Super Bowl Commercials, Part I

So the Super Bowl has come and gone, and while the game was fine, the things that most of the country is interested in on Super Bowl Sunday are not the score of the game or who won, but food, friends, and commercials.

This year I was very disappointed in the commercials. There were very few that clearly had the big Super Bowl budget and payoff (more on that later in the week). Even in being disappointed, there were a few instances worth talking about. For the rest of the week, I’ll post about Super Bowl commercials. Today, I’m starting with some interesting disappointments.

It seems appropriate that the year when “You” was the Time Magazine Person of the Year, we had several instances of user generated marketing (UGM). Unfortunately, I think the general public proved that those advertising moguls have their jobs for a reason.

The first UGM commercial was for Doritos.

This commercial worked because it was funny on a visceral, animal level. Put less eloquently, “HAHA THEY HURT THEMSELVES.” Disregarding the crappy graphics (because those are great for a homemade commercial), the appeal of the commercial was entirely in the HAHA factor. There doesn’t seem to be any reason for this guy to be driving around with Doritos. In the other notable “HAHA THEY HURT THEMSELVES” commercials, there is a real conceit for every little bit of the damage done.

The other UGM commercial I’m going to talk about was the winner of “Pitch the Best Super Bowl Commercial Ever” Contest. I can’t seem to find a video link for it, but you can view the pitch and read some information about the winning commercial here.

Basically the finished product was every other “I’m so sad the football season is over” commercial -- fans having to put away their memorabilia, take off their foam fingers, etc.

One question that is begged here is whose fault is it that these commercials are so crappy?

If these commercials are truly the best of the best entered, then the obvious answer is that the general public, for all our hollering that TV is crap, really can’t do any better. Or, those who can are ineligible to enter, didn’t care enough to enter, didn’t know about the contest, or didn’t have the material or personal resources to enter.

The other possibility is about money (because commercials are supposed to be commercial). Super Bowl ad spots are among the most expensive communications property a company can buy. The sponsor, therefore, needs to protect their financial interests. In doing so, each sponsor chose the “safe” route.

In the former instance, they chose a commercial that almost every person would find funny on a visceral level.

In the latter instance, they chose a commercial that has a familiar concept: “It’s so hard to say goodbye.” Regardless of whether you are a football fan or not, you know a few things:

1. That it’s hard to say goodbye to something you love (universally)
a. Many Americans love football
2. The Super Bowl is the effective end of the football season.

It’s a good combination of familiar sentimentality and relevance to the event at hand. That said, I seriously thought I had seen that commercial before, and if not that exact commercial, then another that had the same concept.

However, nothing is ever so black and white. Here is how I think it went down in both contests. There were several good commercials in the running. They were a combination of creative, funny, and smart in terms of advertising the product.

The sponsors wouldn’t narrow it down to the most creative ones only – creative doesn’t necessarily mean good ... it could be strange, weird, or unfunny. You also don’t narrow it down to just the funniest commercials. Although good Super Bowl commercials are typically funny, something that is funny could also be inappropriate for TV or not related to the product. If a commercial is too smart, it could be esoteric and you could alienate your audience. And you don’t have a broader demographic to please at any other time than during the Super Bowl.

I think this last point is really where the focus went after the best commercials were narrowed down. Most Americans enjoy American television just as it is. They don’t ask for more. I’m not saying this as a value judgement (hell, I enjoy American TV), but as a fact. The job of the sponsor is to choose a user generated commercial that appeals to the common American.

For the Doritos commercial: It’s pretty much accepted as fact that network TV caters to the lowest common denominator (Fear Factor anyone?), so this explains the choice of the “HAHA THEY HURT THEMSELVES” commercial. The problem with the Doritos commercial is not that it’s one of those, but, like I said earlier, the conceit is not well planned. This might or might not be the fault of the creators of the commercial – they didn’t have the training, experience, or time of the professionals (or the brainpower professional companies have) who would usually do this commercial – so saying that those creators are at fault seems a bit unfair to me. Let’s say that they did a great job for amateurs. In the end though, I believe this commercial was chosen not only for the “HAHA THEY HURT THEMSELVES” concept, but more importantly because of the flashy, colorful graphics. The commercial pauses 5 times in 30 seconds to show the bag (brand name prominently displayed) and give an adjective of a positive characteristic of the chips. It did the two things the sponsors wanted – catered to the lowest common denominator and advertise the product. That the commercial was eh in general was the fault of the creators. That the commercial was eh and CHOSEN was the fault of the sponsors. Both parties at fault, and because I didn’t see any of the other submissions, I can’t say whether or not the cream of the crop was chosen, and if it’s also the other contestant’s fault.

The NFL commercial: I think this one was chosen more for financial reasons. The purpose of a commercial is to make money – both for the station selling time and the company who owns the product being advertised. The NFL doesn’t need to advertise to make money. People will buy seats regardless. I view this commercial as more of a PSA. The NFL is losing money on it. As said in the article, the other most popular finalist was about a deaf boy at the Super Bowl. That ad, while more original, is also a lot more expensive to film. You need a stadium or a facsimile thereof. It’s a lot easier to get actors, football memorabilia (that the NFL owns anyway) and generic locations. I think it was a financial interest all the way (or at least 90%) The NFL has nothing to lose by putting on a less safe commercial...no one’s going to boycott them.