Dear Proctor and Gamble-,
My name is Sarah Bertrand, and I have a query regarding the logic behind choosing your babies, or should I say, preteens, you use in your Pampers commercials. Believe it or not, when I was younger, I too wore diapers. So every time I see your commercials, I feel a deep connection with your product. The children you use in your commercials are at least 13, and realistically probably haven't, or should not have, been wearing diapers for years. They look old enough to secure a job, get married, and possibly have children of their own. They look old enough to have a mortgage, and have already set up their RRSPs. They look old enough to have a car, frequent bars, and old enough to develop a gambling addiction or drinking problem. I was wondering why you would purposefully choose to have them look so dibilitatingly aged? Is it because more realistic actors are too young, and thus unpredictable? Then why not use bigger budget actors, to make it less awkward and not seem like you're trying to deceive your audience, but still make your point in a valid and more respectable manner. Why not Danny DeVito, Emmanuel Lewis from TV's sensation, "Webster", or even Charlie Sheen? They're all somewhat the height of a toddler? I thank you for your time, and look forward to your immediate response.
Sincerely,
Sarah Bertrand
No comments:
Post a Comment