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.
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?
In another Chef Boyardee commercial, a monster breaks into the car of a camping couple, eats a can of Chef Boyardee, then turns into a boy. One has to wonder what happens to said boy afterward. Along with that, it eats the Chef Boyardee raw.
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.
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.
New Jersey troper here. Having stopped there many times throughout the course of my travels, and never seeing any sales tax added to any purchase I’ve ever made there, our neighbor to the south Delaware is another state where you could get the dollar menu for just a dollar. Good luck with that in the New York metro area!
Since in the USA sales tax is set by the state/local governments, it's not technically false advertising because you aren’t 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 aren’t 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)
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.
Jamie Lee Curtis. Actress. Mother. Soft poop enthusiast.
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".
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.
In a holiday commercial for Jimmy John's sandwiches, a child is shown lifting a present box to reveal a sandwich and beverage. How did the sandwich not get all gross and messy, and how did the beverage not spill out?
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.
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?
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.
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).
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.
There was this mousetrap 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.
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.
Directions which could have, as easily, been provided over the phone.
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 – 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?
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.
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 is 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".
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.
Also, the introductory rate is often what they are selling, which will go back to normal rates after some predetermined time. So, switching nearly always gets you a lower rate, briefly, regardless of From -> To.
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).
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!
Is the Kool-Aid Man the glass man-jar, the liquid inside, or are both parts vital organs of his?
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 wearing said hat, you are showing how caring you are to homeless people. That's good. BUT, apparently, THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH, because they relesed these stupid ads where people get benefits from wearing it. The women at work who's your rival wears the same skirt and blouse? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdscfU23xk4) She'll DESTORY HER OWN CLOTHES OVER IT! Are you a dentist who's just preformed malpractice when you've removed someone's teeth at a simple check up? (https://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 appropriate to show a sad homeless person on the street being 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.
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 real point of the commercial is "this will keep you from accidentally running over a little kid". The toy is used as a stand-in, presumably because the ad creator thought that images of an actual child in that situation would be offputting to the audience.
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.
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?
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!
Ads for Prevagen, a dietary supplement alleged to improve memory, boast of how they contain an ingredient originally found in jellyfish. No problem, plenty of supplements and actual drugs derive from natural sources... but why, exactly, do the commercials go out of their way to emphasize that specific animal as the source? Does it really make sense to brag about how your brain-enhancing product comes from an animal that doesn't have a brain?
In this Geico commercial, Alexander Graham Bell gets a wrong-number phone call, and informs the caller that his number is "1", so they must want "2" instead. The obvious implication is that the telephone is such a new invention that 1 and 2 are the only numbers yet assigned... but if that's the case, then where the hell is the caller phoning him from...?
Actually, the obvious implication is that the only two numbers assigned are 1, 2 and 3. The unseen caller has number 3, Alexander has 1, and 2 is the person that the caller was trying to reach.
Except there's no indication that the caller ever said what number they were calling from, and not enough time for them to have done so.
There's a Crave pet food commercial that spells out in big bold letters on-screen that there are no vegan pets. What, so the likes of pet rabbits, guinea pigs, gerbils, hamsters, goats, horses, llamas, tortoises, geese, canaries, doves, finches, small parrots, and iguanas don't exist?
In the Persil commercials, they claim to treat over 10,000 stains. When the R&D comes up at the end and says they found a new stain, they change it to 10,001. So before the new stain, they actually only treated 10,001, and now it's 10,002? Why would they be that specific, otherwise?