Wonderfully bad: Acura LT

Acura currently runs both of these, and as much as they are beautifully shot - filming, sound, edits etc. - they are both terribly bad in their conceptual approach.

What exactly is the analogy here? I have no idea. So let's dissect the message.

"It works with people. It works with cars."

What exactly works with people? They don't tell us.
What exactly works with cars? They don't tell us either.

Instead they show us two athletes, first dressed in their sweaty, dirty sports gear, then being re-dressed in fancy outfits. So what does that mean? What are they trying to convey? What's the message transfer to Acura?

A) If you take a used, dirty Acura, and clean it up, and put fresh paint on it, you can sell it as a new Acura?

B) If you take a used, dirty Acura, and clean it up, and polish it, it looks much nicer?

C) In every Acura, there is exactly the same old stuff under the hood, and the chassis, and they simply throw on a different shell and throw in a few extras, and then sell it as new?

D) Acura doesn't really invent cars, they just dress them differently? So every Acura they sell is really an old Acura dressed in a contemporary outfit?

I don't get this one at all. I don't get the message. I don't get the analogy. I don't get "it", that "works with people and cars".

Having worked years in this industry, I assume this is what happened that makes this such an awful commercial (a beautifully shot, but conceptually awful one):

1) Agencies these days squeeze their creative staff too much. Too many ideas in too little time. Not enough thought is given to analyzing the concept chosen.

2) Internal hierarchies. Whether the seasoned CD liked this idea, and the junior AD just kept his mouth shut, or the junior AD kept pushing, and the seasoned CD didn't care - all possible scenarios how this got out of the creative lounge.

3) A team that has no car experience. Or a creative team that doesn't drive cars. Or a creative team that doesn't get cars.

4) A creative team that would rather do fashion advertising than car advertising.

5) Ideas like these get passed the client, because the ad people explain them five million times, until the main client says: "Ah, I get it." Then everyone else nods, they shake hands, and a gazillion dollars is spent on celebrities, staff, production, and media. Wow!

Problem is: Average Joe Smith out there does have anyone explaining this to him. Neither have all the other million of people in front of their TV's. They might all be shaking their heads.

Or I am overanalyzing. Or I am loosing it... and it's time for me to start scouting retirement homes.

MAD SCORE: 0

Message -1 / Creative +1 / Context: +1 / Impact: -1 / Intangibles: 0. What a shame. So much money spent on such a poor concept.