Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Something happenedFollow

#102 Feb 08 2012 at 10:14 PM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
Seriously, replace the Doritos logos in their commercials with "Re-Elect Obama" graphics, and you can't tell me they're not politically charged!
____________________________
Banh
#103 Feb 08 2012 at 10:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I'm sorry. I should have learned by now that you guys love to ignore context. There were no cars being advertised in the commercial. Therefore, it wasn't a car commercial.

That's right. It was a Chrysler commercial. They were selling the brand, not a specific model of vehicle. Primarily, "Please continue thinking of Chrysler as an American brand and here's some feel good America stuff."
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#104 Feb 08 2012 at 10:47 PM Rating: Excellent
It could just as easily be seen as a GOP commercial really.

Think: 1st half wasn't so good, so lets change our strategy and have a better second half. It's obvious that the commercial is all about kicking out the failed policies of Obama and voting in the GOP candidate.

Edited, Feb 8th 2012 10:48pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#105 Feb 08 2012 at 11:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,262 posts
Your avatar nodding along makes your post really funny. Smiley: laugh

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#106 Feb 09 2012 at 2:14 AM Rating: Good
**
585 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
It could just as easily be seen as a GOP commercial really.

Think: 1st half wasn't so good, so lets change our strategy and have a better second half. It's obvious that the commercial is all about kicking out the failed policies of Obama and voting in the GOP candidate.

Edited, Feb 8th 2012 10:48pm by Xsarus

'
So the GOP should be mad at their self for not spinning it the right way?
____________________________
.
#107 Feb 09 2012 at 3:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
So I watched the 2012 Chrysler ad. Ok, so it's (just) a grandiose car ad. But it tugged my heartstrings. Time and again I admire so much of the rhetoric and speeches that come out of America. Australia might have some very nice laws, but my GOD they'll put you to sleep if you aren't paid to read them. Political discourse here is usually snipey, scrappy and aimed at the lowest common denominator. We've had some stellar political moments, like when our Prime Minister apologised to the native population for the old law that removed every half-caste child from their parents. But I don't think an Australian speechmaker has once reached the didactic heights of the best American speechmakers.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#108 Feb 09 2012 at 6:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
gbaji wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
I'm not going back over this whole thread, but was it mentioned that Chrysler ran the same ad last year, only it was with Eminem?


Well, except that they actually highlighted a specific car (the 200), didn't make a clear correlation between the Detroit auto industry and America as a whole, and this one magically came up with the whole "It's halftime in America" during the election year which will determine if Obama gets a second term.

So yeah, it was the same ad! Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Feb 8th 2012 7:58pm by gbaji

You're right. They highlighted one car, instead of a few in the older ad. And this year they branched out some, instead of just focusing on how Detroit is making a comeback, they chose to include the entire country. So, this year's ad was a bit more broad and much better.

You hate America.
#109 Feb 09 2012 at 7:21 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,937 posts
RavennofTitan wrote:
So the GOP should be mad at their self for not spinning it the right way?
It's always easier to make someone look bad than to make yourself look good.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#110 Feb 09 2012 at 10:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,262 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
So I watched the 2012 Chrysler ad. Ok, so it's (just) a grandiose car ad. But it tugged my heartstrings. Time and again I admire so much of the rhetoric and speeches that come out of America. Australia might have some very nice laws, but my GOD they'll put you to sleep if you aren't paid to read them. Political discourse here is usually snipey, scrappy and aimed at the lowest common denominator. We've had some stellar political moments, like when our Prime Minister apologised to the native population for the old law that removed every half-caste child from their parents. But I don't think an Australian speechmaker has once reached the didactic heights of the best American speechmakers.



A history of American stump speaking and how its influence continues to echo would be interesting. We do love to hear ourselves talk.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#111 Feb 09 2012 at 8:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm sorry. I should have learned by now that you guys love to ignore context. There were no cars being advertised in the commercial. Therefore, it wasn't a car commercial.

That's right. It was a Chrysler commercial. They were selling the brand, not a specific model of vehicle. Primarily, "Please continue thinking of Chrysler as an American brand and here's some feel good America stuff."


Except that the name Chrysler was never mentioned in the ad. No cars they make were mentioned by name. You saw cars, but only got a glimpse or two of their brands. There was nearly no logo or other recognizable brand imaging in the entire ad until the very very end when it fades to black and they quickly toss up a list of brands in relatively small print.

It was an ad about America. It was an add about American recovery. And it connected that recovery to the recovery in the Detroit auto industry. Now which politician has campaigned in the past (and will certainly do again as this year progresses) on the success of the auto bailout as part of his "jobs created or saved" spiel? Wait! That's Obama. Which politician is seeking a "second half" for his presidency? Yup. Obama again.


The ad doesn't have to say "support Obama" to be political. It only needs to associate things that Obama associates himself with in positive ways. And this commercial does that in spades. Every time Obama mentions Detroit as an example of how the types of programs he supports work, the audience will view that just a bit more positively on average because of this ad. Some might even remember the ad directly, nod and think "Yeah. Clint Eastwood said this was a good thing". That's how this ad is political. It can't not be. Unless Obama never brings up Detroit and the auto industry bail out during his campaign that is. And what do you think the odds are of that happening?



For those still confused, here's the transcript of the ad:

Quote:
It’s halftime. Both teams are in their locker room discussing what they can do to win this game in the second half.
It’s halftime in America, too. People are out of work and they’re hurting. And they’re all wondering what they’re going to do to make a comeback. And we’re all scared, because this isn’t a game.

The people of Detroit know a little something about this. They almost lost everything. But we all pulled together, now Motor City is fighting again.

I’ve seen a lot of tough eras, a lot of downturns in my life. And, times when we didn’t understand each other. It seems like we’ve lost our heart at times. When the fog of division, discord, and blame made it hard to see what lies ahead.

But after those trials, we all rallied around what was right, and acted as one. Because that’s what we do. We find a way through tough times, and if we can’t find a way, then we’ll make one.

All that matters now is what’s ahead. How do we come from behind? How do we come together? And, how do we win?

Detroit’s showing us it can be done. And, what’s true about them is true about all of us.

This country can’t be knocked out with one punch. We get right back up again and when we do the world is going to hear the roar of our engines. Yeah, it’s halftime America. And, our second half is about to begin.



Add the images to this, and it's a powerful campaign ad for Obama. Just because Eastwood didn't realize it doesn't make it any less true. Again, you can absolutely count on Obama using the very images and ideas in this ad during his campaign. And every time he does, you should think of this and realize that I told you so.

Edited, Feb 9th 2012 6:43pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#112 Feb 09 2012 at 9:06 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
Smiley: facepalm
#113 Feb 09 2012 at 9:10 PM Rating: Good
******
43,937 posts
Stretch any farther and you'll need to invent unstable molecules for clothes.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#114 Feb 09 2012 at 9:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,872 posts
Seriously, those words would be at home in almost any political add...

____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#115 Feb 09 2012 at 9:27 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Seriously, those words would be at home in almost any political add...



Sure. But only one candidate is going to include the bailouts of the auto industry as a positive component of his effort to help America recover economically. This ad ties directly into Democratic Party talking points. It doesn't have to mention them, or Obama to have the effect of creating positive associations to their own words when they use them later in the campaign.


I guess I'm just amazed at how so many people can look at that advertisement and not see that it's political. Of course it is. It can't be anything else. If a similarly pro-America ad in 2004 had used images of 9/11 and talked about how great America can be when it works together to recover from tragedy, no one would have questioned that it was a pro-Bush/pro-war campaign ad, even if it didn't mention him by name. Why the blinders in this case?

C'mon, this is blatant:

Quote:
All that matters now is what’s ahead. How do we come from behind? How do we come together? And, how do we win?

Detroit’s showing us it can be done. And, what’s true about them is true about all of us.


and...

Quote:
Yeah, it’s halftime America. And, our second half is about to begin.


It doesn't mention Obama, but is there really any question that it's about the direction we take in the second half, and that the proposed direction is the one used in Detroit? How does anyone not see this?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#116 Feb 09 2012 at 9:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
StretchRE-ELECT OBAMA, any farther and you'll need to invent unstable molecules RE-ELECT OBAMA for clothes THE GOOD OF THE UNITED STATES.
Nice thinly-veiled statement, lagaga.
____________________________
Banh
#117 Feb 09 2012 at 9:41 PM Rating: Good
******
21,717 posts
Stock response: Gbaji is an idiot.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#118 Feb 09 2012 at 9:45 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Sir Spoonless wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
StretchRE-ELECT OBAMA, any farther and you'll need to invent unstable molecules RE-ELECT OBAMA for clothes THE GOOD OF THE UNITED STATES.
Nice thinly-veiled statement, lagaga.


Let's be fair, here. He had no idea that what he said was secret liberal propaganda.


They tricked him into saying it, after all.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#119 Feb 09 2012 at 9:45 PM Rating: Good
******
43,937 posts
Sir Spoonless wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
StretchRE-ELECT OBAMA, any farther and you'll need to invent unstable molecules RE-ELECT OBAMA for clothes THE GOOD OF THE UNITED STATES.
Nice thinly-veiled statement, lagaga.
See, if I admit it then I'm part of the evil liberal media out to weaken the country and if I deny it, that just means I was tricked by the evil liberal media proving you right all along an am out to weaken the country all along. FLAWLESS LOGIC.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#120 Feb 09 2012 at 9:50 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
gbaji wrote:

C'mon, this is blatant:

Quote:
All that matters now is what’s ahead. How do we come from behind? How do we come together? And, how do we win?

Detroit’s showing us it can be done. And, what’s true about them is true about all of us.


and...

Quote:
Yeah, it’s halftime America. And, our second half is about to begin.


It doesn't mention Obama, but is there really any question that it's about the direction we take in the second half, and that the proposed direction is the one used in Detroit? How does anyone not see this?

Still not seeing how this is a Re-elect Obama ad.
#121 Feb 09 2012 at 9:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,262 posts
So any message of optimism and hope for economic recovery is to be taken as a re-elect Obama ad?

Sweet.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#122 Feb 09 2012 at 10:02 PM Rating: Good
******
43,937 posts
Samira wrote:
So any message of optimism and hope for economic recovery is to be taken as a re-elect Obama ad?
You also can't mention anything about the company involved. Take for instance this 2008 commercial. It's obvious Budweiser made it to get Obama elected.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#123 Feb 09 2012 at 10:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,262 posts
I knew those Clydesdales pulled to the left.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#124 Feb 09 2012 at 10:06 PM Rating: Excellent
I don't understand why Gbaji is focusing on the lack of a direct mention of the company or a specific car in the advertisement. This is an extremely common technique. You build up a brand and a type of ad and then in the future you can be a lot more vague because people are already familiar. this allows you to build up other themes and pull on people heartstrings etc. This is in no way a surprising ad or anything out of the ordinary. Smiley: oyvey

At any rate, I think we've already established pretty clearly that it's an Advertisement for the GOP.

Edited, Feb 9th 2012 10:06pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#125 Feb 09 2012 at 11:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Except that the name Chrysler was never mentioned in the ad. No cars they make were mentioned by name. You saw cars, but only got a glimpse or two of their brands. There was nearly no logo or other recognizable brand imaging in the entire ad until the very very end when it fades to black and they quickly toss up a list of brands in relatively small print.

Yeah, I know your argument hinges upon the weak assertion that no one could possibly know it was a Chrysler ad but, um, I've yet to see anyone who wasn't aware that it was a Chrysler ad.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#126 Feb 09 2012 at 11:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,872 posts
gbaji wrote:

It doesn't mention Obama, but is there really any question that it's about the direction we take in the second half, and that the proposed direction is the one used in Detroit? How does anyone not see this?


Well as long as they're not coordinating directly with the campaign it's kosher right? Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#127 Feb 10 2012 at 7:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,699 posts
gbaji wrote:
The ad doesn't have to say "support Obama" to be political.
But it does have to say "Buy Chrysler" to be about cars. Good to know.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#128 Feb 10 2012 at 7:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
But it never said BUY!!! It only said Chrysler! So it's obviously a political ad created by tricking Clint Eastwood!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#129 Feb 10 2012 at 8:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Guys, remember, it's positive and therefor about Obama.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#130 Feb 10 2012 at 8:34 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,937 posts
Guess they don't have company ads in Republiland.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#131 Feb 10 2012 at 10:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,262 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Guess they don't have company ads in Republiland.


Don't need 'em. Rush and Hannity tell everyone what's acceptable and the homogeneous believers fall in line.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#132 Feb 10 2012 at 11:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,262 posts
Ruth Sherman articulated my feelings on the ad perfectly, so I'll just quote her. I'm lazy that way.

Ruth Sherman, who heads a media training firm in Connecticut, said Republicans may have made a misstep by jumping on a spot with an "America is back" message.

"Everyone wants to be on the side of Clint Eastwood," said Sherman. "In fact, the car business is back; the auto industry has rebounded ... and for the time being, things are looking up in Detroit.

"So I do think Axelrod co-opting it was the right move, a very good pivot," she said. And Rove "made a mistake by not seizing on it himself and saying, 'This is exactly what we're saying.' "



Edited, Feb 10th 2012 9:17am by Samira

Edited, Feb 10th 2012 9:18am by Samira
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#133 Feb 10 2012 at 11:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,262 posts
Although clearly I won't do it very well.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#134 Feb 10 2012 at 7:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Samira wrote:
So any message of optimism and hope for economic recovery is to be taken as a re-elect Obama ad?


No. But one which provides the Detroit Auto Industry as the example of how recovery can be obtained *is*.


I'll ask again: Which candidate do you think will mention (has already in fact) the Detroit auto industry workers as a positive theme during this campaign season? Obama, right? He's already claimed credit for that. So an ad linking that to what America should do going forward, complete with calls to join together to win, and that the second half is starting, is absolutely a positive message for Obama's policies.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#135 Feb 10 2012 at 7:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I don't understand why Gbaji is focusing on the lack of a direct mention of the company or a specific car in the advertisement. This is an extremely common technique. You build up a brand and a type of ad and then in the future you can be a lot more vague because people are already familiar. this allows you to build up other themes and pull on people heartstrings etc. This is in no way a surprising ad or anything out of the ordinary.


And the same thing happens in political ads too, right? You build up themes and then you don't have to mention them by name later. Do you see how mentioning recovery in Detroit, blaming failure on "division, discord, and blame", and calls to win in the second half are all tied in to Obama's message?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#136 Feb 10 2012 at 7:19 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,937 posts
It's amazing how some people deliberately find the absolutely most moronic angle to view, and then pick that one to go with.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#137 Feb 10 2012 at 7:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Yeah, I know your argument hinges upon the weak assertion that no one could possibly know it was a Chrysler ad but, um, I've yet to see anyone who wasn't aware that it was a Chrysler ad.


Not "no one". But you're being silly if you thought more than a small percentage of those who watched the ad could have said at that moment what company it was for. Most people don't know what brands are made by which company (and the brands were only briefly on the screen). Most people wouldn't automatically associate Detroit with Chrysler, just with cars manufacturing. Ask most people which car company makes Dodge, or Buick, or Ram, and odds are you'll get random answers.


The association most people will get is to the auto industry as a whole, not to any one company. And that association, when related to an economic recovery plan leads to government bail outs. Because while most people couldn't tell you which companies make which cars, or even which companies got what money, nearly everyone knows that there was a bail out of the auto industry and would absolutely associate any talk about recovery in Detroit (Motor City, for those who also don't know what Detroit is known for) to liberal economic policies. Period.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#138 Feb 10 2012 at 7:27 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
It's amazing how some people deliberately find the absolutely most moronic angle to view, and then pick that one to go with.


Some people. But not me. And not in this case. Want to bet as to whether Obama uses Detroit auto worker recovery in his campaign and argues that this is what America needs more of to recover even more? You don't think people wont associate that with this? Then they wont think "Well, if Clint Eastwood says it's a good idea, then it must be a good idea".


That's why they used him in the **** ad.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#139 Feb 10 2012 at 7:28 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,937 posts
gbaji wrote:
But not me.
No, of course not. Never you.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#140 Feb 10 2012 at 7:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,262 posts
gbaji wrote:
Samira wrote:
So any message of optimism and hope for economic recovery is to be taken as a re-elect Obama ad?


No. But one which provides the Detroit Auto Industry as the example of how recovery can be obtained *is*.


I'll ask again: Which candidate do you think will mention (has already in fact) the Detroit auto industry workers as a positive theme during this campaign season? Obama, right? He's already claimed credit for that. So an ad linking that to what America should do going forward, complete with calls to join together to win, and that the second half is starting, is absolutely a positive message for Obama's policies.



If it is, then it is on the facts. That's still no reason to lie down and take it. The Republican punditry machine dropped the ball on this one. Lee Atwater would have had 40% of America believing the ad pointed to the virtue of conservatism, as defined by Lee Atwater, by now. All Karl Rove can do is cry foul.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#141 Feb 10 2012 at 7:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Samira wrote:

If it is, then it is on the facts. That's still no reason to lie down and take it. The Republican punditry machine dropped the ball on this one. Lee Atwater would have had 40% of America believing the ad pointed to the virtue of conservatism, as defined by Lee Atwater, by now. All Karl Rove can do is cry foul.



No. That's a trap. If conservatives embrace the ad and claim that it supports their goal to help America recover, it will be followed by a stream of well thought out liberal op-eds speaking rationally about how the GOP has already embraced the use of government bail out as the means to American recovery, so why are they opposing <this idea, that idea, the other idea>. That will be followed with labels of conservatives as either hypocrites or that they are actively opposed to American Recovery.


Is this your first time around the merry-go-round? The whole "Find conservatives saying things which appear to support our position" tactic is pretty common on the left. If you can get conservatives to agree (or even just appear to agree) that Recovery is connected to government spending, then any future opposition to such spending can be labeled as conservative opposition to Recovery.

The pundits were absolutely correct to loudly and clearly reject the image of recovery presented in that ad. Doing otherwise would trap them down the line. By doing it loudly, and in fact making the claim that the ad was political (which forces the left to insist equally loudly that it wasn't), the conservatives gain the ability to point out every single time that any liberal uses Detroit recovery in their campaigns or in support of their agenda as proof that the ad was political, and that bailout money was used in a corrupt manner to aid their own reelections, agenda, etc.


Why the **** do you think I'm raising such a stink? The louder we make this connection *now*, the easier it is to point back to it later if/when Dems use language which ties into the language in this ad. That's how politics is done.

Edited, Feb 10th 2012 5:47pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#142 Feb 10 2012 at 8:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Not "no one". But you're being silly if you thought more than a small percentage of those who watched the ad could have said at that moment what company it was for.

During the ad or after?

Because it wouldn't be the first ad that waited until the end to reveal a brand. It wouldn't be the 500,000th.
Quote:
Why the **** do you think I'm raising such a stink?

Heh. I don't think anyone has doubts on that one.

Edited, Feb 10th 2012 8:09pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#143 Feb 10 2012 at 8:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Not "no one". But you're being silly if you thought more than a small percentage of those who watched the ad could have said at that moment what company it was for.

During the ad or after?


After, but before hearing buzz about "The Chrysler ad". The only reveal was the list of brands at the end of the ad. That was relatively brief, and most people couldn't tell you if "Jeep" is a Chrysler, GM, or Ford brand (and that was the most recognizable of the brands that I remember seeing). I'm sure if you watched it and really paid attention, perhaps pausing it to read all the brands, and then spent some time thinking about which car manufacturer those brands are associated with, you'd realize they were all Chrysler, but most people aren't going to do that and aren't going to care anyway.

Quote:
Because it wouldn't be the first ad that waited until the end to reveal a brand. It wouldn't be the 500,000th.


But Chrysler wasn't revealed at any point. ****. For all most viewers thought, it wasn't from any single car company, but was a conglomeration of car brands joining together to spend the high cost of a 2 minute superbowl ad on a "let's rebuild america" bit. It's not like that's never been done either. Um... Doubly so in a... wait for it... political ad. most of those have a list of the people who paid for the ad at the end (required to by law IIRC). So by providing that list of brands, they also covered the legal requirements of a political ad nicely, didn't they?


Most people watching that ad likely didn't think "That was a great Chrysler ad". They thought more that it was a great political or psa type ad spot, and isn't it great that a list of car brands at the very end spent the money to do something that wasn't about trying to sell cars.

Edited, Feb 10th 2012 6:22pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#144 Feb 10 2012 at 8:23 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,937 posts
gbaji wrote:
Most people watching that ad likely didn't think "That was a great Chrysler ad".
Sure, while the commercial was first airing they were thinking "What the fuck is this?" which after the end where the company name was shown (which showed for the standard 2 to 3 seconds, by the way. Not "brief" compared to any other commercial) they thought "Eh, when's the game coming back on?"
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#145 Feb 10 2012 at 8:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
Why the **** do you think I'm raising such a stink?

Heh. I don't think anyone has doubts on that one.


So that every time Obama or any Dem or their liberal pundits take credit for the Detroit auto workers recovery and/or attempt to argue that this is how America should recover, I can point it out to you and say "I told you so". I'm sure it wont faze you at all, but others might just read it and realize that I was right to point this out back then.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#146 Feb 10 2012 at 8:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
After, but before hearing buzz about "The Chrysler ad".

Well, sleep snug with that assumption I guess.
Quote:
But Chrysler wasn't revealed at any point

Aside from the word "Chrysler" at the end?

Maybe you should watch the ad every time you're getting ready to respond. This is the third time now you've made a stone-stupid comment about the content of the ad which was easily disproven.
Quote:
So that every time Obama or any Dem or their liberal pundits take credit for the Detroit auto workers recovery and/or attempt to argue that this is how America should recover, I can point it out to you and say "I told you so".

Well, you can do whatever you want. If you think Obama & Co weren't taking credit for the auto recovery for some time now, you... well, I guess that'd be pretty standard ignorance for you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#147 Feb 10 2012 at 8:36 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,937 posts
This looks like a Pro-Obama movie about how his administration took down Bin Laden to me.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#148 Feb 10 2012 at 8:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Most people watching that ad likely didn't think "That was a great Chrysler ad".
Sure, while the commercial was first airing they were thinking "What the fuck is this?" which after the end where the company name was shown (which showed for the standard 2 to 3 seconds, by the way. Not "brief" compared to any other commercial) they thought "Eh, when's the game coming back on?"


A list of brand logos popped up one after another in the last few seconds. I didn't catch anymore than Jeep in my original viewing. Watching it again and pausing it, I could see that it was Ram, Dodge, Jeep, and Chrysler (with Chrysler being last and only visible on the screen for about half a second). I'll point out again that most people couldn't tell you that all four are parts of the Chrysler company (except Chrysler itself of course). You see a list of brands and see a list of car company brands. Do you really think anyone read them and thought "those are all owned by Chrysler, so this was an ad for Chrysler cars"?


Really? Most people didn't associate that commercial with cars, or any specific car company. They associated it with jobs. Go watch it again. While there are cars in it, most of the images are of people, factories, buildings, flags, etc. It's not about cars. It's not about Chrysler.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#149 Feb 10 2012 at 8:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Well, you can do whatever you want. If you think Obama & Co weren't taking credit for the auto recovery for some time now, you... well, I guess that'd be pretty standard ignorance for you.


Um... kinda the point though, isn't it? If Obama and Co have been taking credit for the auto recovery for some time now (which is true), then isn't an ad touting that very auto recovery and then saying that's what America needs to do, and then ending with "our second half is about to begin" pretty obviously a political ad in support of Obama? You're not stupid, are you?


Is this really to complicated for you? Or you're just lying because you don't want to acknowledge the obvious truth? Politician campaigns on X. Ad talks about X and says that this is what America should do. Ad is obviously political. I mean, if it had mentioned in general the need for America to work towards recovery, you'd have a point. but when it says "Detroit’s showing us it can be done. And, what’s true about them is true about all of us." is there any doubt that the point of this is to say "Obama is right"?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#150 Feb 10 2012 at 8:48 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,937 posts
gbaji wrote:
I didn't catch anymore than Jeep in my original viewing.
Okay, commercial is 2:01 long. The brand logos start showing at 1:54, end at 1:57, and stay up for an additional four seconds. I'll correct myself on my previous mistake, and point out that in that entire seven seconds (instead of two or three) you couldn't follow it? You might want to get that checked out, sounds like you're having problems processing information. Smiley: laugh
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#151 Feb 10 2012 at 9:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
So, for once it wasn't a political partisan thread. I should have known better, but I was actually quite startled at how quickly, and thereafter how drawn-out, it derailed into a political thread. Smiley: glare

Also: has gbaji now taken over varus's ecological forum niche?
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 74 All times are in CDT
Demea, ElneClare, Kavekkk, Anonymous Guests (71)