So I am not sure if this change has been made permanently or if anyone noticed it, but the commercial has a change in it that I noticed. This commercial, has an old man asking if Old Spice Hair and Body Wash is right for him; it has Reno 911esq cop asking the same question, as he pins down a hair, sweaty, grotesque criminal who asks the same question. Now this is where the change has been made. Before tonight, when I saw this commercial the narrator said that the hair and body wash was not right for the criminal, but it was for everyone else in the commercial. Now when the criminal asks if it is right for him, the narrator says sure. Like I said, I'm not sure if this is a permanent change or just an adaption of some kind, but I thought it was interesting because I feel like society has to be completely inclusive towards everything. It doesn't matter where you come from, what your life is about, or where you are going, as long as you are not a terrorist you are to be included in society. Now I am not saying that this is always the case, but I am speaking in generalities.
I truly believe that we are to love everyone, despite their short comings or where they are going in life. That falls in line with the second greatest commandment. But does that really mean that we are to include everyone? I always think back to John's Gospel when this question or this idea pops up: the light and the darkness. I just thought it was interesting that I saw this commercial a number of times one way and then it was changed to include the criminal in the form of having the hair and body wash be for him as well. I'm interested to hear what you guys have to say.
Posts
7 comments:
I believe that you actually saw the newer one first and that the initial one had the criminal included. They probably just figured it would be an easy way to cut down on the commercial time and save a bunch of money.
I agree with above. The first few times I saw it, it included the "Sure criminal" line. the new (shorter) one says "No" to the criminal.
That makes more sense I guess. Thanks for the update.
regardless of the economical reasons for the commercial being different, the Kid posed a good question and it deserves answering. I pity the fool that ignores a good question.
Inclusion is way out of whack in todays culture. It's just like people using the phrase "Don't judge me!" when really what they mean is "Don't tell me anything I'm doing is wrong!". Somehow people think that the Bible says we should never point out sin or evil. Not that I'm calling for us to become douchebags and yell "sinners!" at the street corners of our neighborhoods. But if someone is in your life and you have a friendship with them, and you DON'T call evil for what it is and good for what it is, you aren't standing for anything. And standing for nothing is standing for something.
Yes, you did see the newer one ("Nope") first. The older one said "Yes, cop" followed by "Sure, criminal." I have to wonder if the change was just to shorten the criminal, or if they were worried about whether or not criminals who saw the commercial (remember that they have the 'right' to a TV in their cell these days) would start to think that they had the 'right' to have Old Spice Hair and Body Wash, too.
Sorry, I meant, "shorten the COMMERCIAL", not "shorten the criminal". *laughs*
God bless you ANONYMOUS!! You're such a lying scumbag for W+K that you forgot that people who read this kind of stuff have brains.
Not only is this operative telling you that you actually saw the commercial that wasn’t released yet, first, but that it contained words that weren't there. Of course, no one is arguing whether the criminal was included in the earlier version, in fact, everyone who saw it KNOWS the criminal was in it, but everyone who saw it knows the narrator said that the criminal could NOT use the product. But it gets better: “They probably just figured it would be an easy way to cut down the commercial time and save a bunch of money.” So this operative wants you to believe that A. they cut out the “criminal” in the second commercial so they would save running time and not have to pay as much since the commercial would be shorter without the criminal character. And B. that a 30 second commercial costs less than a 30 second commercial. Seriously?
What actually happened is that one of the 'top' ad agencies in the country f***ed up big time and then had to correct themselves, to the tune of about $250K, billed to the account of course. Anyone who's spent 8 minutes in a marketing class would know that you don't actively exclude ANY segment of the population from your marketing-- but W+K did, and did it with flair. Idiots. And if you're listening W+K, please don't have such losers post in your defense-- it's embarassing.
Post a Comment