/lit/ - Literature

I feel like an off topic rant. This video and the attached comment crystalized a thought I've had for years about the nature of television auto advertisements. They never establish a recognizable entity to identify the brand with and remember it by. The only qualities that the commercials display are those standard to any well functioning car. The ads themselves are uniform and interchangeable and seem only to serve to remind one that the brand exists. Hello everyone, this is a Honda. It is a good car. It has good safety ratings. We have them for sale. Come buy one. Imagine briefly if these marketing departments did not exist. Would people stop buying cars? People buy cars because of the evident utility of vehicles. People drive cars everyday. People witness hundreds of people driving cars everyday. Cars are inescapable, even if you do not watch tv. Are they trying to persuade people to buy more cars than they need? Unlikely, as cars are the most expensive consumer products that people buy besides houses. That raises another good point. Why do house manufacturing companies not spend millions persuading people to buy houses? All of these cute McDonald's menu houses that keep popping up near me were manufactured by somebody, why don't they brand and advertise them? Hello everyone, this is a house. It is a good house. It keeps the rain out. We have them for sale. Come buy one. I can think of two reasons why auto manufacturers disseminate these superfluous ads. One is environmental competition, which is the same reason trees grow so tall. If one company pulls its ads, then it could be at a market disadvantage. This is nonsensical because the ads cannot have any logistical effect on persuading people to buy cars, and some popular brands do not advertise on tv. The other reason is to reinforce preexisting notions about favorite brands. Nothing beats being excited to buy your next Toyota when your current Toyota wrecks its transmission. (cont.)