Fencing in GMC commercial

[Phrogger]

Unless you find someone to foot the bill, I think the alternative is for us to have NO exposure. I'd rather fencing have lame exposure than no exposure. Do you really think GM is going to say, "sorry, we'll correct that right away and put out a techncially correct ad." More likely they will say, "We're never going to use fencing in an ad again because of all of those annoying phone calls we got the last time."

[Inquartata]

They get the same reactions from everyone else. They use soccer players they'll get complaints from soccer enthusiasts if the details are wrong. I'll bet they get complaints from PETA for using the tiger in that ad

[Zanthyna]

Any publicity is good publicity. Of course we'd all love for the details to be perfect, but I'd settle for foil-lame-wearing sabre fencers going for toe shots if it boosted fencings popularity and/or visibility. Besides, most movies and TV shows have some pretty egregious sword fighting scenes, so most people aren't really expecting Olympic calibre accuracy from a commercial. I can't think of the last time I saw a pop-culture sword fighting scene that didn't make me roll my eyes, laugh, or sardonically comment to those nearby.

[Inquartata]

The same applies to companies which receive "complaints": it doesn't generally deter them from making more such ads in future, as Phrogger thinks it might. A viewer motivated enough to complain is a viewer who at leasts remembers the product, most likely. According to Madison Avenue, even negative impressions are acceptable as long as they make customers think about the product...

Anyway, the choice is not between bad ads and no ads at all. This is the fallacy of bifurcation. There is also the option of good ads, remote as it may be. No need to "settle", when we can strive for excellence and accuracy. So what if it's a lost cause? Often those are the best ones.