Basically, this advert doesn't truely represent the effect of having an elephant standing on the roof, regarding the suspension and roof strength. The author is persuaded in thinking this is an issue and confusing for smart car buyers - but it's not.
I know there are crap adverts out there; some are misleading, boring, old fashioned and just cringeworthingly bad, you know the ones, that make you slap your forehead and flip the channel before you mum or partner asks if you were involved in 'that one'. The issue isn't conflicting ideas of a crap creative in a business sense because there are a number of shit ads out there. The issue is the creative essentials and expansion of reality that Jeanes feels does not see fit in a car ad.
Cars are high involvement goods and consumers need to know they are making the right decision, there needs to be an added extra value with a purchase. I as a consumer need to know that the car I am buying fits my lifestyle, represents me as a person in the correct way, and emotionally does what I want (that's what we are told anyway). That is why car adverts, and most others tend to communicate an ideology, a corporate image, an experience, a lifestyle and everything else that makes up a BRAND.
I am not naive enough to think that Jeanes doesn't understand this, because he is of course a consumer of goods and products, and isn't stupid. But he has got caught up in his 'AOL Editor' position though. He is receiving the advert not as a consumer but as a car buff, something he has failed to step away from in light of reviewing this ad. He is of course interested in the specifics and realities of the car (it is his job of course), and not the ideology and imagery that comes along in a consumer world.
But why is he reviewing the bloody advert, something that IS based on something he isn't interested in? It is like a camera engineer writing an article damning The Blair Witch Project to hell because of the step back in camera technology used in a major film (this is an example, so please don't flag me up on this!). Most people don't care or understand, or care TO understand all the technicalities of a car and that is why creative adverts appeal to the majority of people because it goes beyond what we already know; it goes forward and backwards and is safe, that's. As I said earlier, it tells me how it's going to fit my lifestyle and what it say about me. And as a result it makes a good viewing, unlike these two adverts - Ad 1, Ad 2 (although highly enjoyable adverts, but for all the wrong reasons, like laughing at the clichéd 'father wedding dance' anecdote. And yes, I know the 2nd is a spoof).
In light of the above, his article makes him seem like a moron or as a friend said, "a cretin" for advertising ignorance, a view shared by many other readers of his article, and I am sure the advertising nerds reading this. It may be a mistake because his POV is so, just for the sake of writing a critical text. A lot of the comments left are highly critical of what he has written mostly along the lines of "DUH, what do you expect from an advert - not realistic!". However he could be pulling one over, as the whole article could be a farce in order to drum up some user generated content on his page and just to hook people in. I don't know, but whatever it is, has got me thinking and writing on this sunny Sunday.
I would like to speculate - whatever the motivation of his article - and wonder what Mr Jeanes thought when he saw Fallon's creation for Skoda in "Cake".
"WAAAAIIIT a minute, I cannot buy a Skoda, what happens if it rains? or in summer time it will attract loads of bees, and ill be replacing the fanbelt every trip. I am NOT going into a candy shop to patch up my car . . . and neither should you. And if I crash, Ill get gum in my eye brows"
I am being silly, I know, but one can't help but wander.
Cheers, Scott
0 comments:
Post a Comment