"Good morning, good morning,
The best to you each morning.
Sunshine breakfast, Kellogg's Corn Flakes,
Crisp and full of fun."
Kellogg's Corn Flakes TV ad jingle, 1964
K - e - double l - o - double g - Good!
The weekend in 2011 now signals me to pick a topic for the blog thingy. Or, weave a story from my memory or imagination.
Super Bowl weekend is different. I'm starting on Saturday afternoon and won't publish until Monday. My co-workers in whatever office I'm working only want to know the answer from me to one question on Monday morning:
What was my favorite Super Bowl commercial?
Why?
What about that funny Bud Light ad?
OK, that's three questions.
Since 1984, it's seemingly been my duty to not only vote, but to give my marketing rationale. That, of course, was the year that Apple Computer changed the way advertisers viewed the Super Bowl. I had seen the storyboard in the summer of 1983. I was even asked my opinion by the general manager, because I was one of the youngest account executives in the office. I knew it was outrageous. I thought it could change the world. Somehow.
After Chiat/Day's media department "failed" (read: "didn't try") to sell back the million-dollar :60 time slot which ultimately aired a commercial costing just as much to produce in London, one million people lined up at Apple Stores (the old kind) the following week to see the debut of the new Macintosh. That was about $2.00 spent per person. Cheap in any language. Add in the approximate $18 million in unpaid media coverage as the spot ran over and over and over and over - everywhere; and - EVERYTHING changed.
I think it has changed again...
It's now Sunday evening. Almost half-time. I need that break, courtesy the Black Eyed Peas, since I don't leave the couch during the commercial breaks. And, the game has been interesting enough to keep me on the couch. Yes, I've been in this room a long time. I'm not keeping a scorecard of my favorite commercials here - just in my head. I'll know my top three spots when the game concludes. Maybe. It's becoming increasingly difficult with each passing year for me to "choose."
I already know what's NOT working for me. Excessive physical humor as the central storyline of a spot, so that rules out everything for Pepsi Max. Who thinks it's funny that a woman is berating a man for every bad thing he eats (remind you of anyone?), then throws a soda can that hits another woman, then runs away after leaving her on the ground? If the man was doing the berating and the can-throwing, would anyone think that was funny? What?
That spot - and the other two ads in the pool - had nothing to do with the product. If you blinked, you forgot the advertiser anyway.
That's my biggest pet peeve - someone will say "Oh, I LOVED that ad." Then, they proceed to name one of the advertiser's competitors as the sponsor. That's just dumb, Wally.
Anything resembling claymation with a gangsta rapper gets the old, heave-ho; so, I don't really care that Eminem won't do commercials. Although, he almost had me with "Imported from Detroit." One of my Facebook friends quipped that Eminem is the only person working in Detroit. Would be funnier if it weren't almost true. But, I can't root for him any more than I could cheer on Big Ben after his "personally challenging year." Sheesh. And, I'm not buying what he's selling either.
I call anything with a single sight gag automatically out - but, I'm giving the Doritos "Finger" and "Grandpa" spots a pass so far. The culture that has developed around the Super Bowl as it evolved from football championship game to marketing event to national event means that a one-time dose of humor may work better than a more creatively-layered message. Especially, for Nachos Doritos.
But, I'm old-fashioned. (Not old.)
Old-fashioned in the marketing purist sense. I don't mean to be a snob. I can't escape my experience any more than I can escape my gene pool. So, I'm 6 ft. 2 inches tall and think that the best advertising tells a story and makes an emotional connection. I can't escape a belief - an intrinsic value that belongs to me -that, if you're going to burn $3 million per :30 spot to run between the hedges today (that's the space inside the four-hour pre-game show and the 30-minute post-game show, just before the University of Southern California Trojan Marching Band appears on "Glee,"), you'd might as well make a solid point about your brand or product and try to persuade someone in the audience to remember your brand name. And buy your product.
I haven't seen the e*Trade baby yet - any baby - but, it would be difficult even for that crew to top "Shankapotamus." I've never tired of watching them try.
"Just a man and his smart phone - and an e*Trade app" comes really close. Especially when he breaks into "nobody know'd" in basso profundo. My relationship with that smart-mouth baby and his subsequent infant cohorts began on a Super Bowl Sunday. And, we remain close to this day.
So, game over; and, Green Bay wins the Super Bowl for the first time since I worked at Potlatch in the '90's and traveled there on business a few weeks after that win. The trip included a visit over to Lambeau, a twirl by the trophy, and $100 into the cash till of the souvenir shop. Green and gold shirts all around. Which, made no sense at all. We lived in the San Francisco Bay Area at the time, and my husband wondered aloud how anyone in the family was supposed to leave the house in those clothes and get back home safely.
It's Monday already, and my conclusion about the 2011 advertising - even after sleeping on it - is that I didn't see anything great. I saw a couple of things that were "good." A few "OK," and a lot of stupid, silly, and pointless.
It leads me to observe that some of the best advertising on the air right now didn't make it to the Super Bowl. Although, who doesn't like to see an enormous log plow into Roseanne Barr? Everyone knows the Snickers gag now, but it still works. But, there will never be another "you're playing like Betty White."
Sure, a lot of advertisers probably didn't have the money or decided not to spend the money they have this year in this way. Or, it could be something more troubling.
Here's the question I'm asking myself: was the advertising on the Super Bowl last night there to advertise, promote, and persuade? Or, was it there to entertain?
Since the top-scoring spots in the Ad Meter test involved either animal(s) (dog(s)) or kid(s) (including a pint-sized Darth Vader), is the old adage still true? To wit....when you're out of creative ideas, insert *puppy* or *child* (here).
Is that the real reason that I'm so close to the e*Trade babies?
Generally, I now believe that this spectacle is too much, well, spectacle. Not enough game. Not enough real marketing.
Mostly cross-promotions: "Glee" singer from Fox hit show delivers histrionic rendition of "God Bless America" on Fox Sports-aired program. "Glee" advertises short version Chevy ad with "Glee" cast inside "Glee" program as ad on Super Bowl. Then, follows Super Bowl with full Chevy ad inside show as an ad break on "Glee." Are you with me?
Fox fills unsold inventory with ad after ad for their own shows that don't need any extra promotion ("Glee") or the next new show to come to the chopping block. What doesn't fall to the network is dominated by film trailers and other assorted garbage, such as Go Daddy.
The other "problem" for me is that, as recently as three years ago, no self-respecting advertiser would "leak" their Super Bowl spot a week before the big game in the full :60 length. Then, rack up 13,000,000 hits on YouTube and ultimately air the far less appealing :30 version during the game. With multiple social media tools - Twitter and Facebook included in this particular case -- did the advertiser get the same result, better results, or lesser results than would have accrued by running the :60 for the very first time in the second quarter?
I vote that the shock value has a dollar value yielded from emotional value. Otherwise, we're left with the shock value of most of the ad product yesterday: the one-trick joke, the one-time sight gag, offensive innuendo, lots of offensive innuendo, and less (Teleflora).
All of that notwithstanding, the ad tests and ad hoc comments on Facebook suggest that Volkswagen connected with consumers anyway. Either because they deserved to do so in the absolute or because their context in the Super Bowl environment of rubbish polished their brand by default. Or, because their leak favorably predisposed people to wait for it, like it again, and convince themselves it was exceedingly creative.
My opinion is that it is modestly creative. That it trades on the brand equity of an independent property is not a new technique. But, George Lucas isn't credited with the spot today. Deutsch/LA - what else you got?
It works. Probably because it reminded many of us about a time in our own household (recent or not-so-recent) where we messed with our kids' belief system. It's the same theme as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy; it just has a 21st Century twist. Or, does it? I saw "Star Wars" right out of college. Trust me, that is SO 20th Century....
While I was pondering this possibility with Mark last night, he revealed a story about doing something similar with our girls near the Shell station in Pleasant Hill, California. He was sitting in the car at a stoplight with Shannon and Meredith and timed the changing of the light from red to green as he watched the opposing green light change to yellow. He said, "Watch this." Of course, he then counted "...3...2...1," and the light MAGICALLY turned green. Shannon shrieked: "DADDY! How'd you do that?? Do it AGAIN!"
An eight-year-old and a three-year-old thought that either Dad truly was a magician, or that the reward for that yoke of a last name he'd dubbed them was an arsenal of Super Powers. Darth Vadar costume not included.
But, Quick! Without checking on YouTube first, name the featured car model in the VW ad.
If you can't do it - or, worse - you're wondering if I got the name of the car company wrong - perhaps you better understand what I'm trying to convey here.
It also felt like some brands were on the Super Bowl because they thought they were supposed to be there . Or, they were afraid that their competition would be there and they wouldn't, and they wouldn't then sell a few extra cans of sugar water/belly wash to the masses.
I give you the completely pointless ads aired by Coke. The fact that I could discern Coke as the advertiser in both cases well in advance of the reveal suggests that they have definitely found what someone in their organization believes is their tone and manner. That funky fire-breather ad was by Coke in my mind almost too soon.
So, here's the bottom line for me: I'm not sure the criteria I've always used to make my choice can actually be applied to most of the work I saw yesterday. Should I change my criteria and pick the best of the average and think in terms of who used the event best? Or, should I stick to my old criteria and confuse you completely by naming a commercial you don't even remember?
Hmmm.....what to do......
The best advertising I didn't see on the Super Bowl has been airing tonight - Monday night - on ESPN, during the Kansas vs. Missouri basketball game.
New stuff with the Old Spice guy...
The orange pretzel M&M on the couch next to a surly character actor on a show I don't watch...
"Chaos." (Allstate)
"That's logistics." (ups)
"What's in YOUR wallet?" (Capital One barbarians)
"Trouble." (Travelers Insurance) Yeah, it has a dog. But, the dog is the hero and tells us a story.
Did I mention the Old Spice guy?
And, Fight On, Clay Matthews III. Fight ON!!!
P.S. Passat.
No comments:
Post a Comment