Clearly, the people in the Ford Focus “press conferences” are not journalists. The people who are surprised by the set-up clearly believe that they have been thrust into an authentic press conference, complete with reporters jostling for position and flash bulbs going off. But of course it’s not real. And don’t the advertisers have to post various disclaimers in their ads? We’ve had discussions here in the past about the ridiculous disclaimers that companies include, in order to avoid some imagined law suit down the line. Why doesn’t Ford have to indicate that these are just actors? Where’s the line drawn?
They’re not acting in any presumed professional capacity, like the requirements that exist for “non-attorney spokespersons” on similar commercials.
Also, why do you think this type of advertisement would be illegal?
Put it this way: these ads have been on the air for a couple of months now. If they were illegal, wouldn’t you think that their competitors, or some consumer group, would have challenged them by now?
In addition, the TV networks all have standards groups, which review all ads before they air; if the “misrepresentation” of these “press conferences” were illegal, the networks, themselves, would likely have refused to air them.
ISTM the part where they drop the walls of the “studio” to show the parking lot again would indicate that well enough, if the part where they drag the surprised customer into it in the first place didn’t.
I thought there were recent changes to advertising guidelines targeting the “fake news bulletin” type of commercial. I don’t know if this one counts (I haven’t seen it), but that would answer the “why would you think it was illegal?” question.
Ok - not illegal, but it seems as if it’s so deceptive that there should be some sort of explanation, some type of cover.
Here’s an example of the campaign:
It’s not at all a “fake news bulletin”. In the ads, “real people” are (apparently unwittingly) brought into a “press conference”, and asked questions about their cars.
What makes you think it’s not a real press conference? Does it say that in some disclaimer?
The reason I suggest this possibility is that it is not *that *difficult to assemble a roomful of media types especially if you frame it right and have a little money to spend. You may not get the *NY Times *and the Washington Post, but you could probably get enough car mag writers and bloggers to fill (or appear to fill) a room.
Deceptive to whom?
It’s deceptive to people who believe that those individuals participated in a real press conference, and it’s deceptive to those people, too. I doubt that there is one legitimate journalist who would allow himself to be used like that in a commercial. Journalism has a pretty rigorous set of ethics (not that everyone follows them) and crossing the line into commercialism in the guise of serious news gathering would be a violation of those guidelines. The whole thing is clearly a set-up, with “reporters” standing up, waving their hands, acting as if they’re just aching to be recognized.
It’s fraudulent and something about it just bugs me. It’s so different from the play acting that you see in cereal commercials, for example. There, no one is trying to pretend that it’s real, no participant is led to believe that it’s a real kitchen, etc. And the gullible viewers get taken in by what appears to be a real and honest setting, when it’s marketing and crass commercialism.
OTOH, I never even considered the possibilty that the “Ford owners” were anything other than actors. (They might actually own Fords, but I still figured they were simply hired to play roles in an ad.)
On the third hand, even if they are really unsuspecting Ford owners, there seems to be nothing dishonest about the setup. If a person is brought into a room and asked questions about their Ford by a bunch of Ford marketing types, they are still providing an interview and the recorded conversations are still legitimate. If they were told that they were being interviewed by ABC or Fox when it was nothing but Ford flacks, there could be a problem, but otherwise what is the harm?
Because it’s a Ford ad and even if you exclude journalistic ethics, there’s no reason for the press to participate. Here’s a Ford exec talking about the ad - he says the people are real but it’s pretty clear the other stuff is staged.
The Ford owners are real, but actors are playing the roles of the reporters asking questions. It’s a fake news conference in the sense that they aren;t really reporters, but it really is Ford owners being surprised.
Following up on **Marley’s **link to a video discussing the ad campaign with my own link to a NY Times article doing the same.
FWIW, I’m a journalist, and while I wouldn’t participate in a fake news conference, I have no problem with Ford’s commercial. I think it’s great.
I have a hard time believing any rational adult would be “fooled” by this ad, and I don’t see how any harm would be done to the consumer either way. What difference does it make if there are real reporters in the audience or not? They weren’t saying anything about the merits of Ford themselves.
Ok, if someone watches those advertisements and thinks they’ve watched a real press conference, then I don’t think that the company doing the advertisement needs to be held accountable for their gullibility.
As for the real people getting deceived in real time on the set - I doubt that happens either, at least not for long.
I’ve been dragged into advertisement/promotional/background scene video shoots for a few things before, and after the video stuff is done, there is always a person who comes around to the non-actors (aka, regular people who got dragged into it) and explains what just happened, who the shoot is for, what it will be used for, and then gets the required permissions and signatures for the person’s appearance and whatnot. Sometimes there’s even payment involved.
The bottom line is that after the shoot is over, someone explains everything to the “real person” so they know what’s going on and the filming studio/commercial/company can have informed consent. If after all that explanation, if the person doesn’t want to be in the spot, all they have to do is refuse to sign the agreement, and they won’t be shown. Ever wonder why so many COPS-style shows have some people shown, and some with blanked-out faces? The blanked-out people didn’t want to be on tv, and didn’t sign the release.
Honestly, for something as big-budget as this, I would be surprised if the “real person” pulled off the street didn’t have the handler approach them beforehand and scope out their willingness to play along before investing all that shooting time with them.
As far as the reality/unreality of it goes, I don’t see any difference between this type of advertisement and the current spate of reality tv shows which purport to be totally unstaged and true to the events as they happen in front of the cameras. I don’t see anyone suing any reality tv shows for making editorial and scripting/scenic alterations, which are sometimes huge changes from the reality.
If you really want to be depressed, if you asked random people on the street, I bet you’d be amazed at how many of them thought that those breakfast cereal ‘staged kitchens’ with bright-eyed child actors and their actor mothers were real also. Look at the Jiff commercials for an example - they try really hard to cast ‘imperfect-looking’ actors to make it look like those are everyday people in their houses.
Wait. Are some people in this thread saying that it’s not obvious that the press conferences aren’t real? Really? Really?
Well, the OP certainly thinks it’s deceptive.
I’ve got to admit I’m having trouble wrapping my head around this.
If you read the article to which anson2995 linked, the “real people” were apparently recruited under the guise of participating in a research study on their cars. So, they knew that they were going to be talking about their car to someone – but Ford at least is saying that the “press conference” is a surprise to the people in the ad, and that part of what they like about the campaign is the “unscripted” and “surprised” responses.
At a minimum, the “real people” were undoubtedly pre-screened by Ford (and/or the ad agency) for being articulate, interesting, relatively photogenic, and very happy with their Ford vehicle.
Same here. I really don’t think that Ford needs to put a big banner across the beginning of the ad stating “The following event is fictional. Any resemblance to actual journalists, living or dead, is accidental.”
However, there are some really gullible people out there, and there are a lot of other people who, while perhaps not gullible in all situations, are still primed to believe whatever they see on tv, so it’s not totally unthinkable.
I forget sometimes that I am much more skeptical about what I see than most everyone else.