Am I right to think the hungry hamsters lunched on your OP?
Yeah, I could tell it got eaten, but it took me this long before I stopped getting “Cannot find server” and could post it. Anyway, here’s the intended OP.
While watching King of the Hill a little while ago, I saw a Kodak ad, for one of their disposable cameras. It portrayed a bunch of people building a house in some kind of Habitat for Humanity setup. During construction, they took pictures of each other lifting and toting and clowning around.
“Huh,” I thought. “I don’t know if this would go over in real life. Volunteer workers probably have a supervisor who doesn’t tolerate any playing, plus they don’t want any loose shots floating around that could be misconstrued.”
After the photos have been developed and chuckled over, there’s a shot of the completed house. The family, Mom, Dad and Junior, start bringing their stuff in, and find a framed photo montage of the builders, with a post-it note that says, “Welcome home!” “Cool!” says Junior as Mom and Dad hug.
I supplied the rest of the dialogue: “Gee, I don’t feel patronized, do you?” “No, hon, that’s not the least bit condescending.”
I understand the idea of wanting to make the new family feel welcome, not just slap the house together and walk away from it. But isn’t it a bit pretentious to let the beneficiaries know what you looked like while building their house? Especially since, if they qualify for subsidized housing, they’re probably already sensitive to do-gooder attitudes? Left hand, people. Do good by stealth; the right hand should not know. Seems like bagels (or donuts or muffins) would have been a more tasteful gesture.
I’m not sure exactly what these pictures looked like, but if it wasn’t a Three-Stooges-ish hit-someone-in-the-face-with-a-plank scenario, I think it would be okay. I’ve worked on Habitat projects where there was a pretty lighthearted attitude.
It might as well have been a commercial for Post-It Notes, as relevant as the product was.
There’s a similar ad showing a girl editing photos of basketball players, into a series of hand gestures. Then another girl is shown receiving them in her email, and in an oh so subtle shot she brushes back her hair to reveal her hearing aid. Because we’re too stupid to figure out she’s hearing-impaired.
Television advertising is a sewer. Why can’t they just sell the damn product instead of exploiting people for their corporate “image.”
I LOATHE ads that simply try to connect their product with some vaguely positive message rather than telling us why we should just buy the damn product.
See also Mart, Wal-. They have an ad going right now that pisses me off royally, where they salute all the veterans they have working for them. They show one from each war, starting with WWII, and ending with the war on terrorism. Dammit. You’re not honoring them, you’re smearing their image by attempting to use it to sell crappy clothes.
Thing is, the family would know the volunteers, as they would have worked with them. HFH requires a large amount of sweat equity from the people it helps.
Knowing that, it changes to a nice gesture of rememberance of the people they build the house with.
Ah.
But in the commercial, they’re not in the pictures! 
I’m confused. Who’s not in the pictures? The family? Why would they be? It’s a gift from the workers to the family.
If it’s the same commercial I saw, I thought it was pretty well done. I didn’t pay close enough attention to know what the workers were doing, mind you, but my impression was that they were working on the house.
Hey! I wear those clothes!!!
That’s usually because there IS nothing special about the product and the only way anyone could think of to advertise it is to go for warm fuzzies.
As stofsky said, I’m pretty sure HfH requires the homeowners to put in some sweat equity on their new houses. So yeah, they should have known who was building their house, and they should have been in the pictures, because they would have been there, too.
So was it definitely Habitat for Humanity? I don’t remember exactly - shows you how closely I paid attention to the commercial!
I’ve seen that commercial, and I’m pretty darn sure it’s not Habitat for Humanity. I believe they are wearing blue t-shirts with some generic “Homes for Hiumans” type slogan on them, but I can’t recall what.
I just saw it. It wasn’t offensive to me - the photos were just of them building the house. Yeah, it’s lame that they’re going to feel-good route, but isn’t that pretty typical? It’s not as bad as Exxon pretending that it’s primarily interested in protecting the environment.
The commercial doesn’t use “Habitat For Humanity” on the sign (it’s a proprietary term owned by that charity organization, after all), but some similar sounding term. I did not notice any clowning around during the picture taking.
I have volunteered for Habitat for Humanity for years, and I thought it was a very nice gesture to present the family with pictures of the work crew. But as others have pointed out, in HFH, the families work side by side with the volunteers in construction, so they would already know the volunteers.
It’s typical after the home is finished to have a blessing ceremony, and a housewarming party. Lots of interaction with the volunteers before, during, and after construction.
So, Rilchiam, you’re going a bit out of the way to be offended on behalf of others.
I would think “King of the Hill” would be offensive enough w/out watching the commercials too.
My wife has a damned fit trying to watch television w/ me. I don’t watch commercials. I will change the channel and watch something else while the commercials are on.
You can actually watch several programs at once, after a little practice.
Volunteer workers probably have a supervisor who doesn’t tolerate any playing
A supervisor to keep things going smoothly and make sure it’s done right, yes. But coming down on reasonable playing is an effective way to lose your volunteer force. Doubling or even tripling what they’re getting paid doesn’t seem to motivate them.
Walloon:
—I didn’t say it was Habitat for Humanity, just that it was along those lines.
—Okay, so it wasn’t clowning around; I exaggerated a bit. They were just more jovial than I’ve ever been around power tools.
—As I’ve already said, I didn’t know that the homeowners contributed to the labor. Honestly, I was under the impression that people would move into these homes with no idea who had built them unless the crew told them. I certainly didn’t know about the housewarming parties you mentioned.
—I didn’t go out of my way to be offended; I simply saw a commercial which raised doubts. Please note that I posted a question here, and not a rant in the Pit! I wanted to find out what the real deal is.
t-keela: How is KOTH offensive?
Gary T: Okay, there’s one more thing I didn’t know.
I read this thread yesterday morning, and by chance saw the commercial last night.
I have no idea where you’re coming from with this, but then, I’ve never been on the receiving end of what you see in the commercial. To me it seems like a warm finishing touch to a very generous and compassionate act. I’d even go so far as to say that if the receiving family is offended because of something like this, then the problem lies with them.
flyboy, I guess you haven’t* been on the receiving end of something like that. I already said that the family might be “sensitive to do-gooder attitudes”, but I don’t feel like going into detail about that in IMHO.
I am very glad to find out that I was incorrect in my speculation. It’s a beautiful commerical, I love it, I kiss it, let’s move on.
(I mean, y’all can still talk, but I’m done.)