Jaguar, Derrida & The 'Woke' Agenda

This week, we’re diving into a juicy mix of marketing and philosophy, featuring my blind reaction to Jaguar’s controversial new ad.

Yes, I know I’m late to the party, but I’ve never been one to rush into the fray. I prefer to sit back, let the dust settle, and then form my own opinion—free from the noise of hot takes and knee-jerk reactions.

So, what do I know about this ad going in? Not much. I’ve heard the grumbles: accusations of pandering to the so-called “woke” movement and alienating Jaguar’s traditional audience. As someone who’s worked with Jaguar before (small brag: I contributed to a TV ad ), I’m curious to see what all the fuss is about. Let’s watch this thing...

The Ad: “Copy Nothing”

First impression? It’s odd. Really odd. If I hadn’t known it was for Jaguar, I might have guessed it was a perfume ad. We’ve got an alien-planet vibe, vibrant outfits, and some very avant-garde haircuts. There’s a chap with a pie-chart haircut (seriously, one slice of hair is just… missing) and a woman wielding a hammer in a stark blue room. But here’s the kicker: there’s no car in sight. Bold choice for a car ad, don’t you think?

Some elements feel like missed opportunities. For instance, the “Break Moulds” tagline. They’ve got this lady with the hammer in the ad—why not show it smashing the old Jaguar logo? That would’ve been a powerful visual statement. Instead, the hammer just… exists, disconnected from the rest of the imagery. The whole thing is undeniably stylish, but it’s also confusing.

The cast is diverse, and I can see why critics have labeled this as “woke pandering.” Historically, Jaguars have been associated with older, affluent men—a demographic not exactly represented in this ad. But maybe that’s the point. Jaguar seems to be courting a younger, more eclectic audience, which brings us to the cars themselves.

The Cars: A New Direction?

After the ad, I pulled up images of Jaguar’s latest offerings. My first thought? “Is that an Audi?” The front is boxy, and while the colours align with the ad’s aesthetic, the design doesn’t scream “Jaguar” to me. Maybe that’s intentional. Regulations have homogenised car design to an extent—certain safety standards dictate things like bonnet length—but still, I’d hoped for something more distinct.

As someone who doesn’t drive I’m not exactly Jaguar’s target market. When I think of Jaguar, I think: fast, luxurious, and…not particularly eco-friendly, i generally consider their cars to use up a lot of fuel. As such, I expected this rebrand to lean into sustainability, perhaps positioning Jaguar as a Tesla competitor. I thought that's why there was this backlash in that maybe Jaguar was greenwashing.

Instead, it’s leaning into style and creativity. Maybe they’re playing the long game, targeting today’s 30- and 40-somethings who might graduate to a Jaguar in a decade or two. If that’s the strategy, it’s a gamble. I could see though that in that luxury car space, there isn't anything really bold or creative. Most of those brands rely on heritage, they sell comfort. I think tesla is mostly a status symbol with an eco lean. So perhaps actually this differentiation could work. But the execution isn't great.

Enter Jacques Derrida

Watching this ad got me thinking about Jacques Derrida, the French philosopher known for deconstruction. There’s a quote I particularly like: “Deconstruction is not a dismantling of the structure of a text but a demonstration that it had already dismantled itself.” which suggests is that texts are inherently tied to the culture they emerge from. A text inherently reflects and reacts to the cultural norms of its time, essentially becoming a record of the changes already occurring in society but with an inherent lag. You can deconstruct a text or in this case a car advert, and unpick where all its ideas came from, precisely because all its ideas came from somewhere.

His philosophy revolves around deconstruction as a way to unsettle and reverse established hierarchies to expose their limitations. Applying this idea to Jaguar’s ad, we might interpret their messaging as an attempt to break norms and redefine conventions. But in thinking of the backlash, we can identify the lag between societal norms and media.

Over the last decades, old structures, stereotypes, and ways of thinking have been dismantled, but the media has been slower to adapt. For many, this delay has become irritating, as the messages feel overplayed. Ideas that might have been progressive or eye-opening a decade ago—like the acceptance of diverse identities—now seem redundant or over-emphasised, and while, inevitably there will always be more work to achieve in this space have begun to feel manufactured.

Today, the issue may be that almost every major brand has adopted the same progressive messaging, leading to a sense of fatigue among consumers. Ironically, the new way to stand out and appear oppositional is to lean into traditional values rather than "woke" ideals. This reversal creates an unexpected edge, positioning traditional values as a countercultural stance.

This shift partly explains phenomena like Trump’s resurgence in political power. People who feel inundated by progressive messaging may view opposing it as a rebellious or refreshing move, claiming that such values are being forced upon them. This dynamic fuels the ongoing cultural wars, which have become a prominent feature of modern discourse, and a major fuel for social media platforms (the only people who seem to benefit.)

Another interesting aspect of Derrida's work was his opposition to binary thinking which he saw as being prevalent in Western civilisation—like categorising concepts as good versus bad. Interestingly today we actually see a sort of nostalgia, a noticeable longing for the clarity of the past, we yearn for the simpler narratives of “good guys” and “bad guys.” As opposed to the truer and greyer world in which we actually live.

So, Go Woke, Go Broke?

One of the biggest fallacies I see today, is the thought that people who reject the so-called 'woke agenda' are in some way against equality. I do not believe that at all. What I see is actually two different things.

One is that people are more critical of false actions. Of people claiming to be pro-LGBT+, pro-equality, pro-ecology etc and then not actually backing this up with actions. On supporting certain campaigns which are in the media at that moment, but afterwards not doing anything. Of social-signalling. Of virtue-signalling. And this reflects a wider trend where we hold the brands we buy from to a higher standard than previous generations. Media creators need to be wary that representation feels authentic, not forced and in no way is only there to serve their agenda.

The second is simply a tiredness of certain messaging. The feeling that these messages are being pushed upon them. And in this respect, I would like to cite the Ed Sheeran effect (which I may have just made up) in that I like an Ed Sheeran song, but after it's been replayed 1020 times I begin to hate it. I have a trans sister, trans people make up 0.5% of the population in the UK according to the last census, so if suddenly there was a trans character in every major TV soap, I could totally understand the sentiment that this does not reflect reality and may feel forced.

Final Thoughts

One thing that really pissed me off about the coverage of this ad was the personal attack on Jaguar’s chief marketing officer, Santino Pietrosanti. The Daily Mail described him as “gay, vegan, and owning a cockapoo named Mia,” as if those traits somehow invalidate his professional decisions. Let’s be clear: no single person, no matter how influential, steers a global brand’s strategy solo. There’s market research, focus groups, and countless stakeholders involved.

The attack felt homophobic and reductive and has since been removed. Criticise the ad, sure. Question the strategy, absolutely. But leave personal lives out of it. There’s no place for that kind of discourse, and frankly, it diminishes the conversation around branding and culture.

Would I buy a Jaguar based on this ad? Probably not. It’s beautifully shot but doesn’t tell me much about the car. That said, I appreciate Jaguar’s attempt to differentiate themselves in a crowded market. High-end cars can blur together, and this ad—love it or hate it—stands out. Whether it’s the right move, only time (and sales figures) will tell.

And let's not forget what Derrida said “Every text remains in mourning until it is translated.” and we are the ones who own our own personal translations of any given text.

Let me know your thoughts. Am I missing the point? Overthinking it? Underthinking it? Drop me a comment, and let’s discuss. Cheers!