# New Geico commercial (does it take 2 to tango?) **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [January 28, 2011, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-geico-commercial-does-it-take-2-to-tango/569268 "2011-01-28T02:28:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![PSXer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/48db29/32.png) [@PSXer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PSXer)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-geico-commercial-does-it-take-2-to-tango/569268/1 "2011-01-28T02:28:59Z")
Can Geico really save you on car insurance? Does it take two to tango? And then they cut to three people tangoing, and the third person is just in the way and not doing it well. But it seems to me that they are missing the point of the saying. Isn’t the point of the saying is that it requires two people not one. It seems to me that the point of the saying is that one is not enough, not that three is too many. I guess 3 is funnier visually for the commercial than 1 would be, but it is getting the nuance of the saying wrong. Who agrees with me in my interpretation of the saying ---
**Author:** ![Shawn1767](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@Shawn1767](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shawn1767)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-geico-commercial-does-it-take-2-to-tango/569268/2 "2011-01-28T04:12:58Z")
I haven’t seen that one, but the one I think they’re missing the point on is “Do woodchucks chuck wood?” and they cut to some woodchucks chucking wood into the water. However, the tongue twister goes “how much wood would a woodchuck chuck, IF a woodchuck COULD chuck wood?” Meaning they DON’T but if they could, how much could they? So… they really can’t can they? ---
**Author:** ![sco3tt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@sco3tt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sco3tt)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-geico-commercial-does-it-take-2-to-tango/569268/3 "2011-01-28T04:35:05Z")
> [@PSXer](#): > > 3 is funnier visually for the commercial than 1 would be You’ve answered your own question. The ad agency’s intent is to make the commercials, and by extension, the brand itself, memorable – perhaps even to inspire viewers to discuss it on the internet. Would you have felt compelled to post anything if they’d only shown one dancer attempting a tango? Commercials don’t have to make sense, they just have to make an impression. ---
**Author:** ![PSXer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/48db29/32.png) [@PSXer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PSXer)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-geico-commercial-does-it-take-2-to-tango/569268/4 "2011-01-28T04:48:15Z")
No I wouldn’t comment on only one dancer, because that wouldn’t be wrong ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-geico-commercial-does-it-take-2-to-tango/569268/5 "2011-01-28T12:54:55Z")
… and there are no existing films of Abraham Lincoln having a private conversation with his wife, either. Just saying. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-geico-commercial-does-it-take-2-to-tango/569268/6 "2011-01-28T13:03:43Z")
> [@](#): > > … and there are no existing films of Abraham Lincoln having a private conversation with his wife, either. Just saying. Yeah. Everyone knows they didn’t have _sound_ movies back during the Civil War! Matthew Brady had a hard enough time developing silent films on wet glass plates. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-geico-commercial-does-it-take-2-to-tango/569268/7 "2011-01-28T13:03:43Z")
> [@Shawn1767](#): > > I haven’t seen that one, but the one I think they’re missing the point on is “Do woodchucks chuck wood?” and they cut to some woodchucks chucking wood into the water. However, the tongue twister goes “how much wood would a woodchuck chuck, IF a woodchuck COULD chuck wood?” Meaning they DON’T but if they could, how much could they? So… they really can’t can they? I always heard it as …if a woodchuck WOULD chuck wood. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-geico-commercial-does-it-take-2-to-tango/569268/8 "2011-01-28T16:48:40Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I always heard it as …if a woodchuck WOULD chuck wood. How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood? A woodchuck would chuck as much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood. (damn, thats harder to type than it is to say). ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-geico-commercial-does-it-take-2-to-tango/569268/9 "2011-01-28T16:57:17Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I always heard it as …if a woodchuck WOULD chuck wood. Y’know, that really would make more sense, keeping the would/wood chuck pattern going, but I’ve \*never \*heard it that way! :eek: ---
**Author:** ![cochrane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cochrane/32/10441_2.png) [@cochrane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cochrane)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-geico-commercial-does-it-take-2-to-tango/569268/10 "2011-01-28T17:53:10Z")
Here’s the relevant commercial, by the way, for those who haven’t seen it yet. [Does it take two to tango?](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuc6fMj_Rsg) I liked how it ended up with the two men dancing, leaving the woman by herself. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_R.Mortiss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim_r.mortiss/32/142_2.png) [@Tim\_R.Mortiss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_R.Mortiss)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-geico-commercial-does-it-take-2-to-tango/569268/11 "2011-01-28T17:57:56Z")
> [@PSXer](#): > > …But it seems to me that they are missing the point of the saying. Isn’t the point of the saying is that it requires two people not one. It seems to me that the point of the saying is that one is not enough, not that three is too many… You’re not crazy. I thought the exact same thing. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-geico-commercial-does-it-take-2-to-tango/569268/12 "2011-01-28T18:00:18Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I always heard it as …if a woodchuck WOULD chuck wood. > [@WhyNot](#): > > Y’know, that really would make more sense, keeping the would/wood chuck pattern going, but I’ve \*never \*heard it that way! :eek: Playing on this, a local radio station once had a traffic reporter called Chuck Wood. ---
**Author:** ![AlsoNamedBort](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alsonamedbort/32/3213_2.png) [@AlsoNamedBort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlsoNamedBort)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-geico-commercial-does-it-take-2-to-tango/569268/13 "2011-01-28T18:13:50Z")
Part of the joke behind the commercials is to play on your expectations. When you first see the commercial, you’re expecting it to cut to just one person tangoing. The fact that it’s three is what makes it funny. Like the “Bird in the hand” one cutting to someone have a ceramic figure of a bird in the hand on Antiques Roadshow. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-geico-commercial-does-it-take-2-to-tango/569268/14 "2011-01-28T19:11:16Z")
> [@Shawn1767](#): > > I haven’t seen that one, but the one I think they’re missing the point on is “Do woodchucks chuck wood?” and they cut to some woodchucks chucking wood into the water. However, the tongue twister goes “how much wood would a woodchuck chuck, IF a woodchuck COULD chuck wood?” Meaning they DON’T but if they could, how much could they? So… they really can’t can they? I agree with this. It totally undermines the point of the commercial. When the guy says “Can Geico.. save…; do woodchucks chuck wood?” I always answer “no.” The two-to-tango isn’t very good, either, but it’s not as egregious as the woodchucks. The usual meaning of “it takes two to tango” is that one is not sufficient. It doesn’t really apply to three. So, the tango one is a non-sequitor, but the woodchucks are just wrong. ---
**Author:** ![cochrane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cochrane/32/10441_2.png) [@cochrane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cochrane)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-geico-commercial-does-it-take-2-to-tango/569268/15 "2011-01-28T19:24:34Z")
> [@Shawn1767](#): > > I haven’t seen that one, but the one I think they’re missing the point on is “Do woodchucks chuck wood?” and they cut to some woodchucks chucking wood into the water. However, the tongue twister goes “how much wood would a woodchuck chuck, IF a woodchuck COULD chuck wood?” Meaning they DON’T but if they could, how much could they? So… they really can’t can they? No, and piggies don’t really hang out the window of a minivan and cry, “WHEEEEE! WHEEEEEE! WHEEEEE!” either What would it look like if woodchucks could chuck wood? You just have to let it paint a silly picture in your mind. They don’t sit on the bank of a pond and giggle maniacally, either, but the humor makes the product stick in your mind. It reminds me of the gopher from “Caddyshack.” You don’t have to analyze it. Humor doesn’t have to stick to logic. ---
**Author:** ![PSXer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/48db29/32.png) [@PSXer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PSXer)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-geico-commercial-does-it-take-2-to-tango/569268/16 "2011-01-28T19:28:22Z")
but the problem is the Geico commercials are not funny ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-geico-commercial-does-it-take-2-to-tango/569268/17 "2011-01-28T19:42:53Z")
> [@PSXer](#): > > but the problem is the Geico commercials are not funny Factually incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![kenobi\_65](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kenobi_65/32/13178_2.png) [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-geico-commercial-does-it-take-2-to-tango/569268/18 "2011-01-28T19:43:52Z")
> [@PSXer](#): > > but the problem is the Geico commercials are not funny Humor isn’t universal. I actually know a bit about this particular topic – I work in advertising, have a big insurance company as a client, and I’ve seen extensive research on how consumers react to different companies’ ads. Geico ads are, indeed, polarizing – some people thing they’re hilarious, some people think they’re dumb. But, an \*\*awful lot \*\*of people (most people, in fact) fall into the first camp. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-geico-commercial-does-it-take-2-to-tango/569268/19 "2011-01-28T19:47:18Z")
Wow. What a bevy of literalists here. The woodchuck commercial (along with the piggy commercial) has me in stitches every time. The commercials are playing on the imagery with the associated aphorisms/tongue twisters/etc, not their meaning. A group of mischievous woodchucks chucking a farmer’s stash of firewood into a pond? Funny. A group of woodchucks standing around being woodchucks not chucking wood? Well, you _could_ perhaps make it funny, but it’s not knee-slappingly funny like the chucking version. I dunno, the Geico commercials are one of the few commercials I look forward to seeing. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-geico-commercial-does-it-take-2-to-tango/569268/20 "2011-01-28T19:55:35Z")
I like this series, as I liked their “celebrity translating for an ordinary person” series of a few years back. Indifferent to the Gecko, and actively disliked the Cavemen. So, given that they usually have a couple of different approaches on the air at the same time, presumably appealing to somewhat different demographics, I would say they have an effective ad agency. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-geico-commercial-does-it-take-2-to-tango/569268.md?page=2)