“Wow,” I thought, “An on-line ad for a car insurance company that suggests that it can save me money! I need to look into this.”
I perused the information provided. And I considered it.
If it had said, “Different Coverage for Less” I would have been less interested. But the ad clearly said, “Same Great Coverage For Less”. I thought, “Really?” but it confirmed this bit of knowledge three times, as if to answer me reassuringly, “Really.”
They truly had a clear picture of my situation: Indeed, I do work hard for my money. It’s scary how much the ad-writers know!
In fact, I was beginning to think that a friend of mine had ‘shared’ this company’s information with me, when I noted the text, “Sponsored” near the top. It was just a matter of good fortune that it came up as I scrolled. In any case, I was ready to act.
I wasn’t sure how to, though, until I spotted the handy “Learn More” button. Why, that’s exactly what I wanted to do!
So I clicked it and it brought me to a handy form to fill out my information. It took several minutes, but I thought, “I do want to ‘start saving today’, not later.”
And thus I endeavored to fill out the form, ignorant of that to which I was unaware of.
I admit, I should have noticed the clues. When they asked “How many models do you want to insure?” and the options were “0-20″,”20-50″,”50-100″ and “more than 100″ I thought, “Who owns more than a hundred cars?” But still I pressed on.
But then it asked, “Estimated Average Value of all Models” and the options were “0-$1″, “$1-$10″ and “$10-$60″, and the like.
I thought, obviously this is a typo. I should let them know. They will be grateful. So I called the number at the bottom of the page and spoke with a personable insurance agent.
After we exchanged pleasantries, I said, “So anyway, surely your dollar ranges must be incorrect.”
And she said, “Oh, here we go again.”
And I said, “Oh, I see. It must be the case that you’ve been told numerous times about this error but your IT website developing programmer has yet to update the page and that is why you sound so miffed and/or irate.”
And she said, “No, that is not the case.”
And I said, “Oh, well, then it must be the case that it is a known issue with my browser software, Inter-Awesome”
And she said, “No, that is not the case.”
And I asked, “Please tell me then what is the case.”
And she said, “What you should, but clearly don’t, know, is that our company only insures Die-Cast toy cars.”
And after a few seconds I, being a bit stunned and confused, repeated, “Die-Cast T–”
And she impatiently interrupted, “You know – like hot wheels and matchbox cars”
And after a few seconds I, still being a bit stunned and confused, again repeated, “Hot wheels and Matchb–”
And she again, but with more ire apparent in her tone, interrupted a second time, “The ad couldn’t have been more clear! It’s obviously a small toy in the image! There’s a hand holding it! Did you think it to be a giant grotesque perversion of a human hand holding a full-size navigable vehicle?!?!”
And I thought, “I wonder how many exclamation points and questions marks I should add at the end of her last remark when I transcribe this interchange.” I decided upon two exclamation points and two question marks, respectively. In any case, I re-looked at the original image and saw that she was speaking accurately.
So I said out loud, “I see. That makes sen-”
And she, a third time, and with yet even greater emphasis, interrupted again, “I told that dratted marketer this was going to happen! I said, they’re going to think we’re selling insurance for real cars! The kind you drive! And he said, ‘I’ll put in a picture of a hand holding the car.’ And then he chuckled, he CHUCKLED, and said, ‘I’m sure that will make it clear enough for even the least-smart Facebook viewer’. But obviously he was wrong and his dratted chuckling was misplaced!”
And I thought, “next question – when transcribing, what word should I use to replace that very offensive word that she used not once, but twice in her exasperated rant.” I considered “dang”, “fracking” and “confounded” before finally landing on “dratted”.
But she was continuing: “I told him, ‘How about the words “Toy Car” instead of “Car”!’ I suggested -”
And now it was my turn to interrupt her.
“Ma’am?” I said, and then “Ma’am!”
And she stopped, sighed and said, resignedly, “What?”
And I said, truthfully and with a calm voice, “As it happens, I happen to be in the possession of more than two hundred currently uninsured die-cast toy cars”
She paused, as if not really believing me. And then she asked, in much the same way I had only a half hour earlier, “Really?”
And I responded in like manner, “Really.”
I’m pleased to say that our conversation went much better after that. And I can report that, while I think a $230 yearly deductable is a little steep and while I’m still unclear as to why liability is an issue, my 232 yellow 1971 mint Ford Mustang models are safely “covered”. For the 21st century and beyond.