Comments on: An internal miscommunication

By: Gyrofrog

Gyrofrog — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:47:00 +0000

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

By: DryDry

DryDry — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:28:00 +0000

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.

By: McGreens

McGreens — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:59:00 +0000

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

By: Beanolini

Beanolini — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 09:34:00 +0000

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

By: Jason Weisberger

Jason Weisberger — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 06:12:00 +0000

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

By: Jurgen Westerhoff

Jurgen Westerhoff — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 02:50:00 +0000

It says PhiLLips, not Philips…

By: Lee Dannascher

Lee Dannascher — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 00:13:00 +0000

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..

By: Brad Pocatello

Brad Pocatello — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:54:00 +0000

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.

By: Hugh Johnson

Hugh Johnson — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:20:00 +0000

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

By: nerdydog

nerdydog — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 19:37:00 +0000

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?

By: fuzzyfuzzyfungus

fuzzyfuzzyfungus — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 19:36:00 +0000

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

By: Eric Pickering

Eric Pickering — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 19:34:00 +0000

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.

By: taras

taras — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 19:33:00 +0000

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).

By: Kristin Reed

Kristin Reed — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 19:25:00 +0000

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.

By: alesloan

alesloan — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 19:24:00 +0000

Perhaps intentional use of the Streisand effect?

By: Brainspore

Brainspore — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 19:19:00 +0000

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