I mean this is the same calculus as if China invaded Taiwan (leave aside how successful it might be). Would the US really go to war over Taiwan. Would the US really go to (nuclear) war over Ukraine.
So far the answer to the latter has been a resounding no. What would change that. A tactical nuke in Ukraine? Perhaps. Not sure why it would, that said.
reading comment blogs other than PB, are we now getting a sense more and more people on the right are going over to Farage and Reform position, that NATO and EU expansion caused the unnecessary bloodshed and horror in Ukraine, and Labour are making yet another crisis escalating and prolonging it?
Are there any shifts in the backing government on Ukraine polling?
If there are, the Conservative Front Bench, which has got off to a strong start under Kemi in how they are positioning themselves on the side of every disillusioned voter, follows the voter shift to keep the clear blue water with Labour and not with Reform, Starmer won’t have the country’s backing for what he is doing - that would be a very dangerous place for government.
Looking ahead, surely we can only see Musk and Trump soon piling in behind Farage and Reform and lambasting Starmer on this? That could shift views, and put Labour in difficult place with its own people and the media,
According to Ipsos in the last 15 months support for the Government's position on Ukraine has dropped 4 points to 54% and opposition to it has risen 3 points to 17%. That really isn't much movement.
Support is down a fair but from the peak of support in February 2023 when it was at 68% with opposition at 11%. But still overall opposition to British support for Ukraine is still only at aroun 1 in 6 people.
Conservatives are still most supportive at 81% so not much chance of them forming a new policy on this.
Thanks for that 👍🏻 clearly still one where Conservative Party position strong versus the very different Reform position. But once Musk and Trump weigh in, it’s one to watch for large sudden polling shifts.
The Ukrainian Air Force confirmed that Russia struck the Ukrainian city of Dnipro with a conventionally armed ICBM this morning, marking the first combat use of an ICBM in history.
Why isn't Leon all over this? The only explanation that makes sense to me is that this is a demonstration by Russia to show that their ICBMs work.
Russia's deterrence credibility is in tatters. It has repeatedly promised massive retribution and repeatedly failed to deliver said retribution when it's rhetorical red lines have been crossed. Ukraine has occupied sovereign Russian territory for months, which still strikes me as unthinkable that a non-nuclear power should occupy part of the territory of a nuclear power.
Russia has chosen this moment to show that its ICBMs work. This is crunch time now.
It wasn't an ICBM
An ICBM launch, for a start, would have had the US President on Airforce One in a scramble takeoff.
The DSPS satellites can detect such launches instantly - that's what they are for.
The energy signature of an ICBM is much, much higher than an IRBM (Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile) or MRBM (Medium Range Ballistic Missile)
Ukrainian media are reporting it as an RS-26, which according to Wikipedia has a range of ~5,000km - just enough to be classed as an ICBM, albeit short of the distance from Western Russia to the Eastern US.
RS-26 is really an IRBM - any serious payload puts it well below ICBM range.
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
Judging by that advert do you think that is going to be the case? The corporate rebrand suggests they are going to make cars for people who hate cars, a competitor to the Prius or Micra.
Driving as enjoyment rather than a chore hasn't been a thing for most people for a long time, most of them aspire to driving an SUV, and EVs will be even more generic than modern ICE cars. The new logos, particularly the badge, are shit.
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
It's an advert that would have been edgy in 2004 not in 2014 and definitely not in 2024. It's in fact so mundanely DEI that it barely registers except in the sense that one feels as thought the consultancy firm JLR hired is full of *****.
I mean this is the same calculus as if China invaded Taiwan (leave aside how successful it might be). Would the US really go to war over Taiwan. Would the US really go to (nuclear) war over Ukraine.
So far the answer to the latter has been a resounding no. What would change that. A tactical nuke in Ukraine? Perhaps. Not sure why it would, that said.
I'd guess they'd demonstrate just how powerful their conventional forces are, knock out anything Russian within Ukrainian territory (inc. Crimea).
The Ukrainian Air Force confirmed that Russia struck the Ukrainian city of Dnipro with a conventionally armed ICBM this morning, marking the first combat use of an ICBM in history.
Why isn't Leon all over this? The only explanation that makes sense to me is that this is a demonstration by Russia to show that their ICBMs work.
Russia's deterrence credibility is in tatters. It has repeatedly promised massive retribution and repeatedly failed to deliver said retribution when it's rhetorical red lines have been crossed. Ukraine has occupied sovereign Russian territory for months, which still strikes me as unthinkable that a non-nuclear power should occupy part of the territory of a nuclear power.
Russia has chosen this moment to show that its ICBMs work. This is crunch time now.
It makes very little sense for Putin to go nuclear at the moment (let’s leave aside the fact that Uncle Xi will tell him not to).
He is currently making progress on the battlefield and he’s weeks away from being opposite a US President who wants to give him an off ramp.
What purpose does a nuclear launch serve right now?
No. What suits Putin at the moment is to give the impression that he’s ramping up to a nuclear crisis, because he will think that strengthens his hand in negotiations with Trump (“look at what I can do. My nuclear doctrine is already being breached. My ICBMs are ready” etc etc).
That doesn’t preclude the fact that there is an uncomfortable chance we really could have a nuclear crisis in 2025, particularly if Trump plays hardball and Putin isn’t having any of it, but we’re not at that point yet.
Yes it seems we're back to nuclear hyperbole with articles everywhere about how to survive a nuclear attack etc, etc. Would you want to?
Clickbait for the anxious and the fearful to be sure - no one is going to launch a nuclear anything anytime. There are protocols, back channels and all the rest of it to prevent anything other than an accidential launch.
As I've said on here many times, the likes of Trump, Putin and Xi all like the finer things of life - nice food, nice clothes, nice palaces and all the trappings of a lifestyle which ends with the first missile launch so it won't happen, not by design at least.
There are rules to this game, steps to the dance and the main one is no direct confrontation between NATO and Russian forces - proxy conflicts are fine (not for those doing the fighting and dying of course).
The Daily Star today says a lot more places in vaults have been sold at £150000 a time.
What’s your plan for when the four minute warning sounds, Stodge?
With all these modern missuls do we even get 4 minute warning for one last orgasm and choccy bar 🙁
Your best bet in a nuclear war is to be vaporized in the first exchange.
But, you can get vaporised and leave shadow on a wall for all time. Do you want to be caught sat on toilet with ten year old Farmers Weekly in your hands?
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
It's an advert that would have been edgy in 2004 not in 2014 and definitely not in 2024. It's in fact so mundanely DEI that it barely registers except in the sense that one feels as thought the consultancy firm JLR hired is full of *****.
That's a good advert, not sure what the issue with it is.
It's nearly, but not quite there. They had this great idea but didn't know how to end it (I half expected to see the sheep in the back of the car but that would have been a different model).
I mean this is the same calculus as if China invaded Taiwan (leave aside how successful it might be). Would the US really go to war over Taiwan. Would the US really go to (nuclear) war over Ukraine.
So far the answer to the latter has been a resounding no. What would change that. A tactical nuke in Ukraine? Perhaps. Not sure why it would, that said.
The received wisdom (which has been telegraphed since 2022 so appears to be the current tactical position of the US) is that nuclear use in Ukraine requires a conventional response from NATO on the grounds of trying to put the genie back in its bottle, demonstrating nuclear first use will not be tolerated. Of course what that then does is leads to direct NATO/Russian engagement so could quite easily lead to a spiral of escalation.
Whether that still holds with Trump as President, who can say.
I mean this is the same calculus as if China invaded Taiwan (leave aside how successful it might be). Would the US really go to war over Taiwan. Would the US really go to (nuclear) war over Ukraine.
So far the answer to the latter has been a resounding no. What would change that. A tactical nuke in Ukraine? Perhaps. Not sure why it would, that said.
The last time there was Russian nuclear sabre-rattling, America rattled its own sabre and there were press reports of training flights of nuclear bombers. One imagines there will be something similar this time round.
There's probably a PhD thesis or at least a YouTube video on how nuclear deterrence has changed over the decades, from MAD meaning no nuclear exchanges, to nuclear states not going even to conventional war, which probably came via India and Pakistan, through to wherever we are now with not using nukes against unarmed opponents in proxy wars.
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
It's an advert that would have been edgy in 2004 not in 2014 and definitely not in 2024. It's in fact so mundanely DEI that it barely registers except in the sense that one feels as thought the consultancy firm JLR hired is full of *****.
That's a good advert, not sure what the issue with it is.
It's nearly, but not quite there. They had this great idea but didn't know how to end it (I half expected to see the sheep in the back of the car but that would have been a different model).
Jaguar would have some questions playing such an ad in the US, with their politics Balkanising socially as well as geographically.
It's always been multiple regional markets; the interplay would be interesting.
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
And yet....and yet....we have been talking about nothing else (imminent nuclear Armageddon notwithstanding) on PB, of all places. It is the talk of Twitter. Everyone is talking about Jaguar. More fool you (and @Leon) if you are not meta enough to understand (surely you are) that it might be referencing those "cliches" you just listed in order to create a post-modern "what would you do to create a new ad" ad.
Do you work for the agency that lost out to these guys? Seems you have far stronger thoughts on it than others, even Casino, and he is as we speak dusting down his sheepskin coat.
I used to work in the marketing department at a global evil megacorp, so my interest is professional, even though I left the industry several years ago. I work as a consultant for startups now. And as I said before, JLR's ads are made in house, by their own marketing team. So impossible to 'lose out' to them... (and the lack of competitive process may be why the ad is crap, the Pepsi Kendall Jenner debacle was also made in-house).
I'm just fascinated by the strategy and execution of the campaign, as well as its provenance.
Accenture are of course most famous for just bouncing a QR code on screen for 30 seconds and nothing else during the superbowl (while everyone else was spending millions on high budget films).
So what I'm saying is that it is possible that they know what they're doing, and all of this is designed to deliberately stir up controversy.
Whether that strategy will work or not I don't know. It looks a lot more like shitting on a hundred years of brand history and the current customer base to me. But if the car turns out to be a brilliant must have, they will have played a blinder, if even someone like Casino can't say for sure they wouldn't buy the car if it turned out to be incredible.
Far more fun than talking about impending nuclear death and destruction. We've had too many THREADS on that already (chortle).
The Ukrainian Air Force confirmed that Russia struck the Ukrainian city of Dnipro with a conventionally armed ICBM this morning, marking the first combat use of an ICBM in history.
Why isn't Leon all over this? The only explanation that makes sense to me is that this is a demonstration by Russia to show that their ICBMs work.
Russia's deterrence credibility is in tatters. It has repeatedly promised massive retribution and repeatedly failed to deliver said retribution when it's rhetorical red lines have been crossed. Ukraine has occupied sovereign Russian territory for months, which still strikes me as unthinkable that a non-nuclear power should occupy part of the territory of a nuclear power.
Russia has chosen this moment to show that its ICBMs work. This is crunch time now.
It makes very little sense for Putin to go nuclear at the moment (let’s leave aside the fact that Uncle Xi will tell him not to).
He is currently making progress on the battlefield and he’s weeks away from being opposite a US President who wants to give him an off ramp.
What purpose does a nuclear launch serve right now?
No. What suits Putin at the moment is to give the impression that he’s ramping up to a nuclear crisis, because he will think that strengthens his hand in negotiations with Trump (“look at what I can do. My nuclear doctrine is already being breached. My ICBMs are ready” etc etc).
That doesn’t preclude the fact that there is an uncomfortable chance we really could have a nuclear crisis in 2025, particularly if Trump plays hardball and Putin isn’t having any of it, but we’re not at that point yet.
Yes it seems we're back to nuclear hyperbole with articles everywhere about how to survive a nuclear attack etc, etc. Would you want to?
Clickbait for the anxious and the fearful to be sure - no one is going to launch a nuclear anything anytime. There are protocols, back channels and all the rest of it to prevent anything other than an accidential launch.
As I've said on here many times, the likes of Trump, Putin and Xi all like the finer things of life - nice food, nice clothes, nice palaces and all the trappings of a lifestyle which ends with the first missile launch so it won't happen, not by design at least.
There are rules to this game, steps to the dance and the main one is no direct confrontation between NATO and Russian forces - proxy conflicts are fine (not for those doing the fighting and dying of course).
The Daily Star today says a lot more places in vaults have been sold at £150000 a time.
What’s your plan for when the four minute warning sounds, Stodge?
With all these modern missuls do we even get 4 minute warning for one last orgasm and choccy bar 🙁
Your best bet in a nuclear war is to be vaporized in the first exchange.
But, you can get vaporised and leave shadow on a wall for all time. Do you want to be caught sat on toilet with ten year old Farmers Weekly in your hands?
Would that be discernable in the shadow? I might have been reading Plato. And will it matter much either way to the mutant cave dwellers who catch sight of the shadow on the wall while they forage for rats in the rubble of SE London?
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
It's an advert that would have been edgy in 2004 not in 2014 and definitely not in 2024. It's in fact so mundanely DEI that it barely registers except in the sense that one feels as thought the consultancy firm JLR hired is full of *****.
That's a good advert, not sure what the issue with it is.
It's nearly, but not quite there. They had this great idea but didn't know how to end it (I half expected to see the sheep in the back of the car but that would have been a different model).
I liked the ad, but they made that classic mistake of going all derivative and showing the actual car
I mean this is the same calculus as if China invaded Taiwan (leave aside how successful it might be). Would the US really go to war over Taiwan. Would the US really go to (nuclear) war over Ukraine.
So far the answer to the latter has been a resounding no. What would change that. A tactical nuke in Ukraine? Perhaps. Not sure why it would, that said.
The messaging in late 2022 was that the US would respond to Russian nuclear weapon use in Ukraine with an overwhelming conventional attack on Russia, dismantling their conventional military.
Combined with a word from China that was a credible deterrence that had Russia back down on the nuclear threats.
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
And yet....and yet....we have been talking about nothing else (imminent nuclear Armageddon notwithstanding) on PB, of all places. It is the talk of Twitter. Everyone is talking about Jaguar. More fool you (and @Leon) if you are not meta enough to understand (surely you are) that it might be referencing those "cliches" you just listed in order to create a post-modern "what would you do to create a new ad" ad.
Do you work for the agency that lost out to these guys? Seems you have far stronger thoughts on it than others, even Casino, and he is as we speak dusting down his sheepskin coat.
The novelty is it's an ad for a product when there is no product - and won't be for ages.
The success is in reminding everyone Jaguar still exists, even though it has no product.
Not sure though they've quite caught the notion of "It'll be worth the wait, honest...."
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
And yet....and yet....we have been talking about nothing else (imminent nuclear Armageddon notwithstanding) on PB, of all places. It is the talk of Twitter. Everyone is talking about Jaguar. More fool you (and @Leon) if you are not meta enough to understand (surely you are) that it might be referencing those "cliches" you just listed in order to create a post-modern "what would you do to create a new ad" ad.
Do you work for the agency that lost out to these guys? Seems you have far stronger thoughts on it than others, even Casino, and he is as we speak dusting down his sheepskin coat.
The novelty is it's an ad for a product when there is no product - and won't be for ages.
The success is in reminding everyone Jaguar still exists, even though it has no product.
Not sure though they've quite caught the notion of "It'll be worth the wait, honest...."
Good post. If they had managed to sneak something, anything Jag like into the mix it would have worked better.
I mean this is the same calculus as if China invaded Taiwan (leave aside how successful it might be). Would the US really go to war over Taiwan. Would the US really go to (nuclear) war over Ukraine.
So far the answer to the latter has been a resounding no. What would change that. A tactical nuke in Ukraine? Perhaps. Not sure why it would, that said.
The received wisdom (which has been telegraphed since 2022 so appears to be the current tactical position of the US) is that nuclear use in Ukraine requires a conventional response from NATO on the grounds of trying to put the genie back in its bottle, demonstrating nuclear first use will not be tolerated. Of course what that then does is leads to direct NATO/Russian engagement so could quite easily lead to a spiral of escalation.
Whether that still holds with Trump as President, who can say.
In such dangerous times it is so comforting that a shallow unstable narcissist with zero geopolitical nous is about to take over the world's richest and most powerful nation.
I mean this is the same calculus as if China invaded Taiwan (leave aside how successful it might be). Would the US really go to war over Taiwan. Would the US really go to (nuclear) war over Ukraine.
So far the answer to the latter has been a resounding no. What would change that. A tactical nuke in Ukraine? Perhaps. Not sure why it would, that said.
The received wisdom (which has been telegraphed since 2022 so appears to be the current tactical position of the US) is that nuclear use in Ukraine requires a conventional response from NATO on the grounds of trying to put the genie back in its bottle, demonstrating nuclear first use will not be tolerated. Of course what that then does is leads to direct NATO/Russian engagement so could quite easily lead to a spiral of escalation.
Whether that still holds with Trump as President, who can say.
In such dangerous times it is so comforting that a shallow unstable narcissist with zero geopolitical nous is about to take over the world's richest and most powerful nation.
If he has zero geopolitical nous, why was the world more peaceful when he was president?
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
And yet....and yet....we have been talking about nothing else (imminent nuclear Armageddon notwithstanding) on PB, of all places. It is the talk of Twitter. Everyone is talking about Jaguar. More fool you (and @Leon) if you are not meta enough to understand (surely you are) that it might be referencing those "cliches" you just listed in order to create a post-modern "what would you do to create a new ad" ad.
Do you work for the agency that lost out to these guys? Seems you have far stronger thoughts on it than others, even Casino, and he is as we speak dusting down his sheepskin coat.
I used to work in the marketing department at a global evil megacorp, so my interest is professional, even though I left the industry several years ago. I work as a consultant for startups now. And as I said before, JLR's ads are made in house, by their own marketing team. So impossible to 'lose out' to them... (and the lack of competitive process may be why the ad is crap, the Pepsi Kendall Jenner debacle was also made in-house).
I'm just fascinated by the strategy and execution of the campaign, as well as its provenance.
Accenture are of course most famous for just bouncing a QR code on screen for 30 seconds and nothing else during the superbowl (while everyone else was spending millions on high budget films).
So what I'm saying is that it is possible that they know what they're doing, and all of this is designed to deliberately stir up controversy.
Whether that strategy will work or not I don't know. It looks a lot more like shitting on a hundred years of brand history and the current customer base to me. But if the car turns out to be a brilliant must have, they will have played a blinder, if even someone like Casino can't say for sure they wouldn't buy the car if it turned out to be incredible.
Far more fun than talking about impending nuclear death and destruction. We've had too many THREADS on that already (chortle).
I've never really understood the car-as-status-symbol thing. As long as it gets you from A to B, carries everything you need and doesn't break down what else is there to care about. Advertising is just an investment designed to raise the profit margin - so the more the firm has spent on its 'brand' the more you are over-paying for the product. The only car ad I can remember is that one with the attractive French woman and her dad.
I mean this is the same calculus as if China invaded Taiwan (leave aside how successful it might be). Would the US really go to war over Taiwan. Would the US really go to (nuclear) war over Ukraine.
So far the answer to the latter has been a resounding no. What would change that. A tactical nuke in Ukraine? Perhaps. Not sure why it would, that said.
The received wisdom (which has been telegraphed since 2022 so appears to be the current tactical position of the US) is that nuclear use in Ukraine requires a conventional response from NATO on the grounds of trying to put the genie back in its bottle, demonstrating nuclear first use will not be tolerated. Of course what that then does is leads to direct NATO/Russian engagement so could quite easily lead to a spiral of escalation.
Whether that still holds with Trump as President, who can say.
In such dangerous times it is so comforting that a shallow unstable narcissist with zero geopolitical nous is about to take over the world's richest and most powerful nation.
If he has zero geopolitical nous, why was the world more peaceful when he was president?
The Ukrainian Air Force confirmed that Russia struck the Ukrainian city of Dnipro with a conventionally armed ICBM this morning, marking the first combat use of an ICBM in history.
Why isn't Leon all over this? The only explanation that makes sense to me is that this is a demonstration by Russia to show that their ICBMs work.
Russia's deterrence credibility is in tatters. It has repeatedly promised massive retribution and repeatedly failed to deliver said retribution when it's rhetorical red lines have been crossed. Ukraine has occupied sovereign Russian territory for months, which still strikes me as unthinkable that a non-nuclear power should occupy part of the territory of a nuclear power.
Russia has chosen this moment to show that its ICBMs work. This is crunch time now.
It makes very little sense for Putin to go nuclear at the moment (let’s leave aside the fact that Uncle Xi will tell him not to).
He is currently making progress on the battlefield and he’s weeks away from being opposite a US President who wants to give him an off ramp.
What purpose does a nuclear launch serve right now?
No. What suits Putin at the moment is to give the impression that he’s ramping up to a nuclear crisis, because he will think that strengthens his hand in negotiations with Trump (“look at what I can do. My nuclear doctrine is already being breached. My ICBMs are ready” etc etc).
That doesn’t preclude the fact that there is an uncomfortable chance we really could have a nuclear crisis in 2025, particularly if Trump plays hardball and Putin isn’t having any of it, but we’re not at that point yet.
but what if you are wrong - I am not a massive fan of playing a game where if my judgement is not right I and the rest of the UK get obliterated . We should not have allowed the use of storm missiles. Its kinda a big downside with little upside (its not going to turn the war just satisfy politicians looking tough and Biden getting one over Trump )
I mean this is the same calculus as if China invaded Taiwan (leave aside how successful it might be). Would the US really go to war over Taiwan. Would the US really go to (nuclear) war over Ukraine.
So far the answer to the latter has been a resounding no. What would change that. A tactical nuke in Ukraine? Perhaps. Not sure why it would, that said.
The received wisdom (which has been telegraphed since 2022 so appears to be the current tactical position of the US) is that nuclear use in Ukraine requires a conventional response from NATO on the grounds of trying to put the genie back in its bottle, demonstrating nuclear first use will not be tolerated. Of course what that then does is leads to direct NATO/Russian engagement so could quite easily lead to a spiral of escalation.
Whether that still holds with Trump as President, who can say.
In such dangerous times it is so comforting that a shallow unstable narcissist with zero geopolitical nous is about to take over the world's richest and most powerful nation.
It is all right. Trump has nominated a Cabinet of seasoned politicians and diplomats people off the telly.
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
And yet....and yet....we have been talking about nothing else (imminent nuclear Armageddon notwithstanding) on PB, of all places. It is the talk of Twitter. Everyone is talking about Jaguar. More fool you (and @Leon) if you are not meta enough to understand (surely you are) that it might be referencing those "cliches" you just listed in order to create a post-modern "what would you do to create a new ad" ad.
Do you work for the agency that lost out to these guys? Seems you have far stronger thoughts on it than others, even Casino, and he is as we speak dusting down his sheepskin coat.
I used to work in the marketing department at a global evil megacorp, so my interest is professional, even though I left the industry several years ago. I work as a consultant for startups now. And as I said before, JLR's ads are made in house, by their own marketing team. So impossible to 'lose out' to them... (and the lack of competitive process may be why the ad is crap, the Pepsi Kendall Jenner debacle was also made in-house).
I'm just fascinated by the strategy and execution of the campaign, as well as its provenance.
Accenture are of course most famous for just bouncing a QR code on screen for 30 seconds and nothing else during the superbowl (while everyone else was spending millions on high budget films).
So what I'm saying is that it is possible that they know what they're doing, and all of this is designed to deliberately stir up controversy.
Whether that strategy will work or not I don't know. It looks a lot more like shitting on a hundred years of brand history and the current customer base to me. But if the car turns out to be a brilliant must have, they will have played a blinder, if even someone like Casino can't say for sure they wouldn't buy the car if it turned out to be incredible.
Far more fun than talking about impending nuclear death and destruction. We've had too many THREADS on that already (chortle).
I've never really understood the car-as-status-symbol thing. As long as it gets you from A to B, carries everything you need and doesn't break down what else is there to care about. Advertising is just an investment designed to raise the profit margin - so the more the firm has spent on its 'brand' the more you are over-paying for the product. The only car ad I can remember is that one with the attractive French woman and her dad.
After a horse house a car will be the most expensive purchase that most people make. Of course it's a status symbol. Your very disdain for its status as a status symbol communicates that you are above superficial displays of status.
The Ukrainian Air Force confirmed that Russia struck the Ukrainian city of Dnipro with a conventionally armed ICBM this morning, marking the first combat use of an ICBM in history.
Why isn't Leon all over this? The only explanation that makes sense to me is that this is a demonstration by Russia to show that their ICBMs work.
Russia's deterrence credibility is in tatters. It has repeatedly promised massive retribution and repeatedly failed to deliver said retribution when it's rhetorical red lines have been crossed. Ukraine has occupied sovereign Russian territory for months, which still strikes me as unthinkable that a non-nuclear power should occupy part of the territory of a nuclear power.
Russia has chosen this moment to show that its ICBMs work. This is crunch time now.
It makes very little sense for Putin to go nuclear at the moment (let’s leave aside the fact that Uncle Xi will tell him not to).
He is currently making progress on the battlefield and he’s weeks away from being opposite a US President who wants to give him an off ramp.
What purpose does a nuclear launch serve right now?
No. What suits Putin at the moment is to give the impression that he’s ramping up to a nuclear crisis, because he will think that strengthens his hand in negotiations with Trump (“look at what I can do. My nuclear doctrine is already being breached. My ICBMs are ready” etc etc).
That doesn’t preclude the fact that there is an uncomfortable chance we really could have a nuclear crisis in 2025, particularly if Trump plays hardball and Putin isn’t having any of it, but we’re not at that point yet.
but what if you are wrong - I am not a massive fan of playing a game where if my judgement is not right I and the rest of the UK get obliterated . We should not have allowed the use of storm missiles. Its kinda a big downside with little upside (its not going to turn the war just satisfy politicians looking tough and Biden getting one over Trump )
And what if you are wrong? What happens if Putin then uses the same threat on other matters, and we constantly cave in to his threats?
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
And yet....and yet....we have been talking about nothing else (imminent nuclear Armageddon notwithstanding) on PB, of all places. It is the talk of Twitter. Everyone is talking about Jaguar. More fool you (and @Leon) if you are not meta enough to understand (surely you are) that it might be referencing those "cliches" you just listed in order to create a post-modern "what would you do to create a new ad" ad.
Do you work for the agency that lost out to these guys? Seems you have far stronger thoughts on it than others, even Casino, and he is as we speak dusting down his sheepskin coat.
I used to work in the marketing department at a global evil megacorp, so my interest is professional, even though I left the industry several years ago. I work as a consultant for startups now. And as I said before, JLR's ads are made in house, by their own marketing team. So impossible to 'lose out' to them... (and the lack of competitive process may be why the ad is crap, the Pepsi Kendall Jenner debacle was also made in-house).
I'm just fascinated by the strategy and execution of the campaign, as well as its provenance.
Accenture are of course most famous for just bouncing a QR code on screen for 30 seconds and nothing else during the superbowl (while everyone else was spending millions on high budget films).
So what I'm saying is that it is possible that they know what they're doing, and all of this is designed to deliberately stir up controversy.
Whether that strategy will work or not I don't know. It looks a lot more like shitting on a hundred years of brand history and the current customer base to me. But if the car turns out to be a brilliant must have, they will have played a blinder, if even someone like Casino can't say for sure they wouldn't buy the car if it turned out to be incredible.
Far more fun than talking about impending nuclear death and destruction. We've had too many THREADS on that already (chortle).
I've never really understood the car-as-status-symbol thing. As long as it gets you from A to B, carries everything you need and doesn't break down what else is there to care about. Advertising is just an investment designed to raise the profit margin - so the more the firm has spent on its 'brand' the more you are over-paying for the product. The only car ad I can remember is that one with the attractive French woman and her dad.
After a horse a car will be the most expensive purchase that most people make. Of course it's a status symbol. Your very disdain for its status as a status symbol communicates that you are above superficial displays of status.
You're still peacocking, just in a different way.
I'm not sure that most people will own a horse, and certainly not one that's more expensive than a car...
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
It's an advert that would have been edgy in 2004 not in 2014 and definitely not in 2024. It's in fact so mundanely DEI that it barely registers except in the sense that one feels as thought the consultancy firm JLR hired is full of *****.
That's a good advert, not sure what the issue with it is.
It's nearly, but not quite there. They had this great idea but didn't know how to end it (I half expected to see the sheep in the back of the car but that would have been a different model).
I liked the ad, but they made that classic mistake of going all derivative and showing the actual car
I think most car adverts don't show an actual car either - it's all CGI.
The most misleading thing is the completely empty streets, devoid of pedestrians, cyclists, buses, thousands of other single-occupant cars. They try to sell freedom but the reality of driving for most people is sedentary frustration.
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
It's an advert that would have been edgy in 2004 not in 2014 and definitely not in 2024. It's in fact so mundanely DEI that it barely registers except in the sense that one feels as thought the consultancy firm JLR hired is full of *****.
The Ukrainian Air Force confirmed that Russia struck the Ukrainian city of Dnipro with a conventionally armed ICBM this morning, marking the first combat use of an ICBM in history.
Why isn't Leon all over this? The only explanation that makes sense to me is that this is a demonstration by Russia to show that their ICBMs work.
Russia's deterrence credibility is in tatters. It has repeatedly promised massive retribution and repeatedly failed to deliver said retribution when it's rhetorical red lines have been crossed. Ukraine has occupied sovereign Russian territory for months, which still strikes me as unthinkable that a non-nuclear power should occupy part of the territory of a nuclear power.
Russia has chosen this moment to show that its ICBMs work. This is crunch time now.
It wasn't an ICBM
An ICBM launch, for a start, would have had the US President on Airforce One in a scramble takeoff.
The DSPS satellites can detect such launches instantly - that's what they are for.
The energy signature of an ICBM is much, much higher than an IRBM (Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile) or MRBM (Medium Range Ballistic Missile)
Ukrainian media are reporting it as an RS-26, which according to Wikipedia has a range of ~5,000km - just enough to be classed as an ICBM, albeit short of the distance from Western Russia to the Eastern US.
That doesn't look much like an ICBM which has a warhead capacity of at least 600kilos, travelling at hypersonic speed. Unless they just put in some inert lumps of metal.
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
And yet....and yet....we have been talking about nothing else (imminent nuclear Armageddon notwithstanding) on PB, of all places. It is the talk of Twitter. Everyone is talking about Jaguar. More fool you (and @Leon) if you are not meta enough to understand (surely you are) that it might be referencing those "cliches" you just listed in order to create a post-modern "what would you do to create a new ad" ad.
Do you work for the agency that lost out to these guys? Seems you have far stronger thoughts on it than others, even Casino, and he is as we speak dusting down his sheepskin coat.
The novelty is it's an ad for a product when there is no product - and won't be for ages.
The success is in reminding everyone Jaguar still exists, even though it has no product.
Not sure though they've quite caught the notion of "It'll be worth the wait, honest...."
AFAICS things have been going downhill since the XK150 DHC (in Old English White, obvs). Okay and the E-Type.
Recent models have been trading on that magnificent legacy without coming close to the sheer style and elegance, and performance.
Now, everyone is waiting to see what they do next.
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
And yet....and yet....we have been talking about nothing else (imminent nuclear Armageddon notwithstanding) on PB, of all places. It is the talk of Twitter. Everyone is talking about Jaguar. More fool you (and @Leon) if you are not meta enough to understand (surely you are) that it might be referencing those "cliches" you just listed in order to create a post-modern "what would you do to create a new ad" ad.
Do you work for the agency that lost out to these guys? Seems you have far stronger thoughts on it than others, even Casino, and he is as we speak dusting down his sheepskin coat.
I used to work in the marketing department at a global evil megacorp, so my interest is professional, even though I left the industry several years ago. I work as a consultant for startups now. And as I said before, JLR's ads are made in house, by their own marketing team. So impossible to 'lose out' to them... (and the lack of competitive process may be why the ad is crap, the Pepsi Kendall Jenner debacle was also made in-house).
I'm just fascinated by the strategy and execution of the campaign, as well as its provenance.
Accenture are of course most famous for just bouncing a QR code on screen for 30 seconds and nothing else during the superbowl (while everyone else was spending millions on high budget films).
So what I'm saying is that it is possible that they know what they're doing, and all of this is designed to deliberately stir up controversy.
Whether that strategy will work or not I don't know. It looks a lot more like shitting on a hundred years of brand history and the current customer base to me. But if the car turns out to be a brilliant must have, they will have played a blinder, if even someone like Casino can't say for sure they wouldn't buy the car if it turned out to be incredible.
Far more fun than talking about impending nuclear death and destruction. We've had too many THREADS on that already (chortle).
I've never really understood the car-as-status-symbol thing. As long as it gets you from A to B, carries everything you need and doesn't break down what else is there to care about. Advertising is just an investment designed to raise the profit margin - so the more the firm has spent on its 'brand' the more you are over-paying for the product. The only car ad I can remember is that one with the attractive French woman and her dad.
After a horse a car will be the most expensive purchase that most people make. Of course it's a status symbol. Your very disdain for its status as a status symbol communicates that you are above superficial displays of status.
You're still peacocking, just in a different way.
I'm not sure that most people will own a horse, and certainly not one that's more expensive than a car...
Cars are the new horses. Beautiful playthings for the rural rich.
It was driven higher by public pay settlements. These are truly terrifying figures. They would be bad in a deep recession but they are being incurred when the economy grew faster than expected in the first half of the year and was flat for Q3. We are in what passes for normal times and yet we are borrowing like we were funding a major war. The decisions by Reeves and Starmer to increase public spending yet further in the budget are increasingly looking dangerous rather than merely stupid.
What's most terrifying is that we borrowed more this October than in 2021 during COVI, second highest on record after October 2020.
£150bn in extra borrowing and lower growth. Labour are going to bankrupt the nation, I don't think my prediction of requiring an IMF bailout is far off the mark.
Could we have dollar parity by the time Starmer and Trump are done ?
We almost had dollar parity in 1985. Bloody Labour.
‘Almost’ so we didn’t have dollar parity
1.054 in 1985 was the closest we've come to dollar parity, ever, despite being slap bang in the middle of the Thatcher government with North Sea Oil pouring out of, erm, the North Sea, and Rachel Reeves blamelessly revising for her O-levels.
Fake news.
Rachel Reeves would have been revising for her O-levels in 1995 not 1985.
I mean this is the same calculus as if China invaded Taiwan (leave aside how successful it might be). Would the US really go to war over Taiwan. Would the US really go to (nuclear) war over Ukraine.
So far the answer to the latter has been a resounding no. What would change that. A tactical nuke in Ukraine? Perhaps. Not sure why it would, that said.
What would we do if they nuked a Ukrainian town... or Sheffield ?
I mean this is the same calculus as if China invaded Taiwan (leave aside how successful it might be). Would the US really go to war over Taiwan. Would the US really go to (nuclear) war over Ukraine.
So far the answer to the latter has been a resounding no. What would change that. A tactical nuke in Ukraine? Perhaps. Not sure why it would, that said.
What would we do if they nuked a Ukrainian town... or Sheffield ?
If it was Sheffield, who pays the CGT on the increase in property values?
As for John Prescott. Wasn't impressed with that left jab that I don't think quite landed on mullet farmer boy and my recollection of him was that he was quite hypocritical when it came to all kinds of things he had previously said he was dead against. And wasn't he a shagger also.
So fine, he was a working class hero, but that doesn't or shouldn't get you too far in politics.
He was a 60 year old man and snapped a jab that landed flush.
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
It's an advert that would have been edgy in 2004 not in 2014 and definitely not in 2024. It's in fact so mundanely DEI that it barely registers except in the sense that one feels as thought the consultancy firm JLR hired is full of *****.
The Ukrainian Air Force confirmed that Russia struck the Ukrainian city of Dnipro with a conventionally armed ICBM this morning, marking the first combat use of an ICBM in history.
Why isn't Leon all over this? The only explanation that makes sense to me is that this is a demonstration by Russia to show that their ICBMs work.
Russia's deterrence credibility is in tatters. It has repeatedly promised massive retribution and repeatedly failed to deliver said retribution when it's rhetorical red lines have been crossed. Ukraine has occupied sovereign Russian territory for months, which still strikes me as unthinkable that a non-nuclear power should occupy part of the territory of a nuclear power.
Russia has chosen this moment to show that its ICBMs work. This is crunch time now.
It wasn't an ICBM
An ICBM launch, for a start, would have had the US President on Airforce One in a scramble takeoff.
The DSPS satellites can detect such launches instantly - that's what they are for.
The energy signature of an ICBM is much, much higher than an IRBM (Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile) or MRBM (Medium Range Ballistic Missile)
Ukrainian media are reporting it as an RS-26, which according to Wikipedia has a range of ~5,000km - just enough to be classed as an ICBM, albeit short of the distance from Western Russia to the Eastern US.
That doesn't look much like an ICBM which has a warhead capacity of at least 600kilos, travelling at hypersonic speed. Unless they just put in some inert lumps of metal.
Some of the videos suggested multiple RVs - or that the missile disintegrated during reentry.
On John Prescott. First of the core New Labour figures the public will remember to head to the pearly gates. I guess he was a little older than the others.
Without looking them up, my vague memory is that all the New Labour types were about the same age so will be in their 70s now (and PB discussed this recently with the news that Harriet Harman was going to the Lords at the same time as an age limit will be applied, which again fits with her being in her 70s).
Margaret Beckett traced back to the Callaghan years and is 81. Of the big names, I don't recall any others as being from an earlier political generation than Blair and Brown. Maybe in fringe positions...
There were quite a few in early Blair Cabinets - Michael Meacher, Jack Cunningham, Harriet Harman, Jack Straw, David Blunkett.
Michael Meacher at least was at Parliamentary Under Secretary level from 1974-1979.
One question is whether you call them "New Labour".
reading comment blogs other than PB, are we now getting a sense more and more people on the right are going over to Farage and Reform position, that NATO and EU expansion caused the unnecessary bloodshed and horror in Ukraine, and Labour are making yet another crisis escalating and prolonging it?
Are there any shifts in the backing government on Ukraine polling?
If there are, the Conservative Front Bench, which has got off to a strong start under Kemi in how they are positioning themselves on the side of every disillusioned voter, follows the voter shift to keep the clear blue water with Labour and not with Reform, Starmer won’t have the country’s backing for what he is doing - that would be a very dangerous place for government.
Looking ahead, surely we can only see Musk and Trump soon piling in behind Farage and Reform and lambasting Starmer on this? That could shift views, and put Labour in difficult place with its own people and the media,
According to Ipsos in the last 15 months support for the Government's position on Ukraine has dropped 4 points to 54% and opposition to it has risen 3 points to 17%. That really isn't much movement.
Support is down a fair but from the peak of support in February 2023 when it was at 68% with opposition at 11%. But still overall opposition to British support for Ukraine is still only at aroun 1 in 6 people.
Conservatives are still most supportive at 81% so not much chance of them forming a new policy on this.
Thanks for that 👍🏻 clearly still one where Conservative Party position strong versus the very different Reform position. But once Musk and Trump weigh in, it’s one to watch for large sudden polling shifts.
At least the Daily Mail have remained true to their heritage, supporting appeasement
The Ukrainian Air Force confirmed that Russia struck the Ukrainian city of Dnipro with a conventionally armed ICBM this morning, marking the first combat use of an ICBM in history.
Why isn't Leon all over this? The only explanation that makes sense to me is that this is a demonstration by Russia to show that their ICBMs work.
Russia's deterrence credibility is in tatters. It has repeatedly promised massive retribution and repeatedly failed to deliver said retribution when it's rhetorical red lines have been crossed. Ukraine has occupied sovereign Russian territory for months, which still strikes me as unthinkable that a non-nuclear power should occupy part of the territory of a nuclear power.
Russia has chosen this moment to show that its ICBMs work. This is crunch time now.
It makes very little sense for Putin to go nuclear at the moment (let’s leave aside the fact that Uncle Xi will tell him not to).
He is currently making progress on the battlefield and he’s weeks away from being opposite a US President who wants to give him an off ramp.
What purpose does a nuclear launch serve right now?
No. What suits Putin at the moment is to give the impression that he’s ramping up to a nuclear crisis, because he will think that strengthens his hand in negotiations with Trump (“look at what I can do. My nuclear doctrine is already being breached. My ICBMs are ready” etc etc).
That doesn’t preclude the fact that there is an uncomfortable chance we really could have a nuclear crisis in 2025, particularly if Trump plays hardball and Putin isn’t having any of it, but we’re not at that point yet.
but what if you are wrong - I am not a massive fan of playing a game where if my judgement is not right I and the rest of the UK get obliterated . We should not have allowed the use of storm missiles. Its kinda a big downside with little upside (its not going to turn the war just satisfy politicians looking tough and Biden getting one over Trump )
If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. We’ve lived under the threat of nuclear war all my lifetime and the lifetime I guess of pretty much everyone on here. It’s a risk that you or I can’t control.
The Ukrainian Air Force confirmed that Russia struck the Ukrainian city of Dnipro with a conventionally armed ICBM this morning, marking the first combat use of an ICBM in history.
Why isn't Leon all over this? The only explanation that makes sense to me is that this is a demonstration by Russia to show that their ICBMs work.
Russia's deterrence credibility is in tatters. It has repeatedly promised massive retribution and repeatedly failed to deliver said retribution when it's rhetorical red lines have been crossed. Ukraine has occupied sovereign Russian territory for months, which still strikes me as unthinkable that a non-nuclear power should occupy part of the territory of a nuclear power.
Russia has chosen this moment to show that its ICBMs work. This is crunch time now.
It wasn't an ICBM
An ICBM launch, for a start, would have had the US President on Airforce One in a scramble takeoff.
The DSPS satellites can detect such launches instantly - that's what they are for.
The energy signature of an ICBM is much, much higher than an IRBM (Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile) or MRBM (Medium Range Ballistic Missile)
Ukrainian media are reporting it as an RS-26, which according to Wikipedia has a range of ~5,000km - just enough to be classed as an ICBM, albeit short of the distance from Western Russia to the Eastern US.
That doesn't look much like an ICBM which has a warhead capacity of at least 600kilos, travelling at hypersonic speed. Unless they just put in some inert lumps of metal.
Wikipedia give a CEP of 90-250m for the RS-26. Which is plenty accurate enough for a nuclear warhead, but useless for conventional explosives.
Given that they fired it at a city, so that it would be seen, then loading it with inert lumps of metal would be the most responsible thing that Russia have done through the entire course of this war.
reading comment blogs other than PB, are we now getting a sense more and more people on the right are going over to Farage and Reform position, that NATO and EU expansion caused the unnecessary bloodshed and horror in Ukraine, and Labour are making yet another crisis escalating and prolonging it?
Are there any shifts in the backing government on Ukraine polling?
If there are, the Conservative Front Bench, which has got off to a strong start under Kemi in how they are positioning themselves on the side of every disillusioned voter, follows the voter shift to keep the clear blue water with Labour and not with Reform, Starmer won’t have the country’s backing for what he is doing - that would be a very dangerous place for government.
So you're saying some bloke in the Mail is hyperbolically terrified of hyperbolic headlines on the Mail ?
The Mail has been declaring that nuclear war has been imminent since February 2022.
No. I’m primarily looking at the comment columns, everywhere, and how so many now roll out Farage long held position on this, soon to bolstered by Musk and Trump unafraid to tear into Starmer and Labour on this escalation as being wrong approach.
Regardless of our own positions - which is how you framed your reply - the position of UK people could be on the move on this issue, is my point. We know the attack on Starmer over this is coming, will it chime with the British voters?
Of course, not just voter shift to “Farage was right all along” thanks to Musk and Trump ballistically support from another continent, but also because of war fatigue too is something that happens, and helps gives the argument win to Reform?
For the Mail's commenters it's a case of my enemy's enemy is my friend. Putin is anti-woke, therefore they sympathise with Putin.
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
And yet....and yet....we have been talking about nothing else (imminent nuclear Armageddon notwithstanding) on PB, of all places. It is the talk of Twitter. Everyone is talking about Jaguar. More fool you (and @Leon) if you are not meta enough to understand (surely you are) that it might be referencing those "cliches" you just listed in order to create a post-modern "what would you do to create a new ad" ad.
Do you work for the agency that lost out to these guys? Seems you have far stronger thoughts on it than others, even Casino, and he is as we speak dusting down his sheepskin coat.
I used to work in the marketing department at a global evil megacorp, so my interest is professional, even though I left the industry several years ago. I work as a consultant for startups now. And as I said before, JLR's ads are made in house, by their own marketing team. So impossible to 'lose out' to them... (and the lack of competitive process may be why the ad is crap, the Pepsi Kendall Jenner debacle was also made in-house).
I'm just fascinated by the strategy and execution of the campaign, as well as its provenance.
Accenture are of course most famous for just bouncing a QR code on screen for 30 seconds and nothing else during the superbowl (while everyone else was spending millions on high budget films).
So what I'm saying is that it is possible that they know what they're doing, and all of this is designed to deliberately stir up controversy.
Whether that strategy will work or not I don't know. It looks a lot more like shitting on a hundred years of brand history and the current customer base to me. But if the car turns out to be a brilliant must have, they will have played a blinder, if even someone like Casino can't say for sure they wouldn't buy the car if it turned out to be incredible.
Far more fun than talking about impending nuclear death and destruction. We've had too many THREADS on that already (chortle).
I've never really understood the car-as-status-symbol thing. As long as it gets you from A to B, carries everything you need and doesn't break down what else is there to care about. Advertising is just an investment designed to raise the profit margin - so the more the firm has spent on its 'brand' the more you are over-paying for the product. The only car ad I can remember is that one with the attractive French woman and her dad.
You do not have to understand it, still less like it, but you should acknowledge it. Cars do have brand value, as do watches and trainers. You might as well say you do not understand why people eat curry so hot it means they taste nothing else, sweat profusely and rush to the smallest room, when all they need is the basic food groups and some vitamins. (Ah, time for Deliveroo!)
This applies at the highest level with expensive cars but also with boring family saloons. Here is a 1990s documentary on fleet cars, with almost every driver mentioning how their company car reflects their status to colleagues, customers and competitors.
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
It's an advert that would have been edgy in 2004 not in 2014 and definitely not in 2024. It's in fact so mundanely DEI that it barely registers except in the sense that one feels as thought the consultancy firm JLR hired is full of *****.
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
It's an advert that would have been edgy in 2004 not in 2014 and definitely not in 2024. It's in fact so mundanely DEI that it barely registers except in the sense that one feels as thought the consultancy firm JLR hired is full of *****.
That's a good advert, not sure what the issue with it is.
Those sorts of environmental car ads have been around for a while. I shot this one for Mercedes in Germany in the early 90's and it was considered daring!
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
It's an advert that would have been edgy in 2004 not in 2014 and definitely not in 2024. It's in fact so mundanely DEI that it barely registers except in the sense that one feels as thought the consultancy firm JLR hired is full of *****.
That's a good advert, not sure what the issue with it is.
It's nearly, but not quite there. They had this great idea but didn't know how to end it (I half expected to see the sheep in the back of the car but that would have been a different model).
I liked the ad, but they made that classic mistake of going all derivative and showing the actual car
I think most car adverts don't show an actual car either - it's all CGI.
The most misleading thing is the completely empty streets, devoid of pedestrians, cyclists, buses, thousands of other single-occupant cars. They try to sell freedom but the reality of driving for most people is sedentary frustration.
Actual representation of a car then
When (if!) self driving cars become a thing then I guess we will see some cars navigating shitty driving environments with the 'driver' relaxing in the back.
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
And yet....and yet....we have been talking about nothing else (imminent nuclear Armageddon notwithstanding) on PB, of all places. It is the talk of Twitter. Everyone is talking about Jaguar. More fool you (and @Leon) if you are not meta enough to understand (surely you are) that it might be referencing those "cliches" you just listed in order to create a post-modern "what would you do to create a new ad" ad.
Do you work for the agency that lost out to these guys? Seems you have far stronger thoughts on it than others, even Casino, and he is as we speak dusting down his sheepskin coat.
I used to work in the marketing department at a global evil megacorp, so my interest is professional, even though I left the industry several years ago. I work as a consultant for startups now. And as I said before, JLR's ads are made in house, by their own marketing team. So impossible to 'lose out' to them... (and the lack of competitive process may be why the ad is crap, the Pepsi Kendall Jenner debacle was also made in-house).
I'm just fascinated by the strategy and execution of the campaign, as well as its provenance.
Accenture are of course most famous for just bouncing a QR code on screen for 30 seconds and nothing else during the superbowl (while everyone else was spending millions on high budget films).
So what I'm saying is that it is possible that they know what they're doing, and all of this is designed to deliberately stir up controversy.
Whether that strategy will work or not I don't know. It looks a lot more like shitting on a hundred years of brand history and the current customer base to me. But if the car turns out to be a brilliant must have, they will have played a blinder, if even someone like Casino can't say for sure they wouldn't buy the car if it turned out to be incredible.
Far more fun than talking about impending nuclear death and destruction. We've had too many THREADS on that already (chortle).
I've never really understood the car-as-status-symbol thing. As long as it gets you from A to B, carries everything you need and doesn't break down what else is there to care about. Advertising is just an investment designed to raise the profit margin - so the more the firm has spent on its 'brand' the more you are over-paying for the product. The only car ad I can remember is that one with the attractive French woman and her dad.
After a horse house a car will be the most expensive purchase that most people make. Of course it's a status symbol. Your very disdain for its status as a status symbol communicates that you are above superficial displays of status.
You're still peacocking, just in a different way.
Yes, I am above superficial displays of status. Is that supposed to be a bad thing now?
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
It's an advert that would have been edgy in 2004 not in 2014 and definitely not in 2024. It's in fact so mundanely DEI that it barely registers except in the sense that one feels as thought the consultancy firm JLR hired is full of *****.
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
It's an advert that would have been edgy in 2004 not in 2014 and definitely not in 2024. It's in fact so mundanely DEI that it barely registers except in the sense that one feels as thought the consultancy firm JLR hired is full of *****.
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
It's an advert that would have been edgy in 2004 not in 2014 and definitely not in 2024. It's in fact so mundanely DEI that it barely registers except in the sense that one feels as thought the consultancy firm JLR hired is full of *****.
That's a good advert, not sure what the issue with it is.
Those sorts of environmental car ads have been around for a while. I shot this one for Mercedes in Germany in the early 90's and it was considered daring!
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
And yet....and yet....we have been talking about nothing else (imminent nuclear Armageddon notwithstanding) on PB, of all places. It is the talk of Twitter. Everyone is talking about Jaguar. More fool you (and @Leon) if you are not meta enough to understand (surely you are) that it might be referencing those "cliches" you just listed in order to create a post-modern "what would you do to create a new ad" ad.
Do you work for the agency that lost out to these guys? Seems you have far stronger thoughts on it than others, even Casino, and he is as we speak dusting down his sheepskin coat.
I used to work in the marketing department at a global evil megacorp, so my interest is professional, even though I left the industry several years ago. I work as a consultant for startups now. And as I said before, JLR's ads are made in house, by their own marketing team. So impossible to 'lose out' to them... (and the lack of competitive process may be why the ad is crap, the Pepsi Kendall Jenner debacle was also made in-house).
I'm just fascinated by the strategy and execution of the campaign, as well as its provenance.
Accenture are of course most famous for just bouncing a QR code on screen for 30 seconds and nothing else during the superbowl (while everyone else was spending millions on high budget films).
So what I'm saying is that it is possible that they know what they're doing, and all of this is designed to deliberately stir up controversy.
Whether that strategy will work or not I don't know. It looks a lot more like shitting on a hundred years of brand history and the current customer base to me. But if the car turns out to be a brilliant must have, they will have played a blinder, if even someone like Casino can't say for sure they wouldn't buy the car if it turned out to be incredible.
Far more fun than talking about impending nuclear death and destruction. We've had too many THREADS on that already (chortle).
I've never really understood the car-as-status-symbol thing. As long as it gets you from A to B, carries everything you need and doesn't break down what else is there to care about. Advertising is just an investment designed to raise the profit margin - so the more the firm has spent on its 'brand' the more you are over-paying for the product. The only car ad I can remember is that one with the attractive French woman and her dad.
You do not have to understand it, still less like it, but you should acknowledge it. Cars do have brand value, as do watches and trainers. You might as well say you do not understand why people eat curry so hot it means they taste nothing else, sweat profusely and rush to the smallest room, when all they need is the basic food groups and some vitamins. (Ah, time for Deliveroo!)
This applies at the highest level with expensive cars but also with boring family saloons. Here is a 1990s documentary on fleet cars, with almost every driver mentioning how their company car reflects their status to colleagues, customers and competitors.
This is just a sad reflection of how the advertising industry has warped people's minds until their own self-image is bound up in things they own instead of things that actually matter.
The Ukrainian Air Force confirmed that Russia struck the Ukrainian city of Dnipro with a conventionally armed ICBM this morning, marking the first combat use of an ICBM in history.
Why isn't Leon all over this? The only explanation that makes sense to me is that this is a demonstration by Russia to show that their ICBMs work.
Russia's deterrence credibility is in tatters. It has repeatedly promised massive retribution and repeatedly failed to deliver said retribution when it's rhetorical red lines have been crossed. Ukraine has occupied sovereign Russian territory for months, which still strikes me as unthinkable that a non-nuclear power should occupy part of the territory of a nuclear power.
Russia has chosen this moment to show that its ICBMs work. This is crunch time now.
It wasn't an ICBM
An ICBM launch, for a start, would have had the US President on Airforce One in a scramble takeoff.
The DSPS satellites can detect such launches instantly - that's what they are for.
The energy signature of an ICBM is much, much higher than an IRBM (Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile) or MRBM (Medium Range Ballistic Missile)
Ukrainian media are reporting it as an RS-26, which according to Wikipedia has a range of ~5,000km - just enough to be classed as an ICBM, albeit short of the distance from Western Russia to the Eastern US.
That doesn't look much like an ICBM which has a warhead capacity of at least 600kilos, travelling at hypersonic speed. Unless they just put in some inert lumps of metal.
Some of the videos suggested multiple RVs - or that the missile disintegrated during reentry.
It knocked the roof in, and left the walls standing. Various other buildings were similarly damaged, and a couple of people injured. Sounds like debris.
We're all still paying for Prescott's regional Fire Control fiasco. The one in Castle Donington has never been occupied, but because of the lease, the government still pay the rent as they never found someone to take the rent over from them. Twenty million quid so far, I believe.
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
And yet....and yet....we have been talking about nothing else (imminent nuclear Armageddon notwithstanding) on PB, of all places. It is the talk of Twitter. Everyone is talking about Jaguar. More fool you (and @Leon) if you are not meta enough to understand (surely you are) that it might be referencing those "cliches" you just listed in order to create a post-modern "what would you do to create a new ad" ad.
Do you work for the agency that lost out to these guys? Seems you have far stronger thoughts on it than others, even Casino, and he is as we speak dusting down his sheepskin coat.
I used to work in the marketing department at a global evil megacorp, so my interest is professional, even though I left the industry several years ago. I work as a consultant for startups now. And as I said before, JLR's ads are made in house, by their own marketing team. So impossible to 'lose out' to them... (and the lack of competitive process may be why the ad is crap, the Pepsi Kendall Jenner debacle was also made in-house).
I'm just fascinated by the strategy and execution of the campaign, as well as its provenance.
Accenture are of course most famous for just bouncing a QR code on screen for 30 seconds and nothing else during the superbowl (while everyone else was spending millions on high budget films).
So what I'm saying is that it is possible that they know what they're doing, and all of this is designed to deliberately stir up controversy.
Whether that strategy will work or not I don't know. It looks a lot more like shitting on a hundred years of brand history and the current customer base to me. But if the car turns out to be a brilliant must have, they will have played a blinder, if even someone like Casino can't say for sure they wouldn't buy the car if it turned out to be incredible.
Far more fun than talking about impending nuclear death and destruction. We've had too many THREADS on that already (chortle).
I've never really understood the car-as-status-symbol thing. As long as it gets you from A to B, carries everything you need and doesn't break down what else is there to care about. Advertising is just an investment designed to raise the profit margin - so the more the firm has spent on its 'brand' the more you are over-paying for the product. The only car ad I can remember is that one with the attractive French woman and her dad.
After a horse house a car will be the most expensive purchase that most people make. Of course it's a status symbol. Your very disdain for its status as a status symbol communicates that you are above superficial displays of status.
You're still peacocking, just in a different way.
Yes, I am above superficial displays of status. Is that supposed to be a bad thing now?
I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I'm just saying you're displaying what you judge as virtues and status to others in the same way. Just different virtues and status.
How else would like-minded people find each other?
Some people pretend to a superior morality by denigrating status symbols.
I mean this is the same calculus as if China invaded Taiwan (leave aside how successful it might be). Would the US really go to war over Taiwan. Would the US really go to (nuclear) war over Ukraine.
So far the answer to the latter has been a resounding no. What would change that. A tactical nuke in Ukraine? Perhaps. Not sure why it would, that said.
The received wisdom (which has been telegraphed since 2022 so appears to be the current tactical position of the US) is that nuclear use in Ukraine requires a conventional response from NATO on the grounds of trying to put the genie back in its bottle, demonstrating nuclear first use will not be tolerated. Of course what that then does is leads to direct NATO/Russian engagement so could quite easily lead to a spiral of escalation.
Whether that still holds with Trump as President, who can say.
In such dangerous times it is so comforting that a shallow unstable narcissist with zero geopolitical nous is about to take over the world's richest and most powerful nation.
If he has zero geopolitical nous, why was the world more peaceful when he was president?
I mean this is the same calculus as if China invaded Taiwan (leave aside how successful it might be). Would the US really go to war over Taiwan. Would the US really go to (nuclear) war over Ukraine.
So far the answer to the latter has been a resounding no. What would change that. A tactical nuke in Ukraine? Perhaps. Not sure why it would, that said.
What would we do if they nuked a Ukrainian town... or Sheffield ?
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
It's an advert that would have been edgy in 2004 not in 2014 and definitely not in 2024. It's in fact so mundanely DEI that it barely registers except in the sense that one feels as thought the consultancy firm JLR hired is full of *****.
That's a good advert, not sure what the issue with it is.
A serious vibration problem, by the look of it.
Cars are supposed to leave you stirred, not shaken?
The ride quality looks worse than the old MkII Jag.
The best for rough roads was the old Allegro with hydragas
(Really, in fact - we had an Allegro estate when I was growing up and the switch to the next car with standard suspension was very noticeable, particularly on an old pot-holed gravel track we used to traverse quite often. Pile of shit in many ways, but the suspension was impressive.)
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
It's an advert that would have been edgy in 2004 not in 2014 and definitely not in 2024. It's in fact so mundanely DEI that it barely registers except in the sense that one feels as thought the consultancy firm JLR hired is full of *****.
That's a good advert, not sure what the issue with it is.
Those sorts of environmental car ads have been around for a while. I shot this one for Mercedes in Germany in the early 90's and it was considered daring!
I mean this is the same calculus as if China invaded Taiwan (leave aside how successful it might be). Would the US really go to war over Taiwan. Would the US really go to (nuclear) war over Ukraine.
So far the answer to the latter has been a resounding no. What would change that. A tactical nuke in Ukraine? Perhaps. Not sure why it would, that said.
What would we do if they nuked a Ukrainian town... or Sheffield ?
If its Slough we'd thank them?
My guess would be if they nuked a Ukrainian town, NATO would aircraft would rapidly degrade Russian fighting capability in Ukraine.
If they nuked Sheffield, then our government would order a strike against an equivalent target in Russia.
I mean this is the same calculus as if China invaded Taiwan (leave aside how successful it might be). Would the US really go to war over Taiwan. Would the US really go to (nuclear) war over Ukraine.
So far the answer to the latter has been a resounding no. What would change that. A tactical nuke in Ukraine? Perhaps. Not sure why it would, that said.
What would we do if they nuked a Ukrainian town... or Sheffield ?
If its Slough we'd thank them?
My guess would be if they nuked a Ukrainian town, NATO would aircraft would rapidly degrade Russian fighting capability in Ukraine.
If they nuked Sheffield, then our government would strike an equivalent target in Russia.
Not good for PB if they nuked Sheffield.
Like @TSE they may believe that Dore & Totley is in Yorkshire.
Though TBF Putin is driven by 1917, which is before it was stolen.
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
It's an advert that would have been edgy in 2004 not in 2014 and definitely not in 2024. It's in fact so mundanely DEI that it barely registers except in the sense that one feels as thought the consultancy firm JLR hired is full of *****.
That's a good advert, not sure what the issue with it is.
Are we supposed to believe the farmer demanded the jacket to let the car pass, and the driver complied because he couldn't wait, or that the driver offered the jacket to the farmer out of some sort of charming cross-community gesture?
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
And yet....and yet....we have been talking about nothing else (imminent nuclear Armageddon notwithstanding) on PB, of all places. It is the talk of Twitter. Everyone is talking about Jaguar. More fool you (and @Leon) if you are not meta enough to understand (surely you are) that it might be referencing those "cliches" you just listed in order to create a post-modern "what would you do to create a new ad" ad.
Do you work for the agency that lost out to these guys? Seems you have far stronger thoughts on it than others, even Casino, and he is as we speak dusting down his sheepskin coat.
I used to work in the marketing department at a global evil megacorp, so my interest is professional, even though I left the industry several years ago. I work as a consultant for startups now. And as I said before, JLR's ads are made in house, by their own marketing team. So impossible to 'lose out' to them... (and the lack of competitive process may be why the ad is crap, the Pepsi Kendall Jenner debacle was also made in-house).
I'm just fascinated by the strategy and execution of the campaign, as well as its provenance.
Accenture are of course most famous for just bouncing a QR code on screen for 30 seconds and nothing else during the superbowl (while everyone else was spending millions on high budget films).
So what I'm saying is that it is possible that they know what they're doing, and all of this is designed to deliberately stir up controversy.
Whether that strategy will work or not I don't know. It looks a lot more like shitting on a hundred years of brand history and the current customer base to me. But if the car turns out to be a brilliant must have, they will have played a blinder, if even someone like Casino can't say for sure they wouldn't buy the car if it turned out to be incredible.
Far more fun than talking about impending nuclear death and destruction. We've had too many THREADS on that already (chortle).
I've never really understood the car-as-status-symbol thing. As long as it gets you from A to B, carries everything you need and doesn't break down what else is there to care about. Advertising is just an investment designed to raise the profit margin - so the more the firm has spent on its 'brand' the more you are over-paying for the product. The only car ad I can remember is that one with the attractive French woman and her dad.
After a horse house a car will be the most expensive purchase that most people make. Of course it's a status symbol. Your very disdain for its status as a status symbol communicates that you are above superficial displays of status.
You're still peacocking, just in a different way.
Yes, I am above superficial displays of status. Is that supposed to be a bad thing now?
I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I'm just saying you're displaying what you judge as virtues and status to others in the same way. Just different virtues and status.
How else would like-minded people find each other?
Some people pretend to a superior morality by denigrating status symbols.
I'm not pretending to be superior. It's just that if you haven't figured out that the purpose of brand advertising is to make you overpay for stuff then you are going to get ripped off and have less money to spend on things that are genuinely useful to you. Is mine a virtuous position? Not really. I'd say it's just well-informed.
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
It's an advert that would have been edgy in 2004 not in 2014 and definitely not in 2024. It's in fact so mundanely DEI that it barely registers except in the sense that one feels as thought the consultancy firm JLR hired is full of *****.
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
It's an advert that would have been edgy in 2004 not in 2014 and definitely not in 2024. It's in fact so mundanely DEI that it barely registers except in the sense that one feels as thought the consultancy firm JLR hired is full of *****.
That's a good advert, not sure what the issue with it is.
Those sorts of environmental car ads have been around for a while. I shot this one for Mercedes in Germany in the early 90's and it was considered daring!
I mean this is the same calculus as if China invaded Taiwan (leave aside how successful it might be). Would the US really go to war over Taiwan. Would the US really go to (nuclear) war over Ukraine.
So far the answer to the latter has been a resounding no. What would change that. A tactical nuke in Ukraine? Perhaps. Not sure why it would, that said.
What would we do if they nuked a Ukrainian town... or Sheffield ?
If its Slough we'd thank them?
My guess would be if they nuked a Ukrainian town, NATO would aircraft would rapidly degrade Russian fighting capability in Ukraine.
If they nuked Sheffield, then our government would order a strike against an equivalent target in Russia.
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
And yet....and yet....we have been talking about nothing else (imminent nuclear Armageddon notwithstanding) on PB, of all places. It is the talk of Twitter. Everyone is talking about Jaguar. More fool you (and @Leon) if you are not meta enough to understand (surely you are) that it might be referencing those "cliches" you just listed in order to create a post-modern "what would you do to create a new ad" ad.
Do you work for the agency that lost out to these guys? Seems you have far stronger thoughts on it than others, even Casino, and he is as we speak dusting down his sheepskin coat.
I used to work in the marketing department at a global evil megacorp, so my interest is professional, even though I left the industry several years ago. I work as a consultant for startups now. And as I said before, JLR's ads are made in house, by their own marketing team. So impossible to 'lose out' to them... (and the lack of competitive process may be why the ad is crap, the Pepsi Kendall Jenner debacle was also made in-house).
I'm just fascinated by the strategy and execution of the campaign, as well as its provenance.
Accenture are of course most famous for just bouncing a QR code on screen for 30 seconds and nothing else during the superbowl (while everyone else was spending millions on high budget films).
So what I'm saying is that it is possible that they know what they're doing, and all of this is designed to deliberately stir up controversy.
Whether that strategy will work or not I don't know. It looks a lot more like shitting on a hundred years of brand history and the current customer base to me. But if the car turns out to be a brilliant must have, they will have played a blinder, if even someone like Casino can't say for sure they wouldn't buy the car if it turned out to be incredible.
Far more fun than talking about impending nuclear death and destruction. We've had too many THREADS on that already (chortle).
I've never really understood the car-as-status-symbol thing. As long as it gets you from A to B, carries everything you need and doesn't break down what else is there to care about. Advertising is just an investment designed to raise the profit margin - so the more the firm has spent on its 'brand' the more you are over-paying for the product. The only car ad I can remember is that one with the attractive French woman and her dad.
You do not have to understand it, still less like it, but you should acknowledge it. Cars do have brand value, as do watches and trainers. You might as well say you do not understand why people eat curry so hot it means they taste nothing else, sweat profusely and rush to the smallest room, when all they need is the basic food groups and some vitamins. (Ah, time for Deliveroo!)
This applies at the highest level with expensive cars but also with boring family saloons. Here is a 1990s documentary on fleet cars, with almost every driver mentioning how their company car reflects their status to colleagues, customers and competitors.
This is just a sad reflection of how the advertising industry has warped people's minds until their own self-image is bound up in things they own instead of things that actually matter.
Oh please list out for us those things that actually matter.
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
And yet....and yet....we have been talking about nothing else (imminent nuclear Armageddon notwithstanding) on PB, of all places. It is the talk of Twitter. Everyone is talking about Jaguar. More fool you (and @Leon) if you are not meta enough to understand (surely you are) that it might be referencing those "cliches" you just listed in order to create a post-modern "what would you do to create a new ad" ad.
Do you work for the agency that lost out to these guys? Seems you have far stronger thoughts on it than others, even Casino, and he is as we speak dusting down his sheepskin coat.
I used to work in the marketing department at a global evil megacorp, so my interest is professional, even though I left the industry several years ago. I work as a consultant for startups now. And as I said before, JLR's ads are made in house, by their own marketing team. So impossible to 'lose out' to them... (and the lack of competitive process may be why the ad is crap, the Pepsi Kendall Jenner debacle was also made in-house).
I'm just fascinated by the strategy and execution of the campaign, as well as its provenance.
Accenture are of course most famous for just bouncing a QR code on screen for 30 seconds and nothing else during the superbowl (while everyone else was spending millions on high budget films).
So what I'm saying is that it is possible that they know what they're doing, and all of this is designed to deliberately stir up controversy.
Whether that strategy will work or not I don't know. It looks a lot more like shitting on a hundred years of brand history and the current customer base to me. But if the car turns out to be a brilliant must have, they will have played a blinder, if even someone like Casino can't say for sure they wouldn't buy the car if it turned out to be incredible.
Far more fun than talking about impending nuclear death and destruction. We've had too many THREADS on that already (chortle).
I've never really understood the car-as-status-symbol thing. As long as it gets you from A to B, carries everything you need and doesn't break down what else is there to care about. Advertising is just an investment designed to raise the profit margin - so the more the firm has spent on its 'brand' the more you are over-paying for the product. The only car ad I can remember is that one with the attractive French woman and her dad.
After a horse house a car will be the most expensive purchase that most people make. Of course it's a status symbol. Your very disdain for its status as a status symbol communicates that you are above superficial displays of status.
You're still peacocking, just in a different way.
Yes, I am above superficial displays of status. Is that supposed to be a bad thing now?
I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I'm just saying you're displaying what you judge as virtues and status to others in the same way. Just different virtues and status.
How else would like-minded people find each other?
Some people pretend to a superior morality by denigrating status symbols.
I'm not pretending to be superior. It's just that if you haven't figured out that the purpose of brand advertising is to make you overpay for stuff then you are going to get ripped off and have less money to spend on things that are genuinely useful to you. Is mine a virtuous position? Not really. I'd say it's just well-informed.
I know. But I'm still more likely to buy Warhammer models than Wargames Atlantic or Northstar. Sometimes the value for the consumer isn't in the physical object.
The Ukrainian Air Force confirmed that Russia struck the Ukrainian city of Dnipro with a conventionally armed ICBM this morning, marking the first combat use of an ICBM in history.
Why isn't Leon all over this? The only explanation that makes sense to me is that this is a demonstration by Russia to show that their ICBMs work.
Russia's deterrence credibility is in tatters. It has repeatedly promised massive retribution and repeatedly failed to deliver said retribution when it's rhetorical red lines have been crossed. Ukraine has occupied sovereign Russian territory for months, which still strikes me as unthinkable that a non-nuclear power should occupy part of the territory of a nuclear power.
Russia has chosen this moment to show that its ICBMs work. This is crunch time now.
It wasn't an ICBM
An ICBM launch, for a start, would have had the US President on Airforce One in a scramble takeoff.
The DSPS satellites can detect such launches instantly - that's what they are for.
The energy signature of an ICBM is much, much higher than an IRBM (Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile) or MRBM (Medium Range Ballistic Missile)
Ukrainian media are reporting it as an RS-26, which according to Wikipedia has a range of ~5,000km - just enough to be classed as an ICBM, albeit short of the distance from Western Russia to the Eastern US.
That doesn't look much like an ICBM which has a warhead capacity of at least 600kilos, travelling at hypersonic speed. Unless they just put in some inert lumps of metal.
Some of the videos suggested multiple RVs - or that the missile disintegrated during reentry.
It knocked the roof in, and left the walls standing. Various other buildings were similarly damaged, and a couple of people injured. Sounds like debris.
A few possibilities
- disintegration on reentry - debris - small MIRVs, possibly inert - debris from the separation of the warhead(s) from the vehicle or the vehicle itself.
RS-26 is derived from an ICBM - by removing a stage. So it will probably separate the warhead(s) for re-entry
I mean this is the same calculus as if China invaded Taiwan (leave aside how successful it might be). Would the US really go to war over Taiwan. Would the US really go to (nuclear) war over Ukraine.
So far the answer to the latter has been a resounding no. What would change that. A tactical nuke in Ukraine? Perhaps. Not sure why it would, that said.
What would we do if they nuked a Ukrainian town... or Sheffield ?
If its Slough we'd thank them?
Don't be ridiculous.
Reeves would send Putin a CGT bill for the jump in property values.
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
It's an advert that would have been edgy in 2004 not in 2014 and definitely not in 2024. It's in fact so mundanely DEI that it barely registers except in the sense that one feels as thought the consultancy firm JLR hired is full of *****.
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
It's an advert that would have been edgy in 2004 not in 2014 and definitely not in 2024. It's in fact so mundanely DEI that it barely registers except in the sense that one feels as thought the consultancy firm JLR hired is full of *****.
Hope Valley, Derbyshire, and around Mam Tor, apparently.
I know that road well (actually, those roads - Winnatts pass and the Barber Booth road.) No objection to the advert, though I don't get the bagpipes and don't really understand the narrative. But it's less punchable than most car adverts, not least because it's recognisably British.
I mean this is the same calculus as if China invaded Taiwan (leave aside how successful it might be). Would the US really go to war over Taiwan. Would the US really go to (nuclear) war over Ukraine.
So far the answer to the latter has been a resounding no. What would change that. A tactical nuke in Ukraine? Perhaps. Not sure why it would, that said.
What would we do if they nuked a Ukrainian town... or Sheffield ?
If its Slough we'd thank them?
My guess would be if they nuked a Ukrainian town, NATO would aircraft would rapidly degrade Russian fighting capability in Ukraine.
If they nuked Sheffield, then our government would order a strike against an equivalent target in Russia.
Nuking Shefield? Have they been watching Threads?
Do we have any SLR, with wooden furniture, in store?
I remember one interviewer with a Trump influencer, who suggested it was time to "drain the swamp, imprison the swamp, and in some cases, execute the swamp."
I mean this is the same calculus as if China invaded Taiwan (leave aside how successful it might be). Would the US really go to war over Taiwan. Would the US really go to (nuclear) war over Ukraine.
So far the answer to the latter has been a resounding no. What would change that. A tactical nuke in Ukraine? Perhaps. Not sure why it would, that said.
What would we do if they nuked a Ukrainian town... or Sheffield ?
If its Slough we'd thank them?
My guess would be if they nuked a Ukrainian town, NATO would aircraft would rapidly degrade Russian fighting capability in Ukraine.
If they nuked Sheffield, then our government would order a strike against an equivalent target in Russia.
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
And yet....and yet....we have been talking about nothing else (imminent nuclear Armageddon notwithstanding) on PB, of all places. It is the talk of Twitter. Everyone is talking about Jaguar. More fool you (and @Leon) if you are not meta enough to understand (surely you are) that it might be referencing those "cliches" you just listed in order to create a post-modern "what would you do to create a new ad" ad.
Do you work for the agency that lost out to these guys? Seems you have far stronger thoughts on it than others, even Casino, and he is as we speak dusting down his sheepskin coat.
I used to work in the marketing department at a global evil megacorp, so my interest is professional, even though I left the industry several years ago. I work as a consultant for startups now. And as I said before, JLR's ads are made in house, by their own marketing team. So impossible to 'lose out' to them... (and the lack of competitive process may be why the ad is crap, the Pepsi Kendall Jenner debacle was also made in-house).
I'm just fascinated by the strategy and execution of the campaign, as well as its provenance.
Accenture are of course most famous for just bouncing a QR code on screen for 30 seconds and nothing else during the superbowl (while everyone else was spending millions on high budget films).
So what I'm saying is that it is possible that they know what they're doing, and all of this is designed to deliberately stir up controversy.
Whether that strategy will work or not I don't know. It looks a lot more like shitting on a hundred years of brand history and the current customer base to me. But if the car turns out to be a brilliant must have, they will have played a blinder, if even someone like Casino can't say for sure they wouldn't buy the car if it turned out to be incredible.
Far more fun than talking about impending nuclear death and destruction. We've had too many THREADS on that already (chortle).
I've never really understood the car-as-status-symbol thing. As long as it gets you from A to B, carries everything you need and doesn't break down what else is there to care about. Advertising is just an investment designed to raise the profit margin - so the more the firm has spent on its 'brand' the more you are over-paying for the product. The only car ad I can remember is that one with the attractive French woman and her dad.
You do not have to understand it, still less like it, but you should acknowledge it. Cars do have brand value, as do watches and trainers. You might as well say you do not understand why people eat curry so hot it means they taste nothing else, sweat profusely and rush to the smallest room, when all they need is the basic food groups and some vitamins. (Ah, time for Deliveroo!)
This applies at the highest level with expensive cars but also with boring family saloons. Here is a 1990s documentary on fleet cars, with almost every driver mentioning how their company car reflects their status to colleagues, customers and competitors.
This is just a sad reflection of how the advertising industry has warped people's minds until their own self-image is bound up in things they own instead of things that actually matter.
Oh please list out for us those things that actually matter.
It will differ from person to person. For some it will be friends and family, their involvement in the local community, making a difference in the world, hobbies and interests. For others it will be posting asinine comments on obscure internet forums.
The Ukrainian Air Force confirmed that Russia struck the Ukrainian city of Dnipro with a conventionally armed ICBM this morning, marking the first combat use of an ICBM in history.
Why isn't Leon all over this? The only explanation that makes sense to me is that this is a demonstration by Russia to show that their ICBMs work.
Russia's deterrence credibility is in tatters. It has repeatedly promised massive retribution and repeatedly failed to deliver said retribution when it's rhetorical red lines have been crossed. Ukraine has occupied sovereign Russian territory for months, which still strikes me as unthinkable that a non-nuclear power should occupy part of the territory of a nuclear power.
Russia has chosen this moment to show that its ICBMs work. This is crunch time now.
It makes very little sense for Putin to go nuclear at the moment (let’s leave aside the fact that Uncle Xi will tell him not to).
He is currently making progress on the battlefield and he’s weeks away from being opposite a US President who wants to give him an off ramp.
What purpose does a nuclear launch serve right now?
No. What suits Putin at the moment is to give the impression that he’s ramping up to a nuclear crisis, because he will think that strengthens his hand in negotiations with Trump (“look at what I can do. My nuclear doctrine is already being breached. My ICBMs are ready” etc etc).
That doesn’t preclude the fact that there is an uncomfortable chance we really could have a nuclear crisis in 2025, particularly if Trump plays hardball and Putin isn’t having any of it, but we’re not at that point yet.
Yes it seems we're back to nuclear hyperbole with articles everywhere about how to survive a nuclear attack etc, etc. Would you want to?
Clickbait for the anxious and the fearful to be sure - no one is going to launch a nuclear anything anytime. There are protocols, back channels and all the rest of it to prevent anything other than an accidential launch.
As I've said on here many times, the likes of Trump, Putin and Xi all like the finer things of life - nice food, nice clothes, nice palaces and all the trappings of a lifestyle which ends with the first missile launch so it won't happen, not by design at least.
There are rules to this game, steps to the dance and the main one is no direct confrontation between NATO and Russian forces - proxy conflicts are fine (not for those doing the fighting and dying of course).
The Daily Star today says a lot more places in vaults have been sold at £150000 a time.
What’s your plan for when the four minute warning sounds, Stodge?
With all these modern missuls do we even get 4 minute warning for one last orgasm and choccy bar 🙁
Your best bet in a nuclear war is to be vaporized in the first exchange.
But, you can get vaporised and leave shadow on a wall for all time. Do you want to be caught sat on toilet with ten year old Farmers Weekly in your hands?
Would that be discernable in the shadow? I might have been reading Plato. And will it matter much either way to the mutant cave dwellers who catch sight of the shadow on the wall while they forage for rats in the rubble of SE London?
Of course it would. It would be bloody embarrassing!
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
It's an advert that would have been edgy in 2004 not in 2014 and definitely not in 2024. It's in fact so mundanely DEI that it barely registers except in the sense that one feels as thought the consultancy firm JLR hired is full of *****.
Hope Valley, Derbyshire, and around Mam Tor, apparently.
I know that road well (actually, those roads - Winnatts pass and the Barber Booth road.) No objection to the advert, though I don't get the bagpipes and don't really understand the narrative. But it's less punchable than most car adverts, not least because it's recognisably British.
They are pretending it's Scotland.
See the Highland Cattle.
Out of control anti-social Scottish Cows have history in the area. Several years ago they went for a dog near Baslow - 4-legged reevers. They have never forgotten being chased out of Derby in 1745.
A herd of cattle has been forced from a Peak District beauty spot it had grazed on for 40 years after a complaint.
The 30-strong highland herd had roamed Baslow Edge for decades alongside a popular footpath.
Last year the cows, which had young calves, confronted a dog. When the owner complained, farmer Alex Birch was told by authorities to move his herd.
Ashley Neil video published this morning about someone who pulled up on the left, leaving room to drive past, then a policeman told him to put it on the verge because he was "obstructing the road".
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
It's an advert that would have been edgy in 2004 not in 2014 and definitely not in 2024. It's in fact so mundanely DEI that it barely registers except in the sense that one feels as thought the consultancy firm JLR hired is full of *****.
Hope Valley, Derbyshire, and around Mam Tor, apparently.
I know that road well (actually, those roads - Winnatts pass and the Barber Booth road.) No objection to the advert, though I don't get the bagpipes and don't really understand the narrative. But it's less punchable than most car adverts, not least because it's recognisably British.
They are pretending it's Scotland.
See the Highland Cattle.
Out of control anti-social Scottish Cows have history in the area. Several years ago they went for a dog near Baslow - 4-legged reevers. They have never forgotten being chased out of Derby in 1745.
A herd of cattle has been forced from a Peak District beauty spot it had grazed on for 40 years after a complaint.
The 30-strong highland herd had roamed Baslow Edge for decades alongside a popular footpath.
Last year the cows, which had young calves, confronted a dog. When the owner complained, farmer Alex Birch was told by authorities to move his herd.
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
It's an advert that would have been edgy in 2004 not in 2014 and definitely not in 2024. It's in fact so mundanely DEI that it barely registers except in the sense that one feels as thought the consultancy firm JLR hired is full of *****.
Hope Valley, Derbyshire, and around Mam Tor, apparently.
I know that road well (actually, those roads - Winnatts pass and the Barber Booth road.) No objection to the advert, though I don't get the bagpipes and don't really understand the narrative. But it's less punchable than most car adverts, not least because it's recognisably British.
With Dura_Ace, who has claimed some of his stupid exploits on Winnat's, that would've been a somewhat different advert, I feel.
The Ukrainian Air Force confirmed that Russia struck the Ukrainian city of Dnipro with a conventionally armed ICBM this morning, marking the first combat use of an ICBM in history.
Why isn't Leon all over this? The only explanation that makes sense to me is that this is a demonstration by Russia to show that their ICBMs work.
Russia's deterrence credibility is in tatters. It has repeatedly promised massive retribution and repeatedly failed to deliver said retribution when it's rhetorical red lines have been crossed. Ukraine has occupied sovereign Russian territory for months, which still strikes me as unthinkable that a non-nuclear power should occupy part of the territory of a nuclear power.
Russia has chosen this moment to show that its ICBMs work. This is crunch time now.
It wasn't an ICBM
An ICBM launch, for a start, would have had the US President on Airforce One in a scramble takeoff.
The DSPS satellites can detect such launches instantly - that's what they are for.
The energy signature of an ICBM is much, much higher than an IRBM (Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile) or MRBM (Medium Range Ballistic Missile)
Ukrainian media are reporting it as an RS-26, which according to Wikipedia has a range of ~5,000km - just enough to be classed as an ICBM, albeit short of the distance from Western Russia to the Eastern US.
That doesn't look much like an ICBM which has a warhead capacity of at least 600kilos, travelling at hypersonic speed. Unless they just put in some inert lumps of metal.
Some of the videos suggested multiple RVs - or that the missile disintegrated during reentry.
It knocked the roof in, and left the walls standing. Various other buildings were similarly damaged, and a couple of people injured. Sounds like debris.
A few possibilities
- disintegration on reentry - debris - small MIRVs, possibly inert - debris from the separation of the warhead(s) from the vehicle or the vehicle itself.
RS-26 is derived from an ICBM - by removing a stage. So it will probably separate the warhead(s) for re-entry
Ashley Neil video published this morning about someone who pulled up on the left, leaving room to drive past, then a policeman told him to put it on the verge because he was "obstructing the road".
The Jaguar ad will get people talking - in the same way as Bud Light did in US....
I hope that Jag are doing some resilience work around Mr Chump's impending tariffs. AFAICs unlike their competitors, they do not have factories in the USA. That's where about 25-30% of their sales go.
I wasn't very kind about the ad - on aesthetic / style it feels to be following "United Colours of Benetton" or "FCUK" 2-3 decades later, and so is quite derivative. I may have missed something.
But for me the idea that a Jaguar is aspirational and worth investing emotion in is ridiculous on its face. A car is at root a transport appliance, nothing more. It needs to be safe, and comfortable, and may be nice to drive - none of that is worth obsessing about or wasting time for the expression of pride. I'm more emotional about my fridge.
Jaguar as a brand does command some loyalty and emotion. But it is nostalgia rather for anything they have done in the last 30 years.
Jaguar is a brand that trades on its name and it’s heritage, E-Type for example, but has made largely bland, generic, cars for many years. I worked on X100, X202, X350, X760 and X761 and the driving force behind all of them was not style or innovation, unlike some of the Range Rover range, but cost. Everything as cheap as possible. They were effectively rebadged Fords for a while too.
It is a shame Dura Ace no longer seems to hang out. I am sure he would have a lot. Ore to say on their cars.
Well, not really. I bought an XE in 2017 and absolutely loved it.
Jag did really well with their 2013-2019 marques.
The solution is to not get a Jag next time. Vote with your wallet and don't support companies that clearly hate you anyway.
I won't. I'll be emailing my dealership to tell them that this morning.
"Jag" seem to thing they'll be opening up a whole new market here, and so pissing off their existing base doesn't matter.
Chortle. They are so so wrong.
Out of interest, if the new Jag turns out to be the best car since the E type when they unveil it, a powerhouse, a work of art, a car that says *I have arrived* would you still refuse to buy it?
I've always felt that what you say in your marketing doesn't actually matter that much. The product does the talking. All marketing does is make people aware of the product.
And on that criterion the Jaguar ad has been a stonking success.
I'm sure Bud Lite marketing execs had the same sentiment early on during their controversy.
Bud lite is also carbonated piss.
If the new Jag turns out to be a lean, mean, driving machine, will all be forgiven?
I personally don't care about whether the ad is 'woke' or not, it just seems stale and cliched. But sometimes you get bad ads for good products.
If I may be so bold, I'm guessing that you are in the 0.001% of early adopters and open to, and au fait with new trends and whatnot.
To say an ad like that, featuring what appears to be a range of genders in striking tones, doing weird-ass things, and which is visually sumptuous and nothing particularly to do with the thing it is supposed to be advertising, is "stale and cliched" I think is pushing it a bit. It is, as we have seen by the reaction to it on PB this morning, a complete mind f**k to 83.5% of the population.
Perfume ads have been doing it for years. Decades in fact. The whole "copy nothing" "break molds" spiel is so cliched as to be meaningless.
Granted it's quite novel for a car company to market itself in this way, but think about ads that have broken moulds and been genuine WTF moments. The Sony Bravia exploding paint ads (pretty heady stuff for 2006) or the Cadbury's Gorilla (2007) were genuinely standout.
What about this ad stands out? It's a bunch of people dressed like extras from Zoolander faffing about on screen while cliched phrases appear in text. Nothing about it feels new, and everything about it feels like a paint by numbers ad following a brand strategy that says 'our old customers are dying off, we need to create something that appeals to a different audience, what about the type of people who buy expensive handbags and designer clobber like that? maybe we can be the brand for them'.
It's an ad that borrows every imaginable high fashion cliche possible while saying absolutely nothing. But it is certainly not envelope pushing.
It's an advert that would have been edgy in 2004 not in 2014 and definitely not in 2024. It's in fact so mundanely DEI that it barely registers except in the sense that one feels as thought the consultancy firm JLR hired is full of *****.
That's a good advert, not sure what the issue with it is.
It's nearly, but not quite there. They had this great idea but didn't know how to end it (I half expected to see the sheep in the back of the car but that would have been a different model).
I liked the ad, but they made that classic mistake of going all derivative and showing the actual car
I think most car adverts don't show an actual car either - it's all CGI.
The most misleading thing is the completely empty streets, devoid of pedestrians, cyclists, buses, thousands of other single-occupant cars. They try to sell freedom but the reality of driving for most people is sedentary frustration.
My favourite car advert was the Nissan Almera ad.
Man and woman go to show room asking for a test drive - "alone". Take Nissan Almera for a spin, stop near a cliff, get out, and push the car over the edge!
Wow! Badenoch is really socking Starmer in the Commons, in such a change to Sunak’s approach and capabilities.
“The prime minister’s foreign policy is a pick and mix of empty platitudes, unilateral commitments that he could have announced at home, and dangerous precedents – rushing to give away the Chagos islands and paying for the privilege, an ill-judged suspension of export licences to Israel, damaging our defence and security industry and failing to set out a roadmap for spending 2.5% GDP on defence in a world that is becoming yet more dangerous. Cop has not yet concluded, so we do not know what the final impact on the UK will be. But we do know the prime minister’s rush to a further cut in our emissions is yet another example of politicians putting short term publicity above long term planning. When will he publish the plans to achieve this new target? It is time for politicians to tell the truth, and it is time the prime minister provided some substance to back this costly rhetoric.”
Comments
So far the answer to the latter has been a resounding no. What would change that. A tactical nuke in Ukraine? Perhaps. Not sure why it would, that said.
The new logos, particularly the badge, are shit.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/21/captain-toms-daughter-likely-misled-charity-supporters/
Whether that still holds with Trump as President, who can say.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/20/democrats-donald-trump-falling-us-wages
Socialism or Barbarism! - aka we need a New Left Populism to counter the Rancid Right version.
Like I've been saying.
There's probably a PhD thesis or at least a YouTube video on how nuclear deterrence has changed over the decades, from MAD meaning no nuclear exchanges, to nuclear states not going even to conventional war, which probably came via India and Pakistan, through to wherever we are now with not using nukes against unarmed opponents in proxy wars.
It's always been multiple regional markets; the interplay would be interesting.
I'm just fascinated by the strategy and execution of the campaign, as well as its provenance.
Accenture are of course most famous for just bouncing a QR code on screen for 30 seconds and nothing else during the superbowl (while everyone else was spending millions on high budget films).
That ad won the grand prix at Cannes - https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/accenture-song-coinbase-win-direct-grand-prix-less-talk-bitcoin/1790984 - which is a pretty prestigious award. It's also the only ad from that year's superbowl I can remember. It was utterly slated at the time.
So what I'm saying is that it is possible that they know what they're doing, and all of this is designed to deliberately stir up controversy.
Whether that strategy will work or not I don't know. It looks a lot more like shitting on a hundred years of brand history and the current customer base to me. But if the car turns out to be a brilliant must have, they will have played a blinder, if even someone like Casino can't say for sure they wouldn't buy the car if it turned out to be incredible.
Far more fun than talking about impending nuclear death and destruction. We've had too many THREADS on that already (chortle).
Combined with a word from China that was a credible deterrence that had Russia back down on the nuclear threats.
The success is in reminding everyone Jaguar still exists, even though it has no product.
Not sure though they've quite caught the notion of "It'll be worth the wait, honest...."
Jags used to be shocking and exciting and sleazy.
seasoned politicians and diplomatspeople off the telly.You're still peacocking, just in a different way.
Patriot my arse.
The most misleading thing is the completely empty streets, devoid of pedestrians, cyclists, buses, thousands of other single-occupant cars. They try to sell freedom but the reality of driving for most people is sedentary frustration.
Leon @theoussama
·
9h Where was this video filmed? Switzerland?
https://x.com/theoussama/status/1859413649799999885
Hope Valley, Derbyshire, and around Mam Tor, apparently.
https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1859538071554818541
That doesn't look much like an ICBM which has a warhead capacity of at least 600kilos, travelling at hypersonic speed.
Unless they just put in some inert lumps of metal.
Recent models have been trading on that magnificent legacy without coming close to the sheer style and elegance, and performance.
Now, everyone is waiting to see what they do next.
Surely that is success in anyone's books.
Who are you ? Mike Tyson ?
Michael Meacher at least was at Parliamentary Under Secretary level from 1974-1979.
One question is whether you call them "New Labour".
Given that they fired it at a city, so that it would be seen, then loading it with inert lumps of metal would be the most responsible thing that Russia have done through the entire course of this war.
This applies at the highest level with expensive cars but also with boring family saloons. Here is a 1990s documentary on fleet cars, with almost every driver mentioning how their company car reflects their status to colleagues, customers and competitors.
1994: SECRETS of the COMPANY CAR MEN | From A to B: Tales of Modern Motoring | BBC Archive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh359S3Eg1U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn_ZVgd7Suc
When (if!) self driving cars become a thing then I guess we will see some cars navigating shitty driving environments with the 'driver' relaxing in the back.
What have you linked us to?
*innocent face*
Various other buildings were similarly damaged, and a couple of people injured. Sounds like debris.
How else would like-minded people find each other?
Some people pretend to a superior morality by denigrating status symbols.
(Really, in fact - we had an Allegro estate when I was growing up and the switch to the next car with standard suspension was very noticeable, particularly on an old pot-holed gravel track we used to traverse quite often. Pile of shit in many ways, but the suspension was impressive.)
If they nuked Sheffield, then our government would order a strike against an equivalent target in Russia.
Like @TSE they may believe that Dore & Totley is in Yorkshire.
Though TBF Putin is driven by 1917, which is before it was stolen.
Or maybe we're just supposed to talk about it.
* Reaches out hand
* Changes the label from "Correct" to "Incorrect"
* Goes to next shelf
Irish polling. Sinn Féin on the slide. Independents on the rise.
Support For Trump Prosecuting Politicians Who Have Been Critical Of Him:
Oppose: 69%
Support: 15%
Unsure: 15%
YouGov / Nov 19, 2024 / n=1595
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1859335037034107134
- disintegration on reentry - debris
- small MIRVs, possibly inert
- debris from the separation of the warhead(s) from the vehicle or the vehicle itself.
RS-26 is derived from an ICBM - by removing a stage. So it will probably separate the warhead(s) for re-entry
https://news.sky.com/story/arrest-warrants-issued-for-israeli-pm-netanyahu-and-former-defence-secretary-gallant-over-alleged-war-crimes-13257801
Reeves would send Putin a CGT bill for the jump in property values.
No objection to the advert, though I don't get the bagpipes and don't really understand the narrative. But it's less punchable than most car adverts, not least because it's recognisably British.
Our air is not for sale!
See the Highland Cattle.
Out of control anti-social Scottish Cows have history in the area. Several years ago they went for a dog near Baslow - 4-legged reevers. They have never forgotten being chased out of Derby in 1745.
A herd of cattle has been forced from a Peak District beauty spot it had grazed on for 40 years after a complaint.
The 30-strong highland herd had roamed Baslow Edge for decades alongside a popular footpath.
Last year the cows, which had young calves, confronted a dog. When the owner complained, farmer Alex Birch was told by authorities to move his herd.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-47474646
The joys of HWA 1980 S137.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T-LNZLXBkw
They're like arseholes who buy flats above pubs and have them closed down with noise complaints.
An obstruction under that law does not have to be the full width, which brings us back to our earlier conversation about parkers blocking pavements
Man and woman go to show room asking for a test drive - "alone". Take Nissan Almera for a spin, stop near a cliff, get out, and push the car over the edge!
“The prime minister’s foreign policy is a pick and mix of empty platitudes, unilateral commitments that he could have announced at home, and dangerous precedents – rushing to give away the Chagos islands and paying for the privilege, an ill-judged suspension of export licences to Israel, damaging our defence and security industry and failing to set out a roadmap for spending 2.5% GDP on defence in a world that is becoming yet more dangerous.
Cop has not yet concluded, so we do not know what the final impact on the UK will be. But we do know the prime minister’s rush to a further cut in our emissions is yet another example of politicians putting short term publicity above long term planning.
When will he publish the plans to achieve this new target? It is time for politicians to tell the truth, and it is time the prime minister provided some substance to back this costly rhetoric.”