In a desert testing ground, some test driver drives an SUV, which is a hodge-podge of all different car parts, with each part painted a different color. All the different pieces start falling or flying off, and then the whole vehicle comes apart, crashing and rolling on the ground and kicking up a huge cloud of dust in the process. So then the announcer makes like the credits of the old TV show The Six Million Dollar Man, and he says they can rebuild it, make it better than it was, etc. This is a fun and clever approach, and I like it in theory, but there are some problems with it that make it less convincing than it could be.
This SUV the test driver is driving in the desert proving ground is not any purchasable vehicle, and as such, it kind of invalidates the message of the commercial. They’re saying that this type of car is all awkward and lame, but then they show us a fake car that doesn’t exist. The fact is, there are a lot of really cool SUVs out there. I’m not crazy about them because they’re impossible to see through or around when I’m behind them or across from them on the road, so they make driving less pleasant for other cars; plus they drink gasoline, so they’re worse for the environment, and they make America more dependent on foreign sources of fossil fuels (well, that along with United States energy policy). But looking at them from the standpoint of design, comfort, versatility, etc., there are a lot of really nice, cool SUVs out there at the moment, so it was hardly necessary for Mazda to “rebuild it” and “make it better than it was”, as if it were The Six Million Dollar Car or something. Maybe their SUVs were lame, and now they’ve finally made a nice one, but I wouldn’t really know about that. But this fake SUV made out of spare parts from other vehicles being presented as the state of the SUV market is quite simply misleading and dishonest.
But I very much like this idea of using the credits sequence of The Six Million Dollar Man as a story for how something was redesigned and made better: that’s a great concept! I’m just not so sure it’s appropriate to use in this case for this car, or as an analogy to the SUV market. If it was an ad for a new, better version of a car that updates, improves and redesigns a previously problematic vehicle, like, perhaps, the Chevy Volt (which is rumored to have problems with busting into flames, etc.), then this would be a great concept to re-introduce the brand and tout the vehicle that replaces the preceding model. Or maybe if it’s a radical redesign that has many added benefits over other models in its class, or over the previous version, then it would be appropriate. I’m just not so sure that’s the case here. (Unless they’re making this car to kick the butts of the other cars in its class, like the bionic man did to other humans: in that case, it would be perfect! But we don’t see anything like that happening here, unfortunately.)
Oh, and another thing: It seems like Mazda is trying to avoid calling their SUV an SUV, by calling it a “Crossover” vehicle. But we all clearly see that it's an SUV, so that just makes it look like they’re embarrassed to be making SUVs, in which case, maybe they shouldn’t make one. And if you’re thinking I’m an idiot, because they’re only referring to it as being a “crossover” because their car is called the CX-5 (as in: CX = Crossover), then this ad would make it appear as though this hodge-podge vehicle that comes apart and wrecks at the beginning of the spot is their previous model, don’t you think? Because they call it “the crossover” at the beginning of the spot! (But I am an idiot: you’re right about that part!)
But I do really like that they have a disclaimer at the beginning of this commercial that says: “Dramatization. Do Not Attempt.” (I would have used different punctuation, like a colon in the middle and an exclamation point at the end, but whatever. And a “please” would have been nice! If people think you’re being rude to them, they might want to do the opposite!) But does this mean they really think people will build this ridiculous car out of all different (and different-paint-colored) SUV parts, and build it in such a way that it purposefully falls apart while all the brake pedals collapse into the floor and the hand brake tears off into your hand, before wrecking into a spinout, and all because they saw it in a commercial on TV? Wow, I think they’ve drastically over-estimated the motivation level of this country’s youth!
Oh, and another thing: It seems like Mazda is trying to avoid calling their SUV an SUV, by calling it a “Crossover” vehicle. But we all clearly see that it's an SUV, so that just makes it look like they’re embarrassed to be making SUVs, in which case, maybe they shouldn’t make one. And if you’re thinking I’m an idiot, because they’re only referring to it as being a “crossover” because their car is called the CX-5 (as in: CX = Crossover), then this ad would make it appear as though this hodge-podge vehicle that comes apart and wrecks at the beginning of the spot is their previous model, don’t you think? Because they call it “the crossover” at the beginning of the spot! (But I am an idiot: you’re right about that part!)
But I do really like that they have a disclaimer at the beginning of this commercial that says: “Dramatization. Do Not Attempt.” (I would have used different punctuation, like a colon in the middle and an exclamation point at the end, but whatever. And a “please” would have been nice! If people think you’re being rude to them, they might want to do the opposite!) But does this mean they really think people will build this ridiculous car out of all different (and different-paint-colored) SUV parts, and build it in such a way that it purposefully falls apart while all the brake pedals collapse into the floor and the hand brake tears off into your hand, before wrecking into a spinout, and all because they saw it in a commercial on TV? Wow, I think they’ve drastically over-estimated the motivation level of this country’s youth!
Here’s the cyborg car conspiracy commercial:
