an interview with paul venables

This week I'm writing an article for The Weekly Surge on Super Bowl advertising. I spoke with Venables, Bell & Partners Co-Founder and Creative Director Paul Venables about his experience putting together campaigns for advertising's biggest night. Venables and his team at VBP have handled Super Bowl ads for client Audi since its first spot in 2008. Since then, Venables helped rip apart the German luxury "aristocracy," campaign, after campaign. In this interview, he explains what goes behind making some of the Super Bowl's best commercials.

How does it feel to see your Super Bowl ad running?

"Having your ad play on the biggest stage imaginable, with millions and millions of viewers across continents, is a pretty darn exciting thing. Usually you're watching the Super Bowl in an atmosphere -- either party-like, or at least there's a spirit of good times and fun -- your ad comes on, and you just wish it could be longer. Commercials are so fleeting in our lives, so you watch a three-and-a-half or four-hour game…so you stole the audience's attention for 60-seconds but that's still pretty fleeting in the grand scheme of things. But it's worth it. It's a fantastic experience. When you go in designing something for the Super Bowl, I think your approach is a little different. There's higher stakes, so maybe you're a little bit more nervous. But, you know the opportunity is tremendous, and you keep kind of pushing yourself to do something great."

Was it Audi's idea to go for the holy grail of TV spots, or did you pitch that to them?

"We pitched that. When we pitched the business, we had a Super Bowl idea at the time. We, with Audi particularly -- this brand was doing all the right things from the product and engineering side -- the world just didn't know about Audi. The world didn't know that they were beating BMW and Mercedes at their own game. So we, with them, worked to shift their media dollars to be in more marquee events; to really stand out -- to create that conversation. And so we've done that from day one. The first one we did, you may recall, was the 'Godfather' spot, where the guy wakes up and instead of the horse-head in the bed, it's the front end of his luxury car. And we put old luxury on notice. That was our stake in the ground: Audi's here, shoulders back, chin up, we're coming at-cha. That was the gauntlet that we through down, and now here we are."

Is that why Audi is a good brand for the Super Bowl? It's not a mass market brand, but it's a brand that wants to get on everybody's radar.

"I think that's exactly it with Audi. They're not a mass market brand. We're never going to compete with the Doritos, and the Pepsis, and the Budweisers of the world, with slapstick humor and the silliness. And that stuff, I love it; it's all well and good. But, Audi has to do both. It has to appeal to the masses, but has to maintain its sophisticated persona. And, that's a trick for luxury brands to do. It's hard. It's hard to do both; something that wins on the Super Bowl with the mass audience, but is true to who you are. I think the Mercedes Benz [Kate Upton] teaser that they released is just a terrible embarrassment for them because they're trying to be…something that they're not. It's really, it's kind of sad."

"They're clearly trying to say, 'Hey, look at us! We belong in the Super Bowl and we can act like Doritos.' But no one wants to buy a Mercedes knowing they're acting like Doritos. You need to keep that allure of the high end premium brand, and still do something creative, provocative, and funny -- whatever your angle is. But, you got to be true to who you are in the Super Bowl. It's just that some of the rules, some of the guidelines, are less rigid. You can push it a little bit more, but you can't step outside and be somebody that you're not."

How do Super Bowl ads compare to campaigns that are otherwise run throughout the year?

"Well I think Super Bowl ads now are campaigns in and of themselves. You have to figure out your pre-Super Bowl strategy; are you releasing other content. You have to create a dialogue online. You have to use social media. You have to create content for social media. Do you do a YouTube channel? Do you launch it all on Facebook? Do you do both? You got a hashtag? We were the first to put a hashtag at the end of our Super Bowl spot two years ago to create a conversation in that regard. You know, how do you play the press angle? The traditional auto press, the USA Todays of the world. And, it's an onslaught; it's an entire campaign with other content created. And, I think that's the value of the Super Bowl. It's not just you buy a spot and you're done. You're basically creating a conversation that has a lot of people involved that lasts from several weeks before the game to several weeks after, and so there's value in that."

Is this a trend that you've seen recently, that Super Bowl ads are no longer a one-and-done campaign?

"Anybody that does the Super Bowl one-and-done is wasting an awful lot of money. It's too expensive to just play the game, hope you do well on some poll or meter, and be done. There's just way too much at stake. It's not a smart investment to approach it that way. I think very few companies do."

Has the style of Super Bowl ads influence advertising outside of the Super Bowl?

"I don't know. That's a good question. I think the Super Bowl in and of itself can be pretty predictable. There's going to be, you know, there's going to be a lot of dogs, I guarantee it. There's going to be some babies. There's going to be men being stupid. There's going to be men being too feminine and soft, who should be tougher. There's going to be slapstick; somebody is going to get hit in the nether-regions. There's going to be horses, probably Clydesdales. There's a lot of predictability, and I think that is comforting in a few ways to America; they have come to expect a kind of certain style of spot, but I think there's a huge opportunity for an advertiser to do something different, and stand out, and win people over with something different.

So, it's more than just slapstick. Do you think there has to be a "prevailing idea" behind the campaign that makes it a 'good' ad?

"Yeah, in my book. And you know we all probably judge the ads with our own value set, but I think you have to have something bigger than the *schtick.* Throwing the celebrity in the ad just because you know you're going to get more followers on Twitter is nice, but it's got to be meaningful. There's got to be an idea there. In fact, I'm interested to see, you know, instead of celebrities, and dogs, and monkeys, and talking babies -- what about good, old fashioned storytelling? A nice piece of film that tells a story that's captivating, that's interesting, that's shot well, that's casted well, that doesn't rely on the usual gimmicks -- I would love to see some more of that on the Super Bowl. Just win with the value of the idea and the storytelling of it."

Do you think a lot of agencies are starting to get that, and move away from the banal, slapstick humor?

"No. I think in a lot of creative departments the call comes to do a Super Bowl spot, and they immediately go, 'Well we have to do something extreme and crazy and gimmicky.' I just think that's still how people approach it. And, sometimes that yields great stuff, but a lot of times I think it leaves people reaching for something that isn't quite worth reaching for, or is shallow because it's a quick gimmick."

From an agency standpoint, what goes into getting an ad ready for the Super Bowl?

"Like I said, we approach it like a campaign. We have strategy specific to the Super Bowl. We work out a range of ideas. I like to have some flexibility going into the creative development to make sure we know of the absolute best thing that's suitable for the Super Bowl and yet true to Audi, in this case. And, so we approach it with a lot of discipline on the front end. What do we want? What do we want to accomplish? There are a lot of ways to measure success. It could just be impressions. You know, we've hit billions of impressions with past ads. Or, it could be the amount of buzz generated, or the activity on Facebook, or the USA Today poll, [or] did you make it on Good Morning America -- or, whatever. And, you kind of need to be clear on what you're going for, and have some discipline and rigor on the front end, and really unleash creatively on a range of ideas, and then put the rigor back in when you evaluate and debate which things have merit and which things don't. So, a lot goes in. Usually a lot of ideas I want to generate. You know with Audi, we can do a brand specific thing that's just really about the four rings, or we could do something about a particular model. The Super Bowl ad that we're running this year features the S6. Or, we could do something about a technology; we could do a Quatro thing, or a TDI clean diesel thing. So, right there, those are three different briefs, really. And sometimes we open it up. We know generally the objective we want to hit, and then we might look at from each of those angles -- product, technology, and brand -- and see what's the best story; what's the most compelling thing for the Super Bowl."

Do you have any all-time favorite Super Bowl ads, other than your own, of course?

"Off the top of my head, some things pop-in just randomly. One is the old 'Mean Joe Green' classic Coke spot from, I guess it was the 70s. I'm pretty sure that was a Super Bowl spot. That was just phenomenal and endearing commercial. The 'morning after' spot -- I forget the name of it -- that Nike did after the 'Y2K' non-event. That was just epic and wonderful…I think '1984' is a great story, but a little overrated. And, I think it was for its time and all of those things, amazing -- it's nothing short of amazing -- but I still don't count it among my favorites for some reason. And, maybe it's just because it's been so hyped over the years."

Some in the industry have suggested that Super Bowl ads are bad for the advertising industry, suggesting that it conditions people into believe that all advertising is like what Doritos typically does during the Super Bowl. That is, putting slapstick ahead of smart ads. What's your take?

"You know what I say to that? Yada, yada, yada. Only in advertising, in the industry of advertising, would you have someone in the industry complaining that the entire world sits up and takes notice of our craft. [Laughs] Give me a break. Now I don't think the industry always does itself proud because I think that sometimes we put a lot of dreck out there on the Super Bowl, [but] I'll take the eyeballs and the attention for one day a year on advertising. …We do a Super Bowl survey every year, and I don't have the numbers in front of me, but it says something like people are just as likely to talk about the ads as they are the key plays of the game the next day, or on Twitter, or during the game. So, it's a day we're elevated to pop culture status and we have to accept that, and we, as an industry, have to do our part which is to deliver the good content. But, to complain that people are paying too much attention to the Super Bowl, or its not what it's supposed to be cracked up to be, or look at our ads for the rest of the year -- you know what, we're lucky they're looking at them that one day."

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 doesn’t need a 'mr. t' strategy

Mr. T is one of the most iconic faces of the 1980s. He was the star of the A-Team, showed-up in the Rocky series, and has done a myriad of commercials over his acting career. His catchphrases reside among the immortal words of other American paragons like Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Paine, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Yet, in spite of Mr. T’s cultural and celebrity prowess, he won’t save your brand.

“American consumers insist that they are not swayed by celebrity endorsements,” reports Adweek on the results of a recent Adweek/Harris Interactive survey. “More than three-quarters [of respondents] answered that it has no impact on their intent to buy.” Furthermore, only 4 percent indicated it would make them more likely to purchase. So, what are brands getting for the millions they spend on “buying” celebrities in hopes they can get consumers to buy? More often than not, nothing more than a wasted advertising budget.

Of course, this should come as no surprise to brand managers. Advertising master David Ogilvy (himself once a cultural icon whose words still serve as teaching tools for young, and old, advertising junkies) wrote in his 1983 book, Ogilvy on Advertising, that celebrities don’t move product. “Viewers guess that the celebrity has been bought,” Ogilvy wrote. “And they are right.” Ogilvy also suggested that celebrities have a way of overpowering the brands they’re advertising, making the celebrity (and, not the brand) the only memorable part of the campaign. Any time that an advertising technique — be it a celebrity, or “humorous” copy — overshadows the brand, it’s not good advertising. It’s even worse when you spend extra thousands, or millions, to secure an endorsement.

Your brand doesn’t need a celebrity. It needs a strategy that’s based on solid branding fundamentals. There have been several famous non-celebrities as “brand figureheads.” For example, Subway’s “Jared,” or “The Man in the Hathaway Shirt.” However, the difference between these individuals and celebrities like Mr. T is that the ad campaigns made Jared famous; Jared didn’t make Subway famous. Their appearances in the campaigns were techniques that enhanced the brand instead of overpowering it. Jared wasn’t a celebrity. He was a product testimonial. Likewise, The Man in a Hathaway Shirt was story appeal.

Would Subway have achieved the same level of success with its “health and nutrition” positioning if they used someone like Justin Bieber? No. Celebrities have access to personal trainers and nutrition consultants. The “testimonial” technique would have been completely lost. And, what would have happened if Ogilvy had decided to use Frank Sinatra instead of Baron George Wrangell for the Hathaway campaign? Would consumers have even paid attention to the shirt? Doubtful.

This is not to say that celebrity endorsements fail 100% of the time. Using a celebrity who is an authority on the industry or product for which he is advertising can be beneficial to a brand. Rory McIlroy testifying to the quality of golf clubs, for example, might be a worthwhile investment. Maybe. At least it will certainly be more worthwhile than Mr. T hawking Snickers.

If your brand is looking to do something with endorsements, try focusing on delivering a solid brand performance to your customers. After all, it’s their endorsement that is the most influential to their friends. Yeah, it’s really cool that for $1 million you can get a celebrity to like your product. And, for $2 million, that celebrity will probably endorse your competitor as well.

Instead of dumping money into expensive advertising campaigns, or buying a head-nod from a celebrity, turn that money back into your business to improve upon things that will really better your brand. Denny’s opted out of advertising in the 2011 Super Bowl, saying they would rather spend that money on programs throughout the year. "It is a very expensive exercise and I don't believe it's necessary for us to continue to put all our eggs in one basket," says Frances Allen, Denny's Chief Marketing Officer, in an interview with AdAge. “We decided to focus our efforts on a broad, multilayer program that we believe better rewards our guests throughout the year, vs. doing a big, onetime push for Super Bowl.”

This lesson is especially apposite for small businesses with limited budgets. Never underestimate the power of smart branding fundamentals that resonate with consumers. There’s more evidence that a solid brand foundation will move product than there is for any endorsement from a celebrity. And, the return on investment is unquestionably higher.

audi v. chrysler; the two memorable car ads of super bowl 45

There were two car commercials during the 2011 Super Bowl that really stood out among the others. They were Audi’s "Release the Hounds" ad by Venables Bell & Partners, and Chrysler’s "Born of Fire" ad (presumably done by Duffey Petrosky Wieden+Kennedy).

The two commercials were unique for how differently they tried to sell their client. One used humor with a clever positioning strategy. The other used a serious tone and tried to use American tradition and nationalism. One worked. The other did not.

I wrote recently about Venables Bell’s new strategy to position Audi as the "youthful" luxury car among high-end German automakers. Without disappointment, they delivered during the Super Bowl with a comedic--but potent--shot at Mercedes. The ad’s theme, "progressive luxury," drives home the message that Mercedes is a relic of stuffy luxury vehicles, driven by posh old men with no taste (or, as the commercial insinuated, sense).



As long as Audi sticks with this positioning, they will surely close the gap in market share and begin nipping at the heels of BMW and Mercedes.

Chrysler’s two-minute ad--the longest Super Bowl commercial yet for the company--was supposed to be the kick-off for the brand’s rejuvenation attempt.

It failed, miserably.



There were so many mistakes in Chrysler’s commercial it’s hard to recount them here. From using a celebrity to sell a product, to strongly tying itself to a city that has come to symbolize American automaker’s hubris and unimaginative styling; there just wasn’t much that they did right.

Most Americans aren’t stupid. They know that the failure of American automakers is largely their own. For decades, they have made ugly cars with horrible reliability. Unlike their foreign counterparts, American automakers continued to pump-out uninspired cars on the presumption that their "American-made" hokum would sell them.

It didn’t, and one of the worst offenders is Chrysler.

Detroit is not an American symbol of hope and change. It is a symbol of failure and lack of inspiration. Tying your brand to that, no matter how hard you try to pull at the heartstrings of Americans, will not work. This is especially true when touting the product line as a luxury vehicle, when at no point has Chrysler ever been thought of as an American luxury vehicle (the brand that definitively owns that position is Cadillac).

Chrysler additionally wasted extra money hiring rapper Eminem to be featured in the commercial. Eminem’s ties to Detroit are most likely unknown except to a small minority of consumers, so his purpose is the commercial was completely lost on the audience. Additionally, celebrities rarely (if ever) move the needle on sales. And, the use of a youth-oriented rapper is definitely not going to help launch a "luxury" brand targeted to adults.

Reflecting on the commercial, I mostly remember Eminem and images of a decrepit Detroit. I don’t remember the product, much less anything that would encourage me, as a consumer, to think any differently about Chrysler than I did before.

For having two-minutes of airtime, I can’t think of a way Chrysler could have wasted it more efficiently other than just to run two solid minutes of dead air.

For a company that has yet to repay its debt to taxpayers for the bailouts it received to keep its doors open, this commercial was an insult. As a taxpaying advertising junkie, it was an abomination.

positioning audi in the german luxury car market

German cars have a lock on luxury cars. And, within that class, Mercedes and BMW are the market leaders. This presents a problem for Audi, who in recent years has done a tremendous job in "classing" up their cars to compete with the luxury offerings of its rivals.

However, hitting the number-two spot is still a long, long time down the road.

Going toe-to-toe with Mercedes and BMW is a fool's errand if Audi doesn't find a position for itself that sets its brand apart from being just another shiny, black German luxury car. Fortunately, I think they've found out how.



(Agency: Venables Bell & Partners)

In 1963, Pepsi launched its "Pepsi Generation" ad strategy that positioned its cola as the choice of a younger generation. In doing so, it positioned Coca-Cola--the market leader--as the "older" cola. For homogenous products like cola, this strategy was a good way to give Pepsi a unique identity in the cola market, while trying to dominate the younger market niche.

If Audi wants to increase its market share, it needs to do something similar. At least Venables Bell seems to get it.

"The 60-second spot takes the viewer on a fantastical journey through a mansion laden with trite symbols of antiquated, stuffy opulence, and says goodnight to the age of gluttony and old luxury, culminating in a Mercedes-Benz S-Class parked in the driveway," says Venables Bell's website.

There is a huge market for luxury cars among the young and wealthy. If Audi can position itself as the "not your grandfather's luxury car" brand, it can swiftly overtake this niche.

I hope Audi stays on this current track.

The "youthful" juxtaposition to the older brands is also much more effective than Venables Bell's last try during the 2010 Super Bowl. It was here that Venables Bell aired a 60-second spot called "Green Police," where it tried to position Audi as a luxury car with a green conscience.

It was a good attempt, but I don't believe most people shopping for a higher-end luxury car are thinking too much of the environment; at least not enough to move the needle on overall sales. So, for being one of the most entertaining commercials of that year, I doubt it did much to further Audi's market share.