Verizon’s new ad misunderstands CRTs: bad physics, retro value and e‑waste concerns

Verizon’s new 30‑second commercial has drawn criticism for a surprisingly obvious detail: it treats a 27‑inch CRT TV as if it were light and easy to lift. Viewers noted the unrealistic handling, and some commentators have pointed out broader issues beyond the gag — including the vintage value of CRTs and the environmental cost if a working set was destroyed for the shoot.

The ad shows a woman walking into a big‑box store and handing over a chunky CRT to a salesperson, who accepts it without struggle. In reality, mid‑sized CRTs can weigh dozens of pounds, and many collectors prize working units for retro gaming and nostalgia. The commercial’s portrayal rings false to anyone familiar with those sets.

Why people care

• Physical realism: CRTs are heavy — treating them as lightweight undermines the ad’s credibility and distracts viewers from the message.
• Retro collector value: Functional CRTs can be worth hundreds of dollars to enthusiasts and retro gamers; disposing of one for a gag can be wasteful.
• E‑waste implications: If the prop was a working set that was gutted or destroyed, that raises questions about responsible production and unnecessary electronic waste.

Takeaways for brands

Small production details matter. An otherwise simple marketing message — get a better deal by showing your bill — gets overshadowed when the execution is obviously unrealistic or careless. Brands that respect product authenticity and environmental concerns avoid alienating viewers who notice those details.

Practical notes for readers

• If you own an old CRT and it still works, consider selling it to retro collectors or donating it rather than tossing it — many buyers and communities still value these sets.
• If you need to recycle a nonworking CRT, check local e‑waste recycling facilities; CRTs contain hazardous materials and should not be thrown in regular trash.

Whether you found the spot funny or clumsy, it’s a reminder that attention to small factual details can shape public reaction. Brands should weigh whether a quick gag is worth the credibility hit — and whether it generates unnecessary waste.

Discussion: Did Verizon’s ad bother you for its bad physics and potential waste, or is it harmless advertising? Would you call out brands for similar slips in realism?