I was a bit worried about this too. But I would accept it and it turns out to be too much of a burden, run it off a cliff or smash it up somehow. That’s the beauty of not having anything invested in it.
Get rid of the old one: it’s 10yo.
Okay, I’m gonna stop waffling, and go ahead and vote “no.” I already have a car, and would rather drive mine than the stupid, tacky car. According to the OP, the car wouldn’t be any fancier than a car I would normally drive, plus I’d be required to drive it for three years, so it’s not like I could give it to someone else or sell it.
Now if I didn’t have a car, on the other hand, I’d take it. Gaudiness be damned.
Male, voted yes. Extra insurance would be no big deal, I’d just drop coverage on an existing car, or sell it. And 'cos it’s a free car, I’d just put PL&PD on it. Lose it in a collision? Oh, well. Of course…
There have to be more terms. Okay, does the company require me to keep full coverage on it? What’s the maximum deductible? We know we have to drive it for three years, but can we take off the ads in three years? Do we have to drive it a minimum number of miles per year for the three years?
Those are pertinent questions, because let’s say that I get an awesome 2011 Expedition plastered with Summer’s Eve ads. I’m not really going to want to drive it. It’s enough to be called a douche for driving an SUV without drawing even more attention to it. So, I could store it in the garage for three years, not pay insurance, and afterwards take off the ads. That would be a pretty compelling thing to do. On the other hand, if there terms were a minimum of 18,000 miles per year for three years, etc., my answer would change considerably.
I am really surprised at all of the people who said no! Me, yes, absolutely. I’d sell/donate my old car and have a new car for the first time in my life. I’d run it into the ground, which means I’d probably own it for at least 10 years (though I’d remove the logo after the three years). And I am not a logo person - I don’t wear logoed shirts or clothes.
But essentially you are always a driving advertisement in your car anyway. I mean, it says TOYOTA COROLLA right there on my car. I can deal with more, even if it’s bright and annoying. As someone else said, I’d be able to find my car in the parking lot always.
I don’t begrudge you your choice at all. But when I drive my Nissan or ride my Kawasaki, I choose to represent those brands of vehicles. And hopefully, those aren’t particularly controversial. In a day in age where there are morons out there running people off the road for having Obama stickers on their car, I don’t like the idea of driving something that may represent something controversial and making myself a potential target. There are a lot of idiots out there on the road, and because I have a running car that I like already, that’s not a risk I need to take.
When was “drive” ever mentioned? I said I’d take the car (i am male).
But my plan would be to accept the car, stick it in the garage for 3 years while I continue driving my current ride. After the 3 year period was up, I’d sell it.:dubious:
As mentioned in the opening post, you can not change the exterior of the car. So, if you plan on selling it after three years, it would have to be to someone who was willing to buy a car covered in advertisements. I am not saying this isn’t possible, just keep it in mind.
Has there actually been any news reports of people being run off the road because of their Obama stickers?
But I agree that it shouldn’t be controversial. So say, PEPSICO would be OK but a abortion bumper sticker - either viewpoint would not be OK.
Yeah, supposedly. Whether or not that was the real motivation in that particular story, I’m just aware of the fact that there are stupid and angry people out there, and I don’t want to potentially put a bullseye on my forehead (or my car), regardless of whether I actually support or reject the represented cause/company.
I’d probably be the guy that ends up with the PETA ad, with my luck.
I’d take it. If the logos were for products or corporations I considered evil, I would hand it back.
Mmm, nope. Initially my reaction was “hell yes!” But of course then I took a minute to consider all the companies and small businesses whose practices I utterly loathe (family friendly makes me think any sort of religion or anti-choice numbskull stuff would be allowed), and how they outnumber the quality, honest businesses and organizations I’d be happy to promote.
But, if what Mangetout said works within the context of the thread, I would do it if you could take it, see the stickers, and give it back if the companies sucked. I’d do that so long as there were no tax/title/whatever fees I’d have to pay to hand it right back.
Nope. You can’t know what the logos are ahead of time, and once you get it, you’re required to drive it for a minimum of three years. That’s why I said no. If I could just sell it, then hell yeah, but since I have to drive around in it, instead of in my car which I don’t hate, I don’t want it.
How can you be *required *to drive a particular car? That in itself sounds inconvenient, quite apart from the issue of the logos. What if the weather is fine and I want to cycle to work for a week?
I know I’m trying to break the hypothetical, so OK - if I was obliged to use the thing and had no guarantee of what the logos might be, I’d decline.
I would take it and give/offer it to one of my car-less friends.
Hey, I didn’t make the hypothetical rules; just reiterating them.
I honestly don’t see what the hell someone’s soul has to do with it. The question is merely, Is it worth advertising something you don’t like to get a free car?
A car is nowhere near related to my soul. It’s not an extension of my personality. It’s a device used to get me from one place to another. While I would love to have it look the way I want, having it look some other way doesn’t hurt.
Also, it doesn’t help that I don’t think advertising works. No one I know will buy something just because they see it advertised, and, if you are one of those people who does, I don’t have a high opinion of you, and don’t care if your stupidity gets you to buy a shitty product. The only time advertising works is if you are unaware of the product, and even then you should do your own research, and, if the ad is annoying, buy from a competitor.
I do admit that insurance would be a problem. When I saw this initially, I assumed that free meant that the insurance was covered, too–otherwise, it’s not really free.
As for why I voted yes: well, I’m poor. And we need a car. Plus, a three-year old car would sell beautifully. As far as I can tell, I can repaint it, but the new owner could repaint it all he likes. I’d have to sell it for less than I’d want, but I could still get something for it.
I shudder at the thought of using a coupon, but hell yeah I’d do this. Actually, I’d let you cover my house in advertisements if the HOA and neighbors were okay with it.
I’m not a logo person either, because they have not paid me for the advertising space. (It makes no sense to me - not just offering free ad space to Nike, but giving Nike money to wear their ad? Why?)
After reading the other answers, I’d amend my answer somewhat to “it depends.” We’d have to negotiate terms like who would cover insurance, taxes, repair & maintenance, storage, parking tickets if they required me to park on the street, etc. But I’d be leaning toward “Free car. Cool.”
Free car? I have a child who is asking for a car and I think this would fit the bill perfectly. There is no way he would try to do anything stupid in a car that is noticeable. I would alert everyone to keep an eye out for him and the car and make sure he knew everyone was watching.