Renault Needs Don Draper

Cammy Corrigan
by Cammy Corrigan

The UK gets a bit of a harsh stereotype. Allegedly, we’ve got bad teeth, drive on the “wrong side of the road” and are very reserved (apparently, that’s a bad thing). We also call ads or TV commercials “adverts.” We may be odd, but believe it or not, we can kick “bottom” when we feel like it. Now I could point to the Burning of Washington, but I’ve been advised by Führer Schmitt that this may be “too soon,” and could “hurt their feelings.” Nor will I point to Waterloo or the Iranian Embassy Siege. What I’m pointing to is the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA). They are quite a rabid bunch. If they don’t like something, they’ll kick its bottom and ban it. Like this advert, or this one. They’re also quite hard on automotive adverts, too. In 2007, the ASA banned an advert from Toyota about the Prius for being “misleading” (you can watch the advert here). And now, Renault is copping it in the neck (as we fancy to say.)

Campaign, the must read in the British propaganda industry, reports that Renault has their legs smacked by the ASA for an advert which claimed “zero emissions” from Renault’s electric cars. The voiceover in the advert says: “For us, global warming goes beyond the emissions coming out of the exhaust. It’s an issue we address before, during and after manufacture. From next year, Renault will launch a range of zero-emission vehicles to drive the car forward again.” Unfortunately, 17 people complained that whilst the electric vehicles themselves emit nothing, the advert didn’t take into account the overall life of the vehicle (A.K.A: the “Prius Vs Hummer” debate). Renault responded by saying that if the car were charged from renewable sources, then their statement could stand. Not so, the ASA said. Since the advert was made for the UK, the energy sources have to come from the UK national grid, therefore, CO2 emissions would be inevitable. Boy, are they ever.

Another complaint about the advert was that the advert gave the impression that the production, use and disposal of the car would produce no emissions and will have no detrimental effect on the environment. This complaint was upheld. The advert was banned, but after some hasty cuts, the advert was deemed broadcastable. I wonder if “Mad Men” ever have this trouble….?

PS: The advert hasn’t made it on YouTube (yet …) so we aim to entertain you with an allegedly banned allegedly German advert for a Renault.

Cammy Corrigan
Cammy Corrigan

More by Cammy Corrigan

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 12 comments
  • BeyondBelief BeyondBelief on Apr 01, 2010

    That would be, "Michael Jackson (the DEAD bearded one, not the dead pedophile..."

  • Rpn453 Rpn453 on Apr 02, 2010

    At this point, I don't think I'd consider "Prius vs. Hummer" to be any more of a debate than "Earth: Flat vs. Round".

  • HotRod Not me personally, but yes - lower prices will dramatically increase the EV's appeal.
  • Slavuta "the price isn’t terrible by current EV standards, starting at $47,200"Not terrible for a new Toyota model. But for a Vietnamese no-name, this is terrible.
  • Slavuta This is catch22 for me. I would take RAV4 for the powertrain alone. And I wouldn't take it for the same thing. Engines have history of issues and transmission shifts like glass. So, the advantage over hard-working 1.5 is lost.My answer is simple - CX5. This is Japan built, excellent car which has only one shortage - the trunk space.
  • Slavuta "Toyota engineers have told us that they intentionally build their powertrains with longevity in mind"Engine is exactly the area where Toyota 4cyl engines had big issues even recently. There was no longevity of any kind. They didn't break, they just consumed so much oil that it was like fueling gasoline and feeding oil every time
  • Wjtinfwb Very fortunate so far; the fleet ranges from 2002 to 2023, the most expensive car to maintain we have is our 2020 Acura MDX. One significant issue was taken care of under warranty, otherwise, 6 oil changes at the Acura dealer at $89.95 for full-synthetic and a new set of Michelin Defenders and 4-wheel alignment for 1300. No complaints. a '16 Subaru Crosstrek and '16 Focus ST have each required a new battery, the Ford's was covered under warranty, Subaru's was just under $200. 2 sets of tires on the Focus, 1 set on the Subie. That's it. The Focus has 80k on it and gets synthetic ever 5k at about $90, the Crosstrek is almost identical except I'll run it to 7500 since it's not turbocharged. My '02 V10 Excursion gets one oil change a year, I do it myself for about $30 bucks with Synthetic oil and Motorcraft filter from Wal-Mart for less than $40 bucks. Otherwise it asks for nothing and never has. My new Bronco is still under warranty and has no issues. The local Ford dealer sucks so I do it myself. 6 qts. of full syn, a Motorcraft cartridge filter from Amazon. Total cost about $55 bucks. Takes me 45 minutes. All in I spend about $400/yr. maintaining cars not including tires. The Excursion will likely need some front end work this year, I've set aside a thousand bucks for that. A lot less expensive than when our fleet was smaller but all German.
Next