SCHMITTblog

Super Bowl Ads Go Online – or do they?

Many in my family tuned into the Super Bowl on Sunday to watch football.  But I fall into the reported 36% of Super Bowl fans who tune in each year primarily to watch the advertisements.

This year, advertisers paid $2.7 million for each 30 second slice of air time, but you didn’t have to turn on your TV for a minute to catch them.  YouTube, AOL, and MySpace provided online sites where you could watch the entire roster of ads and vote on them.  I’m sure SCHMITT wasn’t the only marketing guru to cancel their annual Super Bowl party this year as a result (Schmitt went to a classical music concert, and caught the ads online, like me).

But did the Super Bowl ads really make the transition online – to the new world of networking sites, user content, and interactive media?  Leading up to the game, there was much buzz about how advertisers were “exploring new ways to bring their ads online… to make [their] steep investment go further.” (Wall Street Journal)

But almost without exception, the advertisers failed to use their TV ad as a jumping off point for an online experience – one that could be more interactive, engaging, and potentially sales-driving.  (A notable exception was the super-tacky GoDaddy.com, which created a “censored ad” that you had to go to their site to watch.) Even user-generated ads were on the decline, with a single Doritos spot.

Instead, the ad agencies fell back to their old habits of telling 30 second “stories” about a brand, hoping that a tale of goofy cavemen, noble clydesdales, or aphrodisiac peanuts would make you think their brand was “funny,” “inspiring,” or “irresistable.”

We’ll continue the discussion this week as part of the BRITE ’08 conference and CMO summit on branding, innovation, and technology at Columbia, February 7-8th.  Bob and other marketing leaders from G.E., SAP, Fox, and more, will be discussing what the new models are for building brands in an age of interactive media.

For now, I’d give the Super Bowl ad line up a B+ on creativity, and a D- on catching the new media paradigm.

- David Rogers

Madison Avenue reveals the Superbowl subtext

Now, that the third quarter is almost over, it's time for a summary assessment of the ads so that I can focus on the game. I did not like much; this was not a stellar year of Superbowl advertising. The Chevrolet ads were notable for being not as bad as the Ford and Toyota ads (are the Japanese now learning advertising from Ford?).  Coke has marked its Superbowl return with spectacular animation that nonetheless left me kind of cold -- but I guess I am not the target segment. Most interesting in a way was the Snickers ad featuring two male mechanics drawn into a passionate kiss via a shared candy bar -- thus revealing the homoerotic subtext of the football game (come on, can there be a more gay sport than football with all these guys jumping on each other?). 

What a difference five minutes makes

Now the Colts are scoring ... and the Bud Light ads are getting better.  Love that slapping commercial!

Wie deprimierend

It's now ten minutes left in the second quarter.  I came to root for the Colts and for great and brilliant advertising tonight. I am afraid this may not be the night for either one ...Wie deprimierend (how depressing)!

Are Consumers Winning Out?

The Consumers at this years Superbowl had a great first play (just like the Bears' touch down by Devin Hester in the first 14 seconds). I much preferred the Dorito consumer-generated ad (http://www.snackstrongproductions.com/) to the Bud Light ad that preceded it.  We'll see how the consumer vs. ad agency competition plays out over the evening ...