Chrystler Commercial

[jayholden]

Ok, you're a terrible, terrible car company with decades of failure behind you. You have a history of taking money from the American people by selling them sub-standard products that are designed to fail and, more recently, by literally robbing them. What's your 2-minute several-million-dollar last-ditch-effort to convince potential buyers to buy from you? But of course: nationalism with a hint of anti-Asian racism at the center.

This is disgusting.





Is anyone else as infuriated about this as I am?

[Jet]

"Its important where its from..." <- Biggest bullsh!t I ever heard. As long as anything is functional, safe and available for a good price I could care less whether its from Japan, Germany or Sealand.

Yeah, I dont like this commercial, even though I have no vendetta against Chryslter. My dad had their mini-van for some time and it was okay... untill it broke down Probably has something to do with being a second-hand product.

[Rushlock]

I must be dense, not seeing the anti-Chinese league slogans. Though the company has sucked quite awhile.

[raynorn]

Feb 7, 2011 20:49:37 GMT -5 Rushlock said:

I must be dense, not seeing the anti-Chinese league slogans. Though the company has sucked quite awhile.

Listing cities where it is not from.
" . . . it's certainly not from any Emerald City." The tone is a little b*tchy, or condescending there. It's not a glaring holy carp that was racist, but it was a little passive aggressive prickish.

Nice to see my taxpayer dollars hard at work

Pro-tip to Chrysler: Hey how about making cars that are reliable, smaller, affordable, and more fuel efficient, that is what has been trending for the last decade and American car makers have largely ignored this market.

[WildKnight]

I... cannot even begin to tell you all how disgusted I am...

That Chrysler actually made an ad paying homage to the city that put America in automobiles, and you're all sitting here whining and bitching and calling it racist.

WTF, seriously? Its offensive to you for them to say that since Detroit got the whole thing going, maybe Detroit knows a thing or two about building cars?

I'll be the first to say that the Big Three screwed up big time. They let the Union Mentality that dominates this town run the show for far too long, and it cost them dearly. But you're going to fault them for trying to make a comeback, SERIOUSLY???

Did your panties get so twisted when VW was running ads talking about the legacy of German engineering, or is it only American spirit that raises your hackles.

Un-friggin-believable.

[raynorn]

Or perhaps we are irritated because they are spending about a million dollars a SECOND for an add after they took a taxpayer bail out, but hey that's just me.

[WildKnight]

Feb 8, 2011 10:51:21 GMT -5 raynorn said:

Or perhaps we are irritated because they are spending about a million dollars a SECOND for an add after they took a taxpayer bail out, but hey that's just me.

Oh, I'm pissed about the bail-out too, but use some common sense. That money is taxpayer money, and it only gets recovered if Chrysler climbs out of its hole and pays it back.

Before you start in with "that's never going to happen..." take a look at GM. They're paying the money back even as we speak.

So, what should Chrysler do now that America has invested in them? Tuck their tail between their legs and lay down to die? Or should they advertise, try to be successful, and pay us back?

Facts are facts. Advertising works. If Chrysler wants to get fully back on its feet, it needs to advertise. The Superbowl is the most valuable advertising you can buy, studies have shown time and again that it more than pays for itself. In fact, if you'll just take a look, you'll see that the car Eminem was driving in that ad was the most searched automobile on the internet for like 90 minutes after the first time that ad ran.

So lets take a moment and regroup and get our story straight. What really upsets us about this ad?

[raynorn]

" . . . . the most searched automobile on the internet for like 90 minutes after the first time that ad ran."

Just 90 minutes?! Damn that is sad. How much did that 90 minutes of fame cost?

Advertise through radio and promotions, target sites that target car interests . . . use the money more wisely.

In fairness, I guess it is saying something that people are still talking about it though

[WildKnight]

Feb 8, 2011 12:48:45 GMT -5 raynorn said:

" . . . . the most searched automobile on the internet for like 90 minutes after the first time that ad ran."

Just 90 minutes?! Damn that is sad.

Advertise through radio and promotions, target sites that target car interests . . . use the money more wisely.

Now you're just digging for reasons to be angry. As I said in my post, numerous studies have shown that Superbowl ads are well worth the investment. It's the single largest TV viewing audience in the United Statess.

Radio promotions don't allow you to use the power of visual mediums, and websites don't get you nearly the number of views that you get from that one 90 second spot.

You say 90 minutes is meaningless? You're showing your own ignorance. That kind of web searching typically translates into dozens of rapid sales, and potentially thousands in the long run.

Yes, Chrysler needs to focus on making a good product first and foremost. In their minds, they are doing that.

But if they don't advertise, nobody will buy those products regardless. You seem to have a desire to be mad at them for something, and you're digging in deeper and deeper the more the facts suggest you might be wrong.

I'm an American taxpayer. I want my money back from Chrysler. That WILL NOT happen if they don't mount successful advertising campaigns. Superbowl Advertisements are proven to work, and to work better than anything else.

Seems to me that you would rather see Chrysler fail, the taxpayers lose their investment, and thousands of Americans lose their jobs as yet another American industry collapses, then give them a chance at success.

Personally, I pray for Chrysler's long term success, not only the preservation of the many jobs they currently provide, but for them to get bigger than ever, repay America's investment in them, and create thousands and thousands more jobs for my fellow Americans.

[raynorn]

. . .
Seems to me that you would rather see Chrysler fail, the taxpayers lose their investment, and thousands of Americans lose their jobs as yet another American industry collapses, then give them a chance at success. . . .

Huh?! . . . I mean yes, you caught me! I am a communist. I hate Chrysler because it represents capitolist [sic] pig dogs that eat thier own poo. Fail pig dogs fail!

Or

Actually I want them to rock, just thought the commercial was kind of lame . . . my oppinion may be flavored by the fact that I think Eminem is overrated so feel free to take it with a grain of salt.

[WildKnight]

Preaching to the choir. I loathe Eminem. But I come from Detroit. For Detroiters, that image was powerful.

Besides, if you need a Detroit-based celebrity, who are you going to choose? Tim Allen who is more or less irrelevant these days and doesn't even live here anymore? Eminem and Kid Rock have the same issue; for everyone that likes them, there's someone else that doesn't. Ted Nugent is way too controversial because of his political stances (and I don't see him buying a luxury car anyway...)

I'm not accusing you of being a "commie" (and if you were, great... everybodies entitled to their political philosophy, no matter how wrong-headed I think they may be). I'm merely suggesting that there is a different way to look at this thing. Chrysler is doing what it has to do, it's fighting to make a comeback in a very dangerous market.

America does have a strong tradition of both ingenuity and engineering, and tapping into that isn't an insult to anyone else. It's a celebration of what we can achieve. That being said, the commentary about it not being those other cities (including "The Emerald City") was simply a way of getting around to pointing out that Detroit is known as "The Motor City." Maybe it was a little bit hackish, but it certainly wasn't offensive, unless you're looking for something to be offended by.

[raynorn]

Dude, I would've loved to see Kid Rock or Ted Nugent get out of the car.

Especially Ted. It would've been awesome exactly because it would be unexpected. . .

[jayholden]

Wildknight, I'd be more on board with your side of things if:

1. I did respect the VW ads about German engineering when they came out. I didn't.
2. Unlike VW, Chrysler actually had a leg to stand on (i.e. if American cars were historically superior vehicles. They aren't).
3. The commercial was about... I don't know... a car?

What you had with the Volkwagen commercials was an advertisement about a car/car company with a hint of "Hey, buy us cuz our headquarters is in the same country as all these other great car companies."

What you have with this Chrysler commercial is a tribute to a piece of geography, with a "Oh and this is a car we make you should buy it" thrown in. Do me a favor. Play the ad again, only this time close your eyes and imagine some footage of a shiny new lawnmower. Either commercial has the exact same impact.

Also, I'd like to point out that Detroit did not put America in automobiles. Henry Ford put America in automobiles. It was solely due to his innovation, not this or that group of replaceable assemblers in some replaceable factory on some replaceable piece of land, that allowed the average American to purchase a car. If this had been a commercial that paid homage to him I would have been much more receptive. Although the relevance to cars would be about the same.

[WildKnight]

You've got to be kidding me.

American automobiles absolutely were superior in the past, if you're talking about innovating the technology that went into them, and putting them within reach of the average consumer.

Also...

To downplay Detroit's significance in the rise of the American automobile industry is a show of utter ignorance.

[jayholden]

Feb 8, 2011 22:23:52 GMT -5 WildKnight said:

You've got to be kidding me.

American automobiles absolutely were superior in the past, if you're talking about innovating the technology that went into them, and putting them within reach of the average consumer.

The height of that era was 60 years ago at best. The most innovative technology to come out of any American car company in the past 40 years is the iPhone app for the new chevy. Which, in all honesty, should have been out 2 years ago.

To downplay Detroit's significance in the rise of the American automobile industry is a show of utter ignorance.

Detroit is a piece of land and a series of buildings placed on top of that land. A piece of land cannot do anything. You could say that you didn't mean the above literally, to which I would reply with what I said in my last post: replaceable factory workers in a replaceable factory have very little to do with innovation.