# Why I love AT&T's "Greenhouse" commercial **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [November 29, 2011, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-love-at-ts-greenhouse-commercial/604436 "2011-11-29T09:28:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-love-at-ts-greenhouse-commercial/604436/1 "2011-11-29T09:28:22Z")
I’m referring to [this](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTiA2ImJyrA) commercial, which seems to be the most popular - er, perhaps I should say _frequent_ - suggestion in the “Television Commercials You Hate” thread. People really, really hate this commercial. They hate this commercial like Jews hate Hitler. I’ve got a slightly different opinion of it: I think this commercial is amazing. Aside from packing in an impressive amount of drama and character into a few seconds, it’s one of the most blatantly subversive films I’ve ever seen on TV. Starting on a simple textual level, look how much this thing communicates about the characters and their relationship. It’s impossible not to watch this thing without absolutely _hating_ the wife, and for very specific (if entirely implied) reasons. In roughly seven sentences, it spins out years of bitter resentments and swallowed anger in the face of a steady barrage of belittlement and emotional castration. The expression on the husband’s face, and that little catch of suppressed rage when he responds to his wife’s reflexive criticism, and her “I may have just gone to far…” reaction, suggests that decades of buried aggression are about to come to the surface. I like to think that seconds after this commercial ended, the marriage dissolves in a profanity-laden screaming match that leaves no pane of glass intact in that greenhouse. Taken as a dramatic work, this commercial is a marvel of economic storytelling. But on a subtextual level, the real brilliance of the work is revealed. Because the whole thing is one big middle finger to the commercial’s target market. One of the reasons most often cited for hating this commercial is the idea of a woman who can afford her own private greenhouse bitching her husband out over how much money they’re spending on text messaging. You are, of course, meant to despise her. But this isn’t just one over priviledged yuppie hausfrau. She’s a stand in for the American consumer. You are meant to hold her in contempt, and by extension, you are meant to hold anyone in contempt who frets about something as petty as text messaging while living surrounded by opulent wealth. Which, relative to global prosperity levels, includes the majority of people living in the United States. What the commercial is saying is that if the service being offered in this commercial interests you, then \*you \*are the bitchy housewife. There are thousands of children dying every day because they don’t have access to uncontaminated drinking water, but here’s America, in its little hothouse, desperately worried about how much money it costs to pass vacuous, semi-literate e-notes back and forth, like a nation of arrested adolescents gossiping during algebra class. The searing hatred this commercial clearly feels for the wife is a cover for a searing hatred of the very people the commercial is counting on to buy their product. It’s a bold and unmistakable indictment of the entire capitalist system, disguised as an advertisement from a major multinational corporation. This is a commercial that says, “If you buy our product, _you are what is wrong with the world._” That is some absolutely dazzling chutzpah right there. As a work of short fiction, this is a masterpiece. Of course, for exactly the same reasons, it’s an utter failure as a commercial. But I’m not sure that wasn’t also the goal - nobody goes to film school for four years so they can pursue their dream job of making cell phone commercials. I think someone at this ad agency is starting to resent their career choices to date. God love him, whoever he is, but I hope he stays in the ad business just a little bit longer. As a final note, please keep in mind that I’m just identifying the message of the commercial, not endorsing it. I’m not going to try to defend the accuracy of the message, although I’m more than happy to defend the accuracy of my interpretation. ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 9:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-love-at-ts-greenhouse-commercial/604436/2 "2011-11-29T09:59:58Z")
You know, I’ve seen this commercial many times. And I’ve never noticed the greenhouse. All I’ve noticed is the bitchy wife. But past that, I’ve also noticed, in order to get the free whatever, the husband had to sign up to PAY for some plan to get the whatever. So, the bitchy wife’s point remains the same. The husband is spending extra money without his wife’s consent. Whatever extra nifty things the plan gives him is irrelevant. He’s still spending extra money over all. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-love-at-ts-greenhouse-commercial/604436/3 "2011-11-29T14:53:08Z")
> [@jackdavinci](#): > > But past that, I’ve also noticed, in order to get the free whatever, the husband had to sign up to PAY for some plan to get the whatever. > > So, the bitchy wife’s point remains the same. The husband is spending extra money without his wife’s consent. Whatever extra nifty things the plan gives him is irrelevant. He’s still spending extra money over all. See, I figure the only way it makes sense is that his wife gave him a simple task – go buy us some minutes for the cell phone (or whatever) – and he comes back beaming, proudly announcing that he’s just now gotten them an unlimited texting plan (or whatever). So she’s thinking _I sent you to do this one simple thing, and you blow a bunch of money on this other stuff,_ and she bitchily informs him that she should’ve married John Clark – and, with the lights dying in his eyes, he replies that the other stuff was free with the stuff he was, y’know, already buying as per their plan. ---
**Author:** ![markdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@markdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/markdash)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-love-at-ts-greenhouse-commercial/604436/4 "2011-11-29T16:08:28Z")
I like the commercial because I find it funny. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-love-at-ts-greenhouse-commercial/604436/5 "2011-11-29T17:10:42Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Starting on a simple textual level, look how much this thing communicates about the characters and their relationship. It’s impossible not to watch this thing without absolutely _hating_ the wife, and for very specific (if entirely implied) reasons. In roughly seven sentences, it spins out years of bitter resentments and swallowed anger in the face of a steady barrage of belittlement and emotional castration. The expression on the husband’s face, and that little catch of suppressed rage when he responds to his wife’s reflexive criticism, and her “I may have just gone to far…” reaction, suggests that decades of buried aggression are about to come to the surface. I like to think that seconds after this commercial ended, the marriage dissolves in a profanity-laden screaming match that leaves no pane of glass intact in that greenhouse. Taken as a dramatic work, this commercial is a marvel of economic storytelling. That it is so easy to fill in these blanks is an indictment of the culture that produced the commercial–and in that sense, is an indictment of the commercial itself. > [@](#): > > But on a subtextual level, the real brilliance of the work is revealed. Because the whole thing is one big middle finger to the commercial’s target market. > > One of the reasons most often cited for hating this commercial is the idea of a woman who can afford her own private greenhouse bitching her husband out over how much money they’re spending on text messaging. You are, of course, meant to despise her. But this isn’t just one over priviledged yuppie hausfrau. She’s a stand in for the American consumer. You are meant to hold her in contempt, and by extension, you are meant to hold anyone in contempt who frets about something as petty as text messaging while living surrounded by opulent wealth. Which, relative to global prosperity levels, includes the majority of people living in the United States. What the commercial is saying is that if the service being offered in this commercial interests you, then \*you \*are the bitchy housewife. No, the commercial doesn’t ask us to identify _exclusively_ with the housewife. The two character represent two different voices the commercial expects us to have in our heads. The money-worrier is the voice we should not listen to, and so its character is represented negatively. The stuff-buyer is the voice we should listen to, and its character is represented positively. The commercial presents us with our fears about (among other things) ourselves–and pretends to offer us a way to escape (with dignity and innocence intact even!) from that fear. We are sometimes cautious, but we’re afraid that caution is mere bitchiness. We are also sometimes spendy, but we’re afraid that spendiness is foolhardiness. The commercial pretends we’re right about the bitchiness, and wrong about the foolhardiness, by trying to force us into an internal dialogue that matches that of the characters portrayed in the commercial. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-love-at-ts-greenhouse-commercial/604436/6 "2011-11-29T17:33:35Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > No, the commercial doesn’t ask us to identify _exclusively_ with the housewife. The two character represent two different voices the commercial expects us to have in our heads. The money-worrier is the voice we should not listen to, and so its character is represented negatively. The stuff-buyer is the voice we should listen to, and its character is represented positively. I take it to be a bit subtler than that: he’s not _ **quite** _ represented positively, as he sets off his wife’s bitchy response before feebly relaying the fact that he got the stuff for free. So the implied takeaway is something like _“How good is this deal? Let me put it this way: don’t start off, as this guy did, by mentioning how much stuff you got; start off by mentioning how little it cost, lest folks jump to the conclusion that you must have paid a ton of money for something so wonderful.”_ ---
**Author:** ![drastic\_quench](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e36b37/32.png) [@drastic\_quench](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drastic_quench)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-love-at-ts-greenhouse-commercial/604436/7 "2011-11-29T18:33:17Z")
Awesome. This discussion is worth 10,000 “commercials I hate” threads. Frylock, you raise some very interesting insights as well. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-love-at-ts-greenhouse-commercial/604436/8 "2011-11-29T19:20:21Z")
I mostly agree with the OP’s analysis, except maybe for the notion that the director somehow slipped one by the suits at AT & T. For one thing, I doubt the director wrote the script as well; for another, surely this passed some sort of internal review process both pre- and post-production and I have to question whether the rather glaring subtext passed completely over the reviewer’s heads. While I appreciate the cleverness of what’s going on there, however, it doesn’t make me like the advert any better. All I can think of when I see it is: “Why the hell does AT & T want to depress me so badly?” ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-love-at-ts-greenhouse-commercial/604436/9 "2011-11-29T22:04:36Z")
So, in summation, the commercial is good because it makes people hate it. You can’t call something a good commercial that makes people actively want to avoid the brand. Commercials are not complex films. And it takes absolutely no talent to create a character that people hate. ---
**Author:** ![VOW](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/vow/32/3043_2.png) [@VOW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VOW)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-love-at-ts-greenhouse-commercial/604436/10 "2011-11-29T22:14:35Z")
Now, for me, I imagine the husband EXPLODING in rage, and the wife just … disappears. The plants in the greenhouse grow bigger, stronger, faster, better than ever. The husband marries a stripper. ~VOW ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-love-at-ts-greenhouse-commercial/604436/11 "2011-11-29T23:44:45Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > No, the commercial doesn’t ask us to identify _exclusively_ with the housewife. I’m saying that the commercial doesn’t want us to identify with the housewife _at all_. She’s too nakedly hateful. Which is what makes the commercial so interesting, because as you say, we ought to be partly sympathetic to her views. The commercial ought to make us think her complaint is valid: that worrying over the cost of text messaging is a reasonable concern. But the character is so contemptuous that it poisons her entire point of view. It destroys the entire purpose of switching to that plan, because it’s only selling point (per this commercial) is free messaging, which the commercial clearly communicates is a petty concern only of interest to cruel and thoughtless people. > [@El\_Kabong](#): > > ``` > I mostly agree with the OP's analysis, except maybe for the notion that the director somehow slipped one by the suits at AT & T. For one thing, I doubt the director wrote the script as well; for another, surely this passed some sort of internal review process both pre- and post-production and I have to question whether the rather glaring subtext passed completely over the reviewer's heads > > ``` Yeah, I’m kind of assuming the director as the auteur of the piece, but it could have come from the writer. I think the director, at the very least, had to be in on the joke, though - and I don’t think whoever approved the ad was in on it. Like you said, there was certainly some sort of screening process for this, and I can’t imagine the reviewers okaying the ad if they _did_ get the subtext. > [@BigT](#): > > You can’t call something a good commercial that makes people actively want to avoid the brand. I didn’t say it was a good commercial. In fact, I explicitly said just the opposite: > [@Miller](#): > > Of course, for exactly the same reasons, it’s an utter failure as a commercial. > [@BigT](#): > > Commercials are not complex films. I didn’t say it was complex, either. > [@BigT](#): > > And it takes absolutely no talent to create a character that people hate. This is also completely wrong. It takes talent to make a character that evokes a response from your readers, either positive or negative. A talentless writer doesn’t create characters people hate, he creates characters that nobody cares about. ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-love-at-ts-greenhouse-commercial/604436/12 "2011-11-30T02:01:50Z")
The only good thing about this commercial is that it is one of the very few ads out there where the husband isn’t a total doofus. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-love-at-ts-greenhouse-commercial/604436/13 "2011-11-30T04:45:03Z")
Maybe she’s just a miser? ---
**Author:** ![Laggard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de053/32.png) [@Laggard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Laggard)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-love-at-ts-greenhouse-commercial/604436/14 "2011-11-30T19:25:33Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Maybe she’s just a miser? A miser with her own greenhouse? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Q](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/898d66/32.png) [@Johnny\_Q](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Q)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-love-at-ts-greenhouse-commercial/604436/15 "2011-11-30T20:01:43Z")
> [@VOW](#): > > Now, for me, I imagine the husband EXPLODING in rage, and the wife just … disappears. > > The plants in the greenhouse grow bigger, stronger, faster, better than ever. > > The husband marries a stripper. > ~VOW And if anyone asks what happened to her all he has to say is “She ran away with John Clark.” Who probably had a similar “accident.” ---
**Author:** ![planetcory](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/planetcory/32/1032_2.png) [@planetcory](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/planetcory)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-love-at-ts-greenhouse-commercial/604436/16 "2011-11-30T20:18:53Z")
> [@VOW](#): > > Now, for me, I imagine the husband EXPLODING in rage, and the wife just … disappears. > > The plants in the greenhouse grow bigger, stronger, faster, better than ever. > > The husband marries a stripper. > ~VOW I actually just picture him slinking back to his study, muttering miserably to himself over a model airplane magazine, and living out the next 10 years of his life just like he lived the last 10. ---
**Author:** ![Jeff\_Lichtman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jeff_lichtman/32/1531_2.png) [@Jeff\_Lichtman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jeff_Lichtman)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2011, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-love-at-ts-greenhouse-commercial/604436/17 "2011-12-01T00:30:32Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Aside from packing in an impressive amount of drama and character into a few seconds, it’s one of the most blatantly subversive films I’ve ever seen on TV. I think yours is a good analysis of the intent of the little drama in this commercial. I don’t see why I should admire an attempt to make me feel like a jerk for not wanting the service being advertised. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2011, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-love-at-ts-greenhouse-commercial/604436/18 "2011-12-01T00:34:39Z")
> [@Jeff\_Lichtman](#): > > I don’t see why I should admire an attempt to make me feel like a jerk for not wanting the service being advertised. I’m saying the commercial does precisely the opposite of that. It’s trying to make you feel like a jerk if you _do_ want their product. ---
**Author:** ![kittenblue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ba8739/32.png) [@kittenblue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kittenblue)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2011, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-love-at-ts-greenhouse-commercial/604436/19 "2011-12-01T02:30:20Z")
> [@Laggard](#): > > A miser with her own greenhouse? Geez o Pete, if I had a picture of it on my camera I’d show you a shot of the $600 a month rental house around the corner with the huge attached greenhouse! I think the greenhouse makes her seem MORE frugal, because she’s into growing her own flowers and veggies. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2011, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-love-at-ts-greenhouse-commercial/604436/20 "2011-12-01T02:39:29Z")
> [@kittenblue](#): > > Geez o Pete, if I had a picture of it on my camera I’d show you a shot of the $600 a month rental house around the corner with the huge attached greenhouse! I think the greenhouse makes her seem MORE frugal, because she’s into growing her own flowers and veggies. A real miser would be dumpster-diving behind the supermarket. 😉 [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-love-at-ts-greenhouse-commercial/604436.md?page=2)