Lots of posts these past few days, eh?
So the first of the two commercials mentioned in the title was for some new kind of eyedrops. It was a testimonial advertisement featuring an eye doctor who, apparently as a sufferer of some common form of dry eyes, was thrilled to discover this new product because it can help users to "make more of their own tears." Now, I know what it means -- tears moisten eyes, so the product will ostensibly prevent sufferers from having to endure dry, itchy, red eyes -- but I found the phrasing odd. It can help you to produce more of your own tears. But given that we typically associate tears with pain and/or sadness, I found myself thinking that I could probably accomplish the same thing by beating the hell out of an individual and murdering his/her loved ones. And I giggled to myself.
Yes, my sense of humor is strange.
The second commercial was for Toaster Strudels, and its explicitly and repeated contention was that "Pop-Tarts can't compare to the taste of Toaster Strudels." (According to the Wiki, this is a pretty common line of argument for Toaster Strudels... though this is the first time I can remember seeing it. Weird.) This amused me as well, but for different reasons. First of all, this is a matter of personal preference -- and while you could say that with respect to almost anything, it's especially true here. Why? This is directly related to my second point: that comparing Pop-Tarts and Toaster Strudels is like comparing apples to oranges (in the sense that you legitimately can, as they're both kind of similar -- both breakfast pastries, both fruits -- yet also different). But an even better analogue is potato chips to french fries. Imagine an Ore-Ida commercial that boasted, "Potato chips can't compare to the taste of french fries!" Maybe not -- depending upon the person -- but since that's not their freaking goal, who cares?!
If you're into Pop-Tarts, no amount of argument is going to convince you that Pillsbury's wares are somehow better... unless, that is, Pillsbury releases a product that is directly comparable to Pop-Tarts. I mean, I like them both (though not enough to buy either on a regular basis) -- and while I would prefer Toaster Strudels in a head-to-head comparison, Pop-Tarts do have several advantages over Toaster Strudels. They don't need to be kept in the freezer, so you can take them almost anywhere. (I used to bring a packet to work with me for lunch, and I recall us having them with us on a high school camping trip. In fact, one of the sexier -- and definitely bustier -- girls on the trip noted that they were her favorite food, which at the very least ensured that I will associate Pop-Tarts with pleasant thoughts for as long as that memory endures. Every time I buy Pop-Tarts, Kellogg's should send her a commission fee.) Admittedly, most of their other advantages are related to this point -- their versatile nature means that you don't need a toaster to enjoy them, whereas even if you want to eat Toaster Strudels frozen (which you can do; they are quite good) you'll still have to find some way to unfreeze the frosting -- but still.
Instead of trying to raise their product above Kellogg's, Pillsbury needs to make ads featuring unfortunate cartoon Toaster Strudels that poorly-drawn children go out of their way to trap and devour. 
