I don't remember this from last year. I just watched the ad thanks to Canpakes, and I don't see why the ad is bad or even failed. First of all, the Hunger Games made a lot of money. This ad on YouTube has 5 million views. "Your guy", we know who that is, is a genius for saying the next (predictable) unpredictable thing daily, the reason being, "there is no such thing as bad publicity". Are you saying this holds true only for your guy?Black mo clips 2025 wrote:Lol. Yes it did have a trans/androgenous/hunger games vibe.
It's interesting to learn that neither you nor those who you consider to be like you value a product for the efficacy of the product, only for its image. What you're really saying is that you aren't as brand loyal to Jaguar as you are to your guy (which is totally not gay...totally). Imagine a life of driving cars, drinking drinks, and wearing clothes that all has nothing to do with how the clothes fit or look, the drink tastes, or the car rides, or how the politician performs. A mark of true hypersensitivity? When I shop for a car, I read reviews and go out and test drive them, I'm entirely unaware of ad campaigns behind them. Popularity does not predict fundamentals. I kind of like the exterior look of Teslas, I love the acceleration, but I can't stand the interiors, to the point I'd never own one. I drove a go-cart when I was ten and it was fun, it was good for then not for now.
The fact that advertisers take risks to expand their market is exactly what we'd expect from capitalists. Milton Friedman predicted this in "Capitalism and Freedom", that broadening the audience will usually win, even if in his opinion, one had the right to remain racist to keep one's market share if that's what one chooses to do. His hope was that greed and dollars would make a place for blacks at restaurants despite what any laws said, and while allowing restaurant owners the freedom to choose. So, yeah, it's not surprising that Jaguar tried to reach a different set of people beyond the ones they currently serve. It's kind of like a restaurant allowing non whites to eat there. You're right, that this may offend the present clientele, and it might be a big mistake financially. But in the aggregate, capitalism tends toward cosmopolitism. That's why rich states are blue and poor ones are red. So you're wrong to believe that a real capitalist would have automatically shut the door to anyone but the current clientele.