Slashdot Mirror


10 Ads The US Won't See

prostoalex writes "Some ads made by world's leading advertising agencies for well-known brands will never be seen in the United States. The Gucci G-Spot turned out to be too risque, video for Drug-Free America was deemed too disgusting, Internet's favorite Honda "Cog" commercial won't air due to the high prices for a 2-minute spot, and Japanese commercials with American actors have contracts preventing the companies to run the same ads in the US. AdAge provides a link to the pictures and video (Windows Media .ASF format, alas) of the 10 best unaired commercials." I can get the ASFs working under VLC.

7 of 536 comments (clear)

  1. What about ads you can only see here? by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm more interested in the ads that won't be shown in other countries because they are too "racy", "religiously offensive", etc. It's always fascinating to see how another culture rules out elements that we think are normal. The other way around is not so surprising, since we all watch the TV here all the time, and we know what shows and what doesn't on our own tv's.

    Ultimately, I must agree that the "best" commercial is no commercial at all.

    --
    stuff |
    1. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by Fizzog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually nowdays in the US marketers are more into psychology than direct comparison. They phrase their ads so people read something into their statements which they aren't actually saying.

      They make statements like:

      'No other xxx is more effective'
      'No other xxx is stronger'
      'No other xxx is better at...'
      'Even xxx isn't better than...'

      But if you actually think about what they are saying with those statements, they are not saying that their own product is better than any other product.

      They are actually saying that they are *all* just as effective/strong/whatever as each other.

      People just read into statements phrased that way that they are saying their product is better than the others.

      Listen to how they compare stuff these days in ads and you will see what I mean, and probably be astonished at how many ads do this.

    2. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by tie_guy_matt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      America is the most religous country in the industrialized world based on the number of churches versus population and the number of people that attend them. I am sure that MOST people in the US would probably be ok with racier TV (see cable and movies) but when someone does something that is even a little over the top the religous right comes out and mails a gazillion letters.

      Keep in mind that many of the people that originally came to this country did it to escape religious persecution. So in other words many of the worlds religious nuts came to this country and are now sending letters in to fox because they said the word "ass" one too many times. Well things are changing alittle. I think it is actually ok to say "ass" on tv and in fact fox is thinking of changing their slogan so it has the word "ass" in it. So basically the US is 20-30 years (at least) behind the rest of the world when it comes to putting sex on TV.

      What I don't understand is that I believe that we are 10-20 years ahead of the rest of the world when it comes to putting violence on TV and movies.

      enter rant mode:

      I mean WTF? It is ok to have a movie where millions of people have their cuts spewed out of them in violent death scenes but god forbid if anyone could use the media to figure out where babies come from. Many years ago I saw in the video store that they made a PG version of the movie titanic. What made it PG? Did thousands of people not get sent to their horrifying death? No mostly they just took out the sex scenes. I mean no one should know that Kate Winslet is acutally anatomically correct. And another thing, why the hell do they put brail instruction on drive through ATMs? ... oops went to far better stop now ...

      rant mode off

    3. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by szmccauley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You want annoying? How about those ridiculous ads for prescription drugs, whose purpose is unknown at the time of the viewing. "Ask your doctor about Xanthanaxamum". And the idiot sitting in his pickup truck (can't see the gun rack) nods his head and thinks, "yeah, I gotta ask ole doc Carson about Xanthanaxamum". What the fuck is Xanthanaxamum!! Idiocy.

  2. Ads will HAVE to become better very soon by GuyMannDude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    don't welcome any new ads. The only good ad is the blocked/skipped ad.

    Yeah, but I hate to break it to you: you're not the majority. How many non-football fans watch the SuperBowl each year because of the commericials? A lot. That's because it's the one time of the year that you can be guaranteed that advertisers are honestly trying to catch your attention. So much of the other advertisements are bland and uninteresting. They're just not trying.

    I think as technologies like TiVo start to take off there is going to be more and more pressure placed on adverising companies to come up with innovative ads that people won't mind sitting through. The real pickle for these companies is constantly coming up with new ads that are entertaining and push the limits and still not offensive to the majority of the American public. When I was younger I often wondered why ads suck so much. Surely there are tons of witty people who could write clever ads! Why aren't they being given the chance? Well, as I grew older I started to realize that a lot of humor is actually borderline offensive to a lot of people. Or they're simply too slow to 'get' the joke. Humor is, of course, the cheapest way to construct an interesting commerical. Other ways include novel imagery but this takes more talent and, arguably, more money.

    Anyhow, I'm thinking that in the next 5 years we're going to see an improvement in the quality of advertisements to the point that they start to become entertainment in their own right. If companies do not do this, their ads are simply going to get blocked/skipped by an increasingly dissatisfied viewing public.

    GMD

  3. Re:Shit nuggets taste better than testicles?! by RatBastard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My grandmother got married a month before she graduated from highschool and had to keep it a secret or they would hav expelled her because she might corrupt the other girls. Whatever. To this day we segregate girls who get pregnant in highschool like they had some sort of communicable disease. And we still get our panties in a twist because the someone might want to marry someone who has the same genetals as them.

    The USA is incredably sexually screwed up.

    --
    Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
  4. I beg to differ by Guppy06 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Ads will HAVE to become better very soon"

    Apparently you missed some of the finer points of this bit here. Why make better commercials when you can redefine the medium to require viewing of commercials? Think "Disney DVD."

    We already have the "broadcast bit" in our flavor of ATSC now, what's to stop some new standard including a "no channel surfing bit?" It would allow broadcasters to charge even more to advertisers, which they would then argue would enable more/better shows. Why wouldn't Congress let this happen?