Because it’s Volvo, I’m somewhat likely to believe that they really did put this “six and three-quarter ton truck” on its roof. But they almost certainly extended the International’s wheelbase before they did that. And they obviously supported the body underneath, otherwise the suspension would be bottomed out.
Dump trucks have no rear overhang to speak of. This one was used to deliver ping pong balls in bulk.
Television ad.
Volvo caught a bit of flak for this ad series – both this “Heavy Traffic” ad, and the one below where a Volvo is driven over by a monster truck and survives virtually unscathed.
Volvo admitted that both ads were rigged. In the monster truck ad, the Volvo wagon’s roof was reinforced by steel and wood scaffolding inside the car, while the other cars had their roof pillars cut to make them more easily damaged.
In the “Heavy Traffic” ad here, there were jacks placed underneath the car to keep the suspension from sagging. Volvo defended doing that because it claimed the ad was intended solely to demonstrate roof strength. A Volvo executive admitted that without the jacks, the car’s suspension would have been crushed and the tires would have exploded.
Consumer groups objected to these ads, calling them misleading. Which they were… but they were also attention-getting, and Volvo probably didn’t mind an after-the-fact admission of the truth.
Outstanding detective work Eric. Having worked in ad agencies myself, the relationship between ad executives and company marketing people, can become too casual. Agencies may have more influence, than they should. Potentially, risking damaging a client’s reputation, with marketing that is bold, but deceptive.
Interestingly, after the publicity surrounding these rigged ads, Volvo ditched its long-standing tagline “A Car You Can Believe In.” I guess Volvo thought they lost some believability here.
The new tagline was “Drive Safely” and their early 1990s ads stressed surviving accidents.
Clear sign there were likely changes in the Volvo marketing department, and a new agency. Big reason I left advertising, for publications. Greater pursuit of journalistic standards, integrity, and the truth. As opposed to maximizing sales, at all costs.
The monster truck ad caused a big headache for Volvo, and they fired the ad agency (Scali McCabe Sloves) shortly after trouble started brewing.
Not long after the ad was introduced, the Texas attorney general filed suit against Volvo for deceptive trade practices (the ad was filmed in Austin, and Texas’ attorney general saw consumer protection and truth-in-advertising as one of his signature causes). Volvo settled with Texas, and part of that settlement was to stop running these ads and to admit they were deceptive. The next week Volvo fired Scali – at that point, there was probably no other choice.
The US Federal Trade Commission also filed suit over the monster truck ad the following year. Volvo settled with the FTC as well (a monetary fine that it passed along to Scali). I think the ad agency’s reputation was damaged by this episode much more than Volvo’s.
Easy for Volvo to blame the agency, when no agency I’ve worked for would ever proceed on any major campaign, without the client signing off. And approving all this. Whether, they were aware of the damage it would do. That’s where I suspect, the relationship was not professional. Volvo’s marketing representative(s), may have really failed their employer (Volvo). While the agency may have taken advantage of the gullibility/foolishness of Volvo’s marketing representatives. I still blame Volvo. They ultimately, approved all this nonsense.
The obviously foolish decision to stage, and run these ads, seems so clear then and now. Especially, for a car maker with a generally great reputation for safety, and intelligent design. And thoughtful marketing, in the past. Somewhat, glad they got burned. Volvo themselves, should have been paying the fines, if they okayed all this. They probably deserved it, given their ignorance/negligence. I’m sure if we learned the story behind these decisions, we’d see how unprofessionally business was likely being conducted. I’m sure, Volvo changed their marketing approval policies, going forward. Requiring the sign-off of additional managers and team members. Including some signatures, from their accounting, and legal departments. 🙂
Sure seems like the ad agency took the fall for Volvo in this case.
But I can’t help wondering, if they’d included some small print stating that the ad was staged and wasn’t an accurate depiction of the cars’ relative strength… then would the government changes against Volvo have held any water?
As part of the Texas settlement, Volvo evidently agreed to run ads apologizing for their misrepresentation. I can’t find those ads (if they exist) – but I’d love to read what was said.
I’m sure, there was an agreement reached between Volvo and the agency, where the agency would face the blame. Volvo, may have gave them money.
Like ads that state, ‘This is a professional driver, on a closed track. Don’t do this at home!’? It is still very deceptive and misleading. Whomever thought this up, was a clown. And they somehow convinced others, it was legitimate. It goes to show, how much ‘follow orders’ mentality exists in the business world. I’m sure many people saw, this was wrong, and kept their mouths shut.
I’m sure the apology ads were very low key, brief, and basically were a legal response, being read aloud.
It’s rare, but nice when governments protect consumers, and go to bat for the little guy.
They’d gotten away with the famous 1971 ad I posted at 5:53 AM. I imagine that different people were running things, but they likely heard how successful the old ad was and thought they could top it (ha!).
Were they still making that model in the Monster truck ad as late as 1990?
I remember this well. We had a production manager who’d just come over from Scali, McCabe, and Sloves, Volvo’s then-ad agency.
IIRC, these stunts cost them the account, although clients were on the set.
In my business, it’s always the agency’s fault…
The original–the stack of 1971 144s, was also rigged. Decades later, we learned they had been reinforced.
I don’t like seeing deception at this level.
What was gained by these frauds?
When VW was caught rigging their exhaust tests, they only went straight years after they had perpetrated that fraud for years and won higher sales. VW actually advertised their polluting vehicles as eco friendly in outdoor sporting magazines. They went directly to the market and lied.
This is little better.
+1. It hurts the entire automotive and marketing industries.
You only have to see a VW diesel in traffic to know they lied.
the father of a former BIL was the head of U.S. marketing for Volvo of America. He was a bit of a sneak and it wouldn’t surprise me if he had a lot to do with these interesting campaigns…
An unloaded and unattached truck would be so front-heavy, it would immediately fall forward off the car. Note the actual moment the crane cables are released is a different camera, so we don’t see the first moment the truck is freely resting on the car (because it isn’t). Fraud all over.
I once saw an Explorer come down a hill at city speed, brake sharply, hit the front wheel of another SUV on the level cross street, and then flip arse over teakettle over its hood. I would not have thought it was physically possible. It must have been the brake squeal that made us look.
Drop the truck from a couple feet rather than gently set it onto the roof and then see how well the Volvo fares. These have to be the most deceptive ads ever, just playing to the general public’s assumption that roofs are apparently made out of aluminum foil and will cave in with the slightest weight. Junkyards use heavy duty crushers for a reason, stacks don’t compact themselves
Perhaps it’s one of those inflatable decoy trucks left over from the Overlord (D Day) deception in WWII. SE England was dotted with fake tanks and trucks to fool the Nazis into believing the landing would be in the nearby Calais area of France. They were.
The wheelbase stretch is odd (no truck would be built like that, it’s inefficient), and they just assumed no one but Paul would notice. I suppose it helped with the balance after all possible weight was been removed from the front, which it surely was. But why not just move the truck rearward several feet?
All the comments so far make a solid case for Volvo’s exaggerated claims in staging these commercials, but that being said, Volvo must be acknowledged for its long record of safety and rugged reliability. The 700/900 series and the Amazon, 140 and 240-series before them were stout cars and about as close to indestructible as possible (Youtube some Swedish rally races). Ten years ago, I read that no 1993 Volvo 240 wagon (the final year) had ever been involved in a fatal accident. They invented the 3-point seatbelt and then gave away the patent. They patented the Side Impact Protection System (SIPS).
My wife and I have owned three 700 and 900-series wagons and a 960 sedan, and our current DD is a ’98 V90. It gets 18 mpg in the city, 26 on the highway, has a turning radius of 31.8′, the seats really are the best, and at 137k on the ODO, as we like to say in VolvoLand, ‘it’s nicely broken in.”
I think these ads do a disservice to Volvo’s actual merits, this stunt can be pulled off with any given steel roofed car plucked from the road. If you want to sell knee pads in the world you probably shouldn’t make claims that they prevent head injuries in their advertisements!
If the truck was gasoline powered, and the 6 stud wheels show it to be on the low end of the GVW range making gasoline power likely, the hydraulic tailgate I think I see and the far-to-the-rear rear axle would probably offset the cab/ engine weight. Sometimes the rear axle is set far to the rear to distribute some of the load to the front axle, for a variety of reasons. It also limits “tailswing” which in some instances is very beneficial for maneuverability. My contention is that it is not unreasonable that an end user “spec’ed” this truck exactly as you see it for his particular application. I suspect it was a happy coincidence that the advertising agency found a truck well suited for their purpose and not a conspiratorial subterfuge. I further contend that the body structure of the Volvo would support the uniformly distributed weight of the truck (note the roof rails along their entire length are brought into play) so long as the car suspension was taken out of the formula and the body was solidly supported at the suspension locations, and the truck was lowered gently. Misleading, but not criminal.
If you look at the video carefully (preferably on Youtube) it’s utterly obvious that they welded two large new “frame rails” to the bottom of the truck, and that these frame rails are well below the rear axle center line. Presumably you know that’s not how these trucks are built; their frames are above the axle center lines. So it’s quite obvious that the rear axle was relocated, and that this truck wouldn’t actually run.
“the far-to-the-rear rear axle would probably offset the cab/ engine weight. “
It doesn’t work that way; in fact it’s the exact opposite. If you want to offset the heavier front cab/engine, you would want to move the axle further forward, so that the rear axle carries a greater percentage of the weight.
I have on a very few occasions seen straight trucks with their rear axles located further rearward than typical, but never this far. It makes no sense, except for the purpose of fitting on a Volvo roof.
Many car roofs are pretty stout, with a very, very gentle letdown, I’d have mostly believed this. Except of course that the suspension didn’t settle, the tires didn’t flatten any, and even the sheet metal of the roof, didn’t appear to be damaged!
Now I’m not naive, and I know much of the advertising industry is no better, but can the ad people, and Volvo’s marketing dept if involved, really be that shallow and deceptive? Actually it tells me how little confidence they actually had in their own product. Yes, I know… But it speaks volumes to the industry. Must be why more advertising tells me why not to buy something more than why to.
Back in the day we had a truck come into the dealership, a GMC, Brigadier chassis with a box on it. Complaint was poor braking and the front brakes were squealing terribly. Looked damn near like this thing. Stupid stuff does get built.