SuperBowl Advertising Award Winners

Well, it feels like Boxing Day all over again.

So much excitement was built up about this year's SuperBowl ads, and now that it's the day after, we are left to sort through all the gifts - to spend some serious time with the best ones and to re-wrap the crappy ones and send them back.

Here is my take. Enjoy! Comment. Share. Whatever!

1) Just Plain Hilarious Award:

- Best Buy "Ozzy vs. Bieber" (I mean c'mon, they got Bieber to admit that he looks like a girl!)

1.1) Just Plain Hilarious Runners Up:

- Doritos "Best Part" (he licked the dude's pants!)

- Snickers "Logging" (the actors are dinosaurs, but if you're old like me, you get it)

2) Awesome On So Many Levels Award:

- VW "The Force" (just watch and enjoy)

3) Marketing Fundamentals Award:

- eTrade "Cat" and "Tailor" (because they realize that with advertising, frequency and consistency is key)

4) More Damage Than Good Award:

- BMW "Defying Logic" (yup, this ad defies logic - BMW is successful because they AREN'T from USA... yet they go and do this?!?)

5) What the $&%# Award:

- GoDaddy.com "New .CO Girl" (...is Joan Rivers?!?!? Some things can't be unseen)

5.1) What the $&%# Runners Up:

- GM/Chevrolet "Status" (I get FaceBook, but does anyone REALLY want FaceBook updates from OnStar?... something about that just isn't right)

- Coca-Cola "Siege" (they usually get SuperBowl ads right, but I have to admit, I scratched my head on this one)

6) Taking the 'Sex Sells' Concept WAY Too Far Award:

- GoDaddy.com "The Contract" (I'm at the point where this offends me, so no, I won't go to your site to see more)

and the winner is......

7) The Best Overall SuperBowl Ad Award:

- Chrysler "Born of Fire"

I can't believe I gave Chrysler the highest honour, but I gotta hand it to them. They get TV ads. They understand that with this medium, you have to make a compelling brand promise, make it memorable, and glue it to your brand. I see too many ads that say something funny, but not compelling. I see too many ads that are so generic and bland that I have forgotten them before their 30 seconds are up. I see too many ads that are well done, but we forget who made them.

Chrysler got it all right.

They made a very strong statement, and they made it because they know that if they are to survive, they must appeal to the audience to whom the statement was directed. They made it memorable by conjuring up a new concept - that Detroit is back - and reinforcing it with a striking closing tag line: "Imported from Detroit". Finally, they imbedded the Chrysler brand in your memory by spending a good portion of their 2 minutes on the logo, including a fairly impressive, lengthy shot of a Chrysler grill.

It may not end up saving them, but given the challenges they face and the objectives they were surely given, this is the best possible execution. And it's better than the rest.

Soooooo....? Agree? Disagree?

Burger King ad - do you like it?

In this ad, Burger King comes right out and admits they stole their new idea from an existing McDonald's product.



I like the honesty and creativity. I like the bravery. I like the fact that their sticking an idea out there and saying "deal with it". I like that they're trying to stick out from the crowd.

There are lots of reasons it's a terrible ideas as well (imagine you're BK's ad agency, and you decide to pitch an idea where you admit on TV that you stole an idea from McD's - oh, to be a fly on the wall), but I'm on the "like it" side.

You?


TAKEAWAY FOR YOU:

• In heavily competitive markets (anyone know one that isn't?), you have to give someone a reason to buy from you as opposed to your competition. BK took a stab at that by offering theirs for $1.
• Copycat product marketing is essentially admitting that you are lesser in some way than your competition. Just be aware of that and address the issue accordingly.

Here We Go - 2010's Best SuperBowl Ads (and worst!)

Here are my choices for the best SuperBowl Ads in 7 different categories, including "Best All Around Ad" (at the end)... ENJOY! COMMENT!

1) Most Humourous

Winner:
~ Career Builder - "Worst Seat" (the look on her face is priceless!)

Honourable Mention:
~ KGB - "Sumo"
~ Bud Light - "Book Club"


2) Most Effective (at getting the message across):

Winner:
~ Google - "Parisian Love"

Honourable Mention:
~ Coca Cola - "Hard Times"
~ Audi - "Green Car"


3) Worst:

Winner... er.. Loser:
~ Boost Mobile - "Boost Mobile Shuffle"

(Dis)Honourable Mention:
~ Dr. Pepper - "Little Kiss"
~ Miller High Life - "Little Guys"


4) Blatant Teaser to Drive Web Traffic:
~ GoDaddy.com - "News"


5) So Much Promise, But Failed to Meet Expectations:
~ eTrade - "Girlfriend" and "First Class"


6) That the...?!?
~ Taco Bell - "Poem" and "It Rocks"


And the winner is.......


7) BEST ALL AROUND AD

Winner:
~ NFL - "Best Fans"

Runner Up:
~ FloTV - "Moments"



So, what do you think?!?!?

Avatar as an examination of marketing

According to BoxOfficeMojo, Avatar has grossed more than $1.4 BILLION, and counting! There is no definitive answer at the time of writing this, but production costs for the movie appear to be close to $300 million, and marketing costs close to $200 million.

So, here's a question (for which there is probably no answer):

How much would the movie gross if they had spent less on marketing? Or more on marketing? How much would the movie gross if they had spent less on production (presumably weakening the quality of the product)?

This is a very common question - one that we grapple with all the time. Will more marketing lead to enough sales to earn our money back? Is the product good enough on its own to be successful without extensive marketing?

And here's another thing business owners and marketers need to keep in mind: It's possible that the movie would have grossed, say, $1.25 billion with no marketing, putting them $50 million ahead of where they are now (saving $200 million on marketing but earning $150 million less). Would that mean the marketing was a waste? It's tempting to say yes, but think of all the awareness for the movie and for James Cameron and for Fox that was generated!


All marketing has benefits beyond its direct impact on sales.


Remember that as you consider investing in marketing.


Your turn: What's your guess about the box office sales with more (or less) spending on the product or on the marketing?

Auto industry ads suck, and this auto exec knows it!

There are a few bright spots in the auto advertising business (see Porsche), but for the most part, auto ads suck (see BMW). I have often written/spoken critically about advertising in this industry and to my delight, someone inside the industry is speaking my language.

I am referring to Scott Keogh (Audi CMO), who recognized the fact that most auto industry ads are bland, programmatic and ineffective. Audi broke out of the mold this year in a risky, but crucial attempt to be different, to be memorable, and to be successful.

In this video (it's 8 minutes, so I'll summarize) he gives 3 examples of some truly creative creative that helped Audi stand out in the sea of blandness:

1. A powerful campaign (with impactful imagery) that espoused the virtues of clean diesel and defiled traditional fuels and the oil-producing Middle East.
2. A decision to "buy-out" all the TV spots on the three major US networks during Obama's inauguration... but to also agree to simply sponsor the newscasts and run them commercial-free!
3. A documentary, produced by NFL Films, about the Audi racing experience at Le Mans which they pitched (successfully) to ESPN... before they knew how they would finish in the race!

These are three risky, even radical, approaches to advertising in an otherwise tedious market. In advertising, taking a risk is hard, but it's the best way to create impact.

Turns out that Audi's market share is up, and their profits are growing (that's right, I said profits)! Coincidence?

Another topic I write/speak about often is the importance of creativity (see Apple), and this is a shining example.

Well done Scott and your Audi Marketing team.


Your turn: What are your thoughts about auto ads?

Alas, most of the SuperBowl ads were funny

In a previous post I gave credit to the Coca-Cola Avatar spot as the SuperBowl's best because of its quality and its impact on the cola's brand.  

Most of the SuperBowl ads, though, were designed to be funny.  And funny can work too (see my other blog post on that).  Here's my vote for the funniest:

eTrade baby!

This campaign is almost as good as the PC/Mac ads, proving that repetition and consistency can be just as important as content.  If you have the best (traditional media) ad but only run it once, you're wasting your time (unless it's an online viral campaign - another discussion for another day).  If you have an OK ad but run it regularly, you're off to the races.  Even if it's a bad ad, enough frequency will make it effective (see Energizer bunny).

So, funny works, but only if you run it enough that people see it... and remember it.

Have your say: what are the best campaigns in terms of creating a character and running with it (e.g. eTrade baby, Mac/PC)?

SuperBowl ad winner...

What's a marketing blog without a post about the SuperBowl ads!?

My winner is Coca-Cola's "Avatar" spot.

I like the creativity and the production quality, but the real reason I like it is the effect it had on the Coca-Cola brand. Most of the ads were just funny, which is OK, but all they did was build awareness by trying to be the funniest (he with the funniest ad wins the awareness battle). But Coke built awareness (not only with creativity, but also by buying 60 seconds!) AND BRAND image.

They sent out a clear message that says: "the most meaningful peer-to-peer connections happen face-to-face." (I got that from their YouTube page - sums it up perfectly). A powerful message that strengthens their brand positioning as a beverage that is connected with all that is joyous and peaceful in this world (we all remember the "I'd like to buy the world a Coke" ad, right?).

Well done Coke.

Comments? Your favourites from 2009?

See? Market analysis pays off! Atta boy Hyundai!

An "atta boy" goes out to Hyundai today.

They have launched an "Assurance" program, which basically says that if you buy a Hyundai and then lose your job (within a year), you can give it back.

Imagine that!

So here's a company that truly took market analysis to heart. I can see it now - marketing people, agency people and executives sitting around a table begrudgingly reviewing the latest market trend analysis, and coming to the harsh realization that sales are down because people are worried about losing their jobs and being stuck with the car payment. But, instead of blaming company performance on market factors that seem beyond their control, they decided to negate the impact of that factor altogether!

Don't know if it will work, but a brilliant idea, I must say.

If you can't deliver on a promise, don't make it!

Pizza Hut has a new campaign - $6 pizzas every day. They even have a TV spot where someone drags in a "pizza special matrix", implying that you can only get a deal on pizza from certain restaurants on certain days. The other actor then dramatically destroys the matrix, pronouncing that Pizza Hut pizzas are $6, every day. 365 days a year.

Then they say at the end of the spot: "Prices may vary."

WHAT!?!?

You just said prices don't vary! You were quite adamant too.

This bothers me because I'm sure (since I spent some time in a franchise organization) there's some clause or some rule that gives individual Pizza Hut owners the freedom to set their own prices, necessitating the disclaimer. But if you make a claim with such conviction then can't back it up, you damage your brand reputation (remember when Ford said they could make a quality product?). Either refrain from the claim, or force individual business units to adhere to the market positioning.

Brand management is so delicate. Everything you say or do either enhances or weakens your brand reputation. Pizza Hut has done some damage to their brand here.


Have your say: Is a disclaimer statement like that influential enough to sway someone's opinion about a brand promise?

My shortest blog entry

Is it just me, or do the networks time their commercials so that every show goes to commercial at the SAME TIME?!

Are you feelin' me?

Competition at its best

Hockey fan or not, you have to love this story.

This week, CBC failed in its negotiations to maintain rights to the theme song for its #1 TV program - Hockey Night in Canada. The theme song has been an integral part of Canadiana for more than 40 years. Most Canadians could belt out the tune on command, and it has even become an overly popular ring tone for hockey fans across the country.

Now, tempting as it is, I won't use this space to talk about CBC's failure to retain something so critical for their brand. Instead, I am more intrigued - or should I say impressed - by CTV's response. They bought the rights right out from under them! They will use the song for their hockey broadcasts on TSN (which they own). As deft a competitive move as I have seen in recent memory.

Now, readers of my blog will cry hypocricy and remind me that in a previous post, I condemned Kelsey's for using the Cheer's theme song for their new campaign. But wait - this is different. CTV has recognized the importance of the song to viewers, and is wooing them with it. They didn't try to recapture old, expired magic by reviving a popular theme from somewhere else (as Kelsey's did), they just stepped up to the plate when their competitor couldn't. Kelsey's decision to use the Cheer's theme reeked of laziness. This move by CTV is competitive spirit at its best.

Imagine for a moment that, say, The Keg offered a menu item so vital to the Canadian fabric that Canadians ate there just for that reason, and ate there almost every time they ate out because it was that important to them (this dish would likely resemble a donut sandwich with coffee sauce and a side of Molson Canadian). Now let's imagine that someone had sold the recipe to them, and the usage rights had expired. If Kelsey's swooped in and grabbed the recipe when The Keg decided it wasn't worth keeping (ignoring the needs of their customer base), that would be impressive. Just like CTV's move.

Similarly, imagine that CBC dropped the logo for the show - not really that important to viewers. If CTV had picked that up, that would just seem like laziness.

See the difference?

The theme song WAS the show. It was Canada. Forget that it's a theme song, or a logo, or a menu item. Whatever IT is, if it's that iconic, protect it. And if it's available, steal it! Other examples would include Nike's Jordan silhouette, the golden arches (sadly), and the iPod.

Nice move CTV.

A tip for TV advertisers

Does your company advertise on TV? And would the hockey-watching audience be considered a reasonable audience for you to target?

If so, the NHL playoffs are a must-buy for you.

Once a game goes in to overtime, the broadcasters run out of things to say, so they run more ads!

I was one of the few that stayed awake for all 4 extra periods of Sunday's Dallas-San Jose tilt (although don't tell anyone... that's a bit embarrassing), and I kept seeing the same ads over and over.

So there's some free advice for TV advertisers - NHL playoffs!

Funny works. McDonald's offers latest example.

One of the marketing truths is that funny works. The key to marketing tactics is to be memorable and like any really good joke, the funny ones are usually the most memorable.

McDonald's is the latest company to hit the funny bone, with it's mini sticks TV spot.

It works because it is side-splittingly funny, but also because they have obviously made it funny for their target market - the hockey fan (count me in). In arenas around the country this ad is being replayed again and again over a post-game wobbly pop. Marketers (especially marketers of products aimed at the hockey playing audience) dream for this kind of response.

As I sat in the dressing room last night after my weekly old-timers tilt, the most important point of all was raised by my left-winger... that we all remember the company that ran the spot and the product they were promoting. That's marketing utopia.

Have your say: What are the funniest ads?

My other votes:
- Terry Tate (Reebok)
- eTrade baby (eTrade, from '08 Superbowl)

Kelsey's Guilty of Blatant Rip-off

Kelsey's restaurants have launched a TV campaign using the Cheers theme song ("Where everybody knows your name"). Using popular, iconic music for TV spots is nothing new (and can be quite successful - see Nike), but this crosses the line a bit. Kelsey's is a restaurant, and Cheers was a bar. They didn't serve food at Cheers as far as I can remember (and I think I saw every episode).

But for me the main problem is they're trying to steal style. It's a rip-off of a successful brand association. I assume they have the rights to use the song, but why would they? There's no originality in the move, and frankly, it offends me a bit as a fan of the sitcom. Don't steal mojo - create your own. Las Vegas has a new tag line. Imagine if you saw a TV spot that finished off with "What happens in St. Louis stays in St. Louis."

Have your say: Kelsey's using Cheers theme song. Blatant rip-off or deft marketing tactic?

Does Tiger Really Drive a Buick? Appears So.

Athlete endorsements are a tricky game for marketers. Not only is it expensive (more expensive for Tiger Woods than for Tiger Williams), but you need to be absolutely sure your spokesperson represents in some way the values you espouse as a company (think MJ vs Kobe).

Perhaps most importantly, the endorsement only works if we, the consumer, believe the athlete actually uses the product. I keep seeing these ads of Shaq endorsing the Icy Hot back pad, and I just don't buy it. He's got a whole staff of trainers - why would he need a back pad? I don't really believe Gretzky drives a Ford. But I, all of a sudden, do believe Tiger drives a Buick. I didn't until I saw his recent ad (www.buick.com - click on the emblem).

The TV version of the ad is essentially 30 seconds of Tiger talking about how much he enjoys the ride. He sounds sincere which helps, but what struck me is Buick's decision to truly get him to endorse the product. Too many companies simply put their star athlete's image next to the logo (see Tiger's Tag Heuer ads) and expect the association to lead to increased sales. It does, but not as effectively as it could. Buick got Tiger to sit down and, in his own words (it seems), talk about how much he enjoys using the product personally.

Now that's endorsement.

Have your say: What are the best and worst athlete endorsements? Agassi and Canon? Daly and Winn Grips?

A Whopper of a Marketing Gamble

Burger King just decided to join the reality TV / viral marketing / microsite game with its new "Whopper Freakout" campaign (www.whopperfreakout.com). The premise is simple: how angry would people get if they took away the Whopper?

This is a bold play to generate buzz, but how much buzz is really being generated? And at what risk? This actually seems like a lose-lose proposition when you think about it. If you threaten to take it away and no one cares, then what? If you threaten to take it away and people freak out (which was the desired intention it would seem), then you've just made a lot of your most loyal customers mad. Lose-lose.

Here's the bigger point: they tried to create a viral marketing campaign by creating the microsite and utilizing the reality aspect. But the only way to really generate buzz or any kind of viral momentum in this case is to keep the scam going for some time. People would create "bring back the Whopper" blogs and petitions, and BK would be all over the news, which in theory would be the objective. That's an enormous risk, which wisely, they avoided. If you watch the video on the microsite, they reveal right off the bat that it's a gag. Once that happened, the viral potential vanished. It just turned into a weak gag reel that you might see before the previews in a movie theater. Furthermore, in all honesty, the customers really didn't freak out. They were surprised and confused, but no one jumped over the counter.

When all is said and done, they accomplished their objective: to demonstrate that people love their Whopper. OK, I buy that. But they could have accomplished that in many other ways, most of which would have been even more genuine and in all likelihood more effective (think: "How much do you love your Whopper?" contest). The issue I have is that in an attempt to demonstrate marketing savvy, they basically created a gag reel disguised as a viral marketing campaign. I got the message, but the execution fell below my expectations.

But then again, here I sit, writing about it!

What are your thoughts? Success? Gag gone bad?