A commercial, without having to consult a dictionary, is typically something that attracts customers to a particular product. Right?
So you’d think.
What if you didn’t actually want to sell something, but you had to make a commercial for it? How would you advertise?
How about a happy couple, with their hair blowing in the wind, drinking Coca-Cola while driving down route 66 in a spiffy red sports car! With perfectly white smiles and glossy brunette hair.
I think not.
How about a spooky, dark commercial that looked like it was filmed on the moon? Without a human in sight? And a narrator that sounds like a creepy lady who’s been in suspended animation for a couple centuries?
The EV1 was an interesting saga. California passed a law about making zero-emissions vehicles a requisite for marketing in the state, and GM complied, resulting in the sale of the electric car. However, later on, the leased cars were recalled by GM. Some were crushed. Some were mysteriously abducted. Whatever happened, GM started taking back their pretty zippy little cars.
I’ve got a theory. My theory is that GM never really wanted to sell the EV1, even though it seemed to be a great little car. So they came up with these creeeeepy advertisements not designed to draw in customers, but to put them off.
Could such backwards reasoning be possible? Probably. Corporations can act strangely. Should this be an exception?
Does advertising always mean attraction?