snickers? Yeah, I know, it's supposed to be black comedy, but we see pictures of two of the victims (and see one living guy about to get eaten) and they refer to them by first name multiple times. If you're going for black comedy, don't do your best to remind us that these are people who have parents and very well might have children who are now orphans, you bastards.
It's blacker comedy. The Snickers guys don't find it funny enough unless the victims get fleshed out (pun not intended). It's something like shock comedy: It was supposed to be funny in its audaciousness. Clearly, it didn't work with you.
This ad for Invisalign Teen. What kind of asshole parents would play favorites with their kids like that?
The video is out, but isn't parental favoritism common?
Commercials that advertise some sort of medicine that strengthens your "cell walls." Seeing as how animals have no cell walls, this is a blatant example of Artistic License Ė Biology.
It could be advertisers assuming Viewers Are Morons. We do have cell membranes, but "membrane" is one of them weird sciencey nerd words.
This ad where kids are chasing after another kid for his yogurt that tastes like Ice Cream. It bugs me how those kids are so stupid that they can't see that there IS no ice cream. Why won't they just leave the kid alone?
Those commercials with the kids who act so smarmy and sarcastic because they know so much better than their dumb parents about things (the first one that comes to mind is advertising an online realtor service). Little kids talking like little smartass know-it-alls does not make me want to pay for your service, it makes me want to PUNCH THE KID IN THE FACE.
There's a new commercial for cable (I think it was Cox) that didn't even need a nasty kid in it but put one in anyway. It was the "Show and Tell With Your Parents Job" kind of thing, and one dad was a cable guy. This bitchy girl in the front of the class starts asking questions about what the company provides, and when he says the company doesn't provide it (which she knew all along) she would say "Cox cable does." She did this for about a minute and when the kid (and teacher for the last question) have finished humiliating him he asks "Who wants to hear from (the next parent in line.)" He was being amazingly chill for a guy whose job, which he probably planned on doing his whole life, was just ridiculed. It made me want to punch that kid AND fire the annoying teacher, NOT switch my cable.
Speaking of commercial people we want to punch, can I add that stupid Bob guy from the Enzyte ads? He's always going around with that half-retarded grin on his face while the announcer spews bad puns and lamely-veiled Double Entendre (like we don't already know what the fuck the drug's for)! In fact, can I add the announcer too?
And as far as stupid Cox cable ads, how about the new one? The son (established from past ads like this is the world's dumbest sitcom) returns home with a female of unspecified interest and they notice a light upstairs going off and on and off and on... so they book it up the steps to see his dad clicking a mouse and flicking the light switch and saying "Win. Win. Win again. Yep." and so the hell on. Pressed on the issue, he claims "it appears Cox cable may actually be faster than light!" — implying that the webpages he's "visiting" are appearing instantly. NO. JUST HELL NO. I have never seen a webpage "appear instantly" in my life, and that includes hitting Backspace to return to a previous page!
Speaking of annoying brats in commercials, how about the kids with this maniacal need not just to keep all the Eggo waffles for themselves, but to deny their parents (esp. their dads) ANY chance of even touching the toasty treat. These kids go to enormous lengths, such as booby-trapping the kitchen, to ensure no-one else gets any, even after they've had more than their fair share. I can understand that the waffles are supposed to be that good, but come on, people, are adults only allowed to have tofu cubes and sawdust for breakfast?
Depending on the household, they may be marketing to families whose parents eat totally different things for breakfast than the kids (or don't eat breakfast at all). It is also possible that commercials like these (as well as a lot of other children's foods, most notably Trix cereal) are meant to feel empowering to children, that they can outwit and defeat even seemingly invincible authority figures like parents. They associate that feeling of empowerment with the food and want it.
Commercials for establishments, restaurants especially, that are not in my area(Dairy Queen)or even in the whole freakin' state(Sonic). I think I actually know the reason—I've heard that national ad buys are cheaper than regional ones—but it still irritates me.
I feel your pain completely. I don't even know where a Boston Market would be near me, but those damned commercials tempt me all the time with their home cooking deliciousness. I have to settle for Luby's. And I would have to drive approximately 100 miles to get to the nearest IKEA store. Yet I really, really, really want to go to IKEA!! It's just a terribly unfortunate thing for everyone.
With ya. The only Boston Markets in my whole state are up in the northeast corner of it. Me? I live in south central, near the southern border. It gets worse — I had to cross a state line to see a real-life Fuddrucker's for the first time after having watched so much Hey Ash Whatcha Playing that I was almost convinced they made it up.
It's even worse in Canada, specifically Edmonton, Alberta. We get channels and ads up here from as far as New York, and the nearest major American city is Seattle, which is about 14 hours of driving.
The Garnier: Fructis shampoo commercial which basically says "our product is a more attractive method of getting rid of dandruff than having a monkey on your head picking your hair". How is shampoo better? Everything's Better with Monkeys! How is a monkey less of a babe magnet than the same stuff everybody else is using?
The monkey's probably not getting off your head to go to the bathroom, that's how.
Considering that the monkey is still there picking stuff out of the hair and either tossing it or eating it, that's what we like to call a "self-correcting problem".
What's with the new Toyota Highlander commercials? The message seems to be that you should buy the car so your kid won't feel embarrassed. The fact that the kid telling you this is a spoiled brat doesn't help at all.
My personal theory is that its actually being funded by a political group lobbying to ease up on laws regarding how parents punish children, especially regarding beatings, by showing what happens when a child doesn't get enough beatings. I expect a scandal when the real source of the ad is revealed to emerge some time in the next year or two.
What the hell, Klondike?! You just had to be like Axe and appeal to the Manbabies..."Hurrdurr, Mark has to listen to his wife nag for FIVE SECONDS! Women are shrill, humorless bitches unless they bring us cheap ice cream!1"
Clearly the existence of Spike TV and the like show that marketing people think young men ARE like that. Or impressionable ones, at least.
What is with the new Miracle Whip commercials? Ads by definition are supposed to make you want to buy something, but at least two of these are full of people ranting about how much they hate MW and anyone who happens to like it. Yeah, that makes for a really appetizing-sounding product.
What is it with Car Insurance Commercials for the major brands (a big exception being All State, but YMMV)? Are they all trying to see who can make the most annoying ad?
Relatedly, how is it that every single car insurance company is capable of saving you money compared to the competition? Is there just one REALLY EXPENSIVE COMPANY everybody is using as a metric?
You'll love the correct answer. People who switch from auto insurance company A to auto insurance company B save hundreds of dollars on average. Because if there weren't significant savings to be had from switching, they wouldn't switch. The problem is when every company decides to present it as though it's a universal comparison.
Those commercials for a new computer (or a service that moves stuff from old computers onto new ones, something like that). A couple (with a kid I think) comes home to find that their entire house just got robbed, and we see that everything is gone, except the computer. The idea is supposed to be that the computer (which is shown to be an old desktop) is so out of date not even robbers want it. The couple then goes out and buys a brand new lap top computer. I know there's insurance and everything but that really doesn't seem like the kind of time that you'd have money to buy a brand new computer.
The writers didn't think that far. Or it's absurdist comedy, that you're supposed to laugh because they made an illogical decision (which would work against the commercial).
Adverts guilt tripping parents into making stupid purchases. There are two adverts going around in the UK at the moment. Some sort of yoghurt (that you must take daily to avoid death) which is now aimed at children, because otherwise they wouldn't have any energy! Then some juice crying out "it's better than water", if you're not forcing this drink down the throats of your children they're going to become dehydrated and die! Yeah I'm exaggerating but it's the same thing day in day out; buy this cereal or your child won't learn, get this yoghurt or they'll have weak bones. It's playing off the fear every parent has that they're not doing the best for their child, surely that's just as wrong as implying children should pester their parents for toys (which isn't allowed anymore, at least in the UK).
They'll do anything to get money. Ever seen hair products/facial cream products? They make a big deal about how, if you had pimpled skin, then you aren't beautiful, then cue an obvious model with baby-smooth skin smiling and saying how she had been taking the thing for a week and it turned her into how she was at that moment. For the men? It's usually baldness adverts, and they seemingly imply that if you're balding, you're not a real man.
The Nestle Water commercials usually make a sliver of sense, but in a recent one, a girl on a soccer team asks the coach why they drink sports drinks instead of water. Well, little girl, sports drinks contain electrolytes like salt to help balance the levels of them in your body because you lost some while sweating. And why does the coach have both drinks anyways? It's a waste of money.
They may have two drinks because some people didn't like one of them.
Alright, I'll give you the people like different options things, but they still should have more than enough drinks for the team, the other team should have some, the people watching should have some water of their own, and there should be cars near by to drive people to places with liquid. Even if you're really working up a sweat, you wouldn't die of hydration. All last resorts if people get that picky.
FWIW, sweating makes your electrolyte concentrations go up, not down: while sweat does contain salts and so on, the amount of water in sweat is proportionately higher than the amount of solutes. Plain water is actually the healthier alternative for re-hydration after exercise; sports drinks are only desirable because people who drink water tend to get bored with its tastelessness before they've ingested enough of it to do the job.
The next question is, if he's slathering greasy deodorant on his bare feet, couldn't the authorities just run a trace on his footprints?
This Nissan commercial. I can understand showing your truck do something cool, but this commercial baffles me. It shows a Nissan truck actually snowboarding down a mountain and then do a barrel-roll while, at the bottom of the screen, is the message, "Fantasy. Trucks can't snowboard. Do not attempt... Or do barrel-rolls. Do not attempt." So... I don't get it. The commercial shows the product doing something awesome, and then says that the product cannot do what the commercial is showing? What does that accomplish?
It's an attempt to cover their ass in case some idiot actually attempts these stunt, gets hurt, and decides the sue. It's likely all CGI just to show how cool it is.
Can someone please explain Dior perfume commercials to me? I don't see how anyofthesecommercials relate to perfume, or just smelling nice in general.
In general perfume commercials tend to have nothing to do with the product; they're only identifiable as perfume commercials specifically because they're so bizarre. You'd think that somebody would get around to making a commercial that describes the smell.
I think they're trying to create imagery that supposedly describes how it smells. It comes off looking more like an ad for recreational drugs.
How about those current Chevy ads with hip kids doing crazy stunts with the slogan "Let's Do This" while a disclaimer at the bottom of the screen says "Don't Do This"?
It's a joke. Come on, TV Tropes, we should know what jokes are!
Hey (American) advertisers — it's 2012. We have had TWO female secretaries of state, one female Congressional leader, two female presidential candidates, four females on the US Supreme Court, and even the place where the PGA Masters Tournament is held has extended an invitation to two females to join its formerly males-only golf/country club. Why are females still pretty much the only ones shown doing any cooking or cleaning on commercials? When are you going to show males and the children of both genders get up their lazy asses and clean up their own damned messes for once? It's not the early 1960s anymore — not even on "Mad Men" — so SNAP OUT OF IT.
Two things: Advertising firms tend to be run by old white men who have lived through the Civil Rights Movement and may have quietly resented them, and men ARE depicted cooking in commercials, such as one during 2012 for Reynolds Wrap aluminum foil. They just aren't depicted cooking competently that often.
Is the Kool-Aid Man the glass man-jar, the liquid inside, or are both parts vital organs of his?
The commercial which bugs me the most right now is Joe Theismann's Super Beta Prostate. I get good use of my fast forward button when it airs. I love (sarcastically) the line of 'more romance in the bedroom'. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8i9kVG7owA
I'm from Canada, and here, we have a group called Raising the Roof, who are a charity group who help the homeless. One of the things they do to raise money is selling red toques (wool hats) and giving the money to help the homeless. So by weaing said hat, you are showing how caring you are to homeless people. That's good. BUT, apparintly, THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH, because they relesed these stupid ads where people get benfits from wearing it. The women at work who's your rival wears the same skirt and blouse? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdscfU23xk4) She'll DESTORY HER OWN CLOTHES OVER IT! Are you a dentist who's just preformed malpratice when you've removed someone's teeth at a simple check up? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaMxyWw2d5k) He won't sue you, because you are wearing that hat. WHAT THE HELL?!?!? Helping another human being isn't good enough, you need some sort of selfish asinine reason to be DECENT?!?! It's like something that Arthur from King of Queens would do....only much less funny. I talked about this with a friend, saying that it would have been more appropret to show a sad homeless person on the street beening helped onto his feet by someone wearing that toque, but he said that would be SAD and people want to feel happy. IT'S THE HOMELESS, THEY ARE LVING A SAD LIFE MORE OFTEN THEN NOT. THE POINT OF THIS IS TO HELP THEM OUT OF THAT SAD LIFE. And it's not like it can't work; I've seen ads for the Salvation Army that are kind of sad and serious about changing the life of people on the streets. And these are PSA ads, which are known for more often then not, being somewhat serious. I recall an anti-drinking and driving ad that always puts me to tears with a crying baby who's mother was killed in a car crash (I'm tearing up just thinking of it right now). It's sad, but it still works. So, anyone else agree this? I wanted to ask before I tried posting it on the main page.
The commercial you speak of seems to be aimed at people who feel guilty about being a dick and want to find something to alleviate that guilt besides apologizing and, well, acting decently.
In the Roger's phone commercials, where a brunet man with a terrible phone plan is constantly running into attractive blond man that has a great life because he has Roger's, why doesn't the first man just switch to Roger's?
Probably because he's locked into a 3 year contract, and to cancel and switch to Roger's he'd need to pay the penalty fee and the cost of his phone, which could be $500+.
Shouldn't the most interesting man in the world be a better conversationalist? Every time I've actually heard him speak, he said the exact same thing.
He clearly says other things, its just that the only times the camera lets us hear what he says is when he says those things - maybe saying it four or five times in a year, if that. Law of Conservation of Detail.
There's a State Farm insurance commercial in which a shrewish wife catches her husband on the phone at 3 AM and assumes he's talking to a girlfriend, even after she's taken the phone from him and heard a man's voice confirm that he's a State Farm employee. Bad enough that it plays into the "wives are jealous shrews" cliche, but it doesn't even allow her to shift gears to a justifiable suspicion ... namely, wondering why her husband felt the need for an insurance quote in the middle of the night? ("What the hell did you do to the car?!")
It really doesn't help that the tone the husband was using while talking to "Jake from State Farm" sounded very sexually excited (What, does the husband get turned on by good insurance deals? Is he in an affair with "Jake from State Farm"?) If anything, the wife has every right to be suspicious.
It also doesn't help that he was trying to be so secretive about the call. Something is definitely going on here.
Does anyone else want to see the wife's reaction to, "Well, she's a guy,"?
There's a breakfast-sausage commercial in which a teen doesn't want to pay attention in chemistry class because he's hungry. Given a sausage-on-a-stick, he perks up and dives into the experiment, apparently bright and eager ... but still dumb enough to eat food while working with volatile chemicals. Great way to poison yourself or get kicked out of class, there.
If he's that out of it in class, he probably doesn't know any better.
Slim Jim "Moist and Tender" Steakhouse Strips are apparently meant to be a more "manly" form of beef jerky. First of all, if it were meant to better fit the macho-man stereotype, wouldn't it be tougher than the sole of a work boot rather than moist and tender? Secondly, isn't beef jerky the stereotypical manly-man snack anyway? Do we really need a manlier beef jerky?
One-upmanship. Insecure men who want to look manly have no limits.
To quote an ad for the 2013 NASCAR qualifiers: "To win the Chase, being perfect isn't good enough... To win here, you need luck and chaos on your side, because being perfect only gives you a chance." As it turns out, I'm not perfect. Should I even bother to try?
If you started out perfect, that would fall under luck. You have to ''try" to reach perfection first.
There's an Optima commercial that brags about their rear-view park assist system, and demonstrates it when the car backs up into its garage to stop a tiny fraction of an inch from a box full of toys. Not only is it shameless in its Mundane Made Awesome melodrama, but the "imperiled" toy which the car's bumper stops just short of colliding with is a soft plush rabbit ... which, being pliable fabric, wouldn't have been damaged in the slightest if it had been pressed up against by the bumper.
The Sprint phone "Framily Plan" commercials. To a point I can see what they're doing; showing how the plan can allow a bunch of very different people to all be in on one plan or whatever. What I don't get is.... why is the dad in the commercial a hamster? It takes the commercial out of "quirky" territory into "WTF is wrong with this universe?"
They think randomness is inherently funny.
Are a lot of these people who make advertisements self-entitled narcissistic jerks who hate goody-two-shoes, drive like maniacs, and wished they could get away with everything they wanted with no consequences? And if male, they wished they could surround themselves with beautiful but shallow women 24/7 who fawn after them for no reason? Because there are a lot of commercials whose protagonists behave that way and get off scot-free at the end. It's so often, it goes beyond Wish Fulfillment for its target audience and becomes wish fulfillment for themselves.
I've been seeing lots of commercials that advertise that shows are going to be new for the rest of the season. Aren't the episodes in the season supposed to be new? If the episodes are reruns, they obviously aren't new, and not part of the rest of the season, so saying shows will be new for the rest of their season doesn't accomplish anything. The only other thing I can think of is the Earth's seasons (i.e. Shows will be new for the rest of Spring). If not, then what are these commercials going on about?
Probably they're saying that the series in question won't feature a mid-season interlude of reruns, That's something an increasing number of programs do to stretch out their new episodes' debuts across two sweeps-week periods and to allow for mid-season cliffhangers or a hiatus in their shooting schedule.
Why do cereal mascots in commercials waste their time trying to steal cereal from kids? Why not go to the local grocery store and buy it if they crave it so much? They can't be broke if they can afford costumes, wigs, and acme gadgets (which cost more than a box of cereal).
I recall a Trix commercial where the rabbit bought some with his own money, and the kids stole it from him anyway. So, they don't buy it because kids are complete assholes.
On the other side of the coin is the Lucky Charms leprechaun—"They're always after me Lucky Charms!" So, what's the problem? You're a leprechaun. You can make more! In fact, you're probably the only being in the universe who can!
Baby Bottle Pop. You know, those baby-bottle-shaped lollipops with the container of powdered sugar? What do those girls say near the beginning? "They look like babies!" Now, maybe I'm misreading the mindset of the target demographic, but isn't that the last thing they want to look like?
They think they're funny by acting silly, I guess. Some kids will do anything for attention, for that matter.
Often times, car commercials will have a warning saying "Professional driver. Closed Course. Do not attempt." For the most part, it makes sense; they're often driving pretty fast in some kind of desert for...some reason. But in the commercials taking place in a city, doing relatively normal things, why should you not attempt them? What's wrong with making a left turn? Will the car explode if you do so?
Frivolous Lawsuits. Nothing stops a person from driving to that intersection in real life and making a left turn, then crashing into someone and blaming the car company or the advertising company for depicting that exact same turn, especially if the commercial's talking about how safe the car is. I rarely see that fine print unless the car is doing something unusual or dangerous, however. There was a Scion commercial recently that poked fun at this kind of fine print though, with the car doing things that a normal car obviously cannot do, like grind on rails (complete with short sideways hop).
What if you ARE a professional driver on a closed course? It still says "do not attempt". Can I ask why they always depict their cars skidding uncontrollably? Is this supposed to inspire confidence?
Has Revlon STILL not realized yet that their "women's nailpolished hands feeling up a man's face" ad campaign makes it look like a man is touching his own face with his own immaculately polished nails? I hope they never realize. I like the commercials/ads/product display banners better this way. I can pretend it's progressive.
Who the hell watches "Paid Programming?"
There was a commercial for Mario Super Sluggers that said to never use Fire Swing on a Rainbow Ball. Why? What's inherently wrong with doing that?
Liberty Mutual Car Insurance. The point of the series of commercials is to explain how well their policies cover you for replacing your car or not raising rates after a claim; however, nearly every commercial shows an actor pretty much admitting they didn't read past the signature block of their previous policy or are negligent drivers and deserve to get taken to the cleaners by their insurance company. This Troper's favorite is of the woman who describes how she wrapped her beloved car around a tree and it was completely her fault, but how dare the insurance provider increase her rates after paying for that mess!