Mother Jones: Chrysler's Deplorable "Detroit" Super Bowl Ad
Last night I offended some DUers with my harsh critique of Chrysler's Super Bowl Ad. I'm sorry for that. It was certainly not my intention. As I was getting my ass kicked, I learned some things about the auto industry, and the people and communities connected to it. That said, I think we can have differing opinions on a car ad without taking it personally. Apparently, I am not the only one who didn't get "goosebumps".
But there's a lot to dislike here: the fact that a major bailout recipient is dishing beaucoup bucks for a one-off ad to boost its image; the cynical racism (or at least colonialism) of positioning Chrysler as a tough, gritty, 8 Mile-style brand that's perfect for what marketers call the "urban core" demographic; and using Detroit poverty porn to hawk your product while simultaneously trying to deride the media's recent Detroit poverty porn. (To be fair, maybe Chrysler ended up with a crappy commercial because the word's out on Madison Avenue that Chrysler also counts its advertising firms among the many parties it screws over. One of its previous ad execs complained that Chrysler "makes cars which no one wants and continues to throw money at them...and now, they want us to bail them out.)
But most appalling is the idea that Chrysler is one of the great things about gritty Detroit and America, when in fact it's one of the corporate locusts that choked the city and nation purple with its credit-backed gobbling of skilled labor and its excretion of abandoned worker plants. It's as if some Wall Street marketer hired by Chrysler was stuck at his social-worker sister's apartment in West Harlem and skimmed her copy of the November/December Mother Jones while she was preparing two cups of kombucha in the kitchen. Because, clearly, the creators of this ad read Charlie LeDuff's amazing elegy for his hometown...and, clearly, they didn't get it at all.
20. Deliberate lying in the MJ article isn't a way to take the fight to the ebul corporations
Most of the assembly plants in that article, if they weren't closed simply for the fact that Chrysler doesn't make certain brands anymore, are alive and well building Chrysler's new Grand Cherokees, 200s, or Rams.
That's another reason I unrecced. Seriously, take your patronizing elsewhere. It's getting old.
Did you bother to read my post from last night? What do you see (project) my complaint to be? Is the Mother Jones article "moving goalposts"? It's a critique of a corporation shamelessly co-opting Michigan's history, pain, and pride, for branding. All the while ignoring it's part in the ruin. Your simplistic thinking won't serve you here.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.