When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Just read the article and watched the advertisement...it was banned because two people (two people!!) complained that it gave the impression that the rear camera warning system would in fact alert if one were to back up to the edge of cliff (alerting to a drop off vs. an obstacle).
Sometimes I can believe the world in which we now live. I thought it was a really good commercial.
Saw this earlier in the week as well and I had a good laugh about it. It is actually very simple. (context: as one of my ... uhh... hustles, I own a video-based advertising agency that produces advertisements for large global brands, including automotive sector brands). My take is as follows:
The function of the backup sensors does not "prevent you from backing over a cliff". It's indeed creatively a bit cheeky & fun in the ad, but the functionality simply does not do that.
Agency is to blame here. The producing ad agency who JLR hired and trusted with the launch materials. This is basic advertising "101" for automotive brands... A spot cannot make false claims, especially with respect to safety functions (I am not well versed UK laws, but in the US is similar). Perhaps these minor creative exaggerations slide by for non-safety functions without catching regulators' attention... but with respect to functions that touch safety in any manner, there is no grey area. 0.0.
However small the sample size of reporting consumers, once the regulators in UK are aware of it, it sets a process in motion, and it's a problem that needs to go away immediately for the brand. They take it down. Or ad gets re-edited, fines paid potentially, etc. And JLR has a communication problem externally by saying in their statement that "only 2 people had an issue with".
The agency could have very easily put a big rock or obstacle between the D90 and the cliff (even in CGI / composited it in) and prevented the issue. They chose not to -- Would it look as visually cool? No.
More importantly, for JLR, the JLR brand marketers have a responsibility to be out in front of this if the agency does not. Theoretically, if I had been in a meeting reviewing this content, it would have been the FIRST thing I mentioned after saying how much I enjoyed the spot ... ie "Change it and we are not going to get away with this" Side note: I am betting that they had this exact conversation years ago, and chose to take the risk. When I saw this ad 2-3 years ago, it was the first thing I noticed, and even posted a joke somewhere about it...
Exactly right "buyer see, buyer do". If your 17 year old sees this ad, takes your 110 out to your local gorge or cliff, and tries this out, and plunges to his/her death with a carful of friends ... imagine the 8 figure lawsuit that would ultimately be paid out by the insurance policy of the responsible agency on behalf of the brand.
Would love to hear the conversations between the marketers, regulators and then JLR and their agencies about this...
It's actually dangerous if you have the clear sight rear view mirror. It is positioned from the roof that it doesn't give you clear edge of the vehicle. It tends to overestimate how close you are which can be a safety feature too.
Ok "Sarcasm coming up" warning ... (not something I am skilled in).
-----------------------
If JLR wanted to show the regulators they cared about safety, they should have put them in the driver's seat and asked them to open the driver's door as they approached the cliff !!