(first posted 11/8/2013) There were a few memorable ads during the Charger’s heyday. It seem like just yesterday that I first saw this one. And of course there’s the famous “Elliot” tv ad. And…
How do you think this one would go over today?
And then there’s the famous “Elliot” tv ad. Another world…
Re: First ad….
Oh that crocheted dress. Burned into my teenage mind. Still there, 44 years later.
And you wonder why I hate political correctness . . . . . . .
In contrast, I’m a big PC fan.
People tend to invoke “politcal correctness” when they’re looking for a pass to be offensive or inappropriate.
Baloney. PC is a crutch for pansy-ass wimps that are easily offended.
100% agree with you Roger…PC way out of hand these days.
Agreed Roger. And I’ll also add that much of the time the supposed offendees don’t actually give a damn. Nine times out of ten PC crusaders are just liberal guilt riddled attention seekers lobbying for credibility amongst the groups supposedly offended, or more accurately, other liberal guilt ridden constituents. Nothing more than a political ploy to win the hearts and minds of the people and in the end looking like they’ve accomplished something by going after the shallowest possible issue along the way…
“I may not have remotely helped resolve the gender gap whatsoever, but Dodge won’t dare mention triangles anymore, you can count on that!”
+1000
I rest my case.
And I rest mine.
We used to call being PC being polite. As in, if you don’t have something nice to say about someone, don’t say anything at all. Truthfulness and honesty don’t always match with being respectful, and at its truest use, PC is being respectful of the person with whom you are talking. When you use it as code to avoid being called out, then it is hypocrisy.
As time goes on I think a lot of resentment about “political correctness” starts with someone being chastized, maybe not as politely as they should’ve done, for saying something they didn’t realize was wrong, that fell off the euphemism treadmill or some such. This then is stoked into resentment of the callers-out by demagogues for their own purposes.
But yeah, for the most part a lot of “anti-PC” from media spokespeople is jerks trying to play the victim card when they’ve been called out as jerks.
” PC is being respectful of the person with whom you are talking. When you use it as code to avoid being called out, then it is hypocrisy ”
You have it exactly right with this simple summary. People who cry foul of this are almost always the sort who can’t handle what they themselves will deem offensive language or behavior when it’s then directed back toward themselves. Hiding behind ignorance, essentially.
And sweepingly calling people you disagree with ignorant does your argument no favors. Condescension is the most tiring and frustrating part about the PC crusade. I criticize it almost completely for that reason. It’s not because I wish I could publicly use colorful language and go on some hateful tirade with impunity, no, it’s simply because of the level sanctomony in reaction to the offender(s) I see from the so-called polite public makes just makes my head spin. It amazes me the lack of self awareness and hypocrisy in those reactions. nlpnt Nailed it.
If Polite and PC are equal, so is winter and nuclear winter.
@ XR7Matt,
I think you are referring to my post, but what are you on about? Ignorance is the lack of understanding. Never called anyone ignorant themselves. Education is tantamount when someone seems to disagree on these types of issues where tempers flare. Possibly explain where your mind and heart is, if you are comfortable. That’s where my statement of ignorance comes from. Nobody connects without disscussion. Maybe no education on either end is necessary, but then coded language (in general) shouldn’t be, either.
A big thank you to this family. Why can’t a school educate people what it’s name stands for? Isn’t education what they do?
http://www.kgw.com/news/education/lynch-removed-from-name-of-two-centennial-schools/463293264
Recenty my old high school changed its’ team name from Rebels to Wolves. My thoughts had long been that something like that would be a “when”, not an “if”, and why was a school in Vermont in the early ’60s when it was built (ie, the Civil Rights Era/Civil War centennial) draping itself in Confederate imagery?
There’s a similar argument to be made in the Portland link, about having given three schools such similar-sounding names in the first place.
Mmm, must be a caucasian crowd…
I’d let my wife clean my vinyl bucket seats, not like she’d ever offer.
I’m picturing a seedy car salesman telling a young man; “Vinyl’s primary benefit is that its easy to clean, if you know what I mean.”
I own the “My Mother Warned Me…” and the “RAMROD” ad from the CC today. I have a few other “Dodge Fever” ones too. I think I’ll have to keep my eye out for “The Eternal Triangle”.
My personal favorite though is the ’75 “Change in Charger”. I have that one framed and hanging up.
Some other interesting ads that probably wouldn’t fly today are the ones for the ’68 Toronado “Separates the Men from the Boys”/ “All-car for the All-man” and all the Mercury Breezeway ads that tout its benefit to smokers.
One day I should write something up about all the print ads and postcards I have.
Well, I for one want to see that article! The whole gendering of cars during this period fascinates me, especially when it ends up producing an unintended effect. For example the way “chick magnet” can morph easily into “chicken magnet”….
My favorite car ad is Catherine Deneuve draped all over the hood of a Mercury Cougar.
And now we’re stuck with endless TV commercials featuring Mike Rowe interviewing dimwit couples about how much they like their idiotphone interface.
Let me update this post to “real people, not actors”!
Maybe I’m younger or more P.C, but once you get past the campiness of these sorts of ads they do sort of have that “creepy uncle” kind of sleaziness…
It’s kind of no wonder why the women’s liberation movement took off shortly thereafter…
Well, those girls in the ad for the ’70 Charger seemed quite liberated.
That would have been true if they had left Elliot by the side of the road. Which comes about 5 minutes after the commercial ends.
The late-60s and early-70s Dodge ads heavily played the sexism card. The above ads have a “How can we top ourselves?” quality.
Even putting aside issues of PCness, I don’t think it’s terribly effective car advertising.
IMO, the Plymouth ads of this era had it all over Dodge. “Rapid Transit System” is one of the best taglines ever.
Those ads can be topped. Just look at the mid-’70’s Norton motorcycle ads.
And don’t forget some of the early Mercury Cougar ads- ” Mercury, The Mans Car”*
(* Totally not a froufrou Ford, we promise you!)
I may have added something there.
I suppose they could’ve recovered from a protest with “Our ads are problematic, but Torqueflite is no-problem-matic”.
God bless creepy uncles.
I don’t think you would say that if you knew the uncle I was thinking of when I wrote that….
Strong urge to finnish my night with The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert now. One creepy uncle indeed…
Does Johnny Winter still play “Good Morning Little School Girl” by the way ?
Not anymore.
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/the-lion-in-johnny-winter-a-tribute-to-the-guitar-icon-20140717
Here’s my favorite (sorry for the lack of babes):
Love it! Screw P.C.!
Great ads – I’m a boomer from the 60s but don’t remember the “Elliot” ad – I do seem to remember the actress at the end of the ad, I want to say her first name is Cheryl Miller and she was on the old Daktari series……..
There’s a sort of insecurity underlying these ads that makes them really uncomfortable to me.
My favorite old car ad is a Riviera commercial from 1964, which replaces insecurity with classy confidence and still manages to have a hilariously dated-sounding line at the end:
I’ve seen that commercial (on you tube, I was born that year). What a wonderful fantasy life for 99.9% of people. Good looking gal and guy (who appears to have important papers) chase each other around in high end cars to reach the country club or whatever. I can imagine a gin and tonic was waiting. For these two, a perfect summer day in 1964.
I did eventually own a ’65 Riviera around 1985 that drive able and was an excellent candidate for restoration, but it was a time in my life when a hobby car didn’t make sense, and I came to realize that. I put a lot of elbow grease into it and sold it for a small profit. I didn’t fully appreciate it at the time, but my car was quite desirable. Dark metallic blue with a medium blue cloth interior, the high end interior package where the power windows were mounted on elongated armrests, factory AC, wire wheel covers. If I could order one today I’d have added the power vent windows and FM. Otherwise, it was perfect by me and would have made the brougham lovers here quite proud!
I have two Riviera’s, a ’64 I’ve had 45 years, cloud metallic/black interior, 2×4 bbl’s and HD suspension, with only ps, pb and pw, but goes better than the ’65 GS with full power, and A/C Black with deep green interior. Buick had an ad in ’63 with a ’63 Riviera, ad labeled “He or She?” stating it had the best characteristics of each. What would PC do with the ad today.
I could look all day at the girl in the crochet dress. Very provocative. You have to wonder though if the tone of Dodge Fever wasn’t part of the problem Dodge and Chrysler in general were having. These were years of sinking sales. The women’s movement and social change were well under way, if you are looking for a younger and educated demographic with money, these ads probably missed the mark.
I could be wrong here, but I have long had the impression that among the US Big 3, Chrysler had always designed its cars more for men than for women. All of the companies had a lot of the old-boys with the cigarettes and scotch, but Chrysler was so heavily weighted with engineers throughout its structure, probably skewing further away from the female viewpoint.
Someone like DeLorean at Pontiac seemed a bit more modern in his sensibilities. These look like the kind of ads modeled on the earlier GTO style of campaign, but with the “sexy” amped way up. At least “sexy” as those guys at Chrysler understood it.
Cars like the Charger seem designed with men in mind, and these ads were either an unabashed pitch to their intended customer, or a completely tone-deaf approach to life in 1969-70. Probably some of both. If you identified with Elliott in the TV ad, you probably loved the Charger. But if you identified with his girlfriend, likely not.
I knew lots of women who bought cars in those years – virtually none of them bought Chrysler products, and certainly not a Charger. Lots of GM, Mustangs, Falcons and Fairlanes, though.
That’s an interesting observation – and one I think is accurate – I can’t remember any ads in the late 60s from Chrysler that were targeted at women; even for Darts, Valiants, etc.
Could be after the mid 50s “La Femme” disaster, not many executives hoping for the corner suite saw any success in advocating that strategy……..
I think part of the problem was that post World War 11 marketing relating to women drifted away from what women might need or desire, and became what women should be for men.
Car ads from the 30s and 40s seemed to more often be pitched directly at women without resorting to patronising fluff like the LaFemme.
Of course after the war it became politically incorrect to admit women might like to see scantily clad, buff and submissive young dudes draped over the cars that they might want to drive…
How about this one?
“We painted it pink and made it cheaper. That ought to make the little ladies happy.” Yup, that was Chrysler.
What is just as weird as the pink paint is the fact that they’re actually bragging about decontenting the Charger, that is an unusual approach…..
I suspect that they were getting a jump on the plan for the Coronet two-door to go away the next year, after which you’d really see strippo Chargers.
In a way, though, the bluntness of this approach appeals to me. Much better than the usual advertising-speak touting, say, “new streamlined door panels” and “easier to read instrument panel featuring only the most essential gauges!”
I look at that Charger on the beach, and all I can think about is the time I took my ’72 Super Beetle onto the beach (back when I was a teenager in the ’70s). Guess what? As I was leaving, those skinny tires spun and sunk right into the sand. Rocking back and forth only made things worse.
The solution? Round up as many people as possible and lift it out!
Back in 1969 or 1970 I covered for my older sister on a babysitting job she wasn’t able to do. I don’t remember much about the kid I babysat, but I do remember being driven home by the Mom ,who though wasn’t wearing a crocheted dress I thought looked pretty good. She had a bouffant type hairdo and was wearing white 60’s lipstick.
She drove me home in their 69 Charger complete with four speed. Way way cool to my 14 year old eyes…Who says Chargers weren’t a car for women?
I suppose these ads could only have been made in that relativley short period between the sexual revolution of the 1960s and the second wave feminism of the 1970s.
A friend of mine has owned a Charger very similar to the first ad for almost 30 years. 1969 R/T SE with auto and A/C and the same paint and roof colour. Whoever ordered it new forgot power disc brakes though. This ad must predate Joan Parker who gave us all Dodge Fever.
Let’s consider what’s behind the ads for a moment, rather than our knee-jerk reactions to them, which are pretty predictable. We choose off and stand our ground, often based on generational bias. We seem to spend a lot of time lately on this blog running down other broods other than our own. We don’t seem to get the fact that, if everyone is doing it, it all cancels out. Jeeze, my Dad’s people called us Boomers “entitled”, and now we are doing it to those who came after us. What goes around.
Advertisers in the market these ads populate want desperately to separate middle aged men from their money. Otherwise, they have no clients. So they produce a caste system, with men at the top who can afford _____ , and available young women impressed by the product or it’s monetary equivalent, to decorate the daydream.
When these ads came out, I was about 18. I thought the women in these ads desirable, but I didn’t relate to them. They were there for my Dad’s generation. I didn’t know any women my age who coyly lifted their dresses because of the car I owned.
Now, approaching 70 years of age (which is to say, out of middle age into seniority) I can’t go on YouTube without being inundated with ads that exhort me to spend big bucks on HGH so I can rip off my shirt in front of 30-year-old women. Different time, same sales pitch.
Meanwhile, people referred to as politically correct don’t care whether we think they are or not. They just push the envelope so the rest of us can eventually enjoy fewer restrictions imposed by convention on who we are allowed to be.
” Meanwhile, people referred to as politically correct don’t care whether we think they are or not. They just push the envelope so the rest of us can eventually enjoy fewer restrictions imposed by convention on who we are allowed to be ”
This is a very intelligent and reflective observation; I’m not quick to agree that others don’t care, but you have the end goal in very clear sight it seems. I’m not even sure I’ve thought it thru that hard; I just try to be nice to everybody.
You’re ahead of the curve. It all boils down to the Golden Rule. And, the Golden Rule is not, “Live and Let Live”, it’s Treat Me as You Would Be Treated, which is very different. “PC” is a term NEVER used by progressives, but they might have to start using it. Since its real meaning derives from what is politically acceptable in a given place at a give time, It’s arguably more properly applied to conservatives in our present climate! So when conservatives use it pejoratively in 2017, it is more revealing than one might think.
So glad to have lived through that era (born December ’54) and not a product of the OE__overly entitled__milenial generation.
Talk about a generation gap, neither has much of a clue as to what makes the other tick!
My older brother (born Dec 1944) bought a new ’68 Coronet R/T (440/auto) and it’s no secret that his late wife put more miles in it__going back & forth to K-Mart’s, according to my brother__than he did. Their friends were similar stories; one gal was always in hubby’s ’68 442 convert, and another was surgically implanted to the left bucket seat of a ’64 Grand Prix.
Great times to be a budding car enthusiast__and not just for the same reason as Krash Kadillak notes in the first post!
After 1965, Dodge relied heavily on advertising campaigns that were centered on a beautiful young actress.
For 1966-67, it was the Dodge Rebellion theme, and the young actress who featured in the television commercials was Pamela Austin, a blonde who had appeared in an Elvis film. The campaign was quite successful at first – Dodge claimed fifth place in sales for 1966 behind Chevrolet, Ford, Pontiac and Plymouth. Pamela Austin’s efforts for Dodge garnered enough attention to be featured in a Time magazine story that year.
What Dodge’s research discovered, however, was that, by 1967, viewers were paying more attention to Ms. Austin than the cars. She had become too well-known. (Interestingly, if you look at the Dodge sales brochures for those years, they feature the same Dodge Rebellion theme, but the model is a blonde who is definitely not Pamela Austin. Apparently this was because of internal politics at Dodge.)
For 1968-69, it was the Dodge Fever campaign, and star was a brunette actress/model from New York, Joan Anita Parker. Dodge had a successful year in 1968 – particularly with the Charger. Ms. Parker was not featured in the sales literature for the 1968 Dodges, but she did appear on the covers of the sales brochures for the 1969 Dodge catalogues, with one exception. She did not appear in the catalogue for the 1969 Charger. This particular Charger advertisement features an entirely different model, and one who looks absolutely nothing like Ms. Parker (who was more “perky sexy” than “sultry sexy,” like the model in the featured advertisement).
This approach lost steam in the early 1970s, and the impetus was rising consumerism as much as feminism. Even the most attractive model/actress wasn’t going to distract people if their neighbor’s new Dodge looked like it had been put together by bored fifth graders. That was Dodge’s – and Chrysler Corporation’s – real problem after 1969 or so.
Chevrolet led the way with its “See the USA in Your Chevrolet” campaign, which was based around wholesome families visiting various landmarks and tourist sites in their spiffy new Chevrolets.
The Dodge approach was a flash-in-the-pan that worked for a brief time – and was definitely of its time – but wasn’t sustainable over the long run. And it wasn’t a substitute for well-made, reliable cars that didn’t require multiple visits to the dealer. It’s telling that, by the early 1970s, the plain, utilitarian Dart was the best-selling Dodge. Somehow, it would have been hard to imagine Pamela Austin driving one.
Great comment, thanks for all the background!
It’s interesting to compare Dodge’s musclecar ads during the sixties’ heyday with Plymouth. Plymouth mostly emphasized their NASCAR success, mainly by showcasing Richard Petty. But this all radically changed when the Road Runner hit. Suddenly, just about all of Plymouth’s most memorable ads were bright, colorful cartoons. But, like Dodge, when performance started waning, mainly due to increased insurance costs, the wild, op-art ads, like the big-block engines, disappeared soon enough.
But it was quite a ride for a few years.
Another aspect of the “Dodge Rebellion” campaign was a short musical film – a Western – apparently intended for dealers; Tom Lehrer (of all people!) was the main performer and, presumably, songwriter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3htMuJhz5Y
Those dresses were a thing then. Raquel rockin’ our boys, USO Tour.
Oh man, that model in the crochet dress! She’s like my mom’s age and all, but considering some of the foxy ladies and the cars in these ads I cant help but think later generations are being gyped big time. Case in point: the Chargers and the ladies beckoning you to them, vs frumpy Toyotas and that very average looking girl in their ads. MAJOR downgrade in both cases, IMHO.
Arguably, these ads are a bit sexist but its not in a malicious kind of way. More importantly, there’s something very ‘right’ about the fact that in these days muscle cars were unashamedly aimed right at men. There were quite a lot of types of cars that were ‘made for’ car-minded guys. Nowadays, you have fullsize trucks and the ponycars but because of all the PC weak minded sensitive types, marketing has to be more coy about it. The selection of ‘mens cars’ is far less than what it once was, and I find that pretty sad. And as a side effect, those male oriented vehicles are just as likely to appeal to women who are more bold and full of moxie. CUVs are dominated by female buyers but there is always another ho hum soccer mom at the wheel. OTOH, a Mustang, diesel truck, Charger, etc stands a pretty decent chance of being piloted by a lady…and most times said woman is high on the hottie scale as well.
I guess my point is, theres nothing misogynistic or malevolent about acknowledging that men and women are DIFFERENT. We tend to have different wants, needs, likes, dislikes, etc. Clothing, personal hygiene products, toiletries, etc are distinctly divided by gender…a man wouldn’t be expected to wear a dress so why would he be expected to be ok with a small cutesy econocar that he’d look and feel ridiculous driving? Yet a man with the means driving a Porsche or Corvette must be having a midlife crisis, or if he chooses a jacked up Jeep or Cummins Ram, then he’s ‘compensating for something’. Just some random musings. Ive always had Jeeps, 4x4s, fast trucks, muscle cars and a hooliganized turbo hatch and had plenty of haters…I do what I want!
My Mom also did what she wanted; She chose herself a 1969 Road Runner as her first car. There were also several motorcycles, before and after the Road Runner. She drove them daily. If that isn’t different enough at that time, she joined by choice the US Army in 1976, and served until 1983. Aimed at men? Like she fucking cared. Please believe being a woman in the Army at that time was accepting a whole lot of unwarranted bullshit and extra effort to prove she could hang. She succeeded.
” I guess my point is, theres nothing misogynistic or malevolent about acknowledging that men and women are DIFFERENT. ”
Men and Women are different, but not within the context you frame. As much as I am a moderately effeminate gay man, my own mother is a very masculine straight woman. No hate here, but realize those types of views are the same type of thinking that kept women from being even allowed to serve in the first place.
For the record, I don’t even see these ads as “outrageous”.
“…all the PC weak minded sensitive types,”. Really? You’re name calling to other readers here and you’re not even aware, or you just don’t care.
Well allow me to turn off my PC control for a moment and suggest based on your post you are over 60, divorced and living alone, former union though (ironic) Trump supporter, Fox watcher and estranged from 1 or more children.
You would drive a large, loud vehicle and yes, clearly as compensation for one or more shortcomings, “small hand” related or not.
Now, that feeling after reading this? That’s your PC talking. Get it?
Further commenting on this post has now been curtailed. Some of you obviously can’t look at a 50 year old ad without invoking Political Correctness, which is actually a somewhat pejorative concept used for purely political purposes. Good night.