Another incidence of recent pop culture overflowing into the industry:
This Gatorade spot, which remixes Muhammad Ali's famous promise, reflects a new-ish music trend. Mash up artists, previously confined to mixtapes and YouTube, are carving out a niche in the mainstream. They range from Joe Somebodies who have the software to throw together some tunes (that may or may not be copyrighted) in their respective dorm rooms to famous acts like Greg Gillis, aka Girl Talk.
Girl Talk live at Syracuse University's Juice Jam in Fall 2009
What prompted this post was the appearance of some new spots for the NBA which caught my eye (and more so my ear) last month.
I assume the spots come from Goodby, Silverstein & Partners because they are the agency behind the whole "Where...Happens" campaign (which has been brilliant through and through). They remix quotes from the NBA's best players and coaches on various subjects and set them to a beat, with a bit of T-Pain-style autotune for good measure.
Is it an original idea? No. DJ Steve Porter's "Press Hop," which appeared on YouTube last summer, is a very well done and hilarious mash of famous press conferences given by various players and coaches, and is done in the exact same style. I wouldn't be surprised if Goodby had contact with DJ Porter in crafting the NBA spots, although I also don't imagine with today's media technology that it is even that difficult to do. The best of the spots however (seen here) has to be the "Where Defense Happens" mash, because of:
1) The inclusion of aloof Magic coach (and Ron Jeremy body double) Stan Van Gundy (right)
and
2) The inclusion of the only highlights of defense being played in the NBA ever known to exist
The best commercials of the Super Bowl, according to respondents using USA Today's Ad Meter, were as follows:
1. Mars’ Snickers — Guy plays football like Betty White 2. Doritos — Dog puts shock collar on owner 3. Bud Light — Man builds house out of beer cans 4. Budweiser — Fences don’t come in between friends 5. Coca-Cola — African sleepwalker finally gets Coke
The problems with the system are several:
A) The winning commercials all ran during the first quarter, if not the first commercial break. People are expecting funny and will choke on their Doritos laughing at the first amusing thing that happens in a commercial because they are waiting with baited breath for Betty White to get trucked. By the time a lot of the best (in my opinion) commercials ran (like Google's, which many many people thought was the best), people were already bored and were just comparing every spot to the last silly Bud Light ad they saw.
B) The "best" ads reward humor in the opening of the spots, because they'll score highly at the beginning, whereas a good ad does not necessarily need to be funny in the first 5 seconds to be successful. Betty White getting tackled probably got the Snickers spot scoring 10s on the Ad Meter right away, whereas ads like Google's took some time to develop and only would have scored highly at the end (and by people who paid attention).
C) The ads deemed the "best" just means that a room of 250 people thought they were the most entertaining. Good ads aren't always the most entertaining - David Ogilvy started his agency around the idea that the primary purpose of ads was to sell products (or ideas). While branding and entertainment is great, it needs to work toward the purpose of generating sales, which is how the success of advertising is actually measured, whether USA Today likes it or not.
Quite frankly, while I did chuckle at the Bud Light house and I thought it was a decent piece of advertising, it doesn't compel me to buy Bud Light, and therefore I don't think it's among the best ads on the industry's biggest stage.
So, here we lay in the wake of Super Bowl XLIV; New Orleans Saints fans are inevitably just waking up (around 6pm on the East Coast) in the gutters of Bourbon Street and my apartment now reeks of wounded chicken wings and skunked light beer:
I have to apologize for not previewing the Super Bowl ads this year, I haven’t been able to get around to writing anything worthwhile since going back to school, and maybe some of that has to do with having learned nothing about advertising this semester. It has more to do with the fact that I’m probably lazy (ergo the filthy apartment).
This entry will act as a guideline for judging this year’s ads, which on the whole I felt were very sub-par. Even as a lowly undergraduate studying advertising, I know there are several cardinal rules one shouldn’t violate when producing a TV spot, rules that should be held in especially high regard when the spots cost almost $100,000 per second.
I have taken this opportunity to put together what I believe should, from here on out, be the Ten Commandments of Super Bowl Advertising. I will list each of my Commandments, followed by the spot and advertiser that either heeded or violated it in 2010.
I. Thou shalt not save the big reveal for the end
Aside from reaching the “aw, that’s cute” segment of the population (which may be a lot, estimates say up to 60 million people who watch the Super Bowl don’t care about the football part), this spot was rather baffling. Almost 45 seconds of random toys prancing around, and the Kia Sorrento name is not used until the 54 second mark of the ad. By this time, Kia has wasted more than $5,000,000 with nonsense, only to have probably lost you by now. The “big reveal,” as a professor of mine calls it, needs to come early and often so that people know what they’re watching and why it’s important in context, otherwise you might show them an unrelated sponsored short film for a minute. II. Thou shalt not pursue comedy at the expense of your commercial message
Brett Favre humor is great with NFL fans, you know, the other portion of people that watch the NFL’s championship game. Anyone that has watched SportsCenter (or FavreWatch, as I called it) each of the last two summers probably found this spot charming. The problem is that it probably created so much laughter and/or discussion after the first twenty seconds, that everyone missed the correlation with the 10-year warranty and the soothing Hyundai narrator voice. This also violates the 1st Commandment, albeit less severely because it may have actually amused people enough to have them watch it again later.
III. Thou shalt not rehash the same idea from Super Bowl ads of the past
Budweiser Clydesdales get a pass here because they have become a fixture of the Super Bowl, and without simple branding advertising this industry would suck. Teleflora used the exact same concept last year, but the flowers were noticeably less sassy this time around, so not only was the idea recycled, it was actually less funny:
Cars.com also used the same punchline, different story formula: boy-genius knows all and fears nothing, except buying cars. It was cute last year, it smelled stale this year (much like my kitchen, hardy har!).
Godaddy’s sleaze is getting really old, and it’s a shame that Danica Patrick still sinks to this level to endorse the web hosting/domain name giant year after year. They used to create buzz with their “banned” ads before the big game, but now everyone knows that it isn’t even worth it to log onto the site to see the “unrated” web content. Did you really think you’d see NASCAR’s next big thing nude? You have a better chance of seeing Dale Earnhardt pose for a centerfold…Too soon?
IV. Thou shalt not use a divisive figure for a divisive message
I’m going to set aside all of my disdain for Tim Tebow as an athlete and my distaste for pro-life messages when I say this: this ad was done as well and tastefully as possible. Yes, it did get booed at my Super Bowl party. But upon further review, this could have been way worse with all the hype it was getting as some extreme anti-abortion spot that would make liberals shut off their televisions in anger.
That all being said, it still was not a good idea for the NGO to run this during the Super Bowl, because you have the most general pool of an audience included in your 106 million impressions, and many of them will react as my friends did and end up missing your call to action, no matter how gently you put your message. This spot could open the floodgates for political or other particularly divisive advertising, which is typically much, much worse to look at.
V. Thou shalt not waste a celebrity endorsement/appearance
Production costs for Super Bowl ads are often overlooked when people talk about the price tag. It costs a lot of money to produce special effects and CGI and to pay celebrity endorsers to spread your message. I hope this spot is part of a larger campaign for Flo TV where they will feature will.i.am for more than 1 second, and also where they will use less of the Who. I’ve had my fill of My Generation and of Pete Townshend windmills for years to come.
VI. Thou shall use cute children with adult personalities
eTrade does not get in trouble for reusing the same idea because generally they are all still funny. They made the mistake, I thought, of saving the funniest for the post game show, but I assume most gluttonous Americans weren’t willing to rouse themselves and change the channel when the clock hit 0:00, so they probably got a good chunk of the full ratings points anyway. The kid in the Doritos spot was excellent, and this ad to me stood out amidst a sea of Doritos endorsement.
VII. Thou shalt not remind people how much money you spent on the Super Bowl
Stoners everywhere rejoiced at the success of their stereotypical favorite brand, or at least one must assume the Frito-Lay brand is doing well, given the fact that they probably spent close to $10,000,000 (yes, ten million dollars) on Super Bowl ads and sponsorship combined. They ran four 30-second spots and had their name elsewhere during the game. The casual buzz stopped being about how funny the ads were (mildly funny, in my opinion) to how much freakin’ money they spent on all the spots. Recession be damned!
VIII. Thou shalt not depict unattractive people in their underpants
This would not have made the list if not for multiple infractions this particular year. Since when did showing Joey and Janie Baggadonuts in their respective underpants become funny? Also, who still wears tighty-whiteys? The sumo diapers are not much better. At least the Dockers ad had a good jingle…
IX. Thou shalt not use a catchy jingle that doesn’t rhyme
There was a lot of buildup for this spot, in which Sir Charles Barkley channels his inner Shakespeare to explain the NBA $5 Box from Taco Bell in verse. The humorous value of the commercial lies in the awful poem, but it is clear that Chuck has fought to maintain his alias as “The Round Mound of Rebound,” and it hasn’t been by eating off the Fresco Menu.
X. By all means, thou shalt do something completely ridiculous
Or so a recent viral attempt from Nestle would have you believe:
OK, OK, so there's no way it's real. Not to say the 17-year old Olympic champion (Gold Medal in the '08 Woman's Balance Beam and Silver in the Woman's All Around) couldn't do what this video apparently shows, but obviously no one would let her risk her career to promote Crunch bars. Except apparently American speed-skating champion Apolo Anton Ohno, who is the male in the video that dares her to do it.
The video is meant to promote the Crunch Challenge, which from my limited research appears to be a facebook application/game meant to get people excited about the Olympics and their natural counterpart, Nestle Crunch bars.
Sure, I'll sign up for it, of course on team Crispies, because:
Shawn Johnson is the captain of that team. She's cute and I was rooting for her to beat Nastia Liukin all of Summer '08
I didn't see Apollo hold up his end and skate down the bobsled course
The Summer Olympics are approximately 50 times more exciting than their Winter counterpart
The idea of a celebrity jumping over something ridiculous to promote a product isn't new, and I'm not even thinking back to the days of MJ. Less than two years ago, Kobe Bryant supposedly used his Nike Hyperdunks to jump over a speeding Aston Martin:
Real or embellished, I think the somewhat ambiguous viral video can certainly help your cause, especially when you're using generally well-liked celebrities. They generate a lot of free buzz, and you have to imagine the people are happy to do it, especially people like Apolo Anton Ohno, who was just beside himself because the people at Nestle actually knew who he was.
By the way, a nice after-Christmas gift idea for me, if anyone is looking:
The Shawn Johnson Wall Cling. For some reason, Rachel didn't get this for me.
Blame it on the changing advertising landscape, the poor economy, or whatever variable you please, but Pepsi, the second largest Super Bowl advertiser in the last 10 years, will not be advertising its drinks during 2010's game.
The company says it wants to focus the would-be Super Bowl budget on online work and a more "refreshing" campaign.
"In 2010, each of our beverage brands has a strategy and marketing platform that will be less about a singular event and more about a movement," said a Pepsi Co spokeswoman, Nicole Bradley.
This is really a two-fold shame, one because it is a big blow to the world's biggest advertising platform (it has always been thought, "gee, where else can I plan on a guaranteed 40+ Nielsen rating?") and also because Pepsi's spots during the big game are often damn good.
A recent retrospective of some of the best:
2009:
2008:
2007:
2004:
Not to say that online/viral is a bad idea, because it isn't (John is always there to call me on these things). Everyone can benefit from online and new media efforts. My beef is that this is a blow to one of the only platforms where people actively seek out advertising, which is almost a priceless added value (actually not priceless, 30 seconds is going to run about $2.5 million this year).
Is the Super Bowl in trouble? No. They've sold about 90% of available time to this point. They'll sell it out in 2010. It'll be interesting to see how much, if at all, the astronomical cost for these ads drops in coming years because of a waning economy or just because of lack of interest.
Sometimes I forget about Reebok, and I feel bad about it. The little brother brand in the athletic footwear category seems like it's always playing third fiddle to Nike and adidas. They've been unsuccessful as of late in divergent brand efforts that have just clouded their own image.
Ads like this one are what Reebok should have always been about, political correctness be damned. Reebok started as a running shoe company (Reebok is an African term for Gazelle) and in the 50s began focusing on women's fitness, a category which they dominated while they stuck to it. This should be a remarkably large category, given that most women at least try to make an effort to exercise, and that most also have a thing for shoes. It would seem (and I'm basing this on anecdotal evidence) that women embrace traditional exercise (aerobics, running, etc) more than men, who would rather participate in competitive sports for their fitness.
This is why Reebok was foolish to ever diverge from this market in the first place. In the 21st century, Reebok has made deals with the NFL, NBA, and NHL to make exclusive apparel including jerseys. Reebok also created the "Rbk" brand, which they called a "street" inspired brand which would feature signature shoes for Jay-Z and 50 Cent. Don't get me started on the Rbk Hockey brand, because I don't understand how Ice Hockey and Jay-Z are related (except that the management of the NHL has 99 problems, wah wah wah).
Reebok was purchased by adidas in 2005 and started to get back on track, primarily because big brother's first goal was to eliminate competition with itself. This left the Hockey brands, which included a total redesign of the NHL's uniforms:
It also left the original focus of Reebok, women's fitness and running shoes designed for those people not striving to be elite athletes. This explains the recent Run Easy campaign, which used the tag "stay fit as you see fit." It was an excellent idea, although as a runner I was somewhat insulted that running could be called easy. Many more people would probably take up running (and, therefore, buy Reebok) if running were positioned as being easy.
So this brings us back to the woman's talking boobs. This is certainly the first effort I've seen by a shoe advertisement to say "they'll give you a better butt" outright. People will certainly complain that it's degrading to women, it's taking advantage of women's bodies, blah blah blah, except that the ad is designed for women. This isn't something for men to slobber over (although I admit I did stop and look when it was on TV).
Overall, I just think it's a cool concept and it's good to see Reebok focusing it's message on what I perceive to be the correct target. Now here's another one to gawk at:
Lebron James' dreams of a 2009 NBA title with the Cavaliers weren't the only casualty following Cleveland's loss to the Orlando Magic in the Eastern Conference Finals. Also destroyed was the potential for some Nike on Nike play between the two best players in the world, and consequently, an epic advertising opportunity for the country's biggest shoe brand.
Of course, the company had been showing the Kobe/Lebron puppet commercials, which portray the pair of superstars as Sesame Street esque puppets talking smack to one another, in order to hype up the inevitable match up in the NBA finals:
Uuuuunfortunately for Nike and for funny commercial loving folk everywhere, the campaign must now die a quiet, painful death as King James will not be participating in the Finals. In his stead will be Dwight "Superman" Howard and his Orlando Magic. As great a character as Howard is...
...you won't be seeing him in stuffed, stringed effigy form. Howard is a spokesman for rival adidas. This poses an unbelievable opportunity for the Germans to strike back. Their arch nemesis just had a campaign blow up in their face, and they now have their Super spokesman battling with Kobe and the Lakers. If they can throw something together in time, it'd be an awesome shot at Nike. They have until Thursday, Game 1 of the Finals, to get something on TV, assuming they were forward thinking enough to have purchased some spots.
If not, a giant puppet of Superman in downtown Orlando (or Cleveland, if they were ballsy) would suffice.
As for Nike and the rest of the sports and advertising worlds, we continue to wait for a modern version of Magic/Bird. I'm sure ESPN will do just fine in the mean time.
There were mumblings of rumors that the Buffalo Bills would be getting a new logo to commemorate their 50th season in 2009. Really, they're getting a new patch on their old uniforms, which is a conglomeration of the throwback and current logos, the Tops Friendly Markets logo, and other commemorative nonsense:
Graphically, it's a C. Some things that bother me:
Where did the tan trim come from?
Why the varying font sizes in the dates and the numbers "5" and "0"?
Why does the red stripe with the dates not align with the logo's red stripe?
Promotionally, though, it's an A+ for Tops. Tops is a supermarket chain in WNY that as of recently is the K-mart to the Wal Mart of Wegmans. Anything they can do to hang on at this point is a plus, but a cross promotion with the Bills is huge.
Says Tops prez Frank Curci: “Our partnership with the Bills is very important”
No, really?
But wait, this isn't a two-dog show! Labatt Blue and Perry's Ice Cream are in on it too. Displays for Labatt, the Pilsner of choice of Western New York, will have stations for fans to vote on the all-time Bills team, and Perry's will be introducing a "specially packaged Perry’s Ice Cream that honors the team’s history". I personally can't wait for Orange J. Simpson sorbet...
The assortment of important local companies is cute, but I'm not sure as to the benefit for the team itself. People that shop at Tops and drink Blue are already season ticket holders (check the parking lot at 8:00 AM on gamedays). With the overstatement of the century, here's Pete Guelli, Bills senior VP of business ventures:
"We were looking for a local company that could help us create awareness for this milestone and Tops simply touches more people than any company in Buffalo"
I couldn't tell you the number of times I have been touched by Tops. Actually, I can. Zero. Coincidentally, that's also the amount of times I hope to ever be touched by this guy:
Adam is a graduate Syracuse University's S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications, Advertising '11. He likes to refer to himself in the third person, and he never metaphor he didn't like.
He is pursuing a career in account management. You know, in case you're hiring.
Girl Talk live at Syracuse University's Juice Jam in Fall 2009
