The fine print is smaller and near the end:
They clearly explain how to make the macaroni and cheese meal earlier, so the small fine print is not necessary. They use it to further the creepy blacksmith mentor character on unsuspecting apprentices. If a four handed costumed guy showed up at my house with a severed drive thru order speaker box I would be adding a restraining order instead of ground beef.
Thanks to reader Erryn Gallasch for the idea submission.
A 3 pointer of fine prints?
There is no need for the first fine print since most TV commercials are actors, but still kind of funny. For the second one, I am disappointed he does not actually appear, but once again who actually thinks the spokesperson shows up with the product? A better fine print might say not to use during the 4th quarter because Lebron would not actually appear either. The last one is great too since you could say he spent more time writing and directing this ad than planning his “decision” tv special or concentrated more on this film than game film.
What is the horrible fine print in this cute innocent commercial?
No wonder the Rodriquez family is happy and having a good time, they are on a free vacation! Could they not find a family to smile and pose for pictures for free? Have the Jonas Brothers and Hannah Montana gotten that old in which Disney has to resort to paying people to enjoy their entertainment? At the end of the ad, why bother showing the $1,800 package when a family can get it all for free? I’ll wait in that line instead.
Here is the fine print:
It’s the only brand clinically tested? A study saying it works better than a placebo without comparing to other brands is not a competitive advantage. Zrytec and every other major allergy medicine obviously have been tested and approved by the FDA. Do they instead mean it’s the only brand that was proven effective in studies? Claritin has the fine print on their website, but do not give any details as to the actual study referenced. Zrytec at least shows this comparison on their website even though their studies are a decade old. Consumers better hope Claritin’s pills clear up their allergies better than their marketing department’s claims.
Here is a Wrangler Jeans ad featuring Brett Favre that has been running recently during football:
While this ad campaign has been going on for a couple years, notice the subliminal messaging:
Is the ad about Wrangler jeans or Jeep Wranglers? Did Jeep pay off some prop guy to use their car or did Favre get to keep the Wrangler if he throws near it? More recent versions of the ad include the Target logo, which would make sense if they had a deal with the clothing distributor, but to purposefully place a Jeep and the logo together is just weird. Imagine this Jacksonville Jaguars season tickets commercial with a player driving around in a Jaguar instead of an Audi. Even worse, the Denver Broncos could have an ad touting their star running back driving a white Ford Bronco to the stadium. Wait, what is that car next to Favre in the picture? Oh no, the Juice is loose again!
Thanks to reader Nat Fraser for the idea submission.
Here is another Taco Bell ad to make this blog:
Despite the flashy ad, there is some fine print to notice:
There are professional chefs working for Taco Bell? I doubt that. Throwing the food in the air and touching the food with bare hands is more believable though.
Obviously everybody has seen the baby ads before, but I had not noticed the fine print before:
Does ETrade expect people to think that baby is actually trading stocks online? I do not see fine print when other babies on TV do crazy things, like shoot nuclear power plant owners or attempt world domination. Then why does ETrade worry about getting sued by babies? Oops, too late.
