The Super Bowl Spots: What Worked, What Didn't
The Marketing News staff huddled together to talk the Big Game's commercials. All in all, plenty of fumbles, but also a few inspired plays.
Here's where we stand.
John Frank, Editorial Director:
"My favorite was Careerbuilder.com’s screaming woman, crying man. It captured perfectly how a lot of us are feeling (and how we’re reacting) in this economy. Monster.com comes in second for the same reason. I thought it was a bit too gross and less creative.
"Least favorite: Coke and Pepsi ads. They blended together for me, I miss the old days when each had staked out different brand territory. Now they’re both about being happy, and they're both a little vague."
Allison Enright, Managing Editor:
"2009’s Super Bowl ads were remarkable for what they were missing, namely ads for American cars. I saw one decidedly uncreative Dodge ad pushing its employee pricing plan, which, in my opinion, seemed like throwing away $3 million because it felt the same as every other car ad on TV lately. The expectation of the Super Bowl audience is higher for these ads and this didn’t deliver. No GM. No Ford—although the Toyota Tundra ad seemed to follow the “Built Ford Tough” model. I did, however, think the Audi ad featuring Jason Statham was cinematic good fun. The Hyundai ad touting its ‘car of the year’ status to other car company execs and their culture-perfect reactions made me smile."
Piet Levy, Staff Writer:
"Only two spots last night had me in stitches. The first - Careerbuilder, naturally. But I also thought the Denny's Toughguys spot was hilarious. Here's an ad that's as simple as can get - no visual effects, no crazy edits, no big stars - and it was far funnier and more creative than a lot of the other ads that tried way, way too hard."
"The flipside of that was the Monsters Vs. Aliens/Sobe 3-D spots. The concept did have viewers across the country with goggles in hand, ready to watch. But the 3-D gimmick was a vast disappointment, and the creativity on display (Dancing footballers? Really?) was totally one-dimensional."
So, Marketing News readers, what spots did you like? What spots did you hate?


Comments
Shouldn't the true measure of what worked and what didn't be the sales that resulted from the ads? Clever, cute or otherwise "creative" material is meaningless if it doesn't drive revenue. For example, if awareness, visiblity, online chatter doesn't lead directly to SoBe selling more flavored water in Q1 than projected (at least over the cost of the ad) then it failed, no matter what people think of its creativity.
Posted by: Harris Spencer | February 3, 2009 12:02 PM
While I agree with your assessment about the creative execution of the ads, what really counts is if the ads sell more stuff. That won't be known for a while. Chances are the GoDaddy ad did drive people to their site to see what else Danica Patrick was going to do in the shower. It was measurable. It wasn't brilliant cinematic execution but then again it didn't need to be.
Posted by: David Daniels | February 3, 2009 3:28 PM
What about the Bud in the office add? People in the offices are talking about it. It is a good point to say that true measures of these ads are the next recent measurable, but I believe long-term brand identity and positioning can be benefited from Superbowl ads.
Posted by: Paul Krabbenhoft | February 4, 2009 7:02 AM