An internal miscommunication

Oddly, we don't seem to have even received the original commercial, which is suddenly very interesting. I wonder: what's in it that is so terrible that "legal reasons" need be hamfistedly waved around? Hookers snorting coke under Ambilight's warm embrace—Blow and Glow? A freshly untethered Beverly Mantle, waking on his bloodsoaked gurney to the gentle dawn of the Philips Hf3470/60 Wake-up Light? Or maybe it really was just early.

• [Brainspore]

  “Oh, no! PLEASE don’t let everyone you know see our commercial!” is the new “ANYWHERE but the briar patch!”

• [alesloan]

  Perhaps intentional use of the Streisand effect?

• [Kristin Reed]

  It probably isn’t as exciting as you are inferring. Most media needs to go through legal clearances. Any songs or clips, actors, etc. need to have all “legal clearances” prior to making public, lest a law suit arise. This goes for all media.

  • [Brad Pocatello]

    working in ads, this kind of thing happens all the time – it’s not even remotely abnormal. Usually it’s to prevent deploying sales incentives and prices too soon or that are subject to change. Very unlikely it’s anything interesting.

• [taras]

  Could just be a marketing tactic.  I’ve read about companies using this exact one before: issue a retraction without actually sending anything out. Generates instant publicity, and at least some places will follow up with what it really was (which is usually nothing special).

• [Eric Pickering]

  If the commercial was produced under a union contract (SAG-AFTRA), then there is a very specific time period in which it may be used on the internet. If it starts running earlier then intended, they will have to cut checks to the actors earlier than intended, and it will have to be taken down sooner.

• [fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

  I’m impressed that they managed to cram that much insufferable attitude into so few words…

• [nerdydog]

  did the same internal miscommunication allow someone who is sending out PR for Philips to misspell the name of the company they are making commercials for? 

  • [McGreens]

    Yeah, I noticed that too, but then I got distracted by the giant “SPARKS”.

• [Hugh Johnson]

  The receipt part would be easy…it’s always a matter of compliance, isn’t it?

• [Lee Dannascher]

  the best one of these i had was a car company extending President Clintons “bridge to the 21st century” statement with a similar voice guy to the effect of “we’re going to build a bridge to the 21st century, and then drive there in our new buick!”
  the white house wasn’t pleased, and the spot never aired. close, though..

• [Jurgen Westerhoff]

  It says PhiLLips, not Philips…

• [Jason Weisberger]

  You chose an excellent way to acknowledge your receipt of and compliance with their email!

• [Beanolini]

  Personally, I would have replied with ‘you are a khaki-coloured bombardier’.

• [DryDry]

  Maybe they haven’t decided if they even want to air the spot.
  Maybe they don’t want to pay two talent session fees for all the talent in the spot.Maybe they haven’t negotiated upgrades for various talents in the spot. Maybe the spot isn’t finished. Maybe the client decided they didn’t like the cut and wanted it re-edited. Maybe there’s a typo in one of the supers. Maybe they don’t have broadcast approvals to air the spot. Maybe the audio mix is f’d up.Maybe a bazillion reasons why they aren’t ready to release the spot.

• [Gyrofrog]

  I thought that perhaps the Mael Bros. had played a prank.