Car 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/articl...d-ad19-ON.html

--
Panther 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 Mon, 19 Apr 2004 18:28:38 -0700, Cat Protector wrote:

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 ****es 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.)

--
Dennis Carr - | I may be out of my mind,
http://www.dennis.furtopia.org | But I have more fun that way.
------------------------------------+-------------------------------

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 18:28:38 -0700, Cat Protector wrote:

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 ****es 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.)

--
Dennis Carr - | I may be out of my mind,
http://www.dennis.furtopia.org | But I have more fun that way.
------------------------------------+-------------------------------

"Dennis Carr" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 18:28:38 -0700, Cat Protector wrote:

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 ****es 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.

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/...in612354.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.'

"Dennis Carr" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 18:28:38 -0700, Cat Protector wrote:

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 ****es 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.

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/...in612354.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.'

"RobZip" wrote in message
...
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.

"RobZip" wrote in message
...
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.

In article ,
"Ryan Robbins" wrote:

"RobZip" wrote in message
...
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.

I think they weighed the pros and cons and decided that idiots who buy
on name recognition outweighed the friends of animals.

Priscilla

In article ,
"Ryan Robbins" wrote:

"RobZip" wrote in message
...
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.

I think they weighed the pros and cons and decided that idiots who buy
on name recognition outweighed the friends of animals.

Priscilla

I thought it was hilarious.

"Cat Protector" wrote in message
news:71%gc.58035$ec1.6160@okepread01...
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/articl...d-ad19-ON.html

--
Panther 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