Parody advertisement
A parody advertisement is a fictional advertisement for a non-existent product, either done within another advertisement for an actual product, or done simply as parody of advertisements.
Example
A parody advertisement should not be confused with a fictional brand name used in a program to avoid giving free advertising to an actual product, or to the use of a fictional brand name in an actual advertisment used for comparison, which is sometimes done as opposed to comparing the product to an actual competitor.
A parody advertisement is one in which the advertisement appears to actually be for the false product, but then the advertisement is somehow exposed to be a parody and if it is an actual advertisement the actual brand becomes clear. If it is simply a parody it may or may not indicate that it is one.
Television
Here are some examples of well known parody advertisments:
Energizer Bunny
In the 1990s, the most famous series of parody advertisments were those for the Energizer battery. In the initial commercial episode first shown in October 1989, a toy pink rabbit, is being filmed in a commercial. The toy, powered by the battery, escapes the studio and begins a rampage, pounding a drum and rolling through other commercials being made, including those for coffee, wine, an fictional upcoming TV series, and sinus medication. A total of 115 fictional commercials in both English and Spanixh involving the Energizer Bunny were made.
Energizer v. Coors
In an ironic twist of fate, in 1991, Eveready Battery Company would sue the Adolph Coors Company over an ad for Coors beer it was producing, which would show Leslie Nielsen in a full-size rabbit suit pounding a drum, which was parodying Eveready's Energizer Battery commercials. Eveready claimed Coors' ad constituted copyright and trademark infringement. The court would rule that Coors' ad was a valid parody of Eveready's, considering that Mr. Nielsen, "is not a toy, and does not run on batteries." Eveready Battery Co. v. Adolph Coors Co., 765 F. Supp. 440 (N.D. Ill. 1991).
Orkin
The Orkin exterminator franchise created a series of fictional commercials in which, part way through the ad, a cockroach would walk across the screen, appearing as if there were roaches in the viewer's home. A man wearing Orkin's Orkin man outfit of a white shirt, tie and company logo, would apply a spray of presumably insecticide to the screen from within, causing the insect to fall off. One of their fictional ads would become famous for the inclusion of the dwarf actor Gary Coleman.
The Coca-Cola company's lemon-lime soft drink ran a series of ads for other fictional drink products, which had actual or fictional celebrities endorsing the other product, with the implication that the fictional product was inadequate for quenching one's thirst.
Saturday Night Live
The TV series Saturday Night Live produces a fictional commercial on every weekly episode, and is famous for its fictional ad, a list of which may be reached by clicking here.
Magazines
Mad Magazine was famous for regularly running obviously fictional ads for nonexistent products.
Hustler Magazine
The most serious incident involving a fictional magazine advertisement caused a lawsuit which reached all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, when Hustler Magazine ran a parody of a liquor ad which would ask people about their "first time." In the actual ad, what we are lead to believe is that the person is being asked about their first sexual experience, when it turns out the question is about their first time they used the sponsor's product, a liqueur.
In the parody advertisement in Hustler, the Reverend Jerry Falwell is supposedly quoted describing the first time he had sexual intercourse with his mother in an outhouse while intoxicated. Falwell sued Hustler Magazine and its publisher Larry Flynt for invasion of privacy, libel and emotional distress. The jury found for the magazine on the issue of libel (the fictional advertisement clearly indicated it was a parody), but awarded Mr. Falwell $350,000 in damages for the emotional distress and invasion of privacy claims. The Supreme Court ruled that, since the advertisment was so obviously a parody that no reasonable person could have believed it, Falwell was not libelled and thus is not entitled to damages for emotional distress, and he was not entitled to damages for invasion of privacy because he is a well-known public figure. Hustler Magazine, Inc. et al. v. Jerry Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, (1988)