I’m watchting the Daily Show and at the the last commercial break there’s a Cisco ad for their new “valet”. It features a dad plugging the valet into his laptop to connect the thing. The guy looks over to his daughter who is riding a unicycle and then we are treated to the “connected” view. It’s just wrong.
It makes perfecct sense to me to run a computer network through a child’s vagina. Is there a problem?
I heard they made another one, only instead of the dad the person at the computer is the brother. It’s for Link-sis.
Note to mods: I have no fucking clue how I managed to post this thing in ATMB. Thanks for moving it to where I meant it to be.
I thought this was going to be about the poster, Cisco, heh.
What is the Cisco you’re talking about? A computer?*
*I’m so behind on the times.
Ew.
I’m also wondering how that ad was storyboarded.
I would have guessed by NAMBLA’s graphic artist, except that the child is a girl.
Cisco is a HUGE computer company. They had a revenue of 11 billion dollars last year. How the Hell they thought using an upskirt shot of a twelve year old was a good idea is beyond me. “I always wanted to be a girls bicycle seat - Windows 7 is my idea” Apple’s slogan for the IPad is “It’s like having the internet in your hands”. Can you just imagine if Apple used that slogan and that clip?
What if they showed that shot and said, “Get your kid an iPad”?
It might work for StayFree[sup]TM[/sup].
I apologize for the above post. Menstruation jokes are beneath me.
Wait, no they’re not. I rescind the apology. 
Cisco’s new motto:
Cisco: The Loli Network
Is it creepy if I say I already found out the girl’s name? I swear I wasn’t looking for it, it’s just that her mom posted a comment congratulating her on facebook where Cisco posted the video as well. So apparently her mom is OK with it.
Looking at the other videos, they just have the word “connected” popping up in random places. I guess they just said “let’s have it on a unicycle” and they didn’t think of what else would be in frame. Or maybe they did.
For what it’s worth, the man in the ad looks remarkably close to how I imagined Humbert Humbert.
What did I just see? I don’t even get the joke or whatever they were making. I would just keep watching until I understood, but that would just be creepy.
Sometimes a license plate on a unicycle is just a license plate on a unicycle.
Comparing the other ads in the series, the “joke” as intended by the advertiser is:
[ul]
[li]This product has such a fast set-up time that, should you be momentarily distracted as you plug it in, the set-up will be finished before you realize it had even started.[/li][li]The joke is puched up by having the distraction be something “wacky”.[/li][li]Once the computer user realizes s/he is connected, the Wacky Distraction appears again with a sign that says “Connected”.[/li][li]Although the “Connected” sign is bannered on the Wacky Distraction, “Connected” refers to the computer user’s newly established wireless status. The Wacky Distraction is “announcing” the computer user’s status.[/li][/ul]
This works best when there is no reason to misinterpret that “connected” may in some way refer to the Wacky Distraction, otherwise the commercial is confusing thus ineffective.
The girl’s undercarriage connected to the seat may present confusion leading to an interpretation of sexual double entendre. Herein lies the basis for the jokes made in this Thread.
In critique of the commercial, the possiblity of sexual double entendre is not by a longshot the primary and blatant problem. The problem is with the tastlessness of the display: to end the commercial on a close-up of an underage girl’s bare thighs wrapped around a bicycle seat.
No I don’t believe that the concept was ever “Let’s get a close-up of an underage girl’s bare thighs wrapped around a bicycle seat.”
I think it was “We’ll put the slogan on a license plate on the unicycle and we’ll get a close-up of the license plate.” And, as thirdname suggests, they just didn’t think of what else would be in frame.
Huge mistake for the director/ad agency. You can’t let mistakes like this pass.
Personally, I’m not offended nor do I think the young actress will really suffer much embarassment or kidding about it- I definitely don’t think she’ll be let feeling traumatized. If she hears criticism that the commercial is suggestive, I 'd imagine she’d think the person making the suggestion to be the creepy one- not the people she worked with making the commercial.
That the commercial might unleash uncontrolable pedophile lust, is a way overboard fear.
(Note: NOT suggesting that any of the above posters believe any of what I’ve stated above).
No, not offended. It’s just stupid. Stupid and either the ad agency of the director should have realized how it could come across.
Actually, when I heard there was going to be a remake, I hoped they’d again go for 'black comedy" and cast John Lithgow as HH & Steve Martin as Clare Quilty.
As to the actual subject, I had to watch that thing three times before I realized there was no use in trying to figure it out.