Not Saying What They Mean
A curent Geiko add suggests the product is a deal by rhetorically asking something like "is a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" and cutting to a parody of the Antiques Road Show with a lady being surprised that her statute of a bird in the hand really is worth two in the bush at auction.
Doesn't this misapply the saying, a bird in the hand is worth [more than] two in the bush? The point is that something that is too speculative, i.e. catching two birds in the bush, is worth less than appearances, i.e. a risky opportunity to get two is really worth [less than] one of a sure thing (a bird in hand). The commercial suggests getting Geiko is really a good deal. But isn't the better view of what the commercial is saying is that its product is risky and hard to value, and worth less than it might appear at face value? Or is it just saying that 1 = 2? Either way, faulty logic is not exactly what I would look for in an insurance product.
Or the kind of message I would pay a marketing department to produce.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
[ed: In the furtherance of full disclosure, I probably wanted to edit that first comment. Apparently you can't do that on Blogger. Regardless, the question springs to mind whether these escorts are willing to make a trip to the good 'ol USA. I assume so. If so, my wife says it is okay if they do the laundry too.]
Post a Comment