I have said it before, and I'll say it again: A growth market in advertising could easily be ad placement to come after other ads which make the viewer think about certain issues, and this new Dodge ad is a good example of what I'm talking about. In the Dodge ad (for the Challenger & Charger), we see someone spinning out doing donuts in the dust in a Dodge Charger. And this immediately makes me think about dust and dusting, so following this spot with a commercial for Swiffer or a vacuum cleaner would be the perfect placement for maximum effectiveness for those products, because we're already thinking about dust and what a mess all this dust would make. Also, an ad for some easy to use car washing product like Turtle Wax and the like would be a natural fit here, because car owners would likely be thinking about what a mess it would be to clean all this dust off their car, especially if they have a nice muscle car they care about.
Here's the Dodge ad (See if it doesn't make you think about dusting and/or washing cars.):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlK2IJS7Y3E
Oh, and I think this Dodge ad would work a lot better if it were the Challenger doing the donuts at the beginning of the spot. And the claim the announcer makes that we can still drive the kind of car we dreamed of when we were kids only really applies to the Challenger, as the new Challenger is wonderful and looks a lot like the one from the movie Vanishing Point, whereas the new Charger is fairly lame looking and appears more like the Avenger than it does like a vintage Charger. They really ought to go back to the old drawing board and try to make the 2015 Charger look more like the one from Bullitt and The Dukes of Hazzard: then the Charger would sell like hotcakes, I promise you! But as it is, the Charger is relatively unimpressive, looking as it does like a fairly nondescript utilitarian sedan. (It most certainly does not have that wonderful badass look of the ones from the 1960s and '70s. And it doesn't work as the Daytona like that beautiful vintage design did, either.)
See what I mean about the Daytona? Here's the wonderful old one:
http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/17369856/images/1325470339818.jpg
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0GSxFX4_zvC3wHE-XxsL0wWl6Ke8i8W1dBQ7-8qQl-kWDodUVWSZFd9fKCH65igTKO-flrPzPUjRmR6tLeBqUgjJF14J4ADBpdEO_9rqieLJ5mWudn8z7k333tGRuj-c1-ja6Qi7qmds/s1600/1970_Plymouth_Superbird_Richard_Petty.jpg
http://forums.njpinebarrens.com/attachments/1969-dodge-charger-daytona-nascar-race-car-driven-by-dave-marcis-blue-fsv-jpg.2978/
And here's the not as cool-looking, more generic current Daytona:
http://media.caranddriver.com/images/12q4/477956/2013-dodge-charger-daytona-debuts-at-la-auto-show-news-car-and-driver-photo-487138-s-429x262.jpg
http://image.automotive.com/f/auto-show/los-angeles/2012/2013-dodge-charger-daytona-debut/42011014+w480+h300+re0+ar0+cr0/2013-Dodge-Charger-Daytona-front-three-quarter.jpg
http://autotopcars.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/2013-Dodge-Charger-Daytona-Side-View.jpg
Which one would you rather drive? One is a classic of automotive design, and the other is a tough-looking sedan. It shouldn't cost any more to make it look amazing. They got the Challenger right, so why not get the Charger right too? Just make it look like the original.
