 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue CatKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Cat Forum / Health and Behavior / April 2004Car Ad Continued
We all remember this one. Leave it to Ford to blame an ad agency under their employ for this disgusting commercial. Now the ad agency is trying to state they also didn't sanction the commercial. Talk about passing the buck! http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0419ford-ad19-ON.html  SignaturePanther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs! www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com > We all remember this one. Leave it to Ford to blame an ad agency under their > employ for this disgusting commercial. Now the ad agency is trying to state > they also didn't sanction the commercial. Talk about passing the buck! To be honest, I'm one to believe the both of them for two^H^H^H three reasons. For starters, anybody can go to a warez group or IRC channel and pick up a copy of things like Alias Wavefront, Maya, or your favorite CG package and create this. Two, to be perfectly honest, who is going to see the benefit in a moonroof that is powerful enough to cut off the head of a cat? Three, you don't sell food by showing it with maggots crawling through it - likewise, showing a cat being killed by a car in a gruesome manner is no way to sell cars. Shock advertising only pisses people off and they take their money elsewhere, and in this case the only people you'd appeal to are people who will probably wreck their cars in DUI related accidents. (Although, on a side note, seeing a car hit by an oncoming dog is an... intriguing way to sell a car.) SignatureDennis Carr - ke6isf@spamcop.net | I may be out of my mind, http://www.dennis.furtopia.org | But I have more fun that way. ------------------------------------+------------------------------- > > We all remember this one. Leave it to Ford to blame an ad agency under their > > employ for this disgusting commercial. Now the ad agency is trying to state [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > their money elsewhere, and in this case the only people you'd appeal to > are people who will probably wreck their cars in DUI related accidents. Dennis, a few facts you might not be aware of here. Another article I read on this subject says the ad was indeed created by the agency mentioned. There is no question where it originated. It also says Ford declined it for release. But the success of viral ads hinges on shock or comedy value. This ad has plenty of either depending on your degree of depravity. Ad agencies don't typically invest in a production without approval and payment. The usual process would be to present the concept in storyboard format for client approval prior to investing resources in creation of a product. My belief is that Ford and the ad agency were partners on this thing all the way. The cover story of Ford's indignation and refusing the ad for release along with the agency claim of a leak - on April Fools day no less - amounts to nothing more than plausible deniability. The ad has all the ingredients for success in the viral ad market so it's a go. If there is backlash, the client denies approval and the agency claims sabotage via 'leak'. They get their distance, try to recover composure, and the ad goes about it's course over the net. CBS News article here with a pertinent snippet: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/16/tech/main612354.shtml 'Ford says the clip was conceived without its approval by ad agency Ogilvy & Mather as part of a viral marketing campaign for the Sportka. A type of e-mail marketing, viral marketing is the electronic version of word of mouth - usually inviting the recipients to forward an e-mail to others. "We find this unauthorized ad totally unacceptable and reprehensible and deplore the fact that it has been unofficially issued," Ford spokesman Oscar Suris said. In a statement, Ogilvy & Mather Worldwide said the unapproved and unofficial video clip was leaked April 1 and transmitted by e-mail around the world. The company said the ad wasn't sanctioned by Ogilvy or Ford.' > My belief is that Ford and the ad agency were partners on this thing all the > way. The cover story of Ford's indignation and refusing the ad for release > along with the agency claim of a leak - on April Fools day no less - amounts > to nothing more than plausible deniability. You're ignoring a major factor: Backlash. It would make no sense to authorize such an ad knowing that there could be a backlash against Ford and the ad agency. And if you're thinking that Ford's denial was part of the plan, you've been watching too many conspiracy movies. That ad was not that expensive to make. And it's not uncommon to create ads knowing there's no guarantee the ad will run. > > My belief is that Ford and the ad agency were partners on this thing all > the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > That ad was not that expensive to make. And it's not uncommon to create ads > knowing there's no guarantee the ad will run. I think they weighed the pros and cons and decided that idiots who buy on name recognition outweighed the friends of animals. Priscilla > I think they weighed the pros and cons and decided that idiots who buy > on name recognition outweighed the friends of animals. Sad, that. *goes and shops for a Honda instead* SignatureDennis Carr - ke6isf@spamcop.net | I may be out of my mind, http://www.dennis.furtopia.org | But I have more fun that way. ------------------------------------+------------------------------- > I think they weighed the pros and cons and decided that idiots who buy > on name recognition outweighed the friends of animals. Then there is no reason for a commercial. Ryan Robbins <redbird007@verizon.net> quoth: >> I think they weighed the pros and cons and decided that idiots who buy >> on name recognition outweighed the friends of animals. >Then there is no reason for a commercial. Huh? They need to get the name of the car out there to build the name recognition. Priscilla Priscilla H Ballou <phb@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: > Ryan Robbins <redbird007@verizon.net> quoth: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Priscilla But if your name is recognized as a serial killer, it seems rather counterproductive. (Serial killers often start out torturing animals.) SignatureBrandy??Alexandre http://www.swydm.com/?refer=BrandyAlx Well, would you? --- Why are people with closed minds first to open their mouths? "Brandy Alexandre" <brandy@kamikaze.orgy> quoth: >Priscilla H Ballou <phb@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in >rec.pets.cats.health+behav: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> Huh? They need to get the name of the car out there to build the >> name recognition. >But if your name is recognized as a serial killer, it seems rather >counterproductive. (Serial killers often start out torturing animals.) Not everyone would view it in this way. I think there are plenty of people out there who would consider us in this newsgroup to be a bunch of nuts and would think the ad funny. Priscilla Priscilla H Ballou <phb@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: > "Brandy??Alexandre" <brandy@kamikaze.orgy> quoth: >>Priscilla H Ballou <phb@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Priscilla I was extrapolating a bit. Point is, I'm not as militant as most of the people here and even *I* found it extraordinarily offensive. I think they underestimated the level of black humor the average individual can appreciate and are backpedaling like mad. Still doesn't eliminate the fact that they're getting the same amount of publicity for the ad, but it is much more negative than positive. SignatureBrandy??Alexandre http://www.swydm.com/?refer=BrandyAlx Well, would you? --- Why are people with closed minds first to open their mouths? "Priscilla H Ballou" <phb@shell01.TheWorld.com> . Not everyone would view it in this way. I think there are plenty of people out there who would consider us in this newsgroup to be a bunch of nuts and would think the ad funny. Particularly since there are lots of geniuses who value their gas hog cars over cats and are annoyed to see cats walking on them. May they rot in hell. ;) Priscilla circa Tue, 20 Apr 2004 17:00:55 GMT, in rec.pets.cats.health+behav, Brandy??Alexandre (brandy@kamikaze.orgy) said, > >>> I think they weighed the pros and cons and decided that idiots > >>> who buy on name recognition outweighed the friends of animals. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > But if your name is recognized as a serial killer, it seems rather > counterproductive. (Serial killers often start out torturing animals.) Ever heard the old saw, "there's no such thing as bad publicity"? Laura SignatureI am Dyslexia of Borg, Your a.s will be laminated. I am not sure that I can believe Ford given their past shadiness in business dealings. Look what happened in the Firestone incidents. People were being killed and Ford tried to weasel out of it. The public however was not buying it though and they were hammered with lawsuits and public outcry. This commercial is just another example of Ford's trying to get out of things buy saying they had no knowledge or did not authorize it. Commercials like that would not be cheap to make and the article stated the ad agency was hired by Ford. I find it hard to believe Ford or this ad agency. SignaturePanther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs! www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com > You're ignoring a major factor: Backlash. It would make no sense to > authorize such an ad knowing that there could be a backlash against Ford and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > That ad was not that expensive to make. And it's not uncommon to create ads > knowing there's no guarantee the ad will run. > You're ignoring a major factor: Backlash. It would make no sense to > authorize such an ad knowing that there could be a backlash against Ford and > the ad agency. I might find more credibility in your argument if this was the first instance of such ads. Ford, through the same agency and advertising the same car in another viral ad, previously depicted a pigeon swooping down from a tree towards the car only to be swatted into a lifeless spray of feathers in the street when the hood flew up and smacked it out of the air. This latest venture was merely pushing the envelope a notch or two farther. Any time one pushes the limits, standard defenses are put into play if public opinion goes against you. The ad has gotten a lot of attention, people are much more aware of the particular car being promoted, and behind closed doors there are snickers and high fives. This wasn't the first time they've stooped this low.... http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_819254.html An advert for a self-proclaimed 'evil' car featuring a pigeon-bashing bonnet has been slammed by animal charities. The advert shows a pigeon about to swoop down from a tree to deposit its load on a newly-polished Ford Sportka. As it gets close to the car the bonnet springs up, strikes the bird and catapults it across the road to its death. Pigeon fanciers have been quick to condemn the advert, which appears on the Ford UK website. Brian Tattersall, president of the Royal Pigeon Racing Association, has called for the advert to be banned. "It is in incredibly bad taste," he said. "The pigeon finishes up dead in the middle of the road - it's black humour which we don't find amusing. "We have written to the Advertising Standards Agency and to Ford UK and are hoping for an apology." The RSPCA has also joined the battle to ban the advert, claiming that the use of shock tactics to cause offence and gain publicity is just "very, very bad taste." Spokeswoman Katy Geary said: "There surely must be better ways of describing a car's capabilities than this. "It's about time that these companies stop these shock tactics, start acting responsibly and think carefully about the messages they are giving out." A spokeswoman for Ford said that the advert was aimed at young men and was intended to be humorous. "We do take the public's concerns very seriously but we believe that people will understand that we would not hurt an animal in the making of an advert. "The car is most certainly not designed to hurt animals." > This wasn't the first time they've stooped this low.... > > http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_819254.html > > An advert for a self-proclaimed 'evil' car featuring a pigeon-bashing bonnet > has been slammed by animal charities. I'm seeing a pattern here. Just maybe.... In any case, I'm thinking that if they contracted with Warner Bros. and made the commercial a full-blown animated production (or at least animated the subjects), it might be a little less controversial. The pigeon would get up and fly off, the cat would recapitate itself and walk off in annoyance. SignatureDennis Carr - ke6isf@spamcop.net | I may be out of my mind, http://www.dennis.furtopia.org | But I have more fun that way. ------------------------------------+------------------------------- (...) > In any case, I'm thinking that if they contracted with Warner Bros. and > made the commercial a full-blown animated production (or at least animated > the subjects), it might be a little less controversial. The pigeon would > get up and fly off, the cat would recapitate itself and walk off in > annoyance. Oy! Stop stealing my surreal ideas - I proposed recapitation in the thread of last week (or whenever it was). Tsk. Can't get the bloody staff these days. Steve. > > You're ignoring a major factor: Backlash. It would make no sense to > > authorize such an ad knowing that there could be a backlash against Ford [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > tree towards the car only to be swatted into a lifeless spray of feathers in > the street when the hood flew up and smacked it out of the air. I think you're missing the point that it is not uncommon to produce a number of different ads for consideration. >The ad has gotten a lot of attention, > people are much more aware of the particular car being promoted, and behind > closed doors there are snickers and high fives. I doubt it. >I think you're missing the point that it is not uncommon to produce a number >of different ads for consideration. Producing a commercial, even a simple one as the one we are talking about, costs about 500.000 to 1.000.000 EUR. Producing a number of different ones just to keep one and throw the rest away is not economically sound. What you do is produce a number of storyboards or idea sketches, and discuss them with the customer. Only when the customer has agreed to shell the money are you going to produce the commercial. Granted, there's been a lot of commercials that were not given the go ahead even after being produced and payed for. And I'm giving this one the benefit of the doubt. XX in Marketing thought it would be a good idea, the boss thought it a bad idea. End of story. Still, knowing how sneaky PR, Pub and Marketing are and knowing O&M DO know what they are doing, I tend to suspect this is a "release it, there is no such thing as bad publicity" scenario. Just my .02 EUR Aleks Signature"I have no doubt that the fundamental problem the planet faces is the enormous increase of the human population" David Attenborough I thought it was hilarious. > We all remember this one. Leave it to Ford to blame an ad agency under their > employ for this disgusting commercial. Now the ad agency is trying to state > they also didn't sanction the commercial. Talk about passing the buck! > > http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0419ford-ad19-ON.html You are a sick person to think it was funny. I found it disgusting. Anyone who thinks it is hilarious only says that they support animal cruelty and those who do it. SignaturePanther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs! www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com > I thought it was hilarious. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > > http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0419ford-ad19-ON.html >You are a sick person to think it was funny. I found it disgusting. Anyone >who thinks it is hilarious only says that they support animal cruelty and >those who do it. Is anyone else getting that weird deja-moo feeling? Sherry > You are a sick person to think it was funny. I found it disgusting. Anyone > who thinks it is hilarious only says that they support animal cruelty and > those who do it. Quit spewing such screwy logic. What's the matter Ryan? Afraid I am right? It is you that is not logical. SignaturePanther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs! www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com > Quit spewing such screwy logic. >What's the matter Ryan? Afraid I am right? It is you that is not logical. Awesome! Here we go again!! Everyone, go get your popcorn and favorite beverage and set up the lawn chairs -- it's time for Noel to make an a.s of himself again.... eq >>What's the matter Ryan? Afraid I am right? It is you that is not logical. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >eq Nah, this one is too much like watching a re-run. "Repeat Episode. Cat Deflector taunts Ryan with skewed logic, and Ryan responds by proofreading his post." Sherry On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 04:50:59 -0400, wrote: > Awesome! Here we go again!! Everyone, go get your popcorn and favorite > beverage and set up the lawn chairs -- it's time for Noel to make an a.s > of himself again.... Now where are those asbestos overalls o' mine?.... SignatureDennis Carr - ke6isf@spamcop.net | I may be out of my mind, http://www.dennis.furtopia.org | But I have more fun that way. ------------------------------------+------------------------------- Once again someone has decided to use this forum for their own personal attacks. Who could it be? Sherry? One of her croanies? Only the evening news knows for sure. You would think the personal attacks would stop but obviously some people have nothing better to do than to turn a topic into their own flame war. Some people just have this big need to be in the spotlight no matter who they attack so they can make themselves look bigger. What a shame! SignaturePanther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs! www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com > On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 04:50:59 -0400, wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Now where are those asbestos overalls o' mine?.... >Once again someone has decided to use this forum for their own personal >attacks. Who could it be? Oh, I know, CP. I agree, it's dreadful. Posting slanderous, personal attacks--just because someone posted they thought a car ad was funny, this poster accused them of being an animal abuser and supporting animal cruelty. Maybe if this poster stepped into the real world, and helped cats at his own apartment complex, instead of attacking others other a commercial, he wouldn't seem so hypocritical, don't you think? Sherry circa Tue, 20 Apr 2004 08:11:03 -0700, in rec.pets.cats.health+behav, Cat Protector (catprotector@cox.net) said, > Once again someone has decided to use this forum for their own personal > attacks. Who could it be? Sherry? One of her croanies? Only the evening news [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > spotlight no matter who they attack so they can make themselves look bigger. > What a shame! Do you have that bilge saved as autotext, or what? Laura SignatureI am Dyslexia of Borg, Your a.s will be laminated. circa Tue, 20 Apr 2004 04:50:59 -0400, in rec.pets.cats.health+behav, equalizer <> (equalizer <>) said, > >What's the matter Ryan? Afraid I am right? It is you that is not logical. > > Awesome! Here we go again!! Everyone, go get your popcorn and favorite > beverage and set up the lawn chairs -- it's time for Noel to make an a.s > of himself again.... <snicker> Pass me that Bass Ale, wouldja? Laura SignatureI am Dyslexia of Borg, Your a.s will be laminated. > What's the matter Ryan? Afraid I am right? It is you that is not logical. No, I am not the least bit worried that you're right, because you'll never be right on this subject. So, are you right about everything in life? SignaturePanther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs! www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com > No, I am not the least bit worried that you're right, because you'll never > be right on this subject. > You are a sick person to think it was funny. I found it disgusting. Anyone > who thinks it is hilarious only says that they support animal cruelty and > those who do it. > > -- I think this is being blow way out of proportion. If you think about this logically, I would have thought that it would be pretty difficult to actually decapitate a cat using a sun roof. I don't doubt that some lunatic might try, but I'm sure that if a person is that way inclined, they would also be equally able to think up any number of gruesome activities all on their own. What's more concerning to me is the suggestion from some, that things should be censored or banned because they MIGHT influence SOMEONE to do SOMETHING. Now that IS offensive. Big Brother anyone.. It's an advert, it's make-believe, it's not real!. If you don't like it, engage brain, don't watch it, (especially if your only watching it just to be offended) and don't buy a SportKa. Simple really Jeannie I'd get involved, but I need to go give my cats another good beating. Little bastards. > You are a sick person to think it was funny. I found it disgusting. Anyone > who thinks it is hilarious only says that they support animal cruelty and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > > > > > http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0419ford-ad19-ON.html > I'd get involved, but I need to go give my cats another good beating. > Little bastards. You must be a Clay Aiken fan, too ;-). rona -- "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and they will piss upon your computer." --Bruce Graham > You are a sick person to think it was funny. I found it disgusting. Anyone > who thinks it is hilarious only says that they support animal cruelty and > those who do it. Absolutely. I found that ad quite funny, and I was going to go home and feed my cats some nice yummies, but I see the truth in your above statement and I shall bludgeon them to death instead. Best, Steve.
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.