Thursday, April 21, 2016

Real Children, Not Actors, Being Damaged at a Very Young Age

First quick question to parents:  none of you show up in this ad, but you are clearly the consumers being targeted here.*  So, why did you even bother to have kids if you want them constantly occupied by video games and movies and texting, even when you are together in a freaking car?  When did the concept of actually communicating with your kids get tossed out the window for "here, play with this crap and don't bother me- I'm so desperate to be left alone I've even gone out and bought a car with built-in distractions for you.  So, we're good- see you at the dinner table, maybe."

Ok, now on to the actual steaming pile of wretched refuse which is this commercial.  I don't care that these kids aren't actors, and I totally believe that they aren't actors- if I was skeptical, the first time one of them opened his mouth, I would have been convinced.  But don't tell me that they haven't been fed lines and cues- "you should all sigh now," "you should look dissapointed now," "you respond with 'I'm jealous,' "You all look excited when we show the car, ok?"  Because that's so blatantly obvious it isn't even funny.

Also not funny- any of this junk.  Back to my original point- when did parents become so desperate to find things for their kids to do during the 5-mile trips to school other than (gasp) TALK to them?  I could almost understand liking the idea of having WiFi capabilities if you are driving seven kids a long distance, until I imagine the kind of noise that's going to make- even if they are all wearing earphones and the driver can't hear the actual game, aren't these kids going to be yelling and screaming at each othe reach time some digital prize is attained or one of them is knocked out of the contest?

And another thing- the saleschoad's argument is centered around the idea of "fairness."  It's not "fair" that only one kid got to play the game.  It would be "more fair" if they could ALL play.  So the "answer" is to get Mommy and Daddy to buy this car so that everyone in it can play at the same time.  I mean, what's the alternative?  Taking turns?  Ugh, sounds totally 20th century to me.  And what about Mommies and Daddies who can't afford to buy cars like this (or have brain cells and simply
dont want to?)  Are they being "less fair" than the idiots who go for this level of self-indulgence?  Again- that's totally 20th century thinking. right?

*Remember when ads aimed at kids encouraged them to politely urge Mom and Dad to buy them a certain toy, or take them to some theme park?  Now kids are being told that if Mom and Dad want to be "fair," they'll blow $40,000 on a car with WiFi so The Whole Gang can play brain-numbing video games on the way to that theme park.  'Cause that would be fair, and plus you won't have to talk to me, Mom and Dad!  And the beat goes on.....


  1. First, how awful is it that kids are being taught at a young age that a motor vehicle should be, first and foremost, not a means of transportation, but an entertainment center on wheels? And that if it's not an entertainment center that can accommodate everyone's pleasures at once, it's no damn good?

    Second, what about teaching kids the value of those highly old-fashioned concepts (I guess) known as "sharing" and "taking turns"? What's wrong with teaching kids that sometimes there's not enough of something to go around for everyone to get to enjoy one at the same time, so you have to wait your turn and be considerate and try to make sure everyone gets a chance?

    ...Oh, sorry. I forgot. This is an ad for a really expensive motor vehicle. Its job is not to teach the values of sharing and taking turns. Its job is to persuade guilty parents that if they don't cater to their children's every desire by buying this gas guzzler, their children will be irreparably scarred by having experienced the concept of Scarcity. Heaven forfend.

  2. in addition, why would someone sign up for an in car wifi/4g/lte account when a smartphone will do the trick ?