I’m reminded of the aliens in Galaxy Quest who say “Those poor people…” when Gilligan’s Island is brought up.
I didn’t read that before posting, but you are right - there is no way that those are simply random passers-by who simply got asked “Do you own a Ford?” before they got shoved into the limelight with no warning.
I would think that the ad agency would do the screening. I think most places have a list of people who do commercials or “regular Joe” appearances, and it wouldn’t be that difficult to take that list and sort it by who has the right brand of vehicle.
Otherwise, the agency or Ford itself might have contacted people from local dealerships’ customer lists, but I don’t know how legal that part would be.
They’d be much safer going with people from the ad agency anyway - they’d get people who were more outgoing, and more experienced with video shoots, therefore less likely to freeze on screen, or to know not to stare into the camera like a dazed possum on the road. 
I’d guess that they filmed 10’s of these - and they’ve now edited the ones that had people who were happy and gave good answers while being appealing into the commercials we’re seeing.
Even on the ones we’re seeing, there are obvious edit points, presumably where the Ford owner said “uh, well, I guess I’m happy with the gas mileage, usually”.
(Disclosure: I worked in advertising until recently.)
While it’s possible that they recruited for the ad using lists of actors, the article suggests that that may not have been the case.
It’d be fairly straightforward to work with a market research company (which maintains lists of consumers to participate in research studies), and screen a list of “real people” for Ford owners, then do preliminary interviews with the potential subjects to find suitable people (based on the criteria I listed in the earlier post).
We did this all the time for actual research (such as focus groups) – yes, you may have to “screen” hundreds of people in order to find a handful of people who actually meet all of your criteria, but it’s something which the research companies do all the time, and it really is a very simple process.
I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be legal.
Clearly, you’ve never worked at an ad agency. Most people there would be just as likely to act unnaturally in front of a camera as any other “normal person”. Even if they’re used to being on ad shoots, doesn’t mean that they’ll look good on camera.
If Ford just built a decent car, they wouldn’t have to bother faking up these deceptive commercials,
LOL - that’s me over-estimating people with limited experience then. The few bits I’ve been drafted for, I was impressed by how many of the ‘normal people’ acted like their brains totally drained out their ears as soon as the cameras started rolling. I guess I just figured that people who had *some *experience would be immune to that particular status ailment. 
I would love to see the stuff that ends up on the cutting room floor.
“Oh man, I rue the day when I bought that piece of crap.”
“Service? The service is GREAT! I should know, because it breaks down so often it’s in the shop every fuckin’ week!”
“I shouldda kept my Yugo.”
[moderator note]
Sigh There’s one in every thread.
Threadshitting is not allowed in GQ. This is a thread about the legality of certain advertising practices. Do not come in to the thread to dump on a company or its products.
No warning issued, but stop it now.
[/moderating]
Exactly. I’ve been in a “woman on the street” ad. I was first recruited in a mall.
I was asked a series of questions. Then I was asked if I would come for a return interview for $50.00. That interview was video-taped and I was told it was all for a college research project. They were choosing 15 people out of the 1500 they were interviewing, for a third interview for $100.00. I was chosen for the third interview.
That interview was on a city street.
After, I was taken to a trailer and told it was not for research, but for an AT&T commercial. They questioned my very carefully to be sure I didn’t know anything in advance.
They then gave me a $100.00 bill and told me I’d be paid at SAG scale.
I ultimately made $43,000 for that 30 seconds of fame. I also got 2 years of medical and dental insurance.
How is it not a real press conference?
There are people there asking questions and the answers to those questions are then being published.
Presumably, because there are no real press people. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
The main reason that it’s not a real press conference is because the people asking questions are not from the press. It is a pretend press conference, created to give the impression that is a real press conference. It is not real in the same way that a three-act play is not real.
How is a three-act play not a real play?
And if they introduced themselves as “Joe Schmo, from the New York Times” I can see your point. That’s deception. But, for the purposes of the commercial, they are real reporters, reporting for The Ford Motor Company. That The Ford Motor Company paid them all on SAG scale and told them what questions to ask is really no different than the Wall Street Journal paying its White House press correspondent while its editor tells the reporter what questions must be asked.
Unless you’re intentionally being abstruse, you will understand that a three-act play is not real in the sense that it portrays real life, but is not in itself, real life. The events on stage only represent reality. :smack:
Oh, oops. I thought you were saying that a three-act play isn’t a real play, not that it isn’t actually real. Stupid mistake on my part.
Wait, are three-act plays against the law now?
I’ve watched that spot twice, and some of you folks are assuming things that are not claimed. “Kristen” says they’re going to head on into “the interview.” Nobody claims to be a member of the working press. There are camera flashes going off, but nobody is identified as a journalist.
The spot identifies the fellow as “a real Ford owner.” Don’t you think there are actors who own Fords? The words on the screen didn’t say, “a real Ford owner, expressing his own opinions.” There is no deception here.