Join 3,374 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


A Sticky Situation
April 20, 2012 8:52 AM   Subscribe

Jaguar's real ad agency punks Don Draper. It's a (spoiler alert) sticky situation that Carrot Creative takes advantage of. This harkens back to other displays of advertising infighting that Mad Men portrays.
posted by Cool Papa Bell (48 comments total) 10 users marked this as a favorite

 
Way to piggyback other people's work, unrelated creative guys!
posted by Capt. Renault at 9:01 AM on April 20, 2012


I just assumed that the role of Jaguar in the storyline was product placement. Apparently not.
posted by Dr. Zira at 9:07 AM on April 20, 2012 [1 favorite]


When you think of Jaguar motorcars, you think of paying for sex with a stranger.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:10 AM on April 20, 2012 [8 favorites]


Way to piggyback other people's work

Other people's work? Who do you think arranged the product (brand name) placement in the first place?
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 9:10 AM on April 20, 2012 [1 favorite]


"Jaguar — For men who'd like hand-jobs from beautiful women they hardly know."
posted by elizardbits at 9:17 AM on April 20, 2012 [8 favorites]


Is there a version of this letter online somewhere that's actually intended to be readable by people over 30?

I mean, I know the whole ghost-grey text and Adult Swim microfont thing is very hip nowadays, but some of us would actually like to be in on the joke without having to whip out the magnifying glass or "zoom" the view a dozen times.

/angry middle aged man rant
posted by darkstar at 9:17 AM on April 20, 2012 [3 favorites]


Not Carrot Creative. They do social media for Jaguar. Spark44 is Jaguar's dedicated ad agency. If I were Jaguar, I'd be a little miffed that they were using this to draw attention away from the brand to themselves.
posted by the jam at 9:19 AM on April 20, 2012 [3 favorites]


Ice.


(That's how you get it out. Also works with getting gum out of clothes.)
posted by Skygazer at 9:22 AM on April 20, 2012 [1 favorite]


Besides, gum in the pubes is really only a device to lend authenticity to the show's period piece conceit. These days, everyone is fresh from the waxer and doesn't have enough pubic hair for it to be a problem.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:24 AM on April 20, 2012


If I were Jaguar, I'd be a little miffed that they were using this to draw attention away from the brand to themselves.

You've got the world thinking Jaguar and seeing the E-type. While, as a car, the only descriptions I can give for an E-Type aren't exactly flattering, as an object to look at, wow.

So, you've got people hearing Jaguar, seeing an E-Type, and then maybe going to look at the current line, which aren't that bad looking at all, now that Jag has killed the Ford Mondeo X-Type.

So, I think Jaguar isn't going to be too upset by this. Indeed, if they were smart, they'd play along with it.

posted by eriko at 9:33 AM on April 20, 2012


I don't know what I'm supposed to take away from this other than that someone at Carrot Media watches Mad Men.
posted by usonian at 9:34 AM on April 20, 2012 [5 favorites]


Jaguar British Racing Pepsi Blue
posted by punkfloyd at 9:36 AM on April 20, 2012 [1 favorite]


When you think of Jaguar motorcars, you think of paying for sex with a stranger.

Well sort of. When I think of Jaguar motorcars, I think of getting screwed by an expensive mechanic.
posted by charlie don't surf at 9:36 AM on April 20, 2012 [8 favorites]


(That's how you get it out. Also works with getting gum out of clothes.)

Years and years ago my then-teenage then-girlfriend sat in some gum, which was very upsetting for her, because she was one of those Victorian-gothy types who tended to wear clothing that had once belonged to some distant relative in the even-more-distant past. She figured that her mother (who was and is the epitome of the icy British matriarch stereotype) might be able to help her restore her newly gum-soiled skirt.

Her mother heard her request, rolled her eyes and promptly replied, “Let’s go to the kitchen. I’ll show you how to get it out, and we never tell your father about this.”

My girlfriend took a moment puzzling out what her mother had said, and then promptly shrieked, “MOM! I said ‘GUM’!”
posted by Parasite Unseen at 9:40 AM on April 20, 2012 [32 favorites]


Yeah, the bubble gum thing was weird. What kind of a crappy joint would allow one of their workers to leave gum there? Very unprofessional for supposed professionals. But the boxing match that resulted thereof is one of Mad Men's finest moments ever.
posted by jabberjaw at 9:43 AM on April 20, 2012 [2 favorites]


I don't know what I'm supposed to take away from this other than that someone at Carrot Media watches Mad Men.

And has no concept of the use of white space for readability.

Jebus, what a horrible, unreadable block of text that was.

So not worth the effort.
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:44 AM on April 20, 2012 [2 favorites]


The best thing about Mad Men (and there are a lot of best things, it is ma favorite show on TV right now) is that it exists in the world of real products. Think how terrible it would be if it was filled with those cheesy fake products 80s and early 90s shows used "Cougar Racecars!" and "Poopsi Cola" or whatever.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 9:44 AM on April 20, 2012 [2 favorites]


And has no concept of the use of white space for readability.

And doesn't use spellcheck.
posted by hydrophonic at 9:48 AM on April 20, 2012


This is like something out of one of Dave Algonquin's weirder short stories from the late 60s.
posted by drezdn at 9:48 AM on April 20, 2012 [15 favorites]


Funny you should say that...
posted by Potomac Avenue at 9:49 AM on April 20, 2012 [2 favorites]


Jaguar is owned by Tata now. Dunno how complicated that makes the "British" aspect.

I know the whole ghost-grey text and Adult Swim microfont thing is very hip nowadays

Someone please tell gmail to bring the 'revert back immediately' button ... I haven't been able to use email since yesterday because I'm over 45 and I cannot *&^&%^% see.
posted by infini at 10:08 AM on April 20, 2012 [2 favorites]


Spoiler! Cock-punch for you!
posted by Jeremy at 10:10 AM on April 20, 2012


Carrot Creative needs a rival agency named Stick S.A. just so that trade magazines can have headlines like Yoyodyne Chooses Carrot Over Stick.
posted by Rhomboid at 10:20 AM on April 20, 2012 [2 favorites]


The best thing about Mad Men (and there are a lot of best things, it is ma favorite show on TV right now) is that it exists in the world of real products. Think how terrible it would be if it was filled with those cheesy fake products 80s and early 90s shows used "Cougar Racecars!" and "Poopsi Cola" or whatever.

One can only assume that the companies getting in-show exposure from that would agree. I wonder if they have to pay for it.
posted by clockzero at 10:29 AM on April 20, 2012


Poopsi Blue?
posted by joe lisboa at 10:32 AM on April 20, 2012


Isn't she in that political trip by Trudeau?
posted by infini at 10:41 AM on April 20, 2012


I can't for the life of me figure out what this is actually about, but god damn if the E-Type isn't one of the most beautiful things ever made. It's a shame they never really worked properly, or you'd see more of them still around. Did you know there are companies that will take your vintage E-Type, take it apart, replace a bunch of parts, and then put it back together into a car that actually works? That is pretty much my ideal car right there.
posted by Scientist at 11:05 AM on April 20, 2012


Jaguar — For men who'd like hand-jobs from beautiful women they hardly know.

The difference between a Lexus and a Jaguar lies in "hardly know" being true both now and in the future.

Also reliability and depreciation.

Of the car, not the handjob.

posted by zippy at 12:18 PM on April 20, 2012


One can only assume that the companies getting in-show exposure from that would agree. I wonder if they have to pay for it.

If so, that just makes it better. The history of television is full of selling products within and around original content. Mad Men reflects on that by engaging it by reflecting on it. Venal marketing strategy masquerading as introspective expose of venal marketing strategies with a main character who is himself a venal marketing strategy whose core is possibly a scared sensitive poet unless that itself is part of the venal marketing strategy. It's brilliant. Pack your bags.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 12:40 PM on April 20, 2012


oh god how did I not see this before, the cast and crew of Mad Men singing Bye Bye Birdie
posted by The Whelk at 12:46 PM on April 20, 2012 [2 favorites]


oh god how did I not see this before, the cast and crew of Mad Men singing Bye Bye Birdie
posted by The Whelk


It reminded me of (a bad version) of 500 Miles
posted by ShawnString at 12:52 PM on April 20, 2012


Jag E-Types were plenty reliable for their time.

Of course, back then that meant re-jetting your carburetors if you moved to a different altitude, adjusting you ignition every 6 months, replacing fuel filters every 12 months, and belts and hoses every 24, if they hadn't broken or blown by then.

Yes, even the 1974 Toyota Corona Wagon required such tender care and feeding, when the E-Type was 13 years old.
posted by dglynn at 1:10 PM on April 20, 2012


Cars really kind of sucked back then.
posted by Burhanistan at 1:22 PM on April 20, 2012


Except for Volkswagens.
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:00 PM on April 20, 2012 [1 favorite]


Cars really kind of sucked back then.

You're kidding, right?
posted by charlie don't surf at 2:23 PM on April 20, 2012 [1 favorite]


Oh they were certainly pretty, charlie don't surf, but have you ever actually driven one or owned one? That Mustang and Charger had unbelievably vague recirculating ball steering, squishy-yet-bouncy-and-somehow-also-harsh suspension, and that Ferrari would leave you stranded on the side of the road if you so much as looked at it funny with its delicate fuelling and high compression.

As objets d'art? First-rate. As functional tools for conveyance? "Suck" is being too kind.
posted by TheNewWazoo at 5:16 PM on April 20, 2012


I just can't believe it, 66 was an amazing year for cars. Yeah, I drove a 66 GT350, I almost bought one, back when they were still affordable. But the owner messed it up a bad repaint job, the fool, and I didn't want to start out with setting it to rights. I almost put in the Coronet 500 Hemi instead of the Charger, but it looks too sedate. My best friend in high school owned a Coronet Hemi, tuned by a famous local Hemi racer. My friend's Coronet was the fastest street-legal car in town, it is possibly the most awesome vehicle I ever drove. But I preferred my 65 Mustang GT convertible, which I once drove across Kansas at a sustained 135mph for over an hour.

66 was full of legendary cars, one of the greatest years ever. One of my favorites is the Chrysler 300 Hemi convertible And the muscle cars, Camaro, GTO, Corvette, Cobra, etc. And then there is the Jaguar XKE that started this topic. I could go on and on. People have paid millions of dollars for cars like this. But then there are low end cars too, like the 67 Dart GT I bought for $450, it had a slant 6 with a TorqueFlite, that car was indefuckingstructable and it was quite zippy due to its light weight. It was one of the best, cheapest cars I ever owned. I was also rather partial to my $700 65 Cuda which I abused terribly and it just kept going, I even used it to tow a 3000lb U-Haul trailer over the Continental Divide.

None of these cars is as high tech, low maintenance, or as easy to drive as a modern Toyota Corolla, but they are far more satisfying. Some of them didn't even have power steering and seat belts were optional equipment. Driving them required a firm grip on the wheel, a lead foot, and some grease under your fingernails. They don't make cars like that anymore. And judging by you, apparently they don't make drivers like that anymore.
posted by charlie don't surf at 6:14 PM on April 20, 2012


Well, that was good up until the last sentence anyway. Way to piss on your feet.
posted by Burhanistan at 6:17 PM on April 20, 2012


They required a firm grip on the wheel because if you tried to use any finesse, the front end wouldn't actually do anything. They required a lead foot because back then cars didn't make any actual power, or worse, they did but only at WOT due to the huge carbs they needed, leaving them lumpy at part-throttle. And the grease under the fingernails? Yeah, well, I prefer my vehicles reliable, which after all was kind of my point. Ever done the valves on a 60s air-cooled Porsche? Not fun. And that's basically the cost of entry if you want anything approaching refinement in the '60s: endless, tedious, costly maintenance. Lots of things would go fast and make a fun noise in a straight line from time to time, but I guess I'm harder to impress.

Sure there are exceptions. The AC Cobra is a great one; The Lotus Seven is another. But they're the exceptions that prove the rule. Nostalgia is a powerful force, but then I guess I'll have to wait to get my "real driver" credentials until after I sell my 914 and WRX. Apparently they come from the same place that will send me my "real rider" certificate after I sell my sportbike and buy a Harley. I suspect it's going to be a long wait.
posted by TheNewWazoo at 9:02 PM on April 20, 2012 [2 favorites]


As objets d'art? First-rate. As functional tools for conveyance? "Suck" is being too kind.

My 1966 Beetle, who is certainly an objet d'art & nearing her 50th birthday, without a cent spent in the last decade on replacement of planned-obseolescent parts would beg to differ.

You'd be hard pressed to find a more functional tool for conveyance.
posted by UbuRoivas at 1:58 AM on April 21, 2012


My 1966 Beetle, who is certainly an objet d'art & nearing her 50th birthday,

I'll thank you not to mention that number yet, as another objet d'art
posted by infini at 2:05 AM on April 21, 2012


Having driven the 66 era Beetles, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a vehicle that drives as badly. Its steering has too much play and the engine is underpowered. If you're in traffic with other vehicles, you're a menace to yourself and others. The scariest thing I ever did while driving was try to merge onto a freeway in a Beetle.

But at least that vehicle has one notable feature that modern cars do not. When you are at the wheel, you are intimately connected to the vehicle and its performance on the road. You have to drive it. You have to know how much power it has and how it performs, and that will determine how you drive it. As you drive, you feel the performance, and that feeds back into your driving.

I'll give you an example. I owned more than a few early Mustangs, especially convertibles. One notable feature of my 65 GT convertible was that the removal of the metal roof reduced the body's stiffness so much that Ford put a reinforcing plate under the body to compensate. Without it, the car would have been undrivable. And even then, driving a convertible was a noticeably different experience than the hardtop. Even with the reinforcements, the car was so light and flexible that with the high compression 289, it was extremely agile.

Now let's fast forward to last year. I was driving my 95 Camry XLE, which is widely regarded as one of the great cars of modern times, it's basically the same as a Lexus ES 300. It was a great daily driver, just as an example I never checked the oil dipstick ever, I merely changed the oil every couple of years. So one day I'm driving into town, there's a particularly dangerous curve on the 4 lane road with a stop light where people turn left in front of oncoming traffic they can't see coming over a hill. Some stupid old lady in a minivan makes a left turn in front of me. She sees me coming too late and guns it, but doesn't clear the intersection. I can't merge into the left lane to avoid her, there's a car too close to my tail. I slammed on the brakes but I just tagged the rear corner of her car, pow, my Camry blows the air bags and it is totaled.

Now in recollection, I remember getting into almost exactly the same accident at that spot, under almost exactly the same conditions, almost 35 years earlier in my Mustang GT. But in that car, I had enough power to speed up towards the oncoming car, clear the car in the left lane, and merge left, just barely avoiding the collision. It was risky as shit but I was able to power my way out, and the great steering in the Mustang enabled me to escape. Of course if it hadn't worked, I'd probably have been killed, since there were no air bags and no shoulder belts in that car. You know what they said about cars in those days, if you crashed the car, just hose it out and sell it to the next guy. That's how I got my GT, it was wrecked and I restored it.

But the point is, in the Mustang I could drive my way out of the accident. In the Camry, all I could do was jam on the ABS brakes while I passively skidded into the collision. And that is the difference between modern "convenient" cars and the cars of the 60s. Modern cars are like making love fully clothed and wearing mittens. Sure you'll get there, but it puts enough insulation between you and the experience to make it noticeably less satisfying.
posted by charlie don't surf at 9:50 AM on April 21, 2012


Its steering has too much play and the engine is underpowered.

Not sure if 'play' is the exact term you're looking for here, but the steering is indeed light & bouncy; almost like having power steering on a non-power-steered car. This is an effect of a rear engine in a car that's very light overall. The general handling can be modified easily with aftermarket suspension components; a camber stop bar on the rear is a must for avoiding rear wheel tucks & will do a lot towards stiffening up the suspension & making the handling more precise.

As for the engine, it's almost de rigeur to bore it out from 1300cc to 1640cc, and the more freely it can breathe through carburettion & exhaust the more power you'll get - these were deliberately restricted by design, to reduce the likelihood of people overheating their (air cooled) engines by gunning them too much. Still, the 1640 version doesn't set any acceleration records, even against the shittiest modern car, which brings us to your excellent description:

But at least that vehicle has one notable feature that modern cars do not. When you are at the wheel, you are intimately connected to the vehicle and its performance on the road. You have to drive it. You have to know how much power it has and how it performs, and that will determine how you drive it. As you drive, you feel the performance, and that feeds back into your driving.


This is absolutely true, and it frightens me just how detached you are from the driving experience in any modern car. The lack of feedback from the road & from the car itself makes driving deceptively smooth & almost abstract, which is a recipe for disaster if combined with an overly powerful engine. If you drive a car that gives you direct & non-ignorable feedback that 60MPH is very different to 35MPH, you shouldn't find yourself in a situation where you have to "accelerate out of an accident" because you're travelling too fast to be able to brake in time.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:30 PM on April 21, 2012


If you drive a car that gives you direct & non-ignorable feedback that 60MPH is very different to 35MPH, you shouldn't find yourself in a situation where you have to "accelerate out of an accident" because you're travelling too fast to be able to brake in time.

I'm not convinced this is true. There are always fatal errors some other driver makes (like suddenly turning left in front of you from the opposite direction) that you cannot anticipate and cannot avoid. And that is what terrifies me most about driving: other drivers. Modern cars are too easy for idiots to drive into an error. Some of those errors can be powered out of more easily than they can be braked out of, for both the driver making the error and the other drivers trying to avoid their error. For example, if the old lady's minivan had more power, she might have cleared the intersection faster and I would have missed her. As it was, she only failed by 2 feet.
posted by charlie don't surf at 4:12 PM on April 21, 2012


While that may be true, and while I don't disagree, I feel there's a bit of a fallacy of misleading vividness going on there. Although it may be possible to describe situations in which accelerating out of danger may be necessary, that doesn't make them more likely to happen.

One of the reasons I used to ride a motorbike in preference to a scooter, for example, was the commonly heard rationale that on a bike you have more power to accelerate out of danger. In reality, I can't remember a single time in 4-5 years of getting around on the bike that I ever had to do this.

Far more important was maintaining awareness, riding to the conditions, and always remembering that just because you can go a certain speed, it doesn't mean you should. Using a vehicle that restricts your ability to go excessively fast goes a long way towards helping you to drive sensibly.

Getting back (tenuously) to the advertising topic, here are some of the lovely 1960s VW advertisements.
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:55 PM on April 21, 2012


LOL
posted by charlie don't surf at 6:56 PM on April 21, 2012 [1 favorite]


How could Volkswagen sell Hitler’s favorite car to the American people only a decade and a half after World War II? This was the question asked of the advertising agency Doyle Dane Bernbach in 1960. In order for them to solve this problem, they would have to find a new way to advertise their products. The now revered “Lemon” ad for the Beetle was their answer to this considerable task, which would revolutionize the advertising industry. DDB introduced the Beetle with this dynamic ad that seemed effortless, yet possessed a revolutionary approach to marketing.
posted by UbuRoivas at 10:15 PM on April 21, 2012 [1 favorite]


"I don't know what I hate about it the most, the ad or the car."

Bill Bernbach on Advertising, 1977. Part 1 - Part 2

I hope you saw the episode of Mad Men when Peggy is screening portfolios of job applicants and everything is a copy of Bernbach's VW ad.
posted by charlie don't surf at 10:43 PM on April 21, 2012 [1 favorite]


« Older A new initiative recently proposed by the Royal Ca...  |  Here's a thought-provoking int... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments