WTF: Did anyone else see the ad in the WSJ today featuring Flo-Jo? What the hell does it mean?

rojo wrote:

1) Why would a company want to use a picture of a person whom many to have been on drugs in their ad?

Could you explain why "whom" rather than "who" is the correct word to use in the above sentence? Just looking to learn from an established journalist with an Ivy League education, who surely knows more than I.

rojo wrote:

1) Why would a company want to use a picture of a person whom many to have been on drugs in their ad?

2) What the hell is the point of the ad?

3) Why do you have an ad with no product or website to visit? If you scan the QPR codoe on the the website, it takes you to the Chinese version of the website? Why would a company spend multi thousands of dollars in an American paper to send you to the Chinese language version of the website? The English version doesn't explain a whole lot.

1. People think all successful athletes are on drugs. Winners get people's attention. You go with a recognizable face. And I guess you don't have to pay dead people to use their likeness.

2. "A lifetime of dedication for a moment of victory" - Says they have a dedicated company that can deliver that moment.

3. They have the company name and logo there. What you normally see in print ads. Seems like they are reaching out to Chinese speakers and English speakers who may come across this ad and be interested in what they were about.

At least we now know what the finish of a 0.1 K marathon looks lie.

More detailed explanation of Huawei's use of Flo-Jo

http://online.wsj.com/ad/huaweiidentity/breakthrough

"Whom" is the object of the transitive verb "suspect" (which is clearly visible between "many" and "to" in my version of LetsRun).

journalism student wrote:

rojo wrote:

1) Why would a company want to use a picture of a person whom many suspect to have been on drugs in their ad?

Could you explain why "whom" rather than "who" is the correct word to use in the above sentence? Just looking to learn from an established journalist with an Ivy League education, who surely knows more than I.

notrump wrote:

"Whom" is the object of the transitive verb "suspect" (which is clearly visible between "many" and "to" in my version of LetsRun).

journalism student wrote:

Could you explain why "whom" rather than "who" is the correct word to use in the above sentence? Just looking to learn from an established journalist with an Ivy League education, who surely knows more than I.

Would have been clearer this way:

Why would a company use a picture of a suspected doper in its ad?

How do you run this website with an admitted doper for a partner?

Some real comedy gold in there:

"“There is no substitute for hard work... I have the medals to prove it,” Griffith Joyner said later. "

"Her workouts, sometimes 12 hours a day, included weight training to copy the success of her idols, Lewis and Ben Johnson."

Lolololol

Another out-to-lunch Chinese company that thinks they understand The West.

Lyndon LaRouche wrote:

Another out-to-lunch Chinese company that thinks they understand The West.

This^^

This is equivalent to a prominent western company hiring a white guy Asian Studies major to develop an ad campaign. He might be very familiar with Chinese popular culture, but more than likely the ideas will be meaningless to an average Chinese consumer. For this reason, western companies hire experienced Asian ad agencies to develop their ad campaigns in Asia, and would never risk their reputations to save a few bucks.

Not so companies like Huawei. They have enormous resources, but obviously do not want to hire serious firms to handle their PR in the US/west. And even better, when the response to their ads is, "WTF?!?!", they double down w/ mindless drivel like

Get used to this. I saw it 30 years ago with Japanese firms thinking they had the West all sorted. At least they realized they did not, adapted, and now are tightly aligned with concepts of quality and workmanship (e.g. Lexus etc). I really doubt Chinese firms will follow suit, as their primary business strategy remains to compete on price.

My thoughts:

1) Ad, not "add."

2) Second sentence has issues with commas.

3) "So many questions" is not a complete thought.

4) Who, not "whom." That sentence is garbage anyway, though.

5) Multiple typos in your last paragraph, but I think that is acceptable given that it is a forum. Typos in my mind don't indicate an addled thought process as much as your poor syntax and grammar.

Anyway, to answer your question:

- The point of the ad is to sell products. Perhaps they are doing a bad job of that. I'm sure their website and products make a lot more sense to somebody in that market. In fact, I bet your website arrived at my computer through some of their equipment.

- "A lifetime of dedication, for a moment of victory" refers to the fact that she worked very hard for many years, all leading up to very brief moments when she won races/set records. 10.49 seconds isn't very long, given the years of work she put in to get there.

- This slogan makes sense with regards to their products. Their products are the results of decades of increasing technology in computers and networking, but information passes through them on the scale of millionths of a second. They do their actual "job" in a very brief amount of time compared to the development time.

I was reading the Journal this morning and saw with a track runner on it? I was like, "That looks like Flo-Jo." Sure enough it was Flo-Jo.

http://www.letsrun.com/?p=110525

Can some business expert please explain the add to me?

The ad which appears to use a painted version of Joyner, who died in 1998, left our head spinning. So many questions.

1) Why would a company want to use a picture of a person whom many believe was on drugs in their ad?

2) What the hell is the point of the ad?

3) Why do you have an ad with no product or website to visit? If you scan the QPR codoe on the the website, it takes you to the Chinese version of the website? Why would a company spend multi thousands of dollars in an American paper to send you to the Chinese language version of the website? The English version doesn't explain a whole lot.

rojo wrote:

So many questions.

1) Why would a company want to use a picture of a person whom many believe was on drugs in their ad?

2) What the hell is the point of the ad?

The point is to tell you to suck it.

Looks like Flo-Jo left everyone in the blocks that race. Huge margin of victory.

sdfsdfsdfsdf wrote:

3) "So many questions" is not a complete thought.

Actually, whom is correct. Poorly phrased sentence though.

colostomy bag wrote:

They were advertising to Chinese speaking people. The ad was for watches. They used flojo because she was fast, a minority, a woman, and a doper. I totally understood, surprised you missed it.

The window is still open. An armadillo got in last night and ate all the oatmeal. I told you this would happen again. It's on YOU, now!!!!!

Absolutely fantastic answer! Well done.

Very, very, very, very, very, well done!

Clearly it's a message to all of the Chinese spies living in america.

What do Flo Jo, Paula Radcliffe, Miguel Indurain, and Alberto Salazar all have in common? Why, they all suffer[ed] from asthma!!! Isn't that incredible?

And guess how many of them have been credibly suspected of illegal drug use?!?! What an amazing coincidence!!!!