By on October 15, 2013

YouTube Preview Image

If you get your automotive news online you’re probably familiar with the new ad campaign for the [car brand name] [vehicle name] starring [famous comedian] in his character, [fictional newscaster], from [hit movie name], the sequel to which will be released later this year.

Publicity for the ad campaign says that [famous comedian] was so enthused at the creative comedic opportunities presented that he ended up ad-libbing dozens of commercial spots. That publicity was apparently successful because now the publicity campaign about the cross promotional ad campaign has announced that in a little more than a week since the ads were released on YouTube, over 2.7 million people have seen them. That figure doesn’t include those who have seen the [fictional newscaster] [vehicle name] ads on television. [Automaker headquartered in the Detroit area] is one of the major advertisers during Major League Baseball’s postseason playoffs.

The ad campaign has certainly been successful at getting the name of the [brand name] [vehicle name] out in front of the public. It’s possibly been even more successful at getting the names of [fictional newscaster], [famous comedian] and [movie sequel title] publicized. I’m sure that everyone involved with the new [vehicle name] ads are pleased with all the buzz. Next month, when the October sales reports are issued, we’ll know if that buzz translates to more [vehicle name]s getting sold.

Ronnie Schreiber edits Cars In Depth, a realistic perspective on cars & car culture and the original 3D car site. If you found this post worthwhile, you can get a parallax view at Cars In Depth. If the 3D thing freaks you out, don’t worry, all the photo and video players in use at the site have mono options. Thanks for reading – RJS

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

40 Comments on “Automaker, Movie Studio Sell SUV, Movie Sequel Together...”


  • avatar

    Not being a TV watcher I had to add my number to the youtube count after reading your article. It’s better than most car adds, and being a Ford sales guy, but also a car guy the “last of the real SUVs” hit close to home.

    The truth is, unlike myself (who owns no cars newer than 1994) my customers seem to really like the change over from SUV to CUV on everything from the explorer downwards. No one gets pouty at the loss of RWD truck based SUVs. The real truth that no one will admit is CUVs are just less functional mini-vans….

    • 0 avatar
      KixStart

      I still have a minivan and I like it for what it does. I have been very happy with it.

      But if I get another “utility” vehicle, it will probably be a CUV. We no longer have 6 people at home, so we don’t need something quite as big, although seating for 7 would remain a bonus. And the minivan market doesn’t seem to offer a lot of choices (GM and Ford are out). They were expensive last time I looked (the Honda and Toyota, anyway). CUVs seem to get better fuel economy.

      They’re more attractive partly because that’s where all the development money is going.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      “The real truth that no one will admit is CUVs are just less functional mini-vans….”

      This is true. In the case of the Durango though, it is an actual capable CUV. It’s not truck based anymore, but can still tow like one. So like you said, consumers will generally prefer it over the Dakota based one, if not only for the vast improvements in quality.

      • 0 avatar
        racer-esq.

        Is it a CUV? The original Cherokee was unibody, due to a unitized full length frame. The HUMVEE had independent suspension all around. How do the longitudinal engine, RWD, but unitized and IRS SUVs get classed.

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          Big difference between unibody RWD IRS setup and Humvee setup, an 06 H1 duramax can tow as much as a dual rear wheel chevy 1 ton.
          Maybe I give it a double standard but I believe those capabilities more then give it those rights.

          A frame is (to me) the first thing I look for to differentiate between CUV and SUV.
          The Durango is definately a CUV, a minivan, you can’t play around with that frame. If it gets wrecked, its going to cost more or total quicker.

          • 0 avatar
            racer-esq.

            Separate frame definite gets something into SUV territory. But is it a requirement? A lot of people would freak out if the old school Cherokee was called a CUV. Or any generation of Grand Cherokee.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            I suppose the only thing holding us back from making this an easy definition is the grand Cherokee.
            You can’t possibly say the Grand Cherokee isn’t worthy of being an SUV, perhaps we can just place a double standard here.
            But then there are framed vehicles that can’t possibly live up.

    • 0 avatar
      redav

      Less functional mini-vans, or more functional station wagons?

  • avatar
    Garak

    [comment]

  • avatar
    EquipmentJunkie

    Before this ad campaign, neither the [car brand name] [vehicle name] starring [famous comedian] in his character, [fictional newscaster], from [hit movie name] were on my radar. Now both of them are. The post-buyout [multi-national auto manufacturer]‘s advertising efforts have been extremely effective. I await the sales data for the months of Q4 to prove my point.

  • avatar
    KixStart

    Dang. It’s marketing genius and there I was thinking the ads were stupid.

    I feel like such a fool.

  • avatar
    romanjetfighter

    Much better than the Acura and Seinfeld ads.

    This is like the XX beer commercials and The Most Interesting Guy. Funny.

    My favorite ad will still be ‘Moments’ by Lexus. Not funny, but artsy in a very unpretentious way.

  • avatar
    7402

    “he real truth that no one will admit is CUVs are just less functional mini-vans….”

    THIS.

  • avatar
    Halftruth

    I don’t get the whole Ron Burgundy thing. Hardly funny.. if it sells more cars, then all the power to them.

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      How dare you question the brilliance of Olivier François? He was actually named “Grand Brand Genius” by Adweek last year.

    • 0 avatar
      redav

      These are funny the first time I see one, then tiresome thereafter.

      They in no way make me interested in the [vehicle name], and in fact I have to think hard to recall that it is for [vehicle name] at all. After seeing the ads, I know it has more than 1 hp (but don’t recall how much more), that it has a glove box bigger than a sandwich, and that people aren’t supposed to dance near it. I genuinely can’t tell you anything else about [vehicle name] despite seeing the commercials many times.

      The ads are much more effective for [movie sequel] since [fictional character] is the only thing that seems to get attention or screen time.

    • 0 avatar
      rudiger

      Generally speaking, Will Farrell is simply another in the long line of former SNL cast members who just aren’t very funny.

      But, then, that would be entirely appropriate for a Chrysler product commercial, which haven’t been very good for a long time, either. The last one that was even remotely clever was the ‘Birds’ commercial for the original Grand Cherokee SRT8:

      http://vimeo.com/20731300

  • avatar
    jz78817

    There’s more to the “Truth About Cars” than just nay-saying anything that’s getting positive press. That seemed like all Farago ever did and I hop the site doesn’t go back to that.

    • 0 avatar
      Chocolatedeath

      Well if it does I will reduce visits and wait for the next Regime.

    • 0 avatar
      Landcrusher

      Really? You think this is naysaying? Did you really just have a need to grumble and rant yourself? Are you [car brand name] fanboy who just can’t stand any poke at “your” brand? Maybe you are one of these reactionaries that scream and yell at any slight at domestics or the UAW?

      I don’t get it. Please inform me of what I missed. I thought this piece was humorous commentary on the press about the press. Or, about how the meta had become the story rather than the car. Also, I really can’t find a single thing in it that’s actually negative. Seems neutral at worse.

      Maybe you don’t know what naysaying means?

      • 0 avatar
        redav

        Well, if it is neigh-saying, then the ads might just have the horse for you.

      • 0 avatar
        shelvis

        Well that’s certainly a comment I would expect to see on TTAC Classic, so…..

        • 0 avatar
          Landcrusher

          Lol, I did let him have it didn’t I. Likely overboard, but the whole TTAC hates whatever thing is just ridiculous. If you don’t like the bias of a site, then don’t go there. Or, make a good argument why their position is incorrect.

          There is nothing useful in simply whining about bias. It’s hypocritical, annoying, and uncivil.

          • 0 avatar
            shelvis

            “There is nothing useful in simply whining about bias. It’s hypocritical, annoying, and uncivil.”
            But complaining about those that do is?

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            But I didn’t simply complain. This jz fellow didn’t even bother to make a point. He just claimed bias. If he really believes the site is biased then he should simply not read it. OTOH, there are three things that are important differences.

            1. I pointed out how his claim was baseless. I didnt just accuse.
            2. I asked him to make a point. I didn’t just make an insult
            3. This isn’t his site so he really is required by civility to show cause for his accusation or leave.

            If he wants to substantiate his accusation, then he can do it, but otherwise aren’t we reasonable to assume that it is he that is the biased one?

            Lastly, I am not unsympathetic to the point that comparing about complaining is hypocritical. However, no one here is harassing him in any way. He didn’t pay for a product or really have any standing to complain. He not only complained, he did it rudely, and he ought to be called out on it.

          • 0 avatar
            jz78817

            “Lol, I did let him have it didn’t I.”

            Oh yeah, I’m really smarting. In fact, I’ll never comment or even read this site ever again lest you “let me have it” once more.

            That sound you heard was me rolling my eyes into the next county.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            When you can make either a constructive, or even a humorous comment, we’ll welcome it I am sure.

          • 0 avatar
            shelvis

            The only thing he said is that he hoped the site didn’t go back to being a Debbie Downer. Your comments reveal a whole lot more about bias and what side of the fence you sit on.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            I reject your premise, and your conclusion which isn’t really connected to anything.

            You are hanging everything on taking everything out of context.

            This is now completely divorced from the thread and the guy who put the turd in the punch bowl is obviously not interested in a real conversation so you can have the last word if you like.

          • 0 avatar
            shelvis

            Wow, you are an internet debate pro! Advanced techniques like “I dismiss your premise” and “you can have the last word” are usually reserved for only the real pros! Can you work “strawman” in there for a true triple play? I am truly humbled. What a clever way to dance around assing out.
            “If you don’t like the bias of a site, then don’t go there.”
            I would suggest that you use your own advice in regards to suggestions.
            TTAC is a product. There’s nothing wrong with a suggestion on how to make a product better.

  • avatar
    racer-esq.

    The Mercedes GL starts at $63,000. The Mercedes GL based Durango starts at $29,000. That’s a pretty sweet deal.

  • avatar
    Ryoku75

    So the new Durango has more power than a horse? Wow! I…still don’t really care about Durangos, and advertising it in the same dull gray that every other CUVs sold in just makes me less interested.

    Raise that thing up, get rid of he ground effects, and make it plum purple and maybe then I’ll look back to it.

    Ads like these just beg for me to crack jokes about them though, they say nothing about the product nor even try to sell it, yea the Durangos got 3 hundred horses, but why would I want that from a bulky grocery carrier?

  • avatar
    Stumpaster

    It is certainly more effective than those ads with a blonde cow trying to pitch a new vehicle that has an LED-lit emblem on the grille. Oddly enough, the cow is no longer pitching this vehicle.

  • avatar
    Lorenzo

    You know, all the brackets would lead some people to think, not that you’re trying to be funny, or you don’t want to give free publicity to the ad campaign, but that the check hasn’t cleared yet. Some people are funny that way.

  • avatar
    ajla

    ChryslerCo did product placement on Breaking Bad and Archer too.

    I saw these Anchorman Dodge ads posted on some movie blogs earlier last week, so I guess that’s good for the Durango. I didn’t notice many people comment about the vehicle itself though.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India