Super Bowl Commercial Wrapup

Everyone's dissected yesterday's Super Bowl commercials ad nauseum, but that won't stop me from piling on. The main impression they left was one of, well, insignificance. Perhaps the threat of FTC fines and sanctions had advertisers walking on eggshells to the point of completely losing their creative edges, but I'm going to accuse them of just copping out and using that as an excuse.

Note: All the ads can be viewed via iFilm's website.

Commercials don't have to be R-rated or in poor taste to be effective and memorable. There were at least two examples of that yesterday, with each coming in at the opposite end of the spectrum.

FedEx scored big with its spoof of the "ultimate Super Bowl commercial," wherein it listed the ten factors that make a great SB spot, and then attempting to put all ten into one ad. OK, so one factor was a "groin kick" (carried out by a dancing bear on Burt Reynolds and therefore it was completely forgivable) and another was "attractive females" (but the cheerleaders were quite modest). What made the commercial for me, however, was the item "Product Message," followed by "Optional" in parentheses. I like that sort of self-effacing approach (especially when contrasted with the overly-dramatic and proud offerings by most car manufacturers, Cadillac being Exhibit A).

At the other end of the spectrum was Anheuser-Busch's tribute to soldiers walking through the terminal of an airport and attracting spontaneous and increasing applause from bystanders and airport employees. I couldn't tell if the soldiers were leaving or departing, but it didn't matter. The message of gratitude was clear and moving.

In both of these instances, the ads had nothing to do with the companies' products, but they still managed to make a brand-specific impression.

Of course, the biggest buzz and, I suspect, educational success was achieved by GoDaddy.com with its spoof of the very thing that scared off the other advertisers: a presumed Congressional hearing into the appropriateness of broadcast material. The GoDaddy rep in the ad, a quite healthy young woman, suffered a "wardrobe malfunction" during the hearing, but carried on bravely in the recitation of GoDaddy's product offering. Fox News reported this morning that the ad that was shown was actually the third take (although CNN reports only two takes), with the first two not making through the vetting process for broadcast appropriateness. The final version was designed to look more dangerous than it really was; the commercial was actually more tame than some of the sideline shots of cheerleaders during the game itself. But I have no doubt that GoDaddy had a huge amount of traffic to its website (where the commercial could be downloaded) and many of those who visited it had never before heard of the company or what it offers. Now, whether any of those visits turn into paying customers is another issue.

Comments

I agree. When did "safe" become "not creative"? The Bud frogs, the chimp on a horse in the Dot-com wasteland, and others I could name had no "issues"- they were just good. All the hype, not much substance this year.

Still, I liked a few of them... though they aren't going to get me to buy/try anything new.

With the exception of Anheuser-Busch earning my respect.

Posted by: Jack Grey at February 8, 2005 05:20 AM

Funny how we react to things. We drink Bud regularly anyway, but I now feel a loyalty to them that will be hard to break. I've never bought a beer for the image they promote before, but this is quite a different image!

Posted by: anselm at February 8, 2005 08:57 AM

Anselm, I suppose there will be cynics who accuse Anheuser-Busch of simply being opportunistic, but their support for American troops goes well beyond a nice Super Bowl commercial. Check out "Hero's Salute," which is an A-B program that lets military personnel and their families go to the company's theme parks for free during 2005.

Posted by: Eric at February 8, 2005 09:26 AM
Post a comment [Take your time...we're in no hurry.]









Remember personal info?