Showing posts with label advertising. Show all posts
Showing posts with label advertising. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 9, 2021

Who Keeps Screwing Up the EV Experience?

The average daily commute in Murrka is under 30 miles. It's probably more in Canada and less in Europe.

The documentary movie Who Killed the Electric Car? released in 2006, tells the strange tale of the EV1, an electric car made by General Motors, leased  -- never sold -- from 1996 to 1999, then recalled and destroyed.

 

The subject of range anxiety -- the awful fear on the part of the driver of an electric vehicle that his machine will run out of juice at any moment and leave him stranded in the middle of high-speed Interstate traffic in the middle of a rainy night -- came up in Who Killed the Electric Car? but in a very different way than we're used to hearing about it today. Today, any EV with less than 200 miles of range per charge is judged by most reviewers to be very deficient, and those with 400 miles or more are received with great joy, even though great range is thus far only attained with a great quantity of batteries, meaning great weight and great expense. A few reviewers see through the hype about range and understand that most people will get by just fine with a range of 150 miles or less, and that most EV buyers are being sold a bunch of unnecessary batteries. Just as, traditionally, car buyers are sold huge engines which they never begin to need.

General Motors advertised a range of 70 to 90 miles for the EV1. Leasees reported a practical range of 50 or 60 miles. But none of the customers were complaining, or waiting until a newer model with longer range came out. On the contrary, demand for the EV1 far outstripped supply, the leasees were delighted with it, they wanted to buy the vehicles, they protested when the cars were recalled. Early on in the movie Ed Begley mocks the idea that the EV1 didn't go far enough on a charge, saying that it met the needs of "only about 90% or so of all drivers."

70 to 90 miles advertised range, 50 to 60 reported practical range.

It was GM who suggested that drivers of the EV1 were unsatisfied with its range. The earliest use of the phrase "range anxiety" I have been able to find is by a GM executive in Who Killed the Electric Car? claiming that EV1 drivers suffered from it, and that this was a major reason why the car was recalled. He referred to it as "so-called range anxiety," as if he himself had not invented the term with the intent of inserting the concept into consumers' minds. Some of the guys from Detroit are pretty slick.

There's also a scene in the movie where two former EV1 drivers talk about how big corporations will keep telling you things until you start to believe that they must be true. Such as that you want a nice big SUV.

Surely you've noticed how many car and SUV and truck commercials show vehicles driving through the western US desert and on highways twisting through California mountains, and say to the viewers, C'mon -- you know you want to get one of these and drive the tires off of it, drive it all day long every day. Until those of us who don't live out West forget that we don't, and those who would rather not drive all day every day start to believe that we would.

And now in 2021, here come a whole great big bunch of brand-new great-big all-electric SUV's with great big long ranges deriving from literal tons of batteries per vehicle. And you want one of those $90,000, 3-ton electric SUV's that can go way over 300 miles on a charge, don't you? You need one of those, because you're an Arizona rancher -- even if you're not. You need to drive 500 miles a day in a huge pickup through the frozen Yukon, to feed the mighty moose! You don't, of course, but you see so many of those damn commercials telling you what a rugged outdoorsman you are that it sort of feels as if you do. You must feed the majestic moose! If not you, who?!

It's sort of nice to see the President test-driving an electric prototype. Sort of. It'd be really nice to see him in an electric compact car and not just in an electric F-150.

Friday, March 3, 2017

"As Featured In"

I still don't know exactly what "as featured in" means, but I'm pretty sure there are few phrases which mean less.

About 144,000,000 results (1.19 seconds)
No results found for "what does as featured in mean".
Results for what does as featured in mean (without quotes):


The first few results which were found don't help much.

What I'm talking about is ads like this:

Experience our shamelessly-overpriced-at-$100, brass-plated, inaccurate and undependable quartz-powered disposable watch, as featured in House & Garden.

Ads plugging some obviously cheap and fake imitation of something better, "as featured in" some publication aimed at a market much too upscale for it.

2 possibilities occur to me about what "as featured in" might mean: 1) The watch was advertised in House & Garden, quite possibly with an equally-empty boast about how it had been "featured in" some other upscale rag; or 2) It's quite simply a shameless lie: there has never been any connection between this cheap brass-plated piece of failure and House & Garden, and the people who made the watch are betting that the people at House & Garden will either never hear about the lie, or not care.

(Btw, I'm sorry to have learned that House & Garden has not been published in the US since 2007.)

Enthusiastic supporters of capitalism are eager to talk about things such as IBM, Warren Buffet and General Motors, and less eager to talk about Donald Trump, the AIDS medication douchebag, homelessness, junk mail, and junk products "as featured in" this or that place. Let alone the relationships between the former and the latter. Gung-ho capitalists talk about how capitalism rewards hard work, integrity, dependability and other fine things, and in some cases, it has; but in many other cases it has rewarded entirely different things, such as naked greed, ruthlessness, indifference to people's or animals' health and well-being, deviousness, and having been born rich.

Some people say that capitalism has triumphed, others, that capitalism has failed. Some say that socialism has failed; others, that its triumph is inevitable. There is very, very little which I regard as inevitable. Also, where many or most others see black and white, I see grey, perhaps because I am less focused on how I believe things should be and more focused on finding out, as well as I can, how things actually are. I think that what we have now in the large state-run economies of the world, and have had since well before Adam Smith, is a mixture of capitalism and socialism. I think that less capitalism and more socialism would be a fine thing. But I don't think that more socialism can be imposed upon people against their will. I believe that, unfortunately, there is a widespread tendency to unquestioningly accept capitalist propaganda -- to the point that people will giggle when I say something which isn't funny like "capitalist propaganda." The fact that they giggle is one example of how successful capitalist propaganda has been.

Still, perhaps things like the 2007-2008 worldwide economic disaster and the disaster of the Trump administration are encouraging more people to think more deeply about economics. One issue where my attitude is close to black-and-white is education. I firmly believe it's a good thing. Remember how during the Presidential campaign Trump said he loved the poorly educated. Hopefully it's becoming more clear to more people that that love is not that of a shepherd for his sheep, but that of someone looking to shear the sheep and sell the wool for exorbitant profits, not to mention selling cheap brass-plated piece-of-junk watches to rubes for 20 times more than the most they could possibly be worth.

Monday, October 3, 2016

Stupid Commercials

Okay, so General Electric has a huge new advertising campaign in which all of the families and friends of new GE hires are incredibly stupid.

I'm not the only one who's noticed this. Although I'm starting to wonder whether I'm the only one who thinks that all that these commercials "mean" is that GE bought a lot of really stupid commercials.

I read a commentary by someone who was offended by these commercials because they thought they were "incredibly condescending."

I think the commentator may be thinking about this way too hard. There's no reason to feel condescended to by these icky commercials unless you identify with everyone that new GE hires know outside of work in the commercials' parallel universe. And there's no reason to identify with them.

Why is the douchebag with the douchebag wife talking to that douchebag Jake from State Farm at 3 in the morning? Because it's a stupid commercial that makes you think "Yuck!" any time anyone mentions State Farm. That's the only reason.

Why would the exec who green-lighted the "I See Stupid People" ad campaign at GE want to give the impression that everyone whom the company hires is surrounded by stupid people all the time when they're not working? Because that exec is incredibly stupid. Or, at best, they were marginally competent in some department other than ad buys, much better than they were going to be at ad buys. And then they got transferred to ad buys.

The Allstate mayhem commercials? Why would an insurance company want to come across like a bunch of mafia thugs, "Hey ya got a lovely home here, hyuck hyuck, it'd be a shame if it got all smashed up, hyuck hyuck hyuck!" ? More stupidity.

There's no hidden meaning here. Just huge corporations with lots of money, and some of the money sloshes into stupid advertising decisions.

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Advertising -- Why Do We Assume It Works?

Some ads seem to be made to make the viewer not think about the product ostensibly being advertised. Often one doesn't know what's being advertised know until the final instant of a TV commercial. Could be Nike, could be Gatorade, could be the US Army, could be GAP clothing, could be a motor vehicle, could be software, could be a product completely unrelated to any of those. There's 20 to 60 seconds of stylish visuals, and then the logo is shown at the end.

Then there's GEICO. GEICO advertising seems to represent a completely separate category of weird behavior. They're like the ads mentioned above only when it's the first commercial featuring a new character or characters. After that, I know as soon as I see the gecko or the pig, or some other trademark character, that I'm watching a GEICO commercial -- and, full disclosure, I tend to like GEICO commercials. I like some of them very much -- but I couldn't honestly say that I associate them with insurance. Supposedly there's a lot of advanced psychological science bending our subconscious minds here. Really? Or has GEICO just been hosting a particularly interesting live-action short film festival stretched out over decades? I don't think these commercials are really igniting a subconscious passion for GEICO deep within me. I think I'm really just thinking how cute the gecko or the piglet is -- I really love the piglet! -- and whether the guy who does the voice for the gecko is the same guy who used to be one of the hosts of "Globe Trekker" on PBS, and things like that. I believe that I am still in control over my own financial decisions despite the fact that GEICO's commercials entertain me so much.

Going further, I think that the Allstate commercials with the character who embodies mayhem are significantly less effective, in terms of marketing, than no commercials at all would have been. The mayhem guy reminds me of a mafioso coming into my home and saying, "Gee, it'd be a shame if this place got busted up, so you should pay us $500 a month." These commercials make me not want to associate with Allstate.

Friday, January 13, 2012

There Was a Time I Couldn't Imagine a Character On a TV Commercial Who Could Annoy Me More Then That Little Kid Whispering "Zoom Zoom..."

...But that was so forty-seven seconds sgo. So twelve seconds ago. So mmm meconds ago. Mmmpdh hep heconds ago. Nurp nurp nurpn nurp nurp.

But I love the little pig that goes "WHEEEEE! WHEEEEEEEEEEE!! WHEE-WHEE-WHEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!" I'm so glad GEICO made another commercial with him. So glad.

But those Allstate commercial about how "nobody protects you from mayhem like Allstate" don't work on me. They make me feel like Allstate is a mafia crew coming into my house and breaking things and saying that it would be a shame if I got hurt so I better pay them. And not in a good way.

Sunday, October 31, 2010

So Long, Paul Simon

Does anybody else remember "This Note's For You," the title track of an albumfrom 1988 by Neil Young and the Bluenotes? Neil mocked Michael Jackson and others who let their music be used in commercials: "Ain't singin' for Pepsi/Ain't singin' for Coke/Ain't singin' for no one/Who makes me look like a joke" -- man, those were the days. Back then it was still comparatively rare and shocking when a record originally released as a piece of music for its own sake was recycled as the soundtrack of a commercial. Nowadays it's business as usual. Nobody seems to get upset about it any more. No musicians seem worried that such a thing might make them look like a joke.

Latest case in point: a piece of the lovely multi-track vocal harmonies from Simon & Garfunkel's "The Only Living Boy in New York" is on a new Honda commercial. The commercial has been circulating for probably weeks now, and it's become so common for pop music to be used in commercials that it took me until tonight to realize that there went another one: another musician who doesn't mind looking like a joke, in exchange for a nice big slice of that sweet advertising money.

I used to respect you, Paul Simon. What was I thinking?

Who's left? Who hasn't sold their music yet as a backing track to peddle cars or soda pop or sneakers? Neil? Bruce? I think the Clash bit that dust a while back, after Joe Strummer died or was already critically ill.

I'm warning everybody: when Rage Against the Machine is the backing music for a commercial for Oreo's, I'm going to get REALLY mad.

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Let's All Try Not to Get Blowed Up Real Good

Recently I started reading in the Religion section of the Huffington Post, and participating in the debates in the readers' comments area of the same. Just today I read this post entitled "Nuclear Theolgy," By H.E. Dr. Mustafa Cerić, The Grand Mufti of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Rev. Dr. Michael Kinnamon, General Secretary National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA; and Dr. William F. Vendley, Secretary General of Religions for Peace. Their essay champions UN enforcement of the Nuclear Test Ban treaty, alrightythen, and bases this position in a very traditionalistic reading of the Judaeo-Christo-Islamic tradition, hey wait a minute!

As I have already mentioned in the comments section at HuffPo: the essay by the three eminent Doctors refers over and over to God's authority, supposedly offended by nuclear arms, environmental disaster, human poverty and the like; an appeal to God is hardly necessary to get people to oppose nuclear proliferation, this opposition having already been pretty much guaranteed years ago by scientists led by Carl Sagan; nuclear weapons, pollution, global warming and religion are all man-made, and while controlling the first three are essential to maintaining human life, and keeping the last alive is essential to maintaining the way of life of the authors and their colleagues, for the survival and well-being of the rest of us it's not a high priority, to put it mildly.

A little while later I was thinking about the movie Armageddon,and specifically about the montages of various scenes of humanity in that movie, which in their production style, with lots of very high-definition slow-motion shots of pastoral scenes, and their voice-overs, often the voice of a fictional US President, remind me very much of the sort of commercials one sees on Sunday on American network television, commercials where you don't know until the end, when a company logo finally appears onscreen, and the voice-over sonorously intones the company's name and a completely vague feel-good slogan like "protecting tomorrow" or "experts providing solutions," what exactly is being advertised.

Except that even then you don't know what the company does. The commercial didn't give you a clue, it just lulled you into a warm, fuzzy mood, and then perhaps later you learn from another source that, YAAAGHAH!! the company makes nerve gas or is a hedge fund. It might not be completely farfetched to suppose that those Sunday commercials, the ones that look like they cost a lot to make, with closeups of children's freckled faces followed by shots of idyllic meadows followed by shots of well-dressed business people nodding sagely in slow-motion in boardrooms with rain-spattered glass walls overlooking cityscapes at sunset, Ah say Ah say it might not be so farfetched to conclude that those commercials are above all camouflage. Put the commercials in front of millions of viewers of political-discussion shows and golf, get those viewers to associate the company's name with vague pleasant sleepy thoughts and not with quasi-legal hostile takeovers and huge defense contracts.

And then, perhaps strangely, I began to connect the HuffPo essay about nuclear proliferation being an affront to God with the expensive say-nothing commercials. Both are the products of movers and shakers. It's not so odd to think that a director of AIG or TRW or ADM might rub elbows outside the UN with a PhD or DD or three representing God's authority, while inside the NPT was discussed.

Perhaps the Doctors' essays are meant to do the same as the slick commercials -- and slick movies like Armageddon too, sure -- to distract. In this essay which champions non-proliferation -- who does not favor non-proliferation? You know who does not: people who make fatass bucks from proliferation, is who -- Ah say in this entire essay I did not notice one mention of the idea of the elimination of nukes.

It's very hard to know what is really going on in this world. It's hard to know who's sincere, who might be sincere but still be supported by the shadiest, least sincere and most scary sorts of people, because their happy horseshit and dogged superstition keep us busy.

Monday, June 29, 2009

Depression

A lot of people get it -- or at least you'd think so by the amount of ads on TV for antidepressants. I've been depressed lately. That's why I haven't posted in a few days. Barring major problems such as depression, I hope to post in this blog at least once a day. I'm on an antidepressant right now, which either makes me trendy or a dupe of big pharm, neither of which I want to be, but there it is. I feel a little woozy from the happy pills, but woozy is a lot better than I felt last Tuesday, when I last posted here, and then had to take a little break. I wonder whether I'm mentally impaired from the antidepressants, but I'm not particularly worried about it. I'm not particularly worried right now, which is sort of the point of taking the stuff, I guess. When someone gets a lobotomy, or so I gather, they no longer worry very much about anything. They feel pretty happy. Friends and loved ones of the lobotomized patient may feel horrified, because they notice what is now lacking in him, now that part of his frontal lobes is gone, but the lobotomized one doesn't notice the difference, or miss what's gone. I hope I'm not currently chemically impaired, but if I were -- how could I tell? Maybe you, my readers, can let me know whether the blogger who writes the next few posts here, who's on antidepressants, seems significantly different than the one before.