I’m saying it’s trying to make you feel like a jerk if you want to pay a lot of money for their product: the husband’s response only makes sense if (a) he personally thinks it’s a great deal, and (b) he figures his wife will realize her mistake once she realizes he got the stuff free – instead of, y’know, paying what she expects something like that to cost.
THis commercial tells a story that can only end in a violent and disturbing murder/suicide that leaves an entire community shaken to the core and causes them to burn down the house and green house and salt the ground on which they stood so that mankind never has to face the horror of such rage and brutality again.
…or not.
I’m tempted to just say you’re over-analyzing it, but I realize that a mega-corporation like at&t *would *analyze every possible facet of a TV ad like this. And for that reason I don’t think it has the opposite effect of making you not want to buy their product because, if it did, this ad would never have made it past the planning stage.
The idea that they are wealthy enough to own a greenhouse I think is just lost on you in the extremely short setup time. However what isn’t at all lost, and what in fact makes it work, is that the characters are huge archetypes, namely the bitchy, shrewish wife and the nebbish, cuckold husband. Given that setup it simply follows the path that the husband will ultimately be correct after being criticized by the wife. Plus even though the wife was overly negative the husband takes the high road and doesn’t gloat about correcting her.
For these reasons, using a clearly somewhat dysfunctional marriage as an element of humor, I actually like this ad. I could care less about what its selling because I know that **all **cellphone plans are nearly identical in the long run.
Yeah, that’s what I like about it!
Why does everyone assume the woman is a homemaker supported by the husband? In these modern times, the woman could be a successful neurosurgeon who paid for her own greenhouse. Maybe she’s tired of supporting her spendthrift house-husband’s antics and John Clarke is more financially savvy than someone who falls for some “free” minutes promotion for an overpriced phone bundle.
You’ve definitely made me think more about this commercial than I normally would have.
I guess the concept of a commercial that makes you want to not buy the product is kind of like a person entering a painting into a dog show.
Sure, maybe the painting is nice and it’s a nice break from all the dogs, but it’s jarring and not really appropriate.
Given the constraints and expectations of TV commercials, this commercial is a failure.
I still standby my post. AT&T would have focus grouped the shit out of any & every commercial they make before ever airing it. If most people turned their little dial to ‘dislike’ then that would have been the end of this spot. The geeky husband represents AT&T in this spot, and he’s likable and ultimately succeeds, ergo so does AT&T’s advertised cellphone package. The wife thinks it’s stupid, that’s why she’s the villain. Doesn’t really go much deeper than that.
This commercial, like everything in the American psyche, can be traced back to Stephen King. This is every married man’s lonely death as Jordy Verill. Slow apathetic Green Hell. Meteor Shit. It’s all the work and no play that makes Jack a dull boy. Rose Madder had a greenhouse connection as well.
They don’t always get it right. How long did Pepsi’s brown and bubbly ad campaign last?
Oh, absolutely they did that. No doubt about it. However, I think you’re making an error in assuming that a) the focus group process always yields accurate results, and b) that AT&T is always going to act on those results in a competent manner.
While both of these suppositions may be true as a generality, I think we could both think of plenty of counter-examples that disprove their universality.