The Chrysler Corporation has been around since 1925 and has
always been proudly headquartered in America. Walter Chrysler launched his
first car in 1924, the 6- cylinder automobile which was well engineered and
affordable for the everyday, working American. Later Chrysler introduced the
Plymouth and DeSoto brands at the low and medium price ranges respectfully.
Chrysler made radar antennas and missiles for the American army during World
War II.
This is the
commercial Chrysler aired during Super Bowl XLVI:
Chrysler chose Clint Eastwood to star in the commercial as a
symbol of American patriotism. Eastwood was born in 1930, served in the U.S Army
in the 1950’s and afterwards starred in over 60 movies. He became most popular
as an American western tough- guy. Clint Eastwood has been very involved in
politics becoming mayor of his home town, endorsing candidates and acting as spokesperson
for Take Pride in America. Clint Eastwood has been idolized by many as a true
American man and actor.
The commercial, titled “Half- Time in America”, coveys hope
about the economy using images of average working Americans and families. It
relays the message that we have made it through a rough half so we can get
motivated for the second half. Clint Eastwood acts like the coach for America
giving inspiration during halftime. We thought it was interesting that the
commercial didn’t really advertise any car or brand in particular. It wasn’t
directly stated until the very end that the commercial was for Chrysler brands.
The commercial also references the “second half fight” of the auto industries
after the major bail out in 2008.
Contrast the Chrysler commercial with a commercial made by
Honda. Honda is a Japanese corporation
with headquarters in Canada and California and a major rival of Chrysler. It also
produces cars that appeal the different economic classes. Honda made airplane
propellers for the Japanese military during World War II and became a major
manufacturer of motorcycles in the 1960’s.
Honda chose Matthew Broderick as the star or their
commercial. Broderick was born in 1962 and started his career on Broadway. He soon
became famous for his comedy roles with movies aimed at younger audiences. Many
of his roles, such as his character in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, portray a
charming, clever slacker who outwits the older generation. He even appealed to
children with his role as Simba in The Lion King.
This is the commercial Honda aired during Super Bowl XLVI:
Both companies chose to air these commercials during the
super bowl, one of the greatest American events on TV. This event has the
highest cost for commercials which was $3.5 million for 30 seconds in 2012. Chrysler
spent about approximately $12.5 million on its commercial. Honda spent approximately
$7 million. Chrysler took a more patriotic, serious route while Honda took a
more funny and entertaining route.
·
Which commercial appeals to you more: patriotism
or comedy?
·
What do you think about auto companies spending
millions of dollars on commercials after they had to be bailed out of debt?
Just for fun, here is the snl parody of “Halftime in
America”:
The Chrylser add may not of stated it during the commercial they were advertising their cars, but they were. They clearly show some of their most iconic cars, the challenger, wrangler, and ram as the cars the families and groups of people used. Personally though, the chrysler one was more appealing because of how it is a more emotion filled commercial. They use the superbowl as a great comparison for the economy of America.
ReplyDeleteHonda on the other hand just tried to make a funny commercial, we have enough of those, what we need as Americans are commercials that will inspire us to work harder to help improve not only our country, but the whole world.
Now the SNL parody I found very funny, thank you for including that. In many ways it to speaks truth, but it also trying to make it not so obvious by making it funny.
The first commercial was not appealing to the younger generation at all. I personally find it to be an epic fail on the Chrysler’s part because it puts the viewer to sleep before the commercial even reaches a minute. It was nice that Chrysler wanted to take a patriotic approach but the second commercial is more effective because it is captivating and humorous.
ReplyDeleteEvery person remembers faking sick as a child trying to convince their parents to let them stay home from school, so even though it is less patriotic the commercial still appeals to everyone. This beginning also makes a person reflect on their childhood and the actor doing this as an adult to his boss is rather immature but so entertaining. The viewer also begins to wonder what is going to happen next since the entire commercial is random. The unpredictability is part of what enhances the commercial though, it appeals to every person of any personality; taking trips from amusement parks to museums and even authenticity is used.
Millions were spent on both commercials and I find it to be a little ridiculous because of the bail out that just occurred but the companies have to advertise in order to sell the product so it is understandable that they would want to air on the half-time of the super-bowl because it is one of the most popular watched events in America every year. However, the first one spent more money for nothing because obviously the viewers did not even realize what was being advertised until after the commercial already lost their attention.
I did not find either commercial very captivating. I did not like the Matthew Broderick one mainly because it was completely unoriginal. They literally took the first 10 minutes from the movie with hardly any variation. The patriotism commercial seemed more like begging for business rather than trying to sell a product. They were not trying to say why there car was best, just making people guilty for not buying American cars. It was 98% a political statement and 2% a commercial when the name Chrysler flashed on the screen.
ReplyDeleteI do not have a problem with the amount of money spent on the commercial. I just have a problem that it was that much money for one single commercial. Advertisement is a critical part of business and with out it a company cannot survive. Therefore, money most be devoted to it. I do believe, however, that the money would have been used more efficiently if it had been used on several commercials instead of the one Superbowl commercial.
I definitely feel like the comedic ad appealed more to me. Perhaps this is only because I am younger, but I liked that ad much more than the other one. I can see why the Clint Eastwood ad would appeal to many people, it shows how America is entering a new chapter with not only our economy but our spirits about our future as a country as well. I personally thought that Clint's voice made the commercial a little creepy...but maybe that's just me. Both ads could apply to everyone in America. THe first ad obviously appealing to the inner patriot inside every American, the other to the light-hearted side. However, the second ad would appeal more to the younger generation of people who are watching the Super Bowl.
ReplyDeleteI would also like to agree with BA Barber...their comment about the Chrysler commercial being a completely political ad rather than an ad for the brand.
Before I read the question about whether or not we thought it was right for the auto industries to use bailout money for commercials, I was actually thinking about that when I was watching the two ads. I was thinking about it even more when your article mentioned how MUCH the ads actually cost! I don't think it's right to use taxpayer money, or more likely borrowed money that will only increase our national debt, for a tv ad. If the companies wanted an ad during the Super Bowl, couldn't they have found a way to get their message across in thirty seconds rather than two minutes? I don't think it's appropriate for our government to keep supporting industries that only take advantage of the funds that we provide for them.
ugh the above comment was from emily norris btw
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the Chrysler commercial was unclear as to what they were even advertising for. At first the commercial was interesting as it tied very well to the half time theme, but then I think the seriousness drug on too long and the product became unclear. I preferred the comedic advertisement, it held my attention better, and I had a better understanding that they were promoting Honda.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the comments above that those companies should not be spending this much money after they were recently bailed out. And if they really need the advertisement, the commercials could be shorter or aired at a time not during the Superbowl. To me, it seems the companies who are bailed out should not be able to afford the most expensive commercials in TV entirely.
I think myself as a very patriotic person, but the first Chrysler commercial is not appealing at all. They used Clint Eastwood a popular person that may attract an audience. However, I thought his voice was very mono toned and the commercial was not entertained. I also thought it was interesting that not only was there not a specific car they were trying to advertise, but I didn't think it was advertising the company as much as it could. This ad campaign seemed to be very mellow with black and white pictures and nothing really grabbing the audiences attention. The Honda CRV on the other hand, was a fun, entertaining commercial, especially for those who have seen Ferris Bueller's Day Off. I think that grabbing the audiences attention is more important because whether or not they want to buy a car or not, they are at least intrigued in the commercial and will get something out of it. The first commercial made me not want to finish watching the entire commercial, therefore if I were one to buy a car I wouldn't necessarily be interesting in Chrysler.
ReplyDeleteThis brings me to the question on how I feel about the amount of money spent on commercials. No matter what the commercial is about, I think it is ridiculous the amount of money that is put in to advertisements. I especially think it is strange that a company that just bailed out is spending so much money on a commercial. I guess they are doing this to advertise so they can in the long run get more money. What is the average amount companies spend on advertising, in comparison to how much money they are bringing in?
The first commercial was overly serious and definitely failed to reach a wider audience. The idea of being a Chrysler commercial got completely lost in all of the extra stuff that was being talked about. Yes, it was indeed very "patriotic" and symbolized that Chrysler was still to this day an American car brand. However, car competition is very noticeable.
ReplyDeleteThe Honda commercial was portraying one of Broderick's funnier movies which was "Ferris Bueller's Day Off." Comedy reaches a crowd of a wider age group than does that of American patriotism because humor is universal. Everyone likes a good laugh. Younger people do not exactly care too much about politics and their American background as they would about what things on television are humorous.
The final point deals with the absurd amount of money spent on these commercials for just a simple thirty second slot to be aired. Personally, I think it was a waste of money. America's economy is already struggling and the fact that a company who was recently in debt decided to spend that amount on a simple auto commercial goes to show that money management is still an issue in today's world. Money should go more towards the advancement of the company rather than a single ad.
I definitely think the Honda commercial was way more appealing to almost all ethnicities and generations. It was comical and down-to-earth whereas the Chrysler commercial was more serious and patriotic. The only people who would be more appealed to the Chrysler commercial would probably be the older generation, especially the generation who were fans of Clint Eastwood in his prime time.
ReplyDeleteFor me, based on these two commercials, I would absolutely choose to buy the Honda because its commercial was way more informative about the car itself and because of its comical attitude. The Chrysler commercial provided little to no information about the product it was actually selling. Nowadays, Americans have a very short attention span so the best commercial is one that is fast paced and holds our attention for the entire length of the commercial. My attention, as well as many other people's I'm sure, was not grabbed for the entire Chrysler commercial.
Based on the millions of dollars spent, it's definitely understandable why the company's chose to do it. The Superbowl is pretty much known for its commercials, and because of this, people who watch are especially appealed and interested by the advertisements. I can definitely understand why Honda chose to air this commercial during the Superbowl and spend the money on it, considering it's comical and informative appeal.b If I were the president of Chryser, I would absolutely not have spent the money to air that commercial during the biggest television event on the year.
Lindsay Ecclestone
For me, there's nothing I like more during the Super Bowl than laughing at the funny commercials, but when I originally saw the Crysler commercial, I was taken aback. This commercial truly embodies the American spirit. And sure, if you're looking for something to make you laugh during the half-time that seems to take way too long, then the Crysler commercial is not for you. All of the struggles that the United States has gone through financially, in roughly the past five years, has been something that many Americans living today have never experienced in their life. Financial prosperity was prevalant after the second World War and continued well into the late 90's and early 2000's. This commercial was more than an advertisement for a brand. It was a message to show that although we hit a little bump in the road, the journey isn't even close to being over. In a sense though, this commercial is advertising the type of vehicles that Crysler makes: strong and resilient. People need something to rely on in times of hardships. With that, we find ourselves relying on the basics: food, shelter, others, and a way to get ourselves to all three of those. Crysler shows that we will not back down as a nation.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the issue of money, I could see why people would be upset. But, companies need to spend money to make money. An advertisement like those of Crysler and Honda generated a lot of media attention for their content, but mostly for their length. When people hear about these commercials (if they for some reason weren't watching the greatest day in sports) they will most likely look them up. All it takes is for someone to research your product before they start imagining themselves using it. From the outside, I will agree that spending so much money looks dumb. But, in the long run I believe it will make up for itself and more with the increased sales from the massive amount of exposure to the company.
To me, the comedic commercial appeals more to me. I can relate to it better and I feel like other people can to. The Honda commercial was a lot more fun, making me gravitate towards it.The commercial continually showed the car and playing off of "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" made it familiar and friendly. The Chrysler commercial on the other hand was very serious and aimed towards patriotism. While that is a good idea, I feel like a majority of people can relate and tend to gravitate towards funnier, more friendly feeling commercials. Like previous posts, I also think that the Honda commercial was more informative about their product. The Chrysler commercial seemed to almost not sell anything besides the idea of patriotism.
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of spending millions of dollars on commercials, I think it's very important, if not necessary. Even though they are spending enormous amounts of money, it is important for the companies to advertise and continue to get their name out. This is important so the companies can regain the public's trust and make them want to buy cars again. I think this may be what the Chrysler commercial was aiming at-trying to make America see they were still on their side. I feel that Honda however took a better approach because even in hard times, people want more than anything to have fun rather than to be reminded of the tough times that they have been going through.
The Eastwood commercial definately did not appeal to me very much. Sure the first commercial was patriotic and very moving, but it was way to serious. If your going to have a two minute commercial you should probably keep the viewers attention, instead of boring them with random details that are thrown in their face. You almoost forget what the commercial is even about.
ReplyDeleteThe second commercial however was upbeat and fairly commical. The way the encorporated Broderick's feature film Ferris Beuler's Day Off was very clever and worked well in their favor. It kept my attention throughout, and most of the commercial actually showed what the Honda vehicle had to offer, not just random details.
Honestly when it comes to them spending so much money on their commercials I could care less. Both commercials were made for the Super Bowl and it's expected for the commercials to be really good. So if they have to spend so much money to get their company's name out there it's alright with me. It's only advertising, which is neccessary for the companies to get back on the map with auto sales. With all else said I'm definatley on team Broderick.
I felt that both of these commercials did not attract the right viewers to buy their products. The first commercial wasn't really about selling products, it was more of political state, as said in previous comments. It had this patriotic message to it and the comparison to the Super bowl was creative I guess, but it completely missed the point of what an advertisement actually is!
ReplyDeleteThe second commercial was humorous and had my attention the entire time, but it felt more like I was watching a movie then a commercial for Honda. I felt like it missed the target audience by a long shot. The audience this commercial is attracting are people who are more likely to not be able to pay their car loans or the people who have seen Ferris Buller (I have seen this movie).
The advertisements were meant to sell cars. They the point of ads and it cost them a good amount of money. The money spent on these advertisements are ridiculous. If the company has spent half of that money on improving their car production, and then focused on advertising the companies would have sold more cars.
I choose to be on neither team because I felt the commercials weren't meant for someone like myself and because I do not believe the ads were effect in influencing me to buy their cars.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlex Weber
ReplyDeleteIf I could buy a car right now, and I only had these 2 ads to pick form, I would buy a Chrysler. While yes the underlying theme of the add is to sell cars, but also its selling america, and what we can do. Have we had our ass kicked by this economy? Yes, that's a fact we all know. But after watching that ad, I feel like we can get up and kick its ass. Everyone has some attachment to this land, and that add goes after it. It try's to say that we can and will get through this, we have before, and the best way to help us all get though this is to get a Chrysler. I would disagree with the people above saying that the ad is not captivating, it draws you in, makes you reflect on what has happened over the years. Then it changes tone, saying that we can get through this and we will. And with regard to them spending 12.5 million on the ad, i'm assuming they indirectly were able to cover that with how much they made by selling cars. Its not that much money to a company like Chrysler.
Chrysler's commercial was more appealing in my opinion. They took advantage of the one thing all Americans love, America. We are obviously going through a tough economic time right now, and Chrysler took advantage of this. All of America was affected in someway by the depression. I don't think it matters that the commercial didn't talk much about their product. They talked about Detroit, and everyone knows that it's the motor city so, the connection to cars in automatically made. I think the point of the commercial is to show that Chrysler is just like you; they are not a "big business," and they are pulling together. This is also a reference to the American dream, and the idea that America is the place where anyone can do anything. Also, the time of the wild west, manifest destiny, and the cowboy was the time of this American dream idea, so choosing Clint Eastwood as the narrator is an other tool to get you to tap into your American pride. thought makes the company as a whole more appealing. I really did not care for the Honda commercial. I didn't think it was funny, and it was way too long. The commercial was meant to show you that you can have a blast in a Honda, and that is it okay to take a day off.
ReplyDeleteI think the commercial of Chrysler was better than that of Honda. It was very impressive. Chrysler did not attempt to advertise its product or brand explicitly. After seeing the last scene, you can notice that it is for Chrysler. However, by comparing with the situation of America, Chrysler is shown as a representative company in America. Chrysler was founded in the United States but Hodan was from Japan. The commercial of Honda was just humorous and funny but Chrysler tried to represent it as America. This difference made me be attracted to Chrysler much more.
ReplyDeleteAnd the commercial was shown in the Super Bowl. Super Bowl also represents America. Almost every American watches Super Bowl. I think Chrysler uses this condition very well. Chrysler can give the message Chrysler consists of America by showing the commercial during the Super Bowl.
I enjoyed the comical commercial more but would still go with the Chrysler commercial because it is an American car and were not in the greatest economical situation right now. Also, I believe that even though Honda is a Japanese company it still aims at the American people. They use Matthew Broderick who was in the famous American Movie Ferris Buelers Day Off. This movie was huge in the 80's so Japanese designers probably wanted to aim for people in that age group. Also, the commercial had a small part where Bueler drives through Asia town and then sings on the float. This exact scene happened in the movie and was probably one of the best parts. I think the director was trying to associate Asia with fun.
ReplyDeleteI think that having good commercials is necessary because thats where most of todays advertisements go.