Volvo's "Bear Foot" Misstep

1. Yes, I believe that the reinforced Volvo can be considered a mock-up. Volvo explained that the alterations to the cars were only made to enable the production crew to conduct the demonstration safely and to allow the Volvo to withstand the repeated runs of the monster truck that were required for filming. Just like ice cream companies that replace ice cream with mashed potatoes, the cars were only altered for the sake of filming. Ice cream has the ability to realistically appear the way it is advertised, but real ice cream would melt under studio lights. Therefore, it makes more sense to use a product that can portray the same image but could hold up better during filming. The same with the Volvo car. It is possible for a Volvo to survive something similar to the stunt done in the Vermont monster truck rally where the Volvo was the only survivor. It was determined by Volvo engineers that the roof could withstand the weight of a five-ton monster truck just not repeatedly, which would be required for filming. This is why the Volvo was reinforced. 2. I do not think that the Volvo monster truck is objectionable because they were simply trying to get their message of strength and safety across to consumers. Obviously a stunt like that isn’t very common in reality, but I do not see anything wrong with using it for advertising. Nowadays, I feel like I am continuously seeing commercials where companies are using uncommon realities to make it clear to consumers what their message is and I feel that is acceptable. 3. Personally, I do not feel that it is that important for a consumer to know that the ad was not an actual demonstration but a dramatization of the event in the Vermont. Either way, it was proven that it was possible for the Volvo to survive such a stunt, so in my eyes they were not deceiving the consumers. However, I think Volvo could have avoided a charge of deceptive advertising if they identified the ads as a dramatization rather than as an actual