The trunk monkey (TV ads/video)

Scott Beale points to this series of very funny ads from a car dealership in Oregon.

[#1 posted by ridestowe , February 23, 2008 8:36 PM]

hahaha i remember my dad showing me these years ago :D

[#2 posted by vintagecaveman , February 23, 2008 9:06 PM]

We have the same exact ones for a dealership up here in Maine...

[#3 posted by misterchinaski , February 23, 2008 9:19 PM]

haha. oldies but goodies. why aren't trunk monkeys a standard item yet?

[#4 posted by stagueve , February 23, 2008 10:13 PM]

Simply Hilarious! ^^

[#5 posted by mirrormonkey , February 23, 2008 10:33 PM]

Trunk monkeys also made it to Las Vegas

[#6 posted by dbo , February 24, 2008 12:28 AM]

I love these commercials. IIRC they are for the Suburban Auto Group her in PDX.

[#7 posted by Burns! , February 24, 2008 2:19 AM]

You should never pay for the undercoating. That's a scam. On the other hand, I would pay a premium for a trunk monkey in my next new car.

[#8 posted by Yamara , February 24, 2008 2:53 AM]

I just got finished watching Idaho Transfer, so doing disturbing things with your car trunk in Oregon isn't really sitting well with me right now.

That being said, the ads are pretty awesome.

[#9 posted by electricpi , February 24, 2008 4:02 AM]

It should be noted that the trunk monkey ads are a rip of of ideas created by Subaru enthusiasts well before: http://www.trunkmonkey.com/ has more info. the original creation of the trunk monkey can be found archived here: http://web.archive.org/web/20020205013142/http://www.i-club.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=603

[#10 posted by electricpi , February 24, 2008 4:05 AM]

It should be noted that the trunk monkey ads are a rip of of ideas created by Subaru enthusiasts well before: http://www.trunkmonkey.com/ has more info. the original creation of the trunk monkey can be found archived here: http://web.archive.org/web/20020205013142/http://www.i-club.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=603

[#11 posted by shudderstep , February 24, 2008 4:06 AM]

MONKEY WITH A SHOTGUN!!!

[#12 posted by Frushyou , February 24, 2008 6:50 AM]

These have been running in PA from some time now. Of course I remember these ads from 5+ years ago in Ohio. Its funny how these old ads seem to still be running around.

[#13 posted by David Carroll , February 24, 2008 6:56 AM]

Very funny but: One of my peeves is calling Chimpanzees Monkeys. IANAM or C but it still annoys me. I mean people don't call Eagles Budgies do they? What's wrong with TrunkChimp?

[#14 posted by mrfitz , February 24, 2008 6:59 AM]

i strangely thought of the monkey doing something very nasty to that young man

[#15 posted by Crunchbird , February 24, 2008 6:59 AM]

a) It's an ape, not a monkey, dammit.

b) Using chimpanzees in advertising, as adorable as it might be, is ethically questionable at best and is widely opposed by animal welfare groups. This is due both to the frequently cruel way in which these animals are trained and to the fact that their "careers" are essentially over before they leave adolescence. Adult chimps are too large and dangerous to be used for this type of work, as a general rule, so even though a chimp has a 50-60 year lifespan they can only really work as actors for 10 years or less. Chimps belong in the wild, not in entertainment.

[#16 posted by Jake0748 , February 24, 2008 7:06 AM]

Better than OnStar® !!

[#17 posted by microcars , February 24, 2008 7:10 AM]

I would be interested in seeing how many car dealers have "co-opted" this for themselves.
I know there is a dealer in Kentucky (or was it Indiana?) that has huge billboards claiming they are "Home Of The TrunkMonkey!"

[#18 posted by jetsetsc , February 24, 2008 7:18 AM]

Because the word "monkey" is funnier than "chimp." See also-
Chicken: Hen
Robot: Automaton

Chicken robot monkey= funny
Hen automaton chimp = meh.

[#19 posted by HuronBob , February 24, 2008 7:45 AM]

boing boing has become the internet archive...

[#20 posted by David Carroll , February 24, 2008 8:26 AM]

Yes Krusty taught me that "mukluck" is funnier than "oxford", but they are still not the same thing.

[#21 posted by nex , February 24, 2008 6:50 PM]

Seattle! Ahahahaha! Stop it, you’re killing me!

Anyway, I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought "that's not a monkey."

[#22 posted by arbitraryaardvark , February 24, 2008 6:53 PM]

Another comment on chimps aren't monkeys. Chimps are people. Some of the ads show chimps being violent to humans, when the reality is that humans being violent to chimps is far more common.
That said, where do I buy my trunkmonkey button?

[#23 posted by andyhavens , February 24, 2008 8:41 PM]

Yeah... we had these for "Byers" here in Columbus back in 2001/2002. The best response (can't find a video, oh well) was from another dealer, Fred Ricart. His wife Lynne (who's in a lot of the ads) is driving a car and being pestered by an obnoxious salesman. She hits the "trunk monkey" button, you see the trunk pop up, and then you see a guy clobbered with a guitar... help by her husband, Fred (who often played guitar in his ads). She then sends him back to the trunk.

Self-parodying Fred Ricart trunk monkey guitar beatings. Why ain't that on YouTube?

[#24 posted by Kyle Armbruster , February 24, 2008 10:00 PM]

Chimps aren't people. I don't know how many times I have to point that out here. You can tell people by the way they can interbreed with each other. If you can't impregnate it (or it, you), then what you've got there is an animal.

Now, allow me to save some time:

1: BUT WHAT ABOUT INFERTILE PEOPLE?????// ARE YOU SAYING THAT THNEY ARE UST ANIMALS????? ARGARGARG IM SO ANGRY!!!!1

No.

2: ANIMALS HAVE BRAINS AND COMMUNICATE LIKE DOLFINS AND STUFF!!!1

That's very nice for them. Still not people.

3: YEAH WELL SLAVE OWNERS THOUGHT THAT AFRICANS WEREN'T PEOPLE AND D SO YOU MUST BE RACIST!!! DO YOU SUPPORT SLAVERY???

No, because I believe in human rights. We're not talking about humans, though; we're talking about monkeys. And stop typing as fast as you can with your eyes closed.

Done and done.

[#25 posted by Antinous , February 24, 2008 10:23 PM]

From Dictionary.com:

peo·ple
–noun
11. animals of a specified kind: the monkey people of the forest.

D'oh and d'oh.

[#26 posted by Antinous , February 24, 2008 10:40 PM]

I'm just saying that semantics is too subjective a discipline to get away with a high-handed tone.

[#27 posted by nex , February 25, 2008 5:35 AM]

From Dictionary.com: peo·ple [...] 11. animals of a specified kind: the monkey people of the forest.

OK, of several different possible meanings, this is number 11 (in that particular dictionary); however, in the sentence "chimps aren't people", the meaning of 'people' is not this number 11. I.e. your citation proves nothing, and if you think it is relevant to the discussion, you're simply wrong. I don't have an opinion on how subjective semantics in general are, but in this case it's a quite obvious objective fact that this dictionary citation is irrelevant to the discussion.

Having said that, I do think it's worth considering whether a simple, binary distinction between human rights and animal rights is optimal. Apes are intelligent enough to cooperate with humans; this fact alone should make it clear that they should be treated differently than, say, small insects. But they definitely aren't equal to humans, hence not people.

[#28 posted by calabanos , February 25, 2008 6:22 AM]

Chimps are not monkeys
Chimps are not people
A Tomato is a fruit.

Ok, now that we're through, lets move on from junior high science class.