Category: Marketing / Advertising

So Get A Replacement

Marketing / Advertising, Sports

Seems like Britishland’s little darling has been having problems:

Emma Raducan, 21, shot to fame after winning the US Open in 2021 as an 18-year-old. She had been handed a £125,000 911 Carrera GTS Cabriolet under a lucrative sponsorship with the luxury motor brand which began in 2022.

However, what sponsors giveth, they may also taketh away:

However, last month Raducanu saw her pride and joy taken from her after the company “took it back”.  One of her associates is quoted by the Daily Mail as saying: “Emma no longer has a Porsche.  They took it back. It used to have pride of place at her home.”

Porsche has a history of suddenly pulling the plug on sponsorship deals they do not feel are value for money, including when athletes are not meeting expectations.

…and our little girl has won pretty much nada  since her US Open victory, so perhaps it was unsurprising.

Anyway, she had a two-word comment of joy the other day, because apparently Porsche gave her another one (I suppose because they didn’t want to look like the heartless bastards they are).

Had I been a well-paid tennis star going through a bad patch, I know what my two-word response would have been after the snatchback:  “Hello, Ferrari.”

Along with several more words, few of them printable in a newspaper, and not very complimentary towards Porsche either.

But that’s just me.

Afterthought:  Of course, Emma could always have gone with Mercedes, judging by their own recent losing record in Formula One… kindred spirits, so to speak. [/snark]

HOW Much? (Part 2)

Marketing / Advertising, Old Fartism, The Gun Thing

Never checked my email over the weekend because I had other stuff to do.  So I opened  the program just now, to find this in my Inbox:

It’s not the sale price that offends me (that much):  it’s becoming increasing difficult to find a decent rifle for less than a grand nowadays (sigh).

But two grand (regular price)?  For a Marlin lever rifle?

Has the world gone fucking crazy?

Then again, there’s this:

…which seems too good to be true.  (I don’t know who “SDS” is, but whatever.)  If I were to guess, that might need a few hundred bucks in gunsmithing to make it acceptable, but I could be wrong.  (I do like the lanyard ring, by the way.)

Lookalike Names

Marketing / Advertising

This one made me chuckle:

Snickers launched in the UK in 1967, but before consumers could get their hands on it, it went through a change of name — because Snickers was deemed too close to another, saucier, word.

“Knickers”, I assume.  Not that I think that that name is “saucy”, or anything like it.  “Knockers”, maybe?

On the bright side, imagine the fuss today if someone tried to launch a snack bar called “Sniggers”… and it was made of dark chocolate.  I imagine that Sniggers  having been rejected, one could try “Darkies”, then?

From the archives:

I should probably stop now;  but that doesn’t mean that you should.  Carry on, in Comments, by all means.

Dreams For Suckers

Marketing / Advertising

Here’s an irresistible offer assuming, that is, you want to live on Planet Manhattan:

For most, owning an apartment on the Upper West Side just minutes away from Central Park is an expensive dream.

However, New York City apartments in the prime location complete with hardwood floors and air conditioning, are being sold for as little as $174,000.  Studio apartments are estimated at $173,801, while one-bedroom flats will cost around $184,990.

But there is a catch. The cheap properties, located within a five-storey walk-up pre-war building, are being sold through a lottery open only to those earning below a certain income.  Only households with an annual income of around $150,000 or less – 120% of New York’s median income — will qualify for the draw.

Sounds good, dunnit?  The company is giving people of lesser income (that would be too little to afford to live in NYfC) a chance to get in there — a very laudable goal.  Read on:

Applicants must use the home as their primary residence and may not currently own or have previously owned a property.

That’s good.

Interested buyers must also have 5% of the purchase price to hand in order to make a down payment.

Also reasonable.

Those looking to get their hands on one of the 17 units in at 165 West 80th Street must enter the draw by the deadline on August 27.

That’s kinda soon for a purchase of this magnitude, don’t you think?  (Anyone who’s ever bought a car will recognize this little line;  “Offer only good through this weekend!” or “There are two other guys interested in this deal.” )

…which brings me to my next point.  Most likely, there are going to be far more buyers than apartments, what finance people call “oversubscribed” in the market.  Which is fine, but my antennae — already twitching — lead me to ask one simple question:

Does one have to purchase a ticket or pay some kind of fee to enter this particular little lottery?

Because if so, the organizers are going to make a shitload of money from the potential buyers before the first apartment is sold because regardless of the ticket price, there are likely to be hundreds of thousands of applicants wanting in on the deal.

If not, and the entry is based solely upon proof of financial qualification, then all is well, more or less.

But I can’t but help thinking that there’s a scam in all this, somewhere.  As the old (and wise) saying goes:  when a deal is too good to be true, it usually is.  And apart from the obvious question (who would want to live in a five-floor walk-up in Manhattan nowadays?), this one seems to be just that.

I’ve seen apartments in Manhattan, and most are absolute shit — especially in older buildings.  Offering a “floor and A/C” isn’t much, and if the place needs substantial work — at Manhattan-level prices — then the deal is going to cost a ton of money.  And if the organizers have already refurbished the apartments –also at Manhattan-level prices — then how are they going to make money on so low a price?

Feel free to argue the point, in Comments.

Just… No

Drive Time, Marketing / Advertising

Let’s say that many years ago your company stopped producing a popular car model in the line-up.  Now time has passed, and you want to reintroduce it, using the model’s old name in the hope of using its storied cachet to attract buyers.

Nothing wrong with that in principle, of course, but there’s a right way and a wrong way to do it.  Here’s the right way:

The original 1969 Dodge Charger Hemi R/T, a roaring, powerful and dangerous muscle car pushing 375hp:

The relaunched 2010s Dodge Charger (SRT Hellcat), a still-more powerful, even-more dangerous roaring monster pushing a jillion (okay, 700+hp):

The styling may have changed,the engineering improved, but the essence of the beast remained the same.

Now let’s look at the (oh-so very) wrong way to relaunch a brand.  From Ford U.K.:

The original 1969 to mid-70s Ford Capri, a sporty, spirited and sexy little two-door number:

The 2025 proposed Ford Capri, a blocky, all-electric (!!!!) SUV (????):

…which retains absolutely nothing of the spirit of the original, and isn’t worthy of even carrying the name.

Someone From Marketing needs to get summoned into a windowless, soundproofed room for a four-hour ball-kicking.  (And yes, I’m quite aware that a woke model like this may well have emanated from a womb-bearer, or someone with pretensions thereto.  Or a committee — same thing, really.)

And no, I’m not taking bets that this abhorrent abortion of a vehicle is going to fail, abjectly and miserably.

Here, Eve…

Marketing / Advertising, The Gun Thing

…just take a little bite of this apple (from my Inbox):

As any fule kno, I’m NOT in the target market (so to speak) for one of these puppies, but sheesh… it sure is tempting.

Doc Russia had the best comment when I showed it to my buddies on WhatsApp:

It’s a good thing that by the time I get my guns out of hock, this sale will be over.  And I don’t need yet another caliber in Ye Olde Ammoe Locquere anyway.  (Keep talking, Kim…)