Topic awaiting preservation: The Ka's Evil Twin (Page 1 of 1)

Ok - someone in the UK care to tell me why the Ka marketing people feel it necessary to abuse animals?

These are actually very funny - try not to think about how very, very. very wrong they are...

bird protection

blatant feline abuse



edit - I'll only keep them up on my site temporarily, if someone wants to host and change the links for posterity, that's cool...


Cell Sweet Cell

(Edited by bodhi23 on 04-28-2004 11:38)

ouch. Though they're probably animated, and no real animals were harmed, at least the feline one is beyond my own tolerance level for advertising.

bodhi: Well they were never shown and the URL:

www.the-eviltwin.co.uk

doesn't work.

Here is the full story behind the videos:

http://www.snopes.com/photos/commercials/sportka.asp

I'm sure that there are plenty of odd, sick and twisted ad ideas that never go into full production because they are unacceptable the interesting story is did this get out by accident or not?

Also the Snopes page has all the videos on it so you don't need to waste your bandwidth if you don't want to.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

he he, classic I love it. Anyone know who the agency is.

Makes me proud to work in the ad biz.

J. Stuart J.

Yuck! If someone used that to market a car, I'd be totally turned off the car.. joke or not. Beyond my tolerance level too.

Amerasu |

Well the bird one was all well and good, the cat ad was a little much though. I can just see some 6 year old girl breaking into tears after seeing that.

Not a bandwidth problem, mostly a space problem... But as long as the videos are on snopes, I won't feel bad about deleting them later...

I figured that they were animated - a marketing firm couldn't be that cruel! My question was mostly rhetorical...

But they did make me laugh - sick as it all is, they did make me laugh...


(Edited by bodhi23 on 04-28-2004 12:47)

love those! i like the bird one the best

...I may have to buy one now!

Hi all,

I couldn't help but register for this forum JUST so I could make a comment. I'll try to avoid offending, though I will be exaggerating somewhat. Anyone easily offended by sense, please go back to believing in Santa, the Tooth Fairy, and God - and avoid reading what follows (this should filter out those of you who feel that your very soul is in danger just by reading this page).

As an extra precaution: IF YOU READ THE FOLLOWING TEXT, YOU WILL BE VISITED BY A GLOWING GREEN, SIX-FOOT TALL SPIDER MONKEY WHO WILL DEMAND YOUR INTERNAL ORGANS IN RETURN FOR FATHERING YOUR CHILDREN!

Still reading?

Good.

Offended anyway?

Even better (I lied about avoiding this).

Now get comfortable.

In the UK, there is a soap opera called East Enders. In this soap, years ago, a character called James Wilmott-Brown raped a character called Kathy Beale.

William Boyde, the actor who played James Wilmott-Brown, was spat on, shouted at, and even physically attacked on the streets for a long time afterward. In fact, whether connected or not, he has not worked an awful lot in the public eye since.

The storyline virtually ruined him because people are incapable of determining the difference between reality and fiction!
This is not the fault of the programme's writers and producers. I'd say it could be attributed to the idiocy that pervades our society. I'd say it could be attributed to parents being incapable of teaching their children the difference between real and unreal (let alone the difference between right and wrong). I'd say that it could be blamed on the fact that people actually entertain the ramblings of the kind of moron who thinks that even ADULTS should have their viewing choices censored.

Now, I obviously believe there are some things that should always remain taboo - but most of these no longer are. In a society where children's television seems to allude constantly to matters of sex, promiscuity, and homosexuality in a manner that is neither responsible nor educational, I can't believe that anybody with an ounce of sense could ignore that and becry this!

So long as we pander to people like this, the problem will always exist. So long as the violence or cruelty portrayed in a fictional creation, by whatever publicly accessible medium, is used as an excuse for committing a violent or cruel act, AND THIS IS CONSIDERED A VALID EXCUSE (and the blame of the fiction's creators) - we will never evolve beyond the barely conscious idiots that the majority of this pathetic race appear to be.

I can't help feeling that the sort of person who could be offended by these rather amusing clips, is also the sort of person who would attack William Boyde on the street.

THEY ARE NOT REAL!!! It doesn't take an idiot to tell that they are not real, but just in case you need convincing: NOTHING is made for airing on UK television that hasn't been certified by an organisation that supervises and scrutinises the production for ANYTHING that constitutes a real act of cruelty. This is the same in the US.

For heaven's sake, the adverts portray a CAR killing vermin. The idea is to suggest that the car is evil.

Now, if you are the sort of person who finds the idea of an EVIL CAR believable, or the idea of a car actively killing an animal of any kind (rather than being compelled to do so by an evil driver) disturbing and scary (hey, watch The Car From Hell - you'll sh*t yourself), then I'm afraid I have some news for you:

YOU NEED HELP!
(Hang on, I'm in an asylum...)

As for a little girl crying her eyes out at it: surely that child's parents have a responsibility to put such an emotionally immature child to bed BEFORE the watershed, as such a child is obviously too young (mentally?) to be allowed to watch night-time television.

I despair. I really do...

White Hawk - the only offense I'll take is that cats shouldn't be considered vermin.

I was a little shocked at the cat clip, but laughed like hell at the first one. I have a soft spot for kitties, so it was a little shocking...

However, my concern about Ka's ad folks was meant rhetorically.

I like to think that I've got a pretty good sense of humor, which leads to the posting of these clips here in the first place. I do love a good joke.

But it does take all kinds in the world, and there is a place for those who are easily offended by these sorts of shocking humor... we just haven't figured out where that is yet...

I'm thinking the basement that used to be Master Suho's Shock Therapy Room is probably going to be a good place for them.

I can bet that once a few of our more sensitive members catch your post, you'll get a few very hearty replies!

Oh yes - and welcome to the Asylum!


Cell Sweet Cell

Thanks Bodhi,

That is gracious of you. My sense of humour is not always the most obvious, and so I suppose I should be glad not to really have offended you.

I can't say I'm very keen on cats myself, but this is beside the point. Whether or not I consider them vermin, I'm afraid that they actually, officially, are classified as such. This is not a matter of opinion, but a legitimate definition common to cats, rats, and insurance salesmen.

I assume this is the reason why one is obliged to inform the police or make a reasonable attempt to contact the owners of a dog one has run down, but there is no such legal provision for an incident involving a cat. It would be impossible to deal with the potential volume of grief-stricken cat-killers...

Sorry.

As for the hearty replies..? I can't wait!
A little 'meaty' banter does no harm - and if anyone feels really passionate about the subject, I concede the floor.


By the way Bodhi, I feel I've now irreversibly subverted your thread. For this I apologise... but it's fun, isn't it?

quote:

---

I can't help feeling that the sort of person who could be offended by these rather amusing clips, is also the sort of person who would attack William Boyde on the street.

THEY ARE NOT REAL!!!

---

Thanks for pointing that out. I guess I'm one of the idiots who is incapable of distinguishing between fantasy and reality because I thought the cat killing clip was somewhat offensive. Some people just aren't turned on by gross animal killing humour. I happen to like cats a lot and the thought of that happening to one of them turned my stomach - even though it was pretend. I "get" the humour, but I don't have to giggle, appreciate it or think it's cool. Do I still need help?

I'm not at all bothered by people who think it's funny. I certainly don't think any less of Bodhi for posting it or Lacuna for thinking it's funny. Though I suppose I could make the argument that finding pleasure in cat killing is somewhat perverse (even if it's just pretend) because I don't agree with them. But I don't actually think that. That would be silly.

To each their own. I just like cats, White Hawk.

Amerasu |

I am a big fan of animals, all of them, even "vermin" In fact I currently have four vermin and a horse. I took offense at both of these even though I know they aren't real, since the general public seems to have a difficult time of discerning what is fact and what is fiction. And it's not just kids. Any actor who plays the part of the antagonist in anything from movies to soaps can attest to that. And White Hawk, whether you like it or not, children ARE influenced by what they see on television. I suspect if you can't see a three-year old being upset about the cat clip, you probably haven't any children. Not only do small children react negatively to violence, older children are tempted to do what they see on TV. (The "JackAss" phenomenon.) We've all heard of kitties in clothes dryers and small animals in microwaves. Why give them another idea? And incidently, adults are influenced by what they see on television and films also. If we didn't think that, would we be in advertising and PR?

As a sidebar, I would also like to protest your suggestion that "homosexuality" is something that should remain taboo. It is something that is determined prior to birth, and if children are "straight" they are not likely to be influenced at all by seeing gay people on television. And as a matter of fact, it helps gay children adjust better to know they are not alone, as even at a young age they are forced to hide their sexuality as best they can, and if they can't, they must learn to tolerate constant abuse and teasing from classmates and sometimes discrimination by other parents and teachers. I know. I have a gay son.

Sorry, I don't mean to change the thread. I did think the clips were funny in the same sort of way that I think the Darwin Awards are funny. But for use on television? I don't think so.

Oh, I have such a long answer that I'll have to come back to this, but I must say that I have been mis-interpreted regarding matters of taboo.

I also may have overstated the 'vermin' thing.

I like cats as much as the next person! Especially kittens...



...I couldn't eat a whole litter, though.

In fact - read back over my article and you'll find that I do not refer to homosexuality as a taboo. In fact, I don't make any assertions whatsoever in that respect. There is a whole full stop between the word 'taboo', and the word 'homosexuality'. More than that, in fact, but a slight change of context.

My opinions on homosexuality (or sex, promiscuity, children's television, or people who stand talking in the middle of a busy pavement) have been neither implied, nor expressed. I did, however, make an observation:

"...children's television seems to allude constantly to matters of sex, promiscuity, and homosexuality in a manner that is neither responsible nor educational..."

Just in case you missed it:

"...sex, promiscuity, AND homosexuality IN A MANNER THAT IS NEITHER RESPONSIBLE NOR EDUCATIONAL..."

If you are going to be offended, please be sure that you understand my meaning first.


If I might digress for a moment: I find the level of violence in children's television quite disturbing (even distressing). This is something that I feel quite strongly about, as it seems to have become gratuitously abundant.

But then, I am also dismayed by the amount of bad language, too. From minor profanity to poor use of English, I can understand why children today are finding it harder and harder to communicate effectively. It is nigh impossible for a lot of teenagers even to ask for something in a shop without resorting to gestures and monosyllabic grunts.

They tend blame this on the inaccurately perceived immigration status of the often hard-working staff, who incidentally, tend to speak far better English than they do!


Now that you know what really bothers me, please don't assume that you know my opinion on matters of homosexuality. This is something else that really sucks about the world I live in. Just mentioning a word gets everybody's back up before they've even understood what's been said! Perhaps this is more telling than anything you think I've said...



Perhaps I'll leave it at that, and sign off with my regards to all of you. I don't really intend to upset anyone, but I do love a good wind-up.

Okay, perhaps I overreacted, and if I misunderstood you, I am sorry. I guess maybe this is a touchy subject for me, after seeing the amount of discrimination and subsequent suffering that many have had to endure due to ignorance; and not just homosexuals.

We see eye-to-eye on the level of violence in children's television (many years ago I read a book by Dr. Frederick Wertham, A Sign for Cain that was very good on the subject, but I think it's long out of print), and I can also identify with the use of poor English. And have you ever seen a young person try to count back change? But I also digress.

Again, White Hawk, my apologies.



Dragonlady

*blush*

No need to apologise. ^_^

OMG!

I can't believe I didn't think of it before! The whole point in the cat ad:

CURIOSITY KILLED THE CAT!

Now I think it is even less offensive, and funnier to boot!

How the heck did I miss that?

Since I simply placed the thread here to invite people to view some clips I found amusing (if a little off-color), I really don't object to a slight hi-jack... and the conversation did wend its way in this direction. No big deal!

Since the ads were never going to be viewed on television, whether or not children would be unalterably damaged by them is almost a moot point (and the word really is "moot", not "mute"...).

I, too, missed the "curiosity killed the cat" bit. I was so sucked into the imagery itself, that I missed the punch line! Seeing it now, the whole bit makes perfect sense.

One must admit the ad department at Ford-UK is really twisted (and I think that's probably an understatement!)...



(Edited by bodhi23 on 05-20-2004 18:49)

They are very similer to the outpost.com ads in concept, rember the cannon and the hampsters. "Classic" or the marching band chased by the pack of wolfes. It's very diffucult to use the evil impule in adverting I think it i well done, not to horriable but just enough to trigger a response.

It's intresting most adverting is targeted, Most agencys have accout and reasearch staff who's sole job is to establish who that customer is and how best to target them. That's the only way it works, you can't make produce a campain that will appeal to everyone.

Chances are if you were offended you were not the target of the campain. The negative effect to the brand in a campain are alwasy carefully consider. Tt's a calulated risk but most sucessfull ads are. You want to estabish a emotional connection to the customer be it love, hate, envy, jelousy, oh that underlying evil impulse "Well all know it's there somewhere" all good ad people know how to reach it. Speaking of Taboo subject that is perhap one of the strongest tool for adverting.

It's my guess that the market research on the Sportka would show it perfered my males 20-30, of lower to middle income, still in collage and perhap living at home or at at dorm with access to a high speed internet connection. Perfect target for viral video, If you look at that age group they play violent video games, used to extream tv and are the ones who would take the time to download this kind of adverting. They generally dislike cats or perfer dogs so the harm to a cat would be less of an issue. I would not expect to see a dog in this kind of campain as that would more likely then likely offend the target customer.

Adverting can make people do anything they didn't all ready desire. The key is to use the desire to sell the product or generate a specific response.

This kind of ad wouldn't exist if people weren't all ready "sick" to begin with.

J. Stuart J.



(Edited by jstuartj on 05-20-2004 20:29)

Good point.

I suppose that I would qualify as a prime target for this campaign under those conditions - though I wouldn't want a Ford Ka if it was offered free - I'd rather sell it and buy a nice motorcycle.

Isn't it really more of a girl's car? Perhaps, if jstuartj is close to the truth of this, this 'viral video' approach is really an attempt at attracting a less conventional target group; male, 20-30, and unable to afford a better car (like a Skoda, Hyundai, or even a Daewoo - lol).

Very good point, JStuartJ.

I thought most of the outpost ads amusing, but also in poor taste. It's been interesting to watch the recent changes in televised advertising regardless of content. You can tell that the folks doing the advertising now are the recently grown up Gen-Xers - if you've read anything about this generation's classification, it's blatantly obvious in the content and style of advertisements now.

But, thinking about it from a target audiance standpoint, it starts to make much more sense.

... interesting...

Sheesh! More to think about...

I didn't need the sleep anyway.

Outpost.com!!! BAH HAHAHAH! that mouse one was great! oh boy! *runs off to do a search for it* *i have a reason to liiiive now!*


[antique sigs are us]