|
Sir Lemming posted:Creepy twist: it was directed by Jared Nah it showed the kid growing up
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 01:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:28 |
|
|
Bobby Digital posted:Nah it showed the kid growing up Is this Loss?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 02:01
|
|
|
lmao I wasn't even close
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 02:26
|
|
|
I landed on a shaving company, partly because Gillette's gotten weirdly woke lately and I thought maybe this was another company trying to artsily say 'we're for boys', but also because it had two scenes of shaving and that seemed like a weird choice otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 03:38
|
|
|
"Cotton?" "Whiskey...?" "...are you loving kidding me."
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 03:46
|
|
|
I figured defense contractor, but I had it on mute so I couldn't tell you what the music or dialogue were.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 03:49
|
|
|
Who was he peeping on? His mom? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 05:11
|
|
|
Here is a commercial from several years ago, going the same pretentious route: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzqNDUkVbMg
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 08:50
|
|
|
Mierenneuker posted:Here is a commercial from several years ago, going the same pretentious route: Now I just hate Vodafone for making me feel so goddamned lonely
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 09:13
|
|
|
OGS-Remix posted:I thought it was going to be an insurance or maybe a truck commercial. Yeah, I started thinking insurance too. When he lost a girl and buzz cut his head my thought then was "something military." I never, ever even considered the possibility of what it ended up being. I was like "wut."
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 09:23
|
|
|
Folgers incest commercial.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 09:25
|
|
|
Hirayuki posted:"Cotton?" Got a healthy 'what the gently caress??' from me HerStuddMuffin posted:Frankly, it could well have been. I was going for insurance myself, and that would have made a lot more sense too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 09:35
|
|
|
Shut up Meg posted:Got a healthy 'what the gently caress??' from me I dunno, Nationwide killed a kid during the Superbowl
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 11:38
|
|
|
One of the most effective add I've seen is a UK traffic safety ad that starts with a dead kid and ends with her not being dead. What a difference 10 mph made...
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 12:25
|
|
|
Shut up Meg posted:Got a healthy 'what the gently caress??' from me And yet the company with a disgraced pedophile rapist ex-spokesman is okay being associated with naked underage kids. You'd think Subway of all companies would want to distance themselves from anything even remotely questionable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 12:43
|
|
|
I've noticed a surprising number of Johnson & Johnson commercials touting all their good works instead of a specific product. One was about the first AIDS ward. Another was about cancer(!) research. Are they trying to preemptively influence any potential jury pools with the baby powder stuff?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 13:49
|
|
|
They are facing massive lawsuits for pushing opioids. Some other companies have already settled for hundreds of millions but maybe they are going to fight it.
Mu Zeta has a new favorite as of 14:01 on Jun 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 13:55
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:One of the most effective add I've seen is a UK traffic safety ad that starts with a dead kid and ends with her not being dead. What a difference 10 mph made... Those ads don't gently caress about https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtJqw--DGl8
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 14:01
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:They are facing massive lawsuits for pushing opioids. Some other companies have already settled for hundreds of millions but maybe they are going to fight it. Well poo poo. I knew they had issues with baby powder, but I didn't realize they were getting nailed for opioids too. Burn it all down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 14:34
|
|
|
J&J have been infamous for quite some time I think. Baby powder is just the latest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 14:48
|
|
|
Whenever I see a company touting nothing but their good deeds I immediately wonder what they've just done and who they've hurt.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 19:14
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:Who was he peeping on? His mom? The standard "hole in the wall of the girls' locker room at school".
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 19:42
|
|
|
Internet was a mistake https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/28/19154220/grubhub-seamless-fake-restaurant-domain-names-commission-fees GrubHub is just a 100% fraud
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 05:39
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:Internet was a mistake loving ballsy in its deviousness that is. Goddamn.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 06:40
|
|
|
Grubhub's response is even worse. "We actually don't do these tactics anymore." So I guess it's all good now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 06:48
|
|
|
So what, even if they get convicted the worst case is probably a fine that amounts to 1% of what they pull in in one day
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 07:19
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:Grubhub's response is even worse. "We actually don't do these tactics anymore." Even the president couldn’t get away with that excuse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 07:44
|
|
|
Schubalts posted:The standard "hole in the wall of the girls' locker room at school". Which is apparently still cool to do for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 10:41
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Which is apparently still cool to do for some reason. It's not cool to do at all, but its a thing to trigger Boomer/genx nostalgia. I don't imagine it happens much anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 12:55
|
|
|
If we’re assuming a modern Subway in that commercial, then he’d been peeking at the ladies in ***checks notes*** 2005? So not Porky’s era, but definitely American Pie levels of uncomfortable sexuality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 13:31
|
|
|
The Subway ad is apparently old and Brazilian, there was a slightly different version released in 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TR9jrADizhY I like how his entire life flashes before his eyes as he's watching the sandwich get made.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 16:28
|
|
|
Picnic Princess posted:The Subway ad is apparently old and Brazilian, there was a slightly different version released in 2016. That's because it was contaminated meat, so he died right after.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 16:53
|
|
|
I don't really think this is dumb marketing because this commercial never fails to make me cry and the product actually sorta makes sense (at least more than the Subway ones), but since we're sharing these sorts of things: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZMX6H6YY1M
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
A little further afield, but I love this one as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XXPGE0klmc
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 18:46
|
|
|
Surprised Subway haven't made an ad with this guy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV542dRK3uk
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 02:45
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:Internet was a mistake
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 07:33
|
|
|
I just thought it meant that if you order on their fake menu for pickup they place your order on the real site and charge you a 20% “convenience fee”. You pay them an inflated rate, they pay the restaurant the regular rate, and they pocket the difference, like any good middleman.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 07:46
|
|
|
Dylan16807 posted:I don't understand what's happening here. How does a fake site get them a 20% commission? What does it mean that they "can bill" for it? Are they charging the customer a higher price? If they're charging the restaurants, then the restaurants must have agreed to the percentage. Were the restaurants lied to? Here’s my understanding of how it works: GrubHub does a man‐in‐the‐middle attack. Their fraudulent website has all the prices inflated by twenty percent. When diners order on the fraud website, if the restauranteur already has a contract with GrubHub, GrubHub puts the order through to the restaurant same as they would if it went through GrubHub.com. It shows up on a screen at the front desk or maybe they still get faxes or whatever—I don’t know; I don’t work in a restaurant. GrubHub pockets their normal commission and also the difference between the normal sale price and the inflated one listed on the fraud website. If the restaurant is not affiliated with GrubHub and has their own online ordering system, GrubHub will take the dish selections the diner put into the fake site and put them into the restaurant’s real site. But they won’t just put the credit card number through. They will charge the credit card themselves at the fake site’s inflated menu rates. They will put a GrubHub‐owned credit card number into the real restaurant’s form, which will be charged at the real rates. GrubHub’s account keeps the difference. For phone orders, they’d have to have a human agent in a call centre somewhere. They’d listen and write down the order and either put it into the restaurant’s online ordering form or call it in to the restaurant posing as the real diner. Either way, they do the same substitution with the credit cards.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 08:08
|
|
|
It sounds like Grubhub’s legal department engaged in some thoughts and prayers when it comes to their definition of cybersquatting. The part where they potentially used copyrighted photos is what’s going to sink them if this goes to court. 23,000k counts of cybersquatting. Holy poo poo. In other news Duluth Trading opened a retail store near me. I like their stuff, but since I’ve lost weight, big bulky clothing meant for old men in dusty home workshops don’t fit me all that well. There was also a big elaborate display for DUKE CANNON stuff. I’ve never seen DUKE CANNON in the wild. They look like poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 15:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:28 |
|
|
I think it is a nan-in-the-middle thing, but I also think it's something simpler. GrubHub takes 3% for orders they deliver that were ordered directly from a restaurant, or 20% if the order was placed thru GrubHubs service (phone, app, website). The fake websites directed orders away from the restaurants and to GrubHub. The customer pays the same amount, but the restaurant gets a much smaller cut.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 15:25
|
|