Had to laugh when I saw an ad for Land Rover while reading the Philadelphia Business Journal today.
Here is the advertisement's headline:
"75% of all the vehicles we've ever sold in this country are still on the road"
Alright, well that's relatively benign.
Subhead:
"Now that's a long-term investment."
Ok, I just bought a new car this week (full disclosure: NOT a Land Rover), and the minute I drove off the lot I literally chuckled to myself and said, "well I just lost 20% of my money in a matter of seconds." It's sad but true.
It is common knowledge that cars lose a huge percentage-- generally considered to be about 30% of their value-- in depreciation during the first year after purchase. So why would an advertiser try to pull the wool over our eyes and say that buying a Land Rover is "an investment?"
An investment, lest we forget, is supposed to be something that makes you money over time, not loses money. Cars are inherently not an investment. They get beat up and lose their luster compared to newer vehicles, thus they are not worth as much as when you buy them new.
Sorry Land Rover, you're not fooling anyone. Or at least you're not fooling 75% of us, but I guess somebody out there is buying your message.
Showing posts with label advertisers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label advertisers. Show all posts
Friday, June 19, 2009
Friday, January 9, 2009
Hungry for an Answer
I just had the honor and privilege to see one of those commercials advertising dirt cheap artwork for sale produced by the ever-enticing "starving artist" community.
This is perhaps the lowest form of American consumerism ever.
Everybody knows that these "paintings" are done on an assembly line and cost next nothing to make. They're not originals, nor are there any artists even remotely near the painting at the time of production, starving or not. And everybody knows that these paintings look like crap (the proof is right there on the commercial). I'm no art snob, but these framed monsterpieces entice no emotions or mental interest like a true work of are would.
Yet somehow the people selling these things are making money... or if they aren't they sure don't mind wasting it.
So I just have to throw it out there to the world: why in the name of Vincent van Gogh would anybody buy these pathetic things?
This is perhaps the lowest form of American consumerism ever.
Everybody knows that these "paintings" are done on an assembly line and cost next nothing to make. They're not originals, nor are there any artists even remotely near the painting at the time of production, starving or not. And everybody knows that these paintings look like crap (the proof is right there on the commercial). I'm no art snob, but these framed monsterpieces entice no emotions or mental interest like a true work of are would.
Yet somehow the people selling these things are making money... or if they aren't they sure don't mind wasting it.
So I just have to throw it out there to the world: why in the name of Vincent van Gogh would anybody buy these pathetic things?
Friday, November 24, 2006
Click to Donate
In just a couple of clicks everyday, you can do your part in donating to phenomenal causes, courtesy of advertisers. It takes less than 30 seconds and costs you nada!
Check out The Hunger Site now!
Check out The Hunger Site now!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
