When Jalopnik first posted the new Chevrolet Malibu spots, I gave a "HATE" rating to the one featuring a jogger, and a "NOT TERRIBLE" to the bank robbers version. Maybe it's because they are truly not good. Or maybe it's because I was having a bad week that week. Or maybe it's because I have hated the Malibu since, well, since they stopped making them like the one my Uncle Dan used to have.

I find that when you hate a product, it's tough to love the marketing for it. You're caught up in a the aura of hate and it clouds your vision (is it New Year's Resolution season or what?!?). So for this installment of my little ad review series, I decided to give these commercials another go. It was either that or find something charitable to say about the Toyota cow fart/Fresno spot.

And really, on repeated viewings here at my computer or on live/TiVo'd TV at home, even the jogger one is at least "NOT TERRIBLE".

Creative Challenge:
Even before delivering a key message, a piece of advertising has to capture the attention of the reader/viewer. To make you take notice and not turn the page/change the channel. Old school creative directors might have called a concept with the right stuff "a stopper".

But it's not so simple as just getting someone's attention — because if you pull a bait and switch, the consumer goes away mad. And that's not so good for your brand. A former supervisor who studied under infamous adman Sal DeVito at the School of Visual Arts once told me a story of another student defending her concepts in class. The student said that she chose a particular visual because she wanted to capture people's attention (i.e. she was going for a "stopper").

To which DeVito reportedly replied "You could show two dogs f*cking to get people's attention, but that doesn't make it a good ad!" Good point.

So the creative team is faced with the admittedly unenviable job of launching a new Malibu after a long run of forgettable vehicles bearing the same name. They need a big idea.

They need a stopper.

Concept:
In lieu of two dogs copulating, the creative team has embraced a truth about the last generation Malibu: that the cars were forgettable, bland, invisible.

Of course, they don't name the old Malibu by name in this spot. And maybe they sold it to the client by telling them "By 'cars you can ignore', we mean stuff like Accords and Camrys and the Ford Fusion."

So then they hyperbolically demonstrate what can happen with cars that you can ignore, cutting at the end to show one that you can't: The 2008 Malibu.

And the more I thought about the spots and the product they feature, the more I think it was a pretty smart move.

Execution:
As I noted earlier, it's important to capture the viewer's attention right up front. Doing this is just as important as delivering your key message. Because after all, if you don't have my attention your message won't get heard, much less remembered.

And I think these two versions of the spot achieve varying levels of success because of their differing ability to grab the viewer's (at least this viewer's) attention.

The shorter (:15) "Jogger" spot starts out by showing us a peaceful neighborhood through which a female jogger is running. She looks both ways (nice touch), crosses the street, and gets hit by a car. Or rather, runs right into a car. Why? Because it's a car you can ignore of course. The spot ends on a beauty shot of the new Malibu, set against a brightly colored background.

And for some reason, this one just doesn't grab me like the "Bank Robbers" one does. Maybe it's because the alarm bell in that one triggers some involuntary tension in me. I'm actually interested in what will happen next. Not so much with the jogger lady. Of course, the "Bank Robbers" version is a :30, so they have more time to play with — though I think the cut back to the cops at the end is unnecessary.

Casting Judgment:
I am generally a believer that first impressions are the most true. When I met my wife again four years after graduating the high school we both attended, I knew we'd get married some day. I've also had bad initial vibes on other people that eventually were confirmed. I'm sure you have, too.

But I also know that my snap judgements are sometimes wrong or too harsh. Like my buddy James. When I first met him in college, I couldn't stand him. I think he felt the same. But now, he's the godfather of my younger daughter and perhaps my bestest friend.

So there you go, Chevy Malibu advertising agency (Campbell-Ewald, I think) and client...good job.

On the "Hate/Not Terrible/Good/Shell-Ferrari" Scale: Not Terrible/Good

Previously on Al Navarro Does Detroit:

Episode One: Al Navarro Does Detroit: What Kind of Commercial Does Three-and-a-Half Enzos Buy You?

Episode Two: Al Navarro Does Detroit: Ford to Tears

Episode Three: Al Navarro Does Detroit: Touareg de Force

Here's my comment from back when this originally aired:

"Post Dragon, I am finally get [sic] back to watching TV...saw this and at first thought, wow, why did they use that shot of the VW logo for a trailer? Then the VW end part came on, and I was like 'Oh, that's why...it's not a trailer. It's a VW spot.' I don't know if I like it or hate it yet."

Creative Challenge:
Given the production schedule of movies, I'm sure the VW placement deal was inked well before the crew at CP+B developed the "Safe Happens" campaign.

So the team had to somehow plug the Touareg's placement in the movie, with bonus points for making the spot feel like it came from the same place as the other "Safe Happens" work. Or not.

Ironically, the "or not" way is well represented by a previous effort by VW to tie the Touareg in with a film: Peter Jackson's take on King Kong. This was spearheaded by VW's German agency, not CP+B.

Concept:
What is really interesting about this spot is that 90% of it doesn't feel like a car commercial. And that's a good and rare thing.

Now, before my Shell-Ferrari detractors start penning "Al likes mini-movies disguised as commercials." comments, think about the following: People pay to see movies. They rarely pay to see commercials. So leveraging any cinematic virtues for a commercial can't be all bad.

In the case of this Touareg 2 spot, the creative team seems to have taken this idea all the way. Instead of shooting tons of new footage, they let the action sequence speak for itself. And since they had the "Safe Happens" thing going already, it was okay for the hero vehicle to get a little banged up.

I haven't seen the film (DVD not out as of this writing), but it looks like they may have only shot one additional scene, if that. Sure the entire commercial is a bait and switch (looks like a trailer, but isn't), but the hook at the end isn't painful. In fact, I applaud CP+B and VW for trying something different.

Execution:
Before I knew this was actually a commercial for VW and not the Bourne Ultimatum, I felt that the close ups of the VW logo on the grill and steering wheel were out of place in a movie trailer. Shameless placement, I thought. But when I got to the end of the spot, even the first time around (on live TV, not the web), I thought "oh, that's why...smart". I fell for the bait, but didn't get pissed off at the switch.

The quick cutting and close-ups are right in line with the Bourne franchise look and feel, and about par for trailers in general. And the announcer VO (voice over) is very "summer blockbuster"...preserving the illusion that it's merely a movie trailer.

When it cuts to the only OC (on camera dialog), where the Touareg driver delivers the "Holy [S*fe]" line, the scene matches well enough (it may have even been shot at the same time as the film for all I know). Then the rest of the spot ends in silence, in the style of other VW "Safe Happens" commercials: Using slates (type on a colored background) to communicate the rest of the information.

Casting Judgment:
Let the record show that I generally take a very dim view of product placement in movies. Especially clunky overt placements, unless of course it's something like the Transformers. My most hated product placement to date is Omega's renting of the James Bond franchise. That back and forth between Daniel Craig and Eva Green on the train in the Casino Royale is almost as clunky as the dialog from the Ford Escape Hybrid spot.

The creatives at CP+B and the VW client made all the right calls on this one. They understood that people like to watch trailers, especially action trailers. So why not just give the people what they want? The fact that the Touareg 2 is virtually indistinguishable from the Touareg 1 doesn't matter. That it seems to have protected its driver from a bad accident matters just a bit more. That it's in a new movie that looks like a good time — this is what really matters. And really, isn't that the whole point of product placement?

On the "Hate/Not Terrible/Good/Shell-Ferrari" Scale: Good

Previously on Al Navarro Does Detroit:
Episode One: Al Navarro Does Detroit: What Kind of Commercial Does Three-and-a-Half Enzos Buy You?

Episode Two: Al Navarro Does Detroit: Ford to Tears

Creative Challenge:
As I mentioned in my Shell-Ferrari review, every piece of advertising has some challenge before it — some job it has to do.

Generally speaking, advertising is intended to make people aware of a brand, product, product attribute/benefit, or special savings on said product; or to make people want the product and perhaps even BUY IT NOW! Whatever it is — it's something designed to move people forward on the awareness-desire-action continuum.

I guess in the case of this Ford spot, the challenge before the creative team was to make viewers aware that Ford has the most fuel efficient SUV on earth — a hybrid, even. That's a pretty big point of differentiation, right? Should be an easy assignment. Let's see how they did.

Concept:
After a few days of procrastination and reviewing all the supporting research they most likely received from the junior account executive assigned to this project, the creatives (generally a writer and an art director team) start bouncing ideas off of each other.

Among the concepts they storyboard and show to the client is one that they think will really pluck at the heartstrings of moms all over America..."I know, let's have this Winnie Cooper-esque girl have an awkward conversation with her dad which somehow incorporates the hybrid Ford product our agency has been retained to promote." It's their soft sell in the mix, and probably the only one that does not involve CGI and a bad jingle.

We are to believe the girl is embarrassed of her dad. Not because he appears to be a slightly overweight suburban dad with a receding hairline who probably has the Eagles Greatest Hits Vol. 2 in the CD player of his Escape, but because he drives a big gas-guzzlin' SUV.

And here, my friends, is the fatal flaw with this spot. You see, the average tween whose parents drive a shiny, new, made in 'murrica product that isn't a Pontiac Aztek are generally not embarrassed by the family car. Unless of course, they are the only kid on scholarship at an elite private school a la Will Smith's character in the Fresh Prince of Bel Air (I know...I'm really dating myself now). (I happen to resemble this comment...well, except for the scholarship part. -Ed.)

Execution:
Sometimes, even when the core concept is weak, a commercial can achieve goodness (but not greatness) through brilliant execution. An old art director partner and I used to call this dressing up of a marginal idea "fonts and mirrors".

However, the commercial is written and shot in a relatively straightforward style. No Wilco soundtrack, no fancy camerawork, no Wes Anderson auteurism. I think the makers were expecting us, the viewers, to find the conversation believable. Aw shucks, Dad's believable. But the agency's built the spot on a flawed premise — thus, it doesn't work for me.

Here's a snippet of dialog that rings particularly false: "People in that part of town are riding bikes...". What the heck is this supposed to mean? That riding a bike is proof of someone's ecological sensitivity? Or does this mean that all the cool kids in this town live near the movie theater? I'm confused.

And here's another problem with this spot, from a location scouting/set design POV. Look at the garage door, the age of the tree on the driver's side, and the pavers in the driveway. All scream upscale neighborhood. There's no way these folks roll in an entry level American SUV, much less a hybrid variant. In my neck of the woods, people with a house like that drive a Volvo XC90 and Audi S4 convertible. Or maybe even a Prius.

I have a final bone to pick with the execution of the commercial — if you're not a car nut like we are, would you be able to remember what vehicle is featured? And what kind of gas mileage it gets? I almost don't remember myself and I've watched it over a dozen times now. If the commercial can't achieve least these basic things, then how good a spot could it be? (Oh my goodness, I'm turning into Tanshanomi.)

Casting Judgement:
A flawed conceptual premise and "meh" execution are not the building blocks of great advertising. So it should come as no surprise that I didn't rate this spot well. The only thing more amazing than its inherent forgettableness is that someone at the agency (pretty sure it's longtime Ford shop J. Walter Thompson) AND the client approved it. Yikes.

On the "Hate/Not Terrible/Good/Shell-Ferrari" Scale: Hate

Previously:
Al Navarro Does Detroit: What Kind of Commercial Does Three-and-a-Half Enzos Buy You?

For some reason, I wanted to start out with a write-up of a good car ad. The best ever, perhaps. And that of course, could mean none other than the Shell-Ferrari spot (that's what they call commercials in the biz).

Sure they have a product that practically sells itself: Ferraris. Okay, so technically the commercial is for the Shell gas (and presumably oil) that goes into Ferraris. But this spot makes the most of that opportunity. From concept to execution. And those are just two of the angles I'll use to deconstruct this and other Ad Watch spots down the road.

Creative Challenge
Most advertising projects start with a creative brief, a concise document that summarizes what the ad has to communicate, who the target market is, where and when it will appear, and hopefully some insights into why the audience will not be inclined to TiVo past the 30, 60, or in this case 120 seconds with which you have to work. I don't have access to the briefs for the Ad Watch spots, but I can speak to the challenge before the creative team.

In the case of the Shell-Ferrari spot, the challenge was not to make a complete hash of things. I mean, its not like they had to sell a nail fungus cream. Or a Toyota Solara.

Concept
Armed with the brief, the creatives — generally a copywriter (words) and an art director (pictures) — sit around and read Jalopnik try to come up with a concept. The concept is the core idea of any advertising, whether it be a direct mail insert or a magazine spread or a tv commercial. It's the "big idea" — to steal back a term that Donny Deutsch co-opted for his TV show.

In the case of the Shell-Ferrari spot (which is officially titled "Circuit"), the concept is to illustrate the long association that Shell has had with Ferrari (glossing over the Agip years, of course) by showing a moving timeline of sorts, a parade of great cars fueled by Shell through the years. The genius here is that, instead of having some talking head (industry speak for an on-screen narrator) walking through a garage full of dusty vintage cars droning on and on about the technical merits of Shell fluids, they let the cars do the talking. Believe me, that this concept was approved is a credit to both the advertising agency (JWT London) and the client.

Execution
Once the concept is approved internally (sometimes the hardest fight of all) and with the client, it's time to make the commercial. To turn storyboards into reality. Many a commercial has lived or died on execution. Thankfully, the folks at Shell were kind enough to bankroll what is one of the more expensive (no, it's not the most expensive, I checked) commercials made — estimates put the production budget for this at $3.9 million. Or roughly 3.9 Enzos.

And it shows. The footage (by the production company Partizan...who also did the famous Honda "Cog" spot) is beautiful. That they borrowed the cars, closed the roads, and got the shots with minimal CGI is simply amazing. No seriously, go watch it again. With your speakers on 11. Tell your office mates you're doing important research. Then watch it again.

Casting Judgement
With a simple, smart concept and pretty much flawless execution, this commercial is among the best automotive spots I've ever seen. Some people might say "Sure it's great, it cost $4 million dollars." But I assure you that the Ford "I like to live on the Edge-uh." commercials set the blue oval boys back at least half an Enzo. Those spots are forgettable. The Shell-Ferrari "Circuit" spot, on the other hand, will probably enjoy life on YouTube long after the Edge's replacement's replacement is on the road.

Artistic merits aside, the spot succeeds because it makes me aware of Shell's relationship with the Scuderia, but also because it makes me feel good about filling up my lowly Audi TT with Shell product. I pass 3 gas stations on my way home from the office— so if the commercial can make me more inclined to stop at the Shell instead of the Hess or Gulf, which it does, it's working.

Which is why, on my 4 point rating scale, the top mark is called simply "Ferrari-Shell". It really doesn't get much better than this.

Thanks for reading. See you on Madison Avenue sometime.

On the "Hate/Not Terrible/Good/Shell-Ferrari" Scale: Shell-Ferrari