Why are car commercials so dumb?

On 5 Feb 2005 21:50:52 -0800, wrote:

>Why do car commercials appeal to the most primitive and nonsensical
>human desires? Case in point is the VW commercial with the idiot
>getting excited about overtaking a car on a curve. I would think only a
>mentally challenged person would derive any pleasure from such a
>commercial. So what's going on here?


With litigations today, I think vw is being very responsible with
their advertising.

Company's who make products, and they are used illegally are being
marked for billion dollar lawsuits. Used in ways never condoned, or
advertised by the manufactures.

Company's who make products and people who over indulge are claiming
the company's are at fault. Products always advertised safely and by
healthy inividuals. (McD's fat lawsuit was re-instated?).

So now let's get the the car manufactures. You see cars obviously
speeding, jumping buildings, and sliding. How long before the that
blurred message "professional driver, closed course" will cover their
butts? I'm guessing not long.

Besides isn't it nice to see a car advertised as doing what you want
it to day to day?

Just thinking out loud......



later,


tom @ www.ChopURL.com

dr.benway wrote:
> For cabout 30 years, society has been idiot proofing everything.

Not your typing, apparently...




John

--
To reply, remove "die.spammers" from address


Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven

Motorhead Lawyer wrote:
> Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>
>>Or do you think stupidity began in 1926 with the first television
>>broadcasts?
>
>
> Oh, hell; as long as we're all being petty sniping *******s ... it was
> 1928.


Nope. 1926.




John

--
To reply, remove "die.spammers" from address


Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven

Anthony Giorgianni wrote:
>
> I wouldn't be in favor of banning irresponsible car commercials. I'm
> opposed to censorship. I think the automakers should practice some
> self-restraint, however.

There *ought* to be some form of code of practice for advertisers, with
sanctions for breaching it.

In the UK adverts are expected to be "legal, decent, honest, and
truthful" (or something to similar effect).

I suspect that "decent" is treated with some flexibility, and that
advertisers in, say, "top shelf" magazines can get away with rather more
than folk whose adverts are shown during children's TV programmes.

Presumably the "legal, decent, honest, and truthful" bit is a sloganised
summary of some rather more detailed guidelines, and ISTM that the full
guidelines should ban anything which is likely to be seen by any
significant section of the audience as promoting unsafe or illegal
practices.

"Scott en Aztlán" wrote:
>
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 23:38:42 GMT, The Lindbergh Baby
> > wrote:
>
> >Now, talk about *old* VW commercials, one of the classics, for the
> >original bug, goes back to the 1960s: we see a neighborhood covered with
> >deep snow in the early morning light. It's quiet; nothing is moving.
> >Then, in the distance, one car, a VW Beetle, getting closer and closer,
> >then passing us, driving easily through the snow. Announcer: "Ever
> >wonder how the snow plow driver gets to work?"
>
> How about the (even older) one where the VW bug drives into a pond and
> floats across, while the announcer describes how the car's body seams
> are built to such high tolerances that the car is practically
> watertight?

They did a version of that ad in a humor magazine. Photo of a VW bug
floating in a river with the caption, 'If Ted Kennedy drove a VW, he'd
be president today'.

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
668: The Neighbor of the Beast

wrote:
>
> Besides isn't it nice to see a car advertised as doing what you want
> it to day to day?

What; being driven badly? Looks like a lot of "professional drivers"
will be out of work soon. After we get all the "average drivers" on
the car companies' payrolls, what will we do to staff all the empty
McDonalds? And, as I recall one young woman in her new Accord coupe
this morning putting combs in her hair *with both hands* while passing
a Nissan pickup at 50 mph (and holding me up behind her at the same
time with her LLB'ing), *where will we find receptionists?*
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there, done that)

Scott

The fact that you look at someone who is ahead of you and slowing you down
as "oppressing your freedom" is the big problem here. The idea that you
can't see any alternative to this situation except to become aggressive is
the problem. The idea you really think life is so short that you have to
reclaim your time as a matter of defense is the problem.

That time thing is just a silly excuse. It is apparent that you gauge your
self-worth so much by driving that you feel threatened when you think
someone is getting one up on you. You are using the perception of power that
you get from an automobile as a way of determining your place in the pack.
That is very dangerous, and you need to think about it.

There is nothing wrong with the idea, when someone is blocking you, to take
a deep breath, back off and wait until the person pulls over or whatever.
But I suspect that you would not be emotionally capable of doing that. I
suspect you'd become enraged, your heart would race, your palms would become
sweaty and you would feel that sense threat to your manhood. I can imagine
you sitting there with your defensive fight-or-flight mechanism triggering
merely because someone is in you way. Man, your view of the world is just
scary and immature. I mean do you really think that I'm going to be
impressed with this idea of your car going by in a streak of yellow? Do you
really think I'm so insecure that I'm going to be offended because you refer
to my 85 horsepower engine? I'm old enough and mature enough to be neither
impressed nor offended. I don't even know what horsepower my engine is. Nor
do I care. I do not tie my sense of worth to the size of my car's engine or
to how fast and aggressively I can drive. I DO tie my self worth to how I
can get my emotions under control and back down when that would be the safe
thing to do. I'm certainly not going to let my concern about how short life
is invite a road rage situation.

I suspect you're either in your twenties or a really immature male. I think
you're not only a bad driver, but the worst possible kind of driver there
is. I MUCH rather share a road with a drunk driver than with you because I
never know what a driver like you will do when he feels threatened and
decides, as you put it, to "defend" himself. At least I can avoid a drunk. I
really hope that I never have to share the road with you .. at least no
until you mature a lot.


--
Regards,
Anthony Giorgianni

The return address for this post is fictitious. Please reply by posting back
to the newsgroup.

Jim

Please don't compare breaking speed laws to civil disobedience. An
appropriate act of civil disobedience occurs when a group of people comes
across an injustice so overwhelming that it is worth risking the foundation
of our free society by disobeying the rule of law. Civil disobedience is not
an action to be taken lightly. One might argue that it is appropriate to
take such a risk in fighting a law that violates a fundamental freedom, such
as those that discriminate against people based on color.

But it is demeaning to those who have sacrificed themselves to liberate
black people from the repression of racists or to the people of India to
free themselves from British rule to compare their struggle with people who
break the law so they can drive fast. In fact, this nation's freedom
fighters were in fact cognizant of the rule of law. Look at Martin Luther
King Jr. who turned the marchers around simply so that they would not be
seen as violating a court order.

People who engage in civil disobedience are trying to make a statement to
dramatize their plight. Speeders aren't doing that. In fact, with their
radar detectors and their penchant for slowing down when they see the
police, speeders are doing the act opposite. They aren't out there
protesting like the civil rights leaders or willingly going to jail in great
number to dramatize the great injustice. I never even see any attempt on
this group to get people into petitioning the government. What you call
civil disobedience is simply people breaking the law simply because they
don't like it and trying to get away with it whenever possible. That's
spineless and an affront to people who believe in basic freedoms, which are
guaranteed, more than anything else, by the rule of law. Breaking the speed
limit is nothing like the bravely and selflessness of the people who have
risked everything by engaging is real acts of civil disobedience.


--
Regards,
Anthony Giorgianni

The return address for this post is fictitious. Please reply by posting back
to the newsgroup.

"Jim Yanik" .> wrote in message
.. .
> "Anthony Giorgianni" >
> wrote in :
>
> > Let me clarify
> >
> > I think Scott should obey speed limits just like everyone else (should
> > obey speed limits). Of course, if anyone thinks it's okay for me to
> > disobey any law I don't like, maybe we can talk.
>
> It's called "civil disobedience".
> That's how the 55 MPH NMSL was finally discarded.
> Massive disobedience of it.
>
>
>
> >But that's really a
> > topic for another thread.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Jim Yanik
> jyanik
> at
> kua.net

Anthony Giorgianni wrote:

> Please don't compare breaking speed laws to civil disobedience. An
> appropriate act of civil disobedience occurs when a group of people comes
> across an injustice so overwhelming that it is worth risking the foundation
> of our free society by disobeying the rule of law.

Driving over the posted limit is in no way "risking the foundation of
our free society."

> I never even see any attempt on
> this group to get people into petitioning the government.

There's the NMA. Of course, there are people who are of the opinion
that fighting a speeding ticket in court is a waste of the court's time.

"Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
...
> Anthony Giorgianni wrote:
>>
> Driving over the posted limit is in no way "risking the foundation of
> our free society."

Maybe it doesn't risk the foundation of society. But when you break the
speed limit, you're sending a message that law doesn't matter, that it's
okay for people to disobey a law simply because they don't agree with it.

If that's your position, then don't complain if a cop simply decides that he
doesn't have to observe your rights and can take you away in the middle of
the night simply because he wants to. If you feel it's okay to disobey the
speed limit, don't complain if the government throws you in jail for posting
your opinions here.

So many people have died to uphold the rule of the law in this country.
Willingly disobeying the law without any sense of the civil implications I
think is disrepecting the society in which you live and that protects you.

The law is the most important thing we have. But it works only because we
are as willing to be contrained by it as protected by it. It makes for a
crummy society is the people say, "Well, it's okay for me to violate any law
I don't like because I'm willing to pay the penalty." If we don't like the
law, then we should try to change it. If we think a law is illegal, we
should challenge it. (By the way, fighting a speeding ticket is not the same
as challenging the law.) And if you do try to change or challenge the law
and are unsuccessful, that's just too bad. That's the price you pay for
living in a free society, as contradictory as that may sound. In only the
most extreme cases should techniques like civil disobedience be used. And as
I said, pushing your foot down on the accelerator when a cop isn't looking
is hardly civil disobedience. It's just law breaking, and it disrepects the
people who take seriously their civil obligations.

--
Regards,
Anthony Giorgianni

The return address for this post is fictitious. Please reply by posting back
to the newsgroup.



> > I never even see any attempt on
> > this group to get people into petitioning the government.
>
> There's the NMA. Of course, there are people who are of the opinion
> that fighting a speeding ticket in court is a waste of the court's time.