I reserve a special form of hatred for advertisers that try and get you involved in their products. Not content with replaying the same crappy adverts they ask us to do their job for them so that we, the audience, become involved in the product. In this case, making the mundane service of supplying a conduit for porn and torrents a Zen life-changing experience.
In the BT ads, we have this mini soap opera between Jane and Adam, which has been going on for far too long in my opinion. I would like to enlighten you and bring you up to date as to the story so far but I can scarcely give a damn about characters whose life problems can be solved by a wifi connection. Broadly speaking, I think they had a bit of a bust-up and now she is pregnant so he is going to be the first wireless father, whereby he visits his child entirely online saving money on their BT Home Hub and saving money on child maintenance.
Anyway, I digress. In the last completely forgettable ad, we were invited to vote on what should happen in the story. Viewers with less restraint obviously opted for them to get back together again. Unfortunately they didn’t include in the voting options my suggestion that the entire cast be incinerated by a MOAB that accidently fell out of a passing C-130 aircraft because their router was working on the same frequency. Oh and stop charging line-rental for a copper wire that was installed years ago.
This stupid advert has a couple in a Citroen C3 driving in a dockyard and for mischievous fun they decide to swing their car from the cables of a gantry crane using an adapter that just so happens to exactly fit the wheels of their car. The car accelerates, goes up into the air and they swing happily enjoying their shiny new car like it is fairground ride.
I am calling bollocks on this advert and a quick back of the envelope calculation can show why. The relevant physics is that of the pendulum and the conservation of energy. The conservation of energy is very useful in problems like this as it says that the sum of the kinetic energy and the potential energy is a constant.
When the car reaches its maximum height we can say that all its energy is potential energy. Similarly when the car is moving and just about lift off the ground it has it maximum kinetic energy. Anywhere in between there is a mixture of kinetic and potential energy.
At the top of the swing, the potential energy PE = m g h, where m is the mass of the car, g is the acceleration due to gravity and h is the maximum height. Looking at the specifications of the car, the mass is 1360 kg. The height of a gantry crane I would estimate to be about 30 m. In the advert the car seems to go higher than this but let’s be generous and say 30 metres. g is taken as 9.81 m/s^2.
Therefore the potential energy is 400,248 J. The car must have this amount of energy when it takes off also.
The equation for kinetic energy is KE = 0.5 m v^2, where v is the take off velocity. So we can calculate how fast it need to go before it takes off. It turns out that it is around 24.26 m/s or (56 mph).
Looking at the specification of the car it turns out that the 0-100 km take 14.2 sec or an average acceleration of 1.9 m/s^2 so I think that it would need quite a run up to reach this speed.
Remembering my high-school physics of linear motion, the distance required is s = v^2/ 2a, where v is the take off velocity and a is the average acceleration. Plugging in the numbers once again gives a distance of 154 m. Which is substantially longer than the height of the crane. In the advert we only see the car pull back a short distance. Which I think proves the case not to mention that the cable would need to be slackened and then pulled in as the car reaches the take off point which is not going to happen.
Of course with a pendulum or a swing repeated application of energy at just right moment can hit the natural frequency of the pendulum and make the amplitude increase dramatically. However for a car on a crane to do this it would have to go change gear to go into forward and then reverse on the return journey and I don’t think that the car would be able to go that fast in reverse.
I know the advert is made with computer graphics and it is supposed to be describing its big windscreen but it still doesn’t stand up to scruitiny. You might as well say that the car is rocket powered and it can drive in space.
If you have an iphone or have ever used one, you will know about the way in which you use gestures to push and drag screens around and they move and react in an intuitive way. Screens scroll across at the same speed at which your finger move and they have a ‘weight’ so they rebound when they reach their limits of travel. Things react in the same way you expect them to in the real world. This not only looks cool but it is somehow more pleasurable and pleasing to use. All pretty great on a phone but tacky, shit and lazy in advertising.
You only have to look at the influence that the iphone interface has had on car adverts for instance. The new Range Rover advert has the pull and drag gesture to change scenery. A Toyota ad has also copied the idea to move the car around and see inside it. It is just laziness on the part of the advertisers. I can picture the scene, ‘Oh the way the iphone works looks cool, lets use that idea and then people will buy it because it associates any crap product vicariously with the iphone which is the current flavour of the month.’
What is worse than a shrieking opera singer wailing ‘Go Compare’ ad nauseam? It is Calypso music juxtaposed with an opera singer wailing ‘Go Compare’ ad nauseam. God. It is fucking annoying. Every time I see this advert, it make me reach for my remote control to turn the sound off.
This opera singer idea just doesn’t work. Give it up already. It doesn’t work because it is a crap idea. It doesn’t work because on a desert island you don’t have a car and even if you did, you don’t need car insurance. It would make a pretty short episode of Bear Grylls. All he would need to do would be wait for the idiot to arrive shouting in his ear to renew his car insurance. I wouldn’t buy anything from the Go Compare website now.
Let me just say that I hated the previous chippy Coco Pops monkey. I just wanted to snap his neck but the newer adverts with the formation dancing, lanky milkmen are just as annoying. If this is what children are thinking goes on when they eat Coco Pops it is no wonder they are all stupid.
It also seems to bear a similarity to the Becks larger advert in which a group similar lanky characters was dancing after quaffing a few pints.
It strikes me that they might even involve the same thought process. After a few too many beers, you might imagine various animated characters and with Coco Pops you are supposed to imagine there are dancing milkmen in your cereal. I don’t know, but it is a crappy annoying advert all the same.
This advert has started appearing again in which ambulance chasing lawyers are drumming up business for people that are too stupid to live their lives without being told how to breathe. They are a classic of poor advertising and they have already been parodied to death by comedians and You Tube devotees, but it still makes me laugh every time these adverts. There are two adverts. In one, a man stupidly puts a ladder against a wall and in true slapstick comedy style the ladder slides down wall as he is drilling into it and he falls on his nuts. Laurel and Hardy could not have done it better. You can almost see the drill mark as he slides down the wall.
The other version is with a women that slips on a floor and burst her handbag which is like Pandora’s box, sending all manner of bits of crap flying in the air. The fall caused irreparable damage to her fringe, for which she received £5000.
The World Cup is a hell that every four years, for those who couldn’t care less about a bunch of retarded guys kicking a dead cow’s skin around a field, are bored to death by the tedious onslaught of unrealistic hopes and ultimately anti-climatic sentiment that dominates the television. Sensing the cash to be made by the people who sheepishly follow this stuff it means it that the advertisers crowbar any reference into their ads also.
Tesco have another advert in their soap opera-like series of adverts in which we follow a family that live for Club Card Points. (Not so long ago, I seem to remember that they were particularly cash strapped, economising using the club card points to go to the cinema.)
That must have been some economy drive, because the hard times seem to have left them now and they are spending money like nobody’s business, possibly getting into debt, but fuck-it, what about the Club Card points? The fat husband, longs for a flat screen television, hinting that it would be great to watch the World Cup on, to his surprise his wife says, “Treat yourself.”
Then, in another moment, he opines for a comfy chair to watch the World Cup. “Order it.”, his wife says, to his surprise. She further encourages him to buy everything that a stupid, beer-swilling, cretin needs to watch England predictably lose.
The reason for this generosity of spirit? Bloody Club Card points. To escape the imminent tsunami of football tedium, she is intent on putting her family into debt to fund an excursion to a health farm funded by Club Card points.
Maybe I just have a heart of stone but this advert with laughing gurgling, freaky, cackling babies just makes me cringe. It consists of a succession of babies laughing with a jarring pinging sound. I get the feeling they are trying to condition me like you might with a dog with a clicker during obedience training.
Oh, and the last fat faced, gurgling baby sounds like my grandfather coughing up phlegm from smoking too many Woodbines. When I see this advert now, I just instinctively grab my remote control and press the mute button as it is so painful. It is a terrible advert. Please stop it.
Glade have a bad track record when it comes to adverts. They are the ones that made the almost universally hated ad in which a spoilt brat announces to his mother, “I want to do a poo a Paul’s!” Well done, both disgusting and annoying at the same time. Creators also of the loveless couple who know each others habits so well that the women predicts exactly where to place her air freshener and also how her stupid husband will huff and chuck his stinking sports kit on the chair.
Now they have another in their series of tedious adverts which is set in a boring suburban scene where a group of women are looking at a collection of pebbles that one of the twee, idiot women has collected from every single one of her holidays. “Where’s this one from”, one women exclaims with interest.
“Oh, that’s from Greece.”
“And this one?”
“That’s from France”
“How about this one?”
That’s an air freshener.” and they fall about laughing at their mistake because it looks like a pebble, you see, and she mistakes it for a pebble in the collection. Ah, how we laughed.
The Volvic 14-day challenge urges participants to drink a litre and a half of bottled water a day. In this video diary style ad we are introduced to an annoying twat called Jimmy who is so amiable, enthusiastic and gullible. Jimmy is apt to saying stupid things like or “That’s a lot of water, but if it makes me feel better then I’ll give it a bash.” or “I’ve got five minutes off work and yeah I’m gonna have a cheeky Volvic.”
It would be good, if on day 14 of his Volvic challenge he ended up in intensive care with some cheeky water poisoning.
The idea of drinking 1.5 litres of bottled water to keep you hydrated is based on the amount of water that the body is supposed to lose each day and drinking 2 litres a day is much favoured by some supermodels. However, the idea is completely fallacious but the myth of drinking extra water persists despite experiments which disprove that additional drinking water has any benefit to your health or skin. Most people are well hydrated by the water in the food and drink in their diet so drinking bottled water this is completely unnecessary.
It must have been a great day in the office when advertisers persuaded people to buy bottled water at a more than 10,000 times the cost of tap water (source: Times Online) and we haven’t even got on to the environmental effect of making, transporting and disposal of the plastic bottles.