the super bowl’s best and worst ads (based on what really matters)

Last Sunday, 111.3 million people tuned into NBC to watch the Super Bowl. It was the most watched television program in U.S. history. And, in among time outs, touchdowns, and player injuries, Americans were exposed to advertisements that cost brands an average of $3.5 million for 30-seconds of stardom.
 
Some brands nailed it. Some floundered. And, others should have never even set foot on the advertising field. The year seemed to be marked by a slew of cameo presences, most needlessly adding to an already bloated marketing budget. Some of the classics returned: the E-Trade baby, the CareerBuilder.com monkeys, and Danica Patrick’s boobs. Others, like the Budweiser Clydesdales, took us back in history to when the government did its best to keep people miserable (is Anheuser-Busch InBev seriously afraid of prohibition coming back?).
 
Yet, even commercials that are considered “Fan Favorites” may not have done what ads are supposed to do: move brands forward. While Super Bowl ads are expected to entertain, the pursuit of this goal sometimes leaves brands on the sidelines. But, no matter how entertaining an ad may be, it’s a bad ad if it doesn’t progress a brand in one way or another.
 
The following is a breakdown of the three best commercials, and the three worst, according to the four elements of an effective Super Bowl ad: attention-grabbing, entertaining, brand promotion, and brand recall.
 
The Best of the Super Bowl:
 
First Place — Kia: "A Dream Car. For Real Life" (David & Goliath)
Attention Grabbing: B
Entertaining: A
Brand Promotion: A
Brand Recall: A
 
Kia missed big last year with a complex, strange, and downright confusing ad featuring its newly redesign Optima blasting through time and space. However, they finally got the absurdity clicking in this year’s spot for the Optima. Joining it on a dream voyage around a racetrack was the striking Adriana Lima, the Motley Crew, a bucking Rhino, and a sub-sawing lumberjack who looked strangely like a burly John C. McGinley. While the commercial was one of the most outlandish of the Super Bowl, it still managed to prominently feature the car (yes, that’s right, Acura…car ads should feature the car). And, the absurd scenario that surrounded the Optima not only helped capture the thrill of driving it, it also served to drive home an excellent tagline: “A dream car. For real life.”
 
Second Place — Teleflora: "Give and Receive" (in house)
Attention Grabbing: A
Entertaining: B
Brand Promotion: A
Brand Recall: A
 
In what usually is a showcase of advertising absurdity (Kia Optima), parody (Honda CRV), and slapstick (Acura NSX), Teleflora’s ad featuring Adriana Lima cuts right to the chase. And, in the process, it sent millions of parents’ hands over their children’s eyes. If there is one thing that will grab a man’s attention, it is a scantly clad Lima. And, watching her slowly prepare her lingerie will entertain that attention as long as she wants. This created a perfect setup for the ad’s theme: give, and you shall receive. It’s that simple (wait…really?). While women viewers may not have been enthusiastic about this ad, it wasn’t them whom Teleflora was targeting. It was the guy who decides at the last that he needs a gift. Thanks to this ad, I’m sure Teleflora is going to be at the front of his mind.
 
Third Place — General Motor's Silverado: "2012" (Goodby, Silverstein & Partners) 
Attention Grabbing: A
Entertaining: B
Brand Promotion: A
Brand Recall: A
 
General Motor’s ad for its Silverado truck was one of the most controversial heading into the Super Bowl, largely due to the bellyaching of its rival, Ford. GM did a stellar job making the most of a post-apocalyptic nightmare as a stage for its manly Silverado pickup. And, ensuring things didn’t get too serious, over-acting and Twinkies (I hope GSP gave a hat-tip to Zombieland) lent it the scenario humorous edge. Hopefully the shot at Ford will be the opening salvo to fantastic advertising war between the two automakers.
 
Honorable Mention — Fiat: “Seduction” (Richards Group, Dallas) 
Attention Grabbing: A
Entertaining: A
Brand Promotion: A
Brand Recall: C
 
Fiat took the Teleflora model and applied it to a car. The sexual tension between the nerdy guy and his imaginary Italian seductress was palpable, which led to a fantastic setup to the revealing of the car, which was wearing the same “outfit” as the mirage. While the attention, entertainment, and brand promotion were all there, I’m skeptical about how well consumers will remember the “Fiat” brand, given its recent entry into the U.S. market.  
 
The Worst of the Super Bowl:
 
First Place — Samsung "Thing Called Love" (72 & Sunny)
Attention Grabbing: B
Entertaining: C
Brand Promotion: F
Brand Recall: A
 
If there is one person happy about Samsung’s 2012 presence in the Super Bowl, it’s probably one-hit-wonder “The Darkness.” Or, it could be Netflix, which was able to pass the crown for one of the worst product launches on to Samsung. While the commercial started with a strong concept (making fun of the Apple cult), it slowly drifted into a weird street party. And, when Samsung tried to pass off its “stylus” as the future of technology, it came time to call it a night. At least consumers will remember Samsung. Too bad it will be for all the wrong reasons.
 
Second Place — Century 21: "Smarter. Bolder. Faster." (Red Tettemer & Partners)
Attention Grabbing: B
Entertaining: C
Brand Promotion: C
Brand Recall: F
 
The selection of a real estate agent is a serious decision, and the Super Bowl is not an environment to try to sell a brand like Century 21. Unfortunately, they took a shot at it anyways. Their effort came off as an attempt to squeeze in as many celebrities as possible in a 30 second spot, and try to somehow make it all relevant to the qualities that make up a good agent. The cameos of Donald Trump and Deon Sanders may have been mildly entertaining to some, but the commercial (and the brand) was entirely forgettable.
 
Third Place — PepsiCo “King's Court” (TBWA /Chiat/Day)
Attention Grabbing: B
Entertaining: D
Brand Promotion: D
Brand Recall: D
 
Pepsi ended up plunking down some serious money to secure Elton John in one of the first spots in the Super Bowl. However, a better investment would have been using those millions to actually buy Pepsis for all, film it, and put it on YouTube. What TBWA/Chiat/Day produced for PepsiCo was downright stupid: from the premise of using the lovable Sir Elton John for a cold-hearted king, to the cheesy “No, Pepsi for all” line, to the gratuitous use of wash-up Flava Flave at the conclusion. For an agency like TBWA/Chiat/Day, it’s almost as much of an embarrassment for them as it was a missed opportunity for Pepsi.
 
Dishonorable Mention — Chrysler: "Halftime in America" (Wieden + Kennedy)
Attention Grabbing: B
Entertaining: B
Brand Promotion: D
Brand Recall: C
 
Nothing sells like America. Sarah Palin found that magic out early on and built an empire for herself. In a time of economic hardships, an emotional appeal that tugs on the heartstrings of Americans is a strong, strong technique. But, Chrysler is trying to sell cars— not American flags. And, unlike last year where a similar technique prominently featured Chrysler’s 200 model, the Chrysler vehicles in this year’s spot were virtually invisible. Americans may love the nationalist message that Chrysler was selling in the ad, but the fact remains that Americans aren’t looking to buy Detroit. They’re looking to buy a car that’s the best value for their hard-earned dollar. Chrysler’s 2012 Super Bowl ad received a standing ovation because everybody will clap for good old-fashioned American patriotism. But, that doesn’t mean people are going out to dealerships and buying Chryslers to save the country. People can do that with Ford and Chevy, which have done a far better job of marketing their vehicles.

four elements of an effective super bowl ad

According a National Retail Federation study conducted by BIGinsight, 73% of viewers of the Super Bowl see commercials as entertainment. This sets a high standard for advertisers for not only capturing the attention of viewers distracted at parties, or looking down from the television to check Facebook on their phone. It also requires that they keep consumers entertained.
 
However, this demand to create a commercial that can both capture attention and entertain sometimes causes creative teams to overlook the primary purpose of any advertisement: selling the brand. If consumers aren’t more motivated to support a brand after a commercial, then advertisers dropped $3.5 million to get a chuckle out of consumers. Or, if things get “overly creative,” they spent a significant chunk of change to either confuse or bore them. And, in the worst-case scenario, which occurred with Groupon in last year’s Super Bowl, the ad just pisses people off.
 
It’s a huge gamble. For many companies, a Super Bowl ad-buy is most (or, all) of the marketing budget for the entire year. If the ad bombs, or fails to drive the brand, all is lost.
 
“An ad can be funny, cute, viral, likeable, watchable, etc.,” writes Peter Daboll, CEO of Ace Metrix, in a recent editorial at AdAge about the gamble of Super Bowl advertising. “But if a consumer doesn't get anything out of it but a laugh, it's just not effective.” Daboll says Internet companies are particularly prone to Super Bowl failures, since their products are outside the norm, and their ads do little more than simply announce their presence to the world. On past Internet ads, Daboll says: “Not only did these companies spend millions on Super Bowl media, they also wasted significant dollars on hiring celebrities that did nothing to move their message or their brand forward.”
 
It’s easy to get a laugh. It’s much harder to get a laugh and then sell a product. And, even if an ad gets millions of YouTube hits, or is voted the viewers’ favorite, it doesn’t necessarily mean it was a “good ad” in what could be considered effective advertising. In the words of advertising legend Rosser Reeves: "Somebody, some day, is going to put advertising awards on the proper basis. And that basis is, does it work?"
 
Volkswagen had one of the most popular commercials last year. Yet, how many consumers remember the little Darth Vader compared to how many remember what that Volkswagen car looks like, or what model it was?
 
This year, I’ve decided to create an advertising matrix that puts Super Bowl commercials to the test. There are four key elements that make an effective Super Bowl commercial: attention-grabbing, entertaining, brand promotion, and brand recall. A commercial must grab the consumers’ attention, entertain them while promoting the brand in a relevant (and effective) way, and consumers should remember the brand at the end of the game.  If one of these elements is missing, then the commercial will have failed to fulfill its purpose.
 
To download the Super Ad Matrix for yourself, click here (or, you can find it on Google Docs by searching for "Super Ad Matrix"). And, come back after the game to report what you felt was the best commercial based on your findings.

your brand narrative

Your brand is a narrative about your product. Just as an author uses words to build his story, brand managers use a series of brand signals to establish the narrative. And, just as there are many genres in literature, there are several genres of “brand stories” in the marketplace, particularly among beers.

The competition among brewers is amazingly fierce. The market for their products isn’t growing; therefore, expanding their share of the pie is the only way to move the needle on sales. This makes their brand story especially important because they must change consumers' tastes for competitor brands — no easy task.

Enter Coors and Corona.

Coors' latest offering to its product differentiation is the temperature bar on the label of their can. It turns blue when the beer is cold. Asinine? There isn’t a better definition. But, wait! Coors recently introduced a second bar, indicating whether beer has gone from “cold,” to “super cold.” (It was easy-pickings for Breckenridge Brewery.)

Meanwhile, Corona Extra’s “Find Your Beach” campaign is running strong. In these spots, Corona drinkers are shown to be on a beach, mentally, no matter where they are. For example, one of the latest spots features a man drinking a Corona on a beach when a Stewardess pushes a cart up to his chair. The shot switches to the man sitting on a plane. He found his beach, a mile above the earth.

One brand wrote a children’s novel. The other wrote War and Peace.

Cramer-Krasselt, who is Corona's agency of record, wrote that the “Find Your Beach” campaign is built for “further evolving the [Corona] brand's iconic campaign to extend the ‘Corona Beach’ from a physical place to a state of mind.” "What we want 'Find Your Beach' to do is literally show that the beach is where you make it," said Marshall Ross, executive vice president/chief creative officer, Cramer-Krasselt.

On the other hand, Coors’ “Bar Exam” spots pushes consumers to consider if drinking the beer will make them dumber.

When writing a story for your brand, consider what you hope to accomplish when the story is finished. It’s important that you create brand narratives that buttress what you want consumers to feel about your product.

The example to follow in this case is Corona. Instead of opting for a cheap trick, which has become the latest trend among the Big Three (Bud Light’s “write-on label,” Coors’ temperature bar, and Miller Lite’s vortex bottleneck), Corona chose to create a narrative that moved the souls of consumers and reinforced the power of escapism that has become a centerpiece of the brand.

sometimes, we just get too creative

It's said that too much of a good thing is bad. Moderation is the key. It's what keeps us sober, and keeps us healthy. However, moderation is also helpful in restraining our creative juices when it comes to advertising. Because, sometimes, we just get too creative for our own good.

Case in point is a recent ad for Eastpak created by WE ARE FROM L.A. As Richard Becker, president of Copywrite, Ink., puts it, the product is a copywriter's dream. The backpacks have a great reputation for durability. They a military hook. And, they have a certain retro-chic design that is the fashion du jour. Basically, putting copy together for this product is like a being thrown a fastball right down the center of the plate. Knocking it out of the park is just a matter of swinging the bat.

It could have been a great campaign. "Instead, the newest ad campaign from Eastpak is a great example of how more and more advertisers think they need to draw attention to themselves instead of the products they peddle," says Becker. Rather than focusing on the backpacks, the ad features young adults throwing themselves off of a building in a game of human Tetris.

Creative? Sure. Clever? Maybe. Effective at selling backpacks, or increasing brand awareness? Not even close. "They don't even bother to land on the backpacks that are among the toughest in the industry," Becker remarks.

Creativity is an advertising technique. It is a means to an end, with the end being a consumer response. In the case of the Eastpak ad, the creativity of the ad ceases to be a means to an end, and becomes an end itself. When creativity begins to overshadow the product, the brand loses.

There is no doubt that advertising has become increasingly more difficult in modern times as consumers are bombarded with more and more ads. And, it is more difficult to get their attention as a result. But, the general premise of advertising remains the same: "We sell, or else," as David Ogilvy once put it.

Ads don't have to be boring, but they do have to be effective. They have to have a purpose beyond entertainment. That is, once you have someone's attention, do something with it. Sell to them. After all, a sale is worth more than a laugh.

the man who walked around the world

(Agency: BBH)

This is fantastic. Lots of copy. Shot well. Entertaining. Makes me want to buy more Johnnie Walker.

From director Jamie Rafn:

"To convey the relentless spirit of the men who created, arguably, the world’s first global brand, we decided to create the longest tracking shot in advertising history. The film was deliberately constructed to make it impossible to hide any invisible cuts. Risky stuff. We also decided very early on that only Robert Carlyle had the skill and charisma to tell this story. As the light failed on the second day of shooting, with only 1½ useable takes in the can, the incredible Mr Carlyle nailed it on his 40th and last attempt."

Creative Credits (h/t Adland.tv)
Agency: BBH, London
Agency Producer: Ruben Mercadel
Creative Director: Mick Mahoney
Senior Creative / Copywriter: Justin Moore
Art Director: n/a
Director: Jamie Rafn
Production Company: HLA, London
Producer: Stephen Plesniak
Director of Photography: George Richmond
Post Production & City: Glassworks, London
Editor & Company: Kate Owen, Marshall Street Editors, London
Shooting date: July 2008

ad humor: go whole-hog, or don’t do it at all

David Ogilvy, arguably the king of Madison Avenue, was no fan of humor in advertisements. He believed purchasing a product was serious business for consumers, and using humor as a technique more times than not undermined the effectiveness of an ad.

He had a point.

Tonight I had the TV on and a 30 sec. new spot for Wheat Thins came on:


(Agency: The Escape Pod)

This is a perfect example of how the humor angle undermines, if not altogether kills, the effectiveness of commercials if not done correctly.

What about that commercial was designed to motivate people to buy Wheat Thins? When the commercial was over, I was more confused than anything. My reaction wasn’t, “Oh, that’s hilarious that Wheat Thins did this. Let me go buy some.” It was, “What is she going to do with a pallet of Wheat Thins.”

Even the "victim's" face said the same thing.

Dropping a pallet of Wheat Thins off on an unsuspecting consumer is hardly a call to action.

I suppose one could make the argument that the commercial was not designed to sell product necessarily, but to increase brand awareness on social media. “So go ahead and tweet, post, blog, upload or text about Wheat Thins...we dare you,” says EP’s site.

But, is paying for a 30 sec. spot just to spark chatter on Twitter worth it? That’s a lot of money to pay for brand awareness on a social networking site that has only a fraction of the use as, say, Facebook.

Secondly, as McDonalds found out, pandering to Twitter is a dangerous game.

Here are a few recent tweets regarding Wheat Thins:

@Princessasuzy21: Have u seen those super fake wheat thins commercials? U can totally tell theu're fake!

@vdaze: I can't even tell you how pissed I'd be if someone just dropped off a pallet of Wheat Thins at my front door and left.

@ImTashaHOE: What the hell is that girl suppose to do with all those Wheat Thins SMH

The concept of the commercial isn’t all bad. It would make a great online campaign. And, it could be done for a fraction of the price not having to pay for ad time.

If Wheat Thins really wanted to do a television commercial, they should have either gone for the gold with humor, or stuck to something more relevant to the product (a wheat thin is a very humorless thing). They could have spent 30 seconds on positioning Wheat Thins as the healthy alternative to chips.

Boring? Yes. Effective? Much more so.

This is not to say that humor can’t work. Allstate is doing a great job with a hilarious series featuring Dean Winters as “Mayhem” (agency: Leo Burnett). Several of the spots are gut-busters, and the copy itself is very good. While making people laugh, the commercials motivate consumers to check their insurance policies to see if they are covered in the featured situation.

The key to the series' success is that Burnett's creative team went whole-hog on making it funny. The Mayhem commercials are a little weird and a little dark. And, it paid off.

And that's the thing: If you’re going to do humor, do it. Get weird. Get original. Don’t sell yourself short or you’re just going to waste a boatload of money on an ad that’s instantly forgettable.