Media Curmudgeon: Game 17, Commercials 3

« "Yes We Can" Video | Main | Ailes Assails Whiners »

February 04, 2008

Game 17, Commercials 3

Usually the commercials are the best thing about the Super Bowl, but in Super Bowl XLII, when the underdog Giants beat the Patriots with a white knuckles 83-yard touchdown drive with less than two minutes left, the commercials were thrust into the background.

Many sports analysts and fans are saying that it was the most exciting Super Bowl game ever, in spite of the relatively low 17 – 14 score. And some advertising critics are calling it one of the worst Super Bowls ever for commercials, but I wouldn’t go that far.

Advertising Age critic Bob Garfield’s review of the commercials is highly critical and downright depressing. He accuses advertisers of homophobia, scaring children, insincerity, and worse, pandering to “young males' masturbatory fantasies.” This is the same Bob Garfield who conducted an unprofessional ambush interview last March with Bill Gates and who has a website and blog titled ComcastMustDie.com detailing how he hates his cable provider, Comcast, because it didn’t give him the service he thinks he deserves as a lofty media star (columnist for Ad Age and co-host of “On The Media,” one of my favorite programs on WNYC and the best media criticism program on radio or television, in spite of Garfield’s often snide approach). Garfield has become too full of himself and too serious, and a pontificator -- bloviator is next if he doesn't lighten up.

The New York Times’s Stuart Elliott has a much more enlightening and less angry review. I recommend it.

I was offended by only two commercials by the same advertiser, SalesGenie.com. The company wasted money on silly, poorly produced commercials for a product that no one could figure out what it did. I liked several commercials: Budweiser’s Clydesdale and Dalmatian spot, Fed Ex’s giant carrier pigeon spot, and Bud Light’s cheese-run spot. USA Today’s AdMeter rated the Budweiser Clydesdale spot and the Fed Ex spot as the two most popular – both ads were one-minute long, something unusual for television commercials these days. In fact, there seemed more 60-second spots this year than ever: Ad Meter #7 Coca-Cola, #8 Max Diet Pepsi, #13 Vitamin Water, #18 the NFL’s uplifting Chester Pitts spot, and #21 Pepsi’s Justin Timberlake spot.

By my count, there were about 57 commercials in the pre-game show and game, not including local breaks. Tied for the number-one category were non-alcoholic beverages (soft drinks, vitamin water, Gatorade) and movies, closely followed by autos and beer – clearly the Super Bowl is a mucho macho advertising delivery vehicle, which is, essentially, what it and all commercial television is, except this year there was a great football game between the commercials.

Perhaps the networks and advertisers will take a lesson away from Super Bowl XLII and consider putting more compelling content between commercials and running longer commercials that tell us a story, entertain us, and inoculate us with warm feelings about their brand. Let’s hope.

Posted by Charles Warner at February 4, 2008 12:33 PM

Comments

digibandit at February 4, 2008 04:42 PM writes:

i hear that Fox wants to sell ads on the players and refs uniforms next year - you know, like the Nascar advertising.

Also - the cheerleaders will spell out websites for the dot com crowd - and the audience will also be involved with a Myspace cross promotion where Individuals will wear shirts with their Myspace addresses and viewers can decide to follow up on-line.

And if they have a smart phone they can email or text dirty messages back and forth with these new friends during the game.

And- of course - every fan in the stadium displaying his email address and/or cell# can receive special offers during the game from advertisers "Hey why not stop at Shorty's on route 95 and check out the topless hotties on the way home"

You get the idea - boy what fun!

ThomH at February 4, 2008 03:27 PM writes:

Great review on the spots. I would also like to comment that I noted far fewer attempts to lure us ad watchers from the boob tube to the net for "Part 2 Ads." In fact I can only recall one: GoDaddy.com which asked us to go to the website site to "see it all" in regards to Danica Patrick.... who frankly is a not very hot C-lister.

A few years back, perhaps 2001, it seemed like every single commercial was a Dot Com ad. And then after the bubble burst, you could hear this collective sigh of relief that there were virtually no Dot Com ads anywhere to be seen during the SuperBowl.

Then, all of a sudden back in 2006 and 2007, advertisers put value back in the one-two-punch of th web. They would show ads and then tell us essentially, "go see the rest of the story on our website..." I have to believe that not very many people actually did that, because as a result, this year's ads didn't seem to ask us to get off our giant fat asses to go online for more. As much time as I spend on the net, I would still feel like a substantial dork telling my football party friends, "guys, I'll be right back... I am going to check out the website we just saw on TV."

The one ad that did, GoDaddy, asked us to see more of Danica Patrick on their website. Well, being male, er um, being in advertising, I did go to their site this morning to take a peek. (Honestly I had forgotten about the ad. I only went to the site following my own review of the ads on YouTube, and then clicked over to GoDaddy when reminded.)

And the votes are in: Big let down. Stupid commercial. Old school childish humor. And no tits. Plus, who the F*&^ is Danica Patrick to Mr. Average Joe? Nobody gives a shit. They'd be a lot better off requiring an "I'm 18 and I agree to not sue because of the dirty porn I am about to see..." then show some boobies, and then let me click a button to send the link to friends. Still stupid and childish. But quite viral among the target demo nonetheless. And just think of the long-term media value from religious right wing protesters!

So it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and I suspect even fewer people will go to the net for future "Part 2's." And that's too bad considering the web provides far more value-added opportunities to the advertiser, and far more benefits to the consumer, when used in conjunction with traditional media.

Here's a good idea for the NFL Marketing Folks: the day after the SuperBowl, the NFL should run a full page "Ad Directory" in newspapers across the country. It would show a thumbnail of the ad, company name, product name, a few features and benefits, and a basic sentence about what you can learn at their website. Inclusion in the full page ad would be a built-in (paid) added value to the advertisers that are already paying $3M per spot. Readers could check-mark boxes next to each directory listing, and then mail it in to a fulfilment house who would send out promotional junk to interested customers....

Media Curmudgeon at February 4, 2008 02:17 PM writes:

Jesse Kornbluth writes:

If any other business charged what advertising does and came up with work that looked like this year's Super Bowl commercials, you'd be thinking, "Can I make a citizen's arrest here?"

You liked any of those spots? Really?

I thought they made print media look downright brilliant, by comparison.

Media Curmudgeon

Charles Warner writes about the media from a management, strategic, and ethical point of view.

February 04, 2008

Game 17, Commercials 3

Comments

Post a comment