[RANT] Commercial That Annoys You

Spongmonkeys!

John Q. Mayhem said:
I don't have TV. Can I get a description of the Quizno's commercial? I am intrigued.

I'll do you one better.

Here's a link to the actual commercial:

http://img.slate.msn.com/media/44/Quiznos_100k.asf

And here's a link to the original video that the creator modified to make the commerical:

http://www.rathergood.com/moon_song/

The guy who did that commercial has a video show on UK television, and he's also done a couple of TV spots for VH1 (station identification spots).

The best video he ever did was for Zepplin's Immigrant Song, involving a couple of kittens in Viking helmets and wielding axes. It's not on his site anymore (I think he may have gotten into trouble for using the song without permission) but you can still find it on the 'net here and there.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Krieg said:
Quizno's and those damn undead rodents.

rats2.jpg


http://www.x-creation.com/temp/quiznos-a.wav


Copy and Paste THAT!

I can't really say what I think they look like 'cause of the Grandmother Rule.
 

Andrew D. Gable said:
Oh. Any commercial for a medication that tells you to contact your doctor to find out if XXX is right for you, but never tells you what the hell it does. ;)

There's actually a legal reason for that. It used to be that you couldn't advertise any prescription drug in the U.S. without giving a full statement as to the drug's effects, side effects, dosages, etc. So, you'd only ever see such ads in magazines and newspapers, where you had enough time / room to give a full page of information that only a medical professional would understand.

The law was changed a few years ago. Now, you can advertise a prescription drug without having to give all that information, but if you do that, you also can't give the description of what the drug actually *does*. Usually, most drug companies that pursue this path do 30-second TV ads to build name recognition, then use longer TV ads (60-second or 2-minute, which tend to only run on cable or off-hours, because they're expensive to run) and print advertising to explain more.

There's your Advertising 101 for today. (I work at a big ad agency; I was actually quite pleased to see that only one of our office's advertising has been listed so far...)
 

Thief of Always said:
The new Sonic commercials with the two guys are really bothering me. At first it was annoying, but now it's about as horrible as Baby Looney Tunes.

You know what's worse than that? I see the durned Sonic commercials all the time, and yet there's not one anywhere near me.

Same with Sierra Mist, they don't sell it in my county (except at KFC and Taco Bell) and yet the commercials never stop.

The Truth commercials are the only one's that consistently bug me.
 

I have to nitpick this one...

Bloodstone Press said:
"cow" isn't a species. It's Bovine. "Cows" are adult, female bovines, specifically those that have given birth.

Kaleon Moonshae said:
Most cattle ranchers in oklahoma would laugh you off their land if you called tehm bovines. That may be their correct name, but cattle is the typical word used. Even cattle ranchers, however, call them *cows* be they male, female, or neuter. Sorry, just grew up around cattle people and find this rant a little overboard considering even people here in texas call them cows;P

Actually, bovine is not the correct term. The word "bovine" is an adjective, and as such is used to describe the animal, not to name it. A yak is a bovine animal, as is a domestic cow, or an ancient auroch. There is actually, to the best of my knowledge, no singular neuter term in the English language that refers to an animal of the species Bos taurus. The closest we have is "cattle," which is not a species-specific term, and only exists in the plural.

The only correct way, then, to refer to these animals is by calling them Bos taurus. However, since nobody is going to do that, it doesn't matter what you call them because they're all the wrong word. Cow is as good a word as you're going to find in English.
 
Last edited:

On topic this time...

Iron Chef said:
These kinds of commercials are dangerous, because they brainwash people into thinking they're losers and damn lucky just to be able to take a stupid, overpriced pill that may cripple or kill them because it hasn't been tested properly, and the side effects not adequately revealed to them beforehand.

Half the ads I see on American media are for prescription drugs. The other half are for class-action lawsuits against prescription drug companies.
 

That Quiznos - rat-monkey ad is apparently a hit.

One of their earlier ones makes me sick at just the sound of their name. It featured this businesswoman (cute, too), talking to some man. She then stops, pulls a wrapper out of a trashcan, and starts licking it.

The idea apparently being, that Quiznos is so good, you'll want to lick their discarded wrappers that have been in a public garbage can for days.

Now, personally, I don't understand the logic of associating your food with garbage and singing mishapen-rats, other than it's hard to forget. Sure, I know their name, but the mention of their name makes me want to literally vommit. Good for an emetic, bad for a food chain.

There's actually a similar series of commercials for Hardees that I don't like. One where a skanky looking woman licks something or other off the face of a guy. Might have been better if she didn't look like that disease ridden prostitute from South Park, but still, I think food should be, you know, clean.
 

trancejeremy said:
There's actually a similar series of commercials for Hardees that I don't like. One where a skanky looking woman licks something or other off the face of a guy. Might have been better if she didn't look like that disease ridden prostitute from South Park, but still, I think food should be, you know, clean.

Argh - the Hardee's Thickburger campaign is sooooo bad. I don't know if they're targeting the "Southern culture" here or what, but the actor in each one is some kind of blue-collar good-ole-boy who's simply amazed that Hardee's can make a good hamburger. I mean, they make it sound equivalent to figuring out how to split the atom. Urgh. The kicker is that according to my friends who've had one, those Thickburgers are really pretty good. Not to be an epicurial snob, I rarely eat fast food so I haven't tried one. Of course, simply using the phrase epicurial snob makes me one, don't it? :)

But count me in as a spong monkey fan.
 

Vocenoctum said:
You know what's worse than that? I see the durned Sonic commercials all the time, and yet there's not one anywhere near me.

Same with Sierra Mist, they don't sell it in my county (except at KFC and Taco Bell) and yet the commercials never stop.
Same thing here. I hate going to fast food places just to get a drink, and I very rarely eat at either of those places, so I don't get to drink Sierra mist often. And I'd like to try Sonic's food, but there isn't one anywhere near me.
 

Iron_Chef said:
I hate the pharmaceutical commercials for all those damn pills, with glossed over side effects like "liver failure, death and/or diarrehea." But in particular, I hate the new commercial that has people saying defeatist comments like: "I don't want to be a famous artist, I just want to hold a paintbrush with less pain" --- which translates in my mind as "I want to be a loser who doesn't stick it out from the crowd and never does anything with my life." IMO, if you pick up a paintbrush, you should have aspirations to be a great at painting (not necessarily museum great, but good enough to sell your work if you wanted) or else you really have no business even lifting that brush at all. Go do something else you could be great at... Why people are willing to accept mediocrity for themselves and their loved ones is beyond me when there is clearly a choice.

These kinds of commercials are dangerous, because they brainwash people into thinking they're losers and damn lucky just to be able to take a stupid, overpriced pill that may cripple or kill them because it hasn't been tested properly, and the side effects not adequately revealed to them beforehand. Those drug companies spend billions marketing their crap every year and a drug commercial is on TV every 60 seconds. Doctors are in on the conspiracy to mass-medicate the public, too. They get bribes from the drug companies to push certain pills on their patients. What you are prescribe from one doctor to another for the same symptoms could differ greatly, depending on which drug company's pocket each doctor is in. The drug companies figure it's cheaper to settle lawsuits from victims of their products than spend a few extra years testing them --- it's better for their stockholders to get it out quick... screw the poor suckers that actually take the damn drug. And have you noticed that there are no new cures coming out? That's because there's no money in cures for the drug companies --- everything is about "symptom management"! So you're stuck taking their stupid, dangerous pills the rest of your life if you catch something. And they're making up new diseases like "nervous anxiety disorder" so they can get doctors to prescribe their pills more for conditions that may not warrant medication. Their goal is to get the world hooked on their (legal) drugs and damn the consequences. Plus, they are price-fixing in the US and lobbying to limit Americans access to their (lower-priced) pills shipped in from other countries. It's a national travesty.

Well, as someone who works for one of these pharmaceutical companies, I will say that I don't like many of these commercials myself, but I can't say I hold with much of the rest of this rant.

It's easy to rant about these medications, unles you happen to be one of the people who really need them. My company makes one of the drugs that "let someone hold a paintbrush pain free." I can tell you from people I know who have arthritis and use these drugs that they really do change their lives for the better. Perhaps they do not now feel they need to be the next Michaelangelo, but they appreciate the ability to do things that you and I take for granted.

As for cures versus "symptom management," I can tell you that there is plenty of research going on to try and find cures, but it is not a simple thing. Most of the diseases and disorders that need cures are extremely complex, often the mechanism for disease is not well understood, and when it is it is often a genetic basis. We have found many cures for infectious diseases because once you eradicate the infectious agent, you have cured the problem. Some cancers have had effective treatments devised because in many cases it is a limited number of cells that have gone haywire. Eliminate those cells and you have cured the cancer. Of course those people get monitored for years because if it happens to you once, it is possible you may have a genetic propensity for cancer - they cannot cure that yet. Let's see, arthritis, MS, lupus and many other diseases are your own immune system attacking your body. Nobody has figured out how to fix it because nobody really understands why it starts in the first place. Outside of the brain, the real workings of the immune system are one of the biggest unknowns in the human body. Speaking of the brain, once again the brain is not understood well enough to know how to "fix" things. So, what does all this mean? We can at least make things better by treating the symptoms. Oh, but that is just the pharma companies trying to steal your money.

OK, let's see: you want "cures" to be found (trust me, so do the majority of researchers at these companies), but that takes money to conduct the research. Where do the companies get the money to do research? From sales of their products. No sales = no research. Why does a pill that has about $1 worth of actual ingredients cost $30? Well, its that research again. For every product that gets onto the market, an average of 9 other products failed in their clinical trials. Those trials cost a lot of money, and I hate to say it, but businesses need to recoup those costs or else they will no longer be there to do any research or clinical trials. So if you really want there to be cures for more diseases one day, be glad that there are drugs being sold that do make people better and earn money for the companies that do research.

If your wonder why we pay so much more for drugs in the US than in other countries, its all about price controls. Other countries have them, the US does not. If the US joins the bandwagon and imposes price controls, our drugs will be cheaper, but the pace of new discoveries will slow dramatically since the US market generates a huge amount of the money spent on research and development. Less $ = less research.

I guess I'm tired of everyone always slamming the pharma companies. For some reason, because people need these medications, unless the companies give the stuff away to everyone, they are seen as heartless money-grubbing evil companies. I'm not saying that the people who run these companies are wonderful humanitarians who only have the best interest of the people at heart, but they are not out to purposely screw the people either. The people at the top are trying to build and run their businesses, and they hope that things their company makes will continue to make the life and health of people better. Its no different than most other companies out there.

Sorry for the lengthy post...we now return you to your typical lighthearted discussions.
 

Remove ads

Top