Chevrolet's Silverado TV Ad: Our Country, Your Truck, They're Wimps

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago

In 1991, Italian clothing maker Benneton released a controversial ad campaign. Huge billboards and full page magazine ads displayed rows of crosses in an American military cemetery, a priest kissing a nun on the lips, a black woman breast feeding a white baby and other images designed to shock even the most jaded sensibilities. In 1992, Benneton upped the ante with photos of a dying Aids victim, a Kalashnikov-wielding African guerrilla holding a human leg bone, a boat overcrowded with Albanians, a group of African refugees, a weeping family contemplating the bloody body of a Mafioso and two Indians caught in a Calcutta flood. “Reality advertising” had arrived. And now it’s here, courtesy of, of all companies, Chevrolet.

The ad in question is “Our Country, Our Truck.” The 60-second music video cum ad features a montage of historical and manufactured images, including civil rights campaigner Rosa Parks sitting on a bus, Martin Luther King mouthing “I have a dream” in front of the Washington monument, a half-naked peace protester clutching a US flag modified with a peace symbol, a recently resigned President Nixon waving goodbye from a Marine helicopter, a raging wildfire, a hurricane ripping the roof off of a house, post-Katrina flooding, the twin floodlight light tribute at Ground Zero, weary firefighters (geddit?) and, oh yeah, a new Silverado.

Needless to say, after the ad was aired, a number of viewers and more than a few media commentators took GM to task for using images of disaster and political strife to sell pickup trucks. Needless to say, Chevrolet’s spin machine was warmed-up and ready to go. "We were trying to strike that balance between provocative and not stepping over the line," Chevrolet Advertising Director Kim Kosak told Automotive News. "A brand like Chevrolet can do it. If you used those images to hawk a $199 deal that would be reprehensible," Kosak added, oblivious to the old joke that ends “We already know what you are; we’re just haggling over price.”

When asked WTF they were thinking, the edgy ad guys responsible for the spot were even, um, edgier. According to Bill Ludwig, Chief Creative Officer for the Campbell-Ewald ad agency, "If you want to make a statement that rings true with the majority of people, you are going to piss off some people.” This, we can presume, was a large part of Ludwig’s goal. In case you missed it, “There are a lot of cynical people out there who don't react well to this, and a lot of people who will never get behind the wheel of a pickup. So let them get into their Volvo sedans and complain about this spot that they see as exploitive. This is not for them."

Never mind the ad’s subtext, clock Ludwig’s anti-Volvo agenda. Following GM’s recent hiring of right wing commentator Sean Hannity for a national radio promotion, this kind of barely concealed blue state hate is designed to attract pickup buyers with an “us vs. them” political mentality. Paranoid? Then what’s with John Cougar Mellencamp’s musical tribute to the idea of “stand and fight” under an image of a Vietnam battlefield? How reactionary is that? And you’ve got to wonder about the politics of a man who uses death, disaster and turmoil to sell a truck calling his critics “cynical.”

All of which brings us back to the central question: does controversy sell pickups? If Benneton can sell sweaters by showing a black stallion humping a white mare (as you can see, I’m not making this up), surely Chevy can sell a light truck or two by reminding us of the tragedy of 911. Ah, but there is a crucial difference between the two campaigns. As you’d expect from the company that brought us the front wheel-drive Impala SS, Chevy wimped out. Benneton’s ads were/are designed to confront viewers, to make them question their values and preconceptions. Chevy’s “Our Country, Our Truck” was/is designed to reinforce the traditional pickup truck buyer's (if no one else’s) values and preconceptions.

GM’s ad guy’s right: for Chevy’s core audience, the “Our Country, Our Truck” ad is about as confrontational as The National Enquirer. Even the atomic bomb explosion removed from the final cut would not have asked any questions of the average pickup truck buyer’s psyche. Sure, the ad exploits a few uncomfortable moments of our national history for commercial gain, but it’s not as if they showed a bunch of flag-waving Chevy owners pushing a non-union made Toyota Tundra off a cliff.

Once again, GM shows it just, can’t, quite, get, there. Like the people in charge of designing and building their products, the execs responsible for Chevrolet’s advertising don’t understand that fortune doesn’t favor the semi-brave. If you’re gonna build a V8 performance car, it's gotta be rear wheel-drive. If you're gonna piss people off, you gotta really piss them off. As it stands now, the only people who are going to be angry about this Silverado thing are GM’s shareholders.

Robert Farago
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 100 comments
  • MarkBlog MarkBlog on Nov 02, 2006

    Like so many other deaf, dumb and blind so-called companies, the dinosaur called GM thinks it can advertise its way to success. That "creative" directors can fool all of us into simply overlooking the fact that their cars suck. That they are junk on wheels. This controversy is a tempest in a teapot. The company is supposed to be making cars not noise. But it forgot how to do that 30 years ago. So it leaves that to Toyota. And that quiet giant is eating GM's face. Mark Stevens MSCO

  • Notbuyinit Notbuyinit on Feb 04, 2007

    Most of what you see is caused by the fact that Chevy/GM ad execs pretty much live in a bubble and have no real lives. Therein lies the problem -- they mostly use their agency CE as a mouthpiece and production house and very seldom as a creative thinktank, they force pretty much every idea down the agency's throat. Not to say CE doesn't cooperate lovingly and have its own share of redneck reasoning. Literally everything that gets into public view has to be of low enough IQ and quality for Chevy's sheltered & idiotic ad figureheads to understand/approve it. "Our Country" is so highly offensive (and desperate) on so many levels... and not a single ad exec at GM could see for themselves as to why on earth that would be the case. Fire them all -- as far as Detroit goes,we should be viewing these people as accountable elected officials, they are controlling/destroying the livelihood of an entire region -- and trust me, I know from personal experience that Kosak and co. don't give a mangy rat's ass about a single one of you. If you are in the ad biz in Detroit, start looking for a new gig and soon. Most likely in a new city unless a tech boom happens. Oh yeah, and the cars continue to utterly suck. There's your trump card. See ya GM, (and CE) it's been a good run but all good things must come to an end. I give ya 5 before you are absorbed by Toyota.

  • Lou_BC I've had my collision alert come on 2 times in 8 months. Once was when a pickup turned onto a side road with minimal notice. Another with a bus turning left and I was well clear in the outside lane but turn off was in a corner. I suspect the collision alert thought I was traveling in a straight line.I have the "emergency braking" part of the system turned off. I've had "lane keep assist" not recognize vehicles parked on the shoulder.That's the extent of my experience with "assists". I don't trust any of it.
  • SCE to AUX A lot has changed since I got my license in 1979, about 2 weeks after I turned 16 (on my second attempt). I would have benefited from formal driver training, and waiting another year to get my license. I was a road terror for several years - lots of accidents, near misses, speeding, showing off - the epitome of youthful indiscretion.
  • Lou_BC Jellybean F150 (1997-2004). People tend to prefer the more square body and blunt grill style.
  • SCE to AUX My first car was a 71 Pinto, 1.6 Kent engine, 4 spd. It was the original Base model with a trunk, #4332 ever built. I paid $125 for it in 1980, and had it a year. It remains the quietest idling engine I've ever had. 75HP, and I think the compression ratio was 8:1. It was riddled with rust, and I sold it to a classmate who took it to North Carolina.After a year with a 74 Fiat, I got a 76 Pinto, 2.3 engine, 4-spd. The engine was tractor rough, but I had the car 5 years with lots of rebuilding. It's the only car I parted with by driving into a junkyard.Finally, we got an 80 Bobcat for $1 from a friend in 1987. What a piece of junk. Besides the rust, it never ran right despite tons of work, fuel economy was terrible, the automatic killed the power. The hatch always leaked, and the vinyl seats were brutal in winter and summer.These cars were terrible by today's standards, but they never left me stranded. All were fitted with the poly blast shield, and I never worried about blowing up.The miserable Bobcat was traded for an 82 LTD, which was my last Ford when it was traded in 1996. Seeing how Ford is doing today, I won't be going back.
  • Jeff S I rented a PT Cruiser for a week and although I would not have bought one it was not as bad as I thought it would be. Pontiac Aztek was a good vehicle but ugly. Pinto for its time was not as good as the Japanese cars but it was not the worst that honor would go to the Vega. If one bought a Pinto new it was much better with a 4 speed manual with no air it didn't have the power for those. Add air and an automatic to a Pinto and you could beat it on a bicycle. The few small cars available today or in the recent past are so much better than the Pinto, Vega, and Gremlin. A Mitsubishi Mirage, Nissan Versa, and the former Chevy Spark are light years ahead of those small cars of the 70s.
Next