Advertising Strategy and Grading Super Bowl Ads
[Above, snapshot from Tide's Channel on YouTube]
Every year, in February, some of the leading American and Global brands spend millions of dollars for 30 seconds of your time. They want to amuse you. They want to make an impression. And they hope that you will become a customer of theirs.
This year, it was no different, with everyone from Subway (sandwiches) to Tide (detergent) to Dodge (with its Ram truck) spending anywhere from $3.7m to $4m+ this past weekend for a chance to sell you on whatever they are peddling.
Obviously, some of the ads worked and some did not.
They “worked” because they were funny, memorable or otherwise caused a reaction in the minds of viewers that may last a long time. But from the viewpoint of those throwing money at CBS, what defines a successful ad?
For this, I turn to my alma mater, who posits that a “successful” ad must do 6 things (link to the “ADPLAN Framework” if you want to look at this more closely, along with examples)
- Attention – We all know what this means…some web hosting companies, with their outrageous ads, know how to get this, for sure – but fail on the other criteria below
- Distinction – Two snack companies have a great ad, each…but can consumers later recall which one was which?
- Positioning – Its not enough for consumers to recall the ads …but they must end up preferring one over the other
- Linkage - The ad is great, funny and distinct…but it doesn’t do enough to link it to the brand. So 3 weeks or 2 months later, customers can’t link the ad to the brand or product. Result? $4m down the drain.
- Amplification - Our reactions to things we see are not limited to or by, that moment in time. Tomorrow, 3 weeks or 2 months later, we tend to mull over things some more and form more opinions and thoughts. So ads must make sure this post-ad “amplification” results in positive impressions.
- Net Equity - How successful (or unsuccessful) an ad is, in terms of reinforcing or building upon a brand’s “equity”?
Still here?
Great…now, on to this past weekend’s Super Bowl and the Kellogg team’s (headed by Clinical Professor of Marketing, Tim Calkins) assessment of the ads, in video form (4.5 minute segment).
Or if you prefer reading, you can read what the Kellogg Super Bowl Advertising Review thought of some of the more high profile brands and their ads, here. A quick sampling of the type of analysis that can be found at that link:
Tide (Grade – A)
Tide topped the list this year with a very engaging spot about a Joe Montana stain. Going into the game, we weren’t sure the spot would do well since the branding is late; Tide shows up just at the end of the commercial. But the ad had tremendous breakthrough. In addition, since the ad focused on a stain people quickly connected it to Tide, the clear category leader. This sort of ad wouldn’t work for a smaller brand but for Tide it is a huge win.
BlackBerry (Grade – D)
BlackBerry received the lowest score from the Kellogg panel this year. This is unfortunate because BlackBerry really needed a strong performance to reverse the brand’s negative trends.
There were two big problems in the BlackBerry spot. First, branding was weak; it wasn’t clear who was advertising. Second, there wasn’t a benefit; the spot talked a lot about what the product didn’t do but little about what the device could do. Why should we use a BlackBerry? We wish they had given us a reason.
And a PDF list of each ad’s grades can be found here.
Finally, the video:
Now, on to more Super Bowl “business” news and analysis!
Guess what? GoDaddy had its biggest sales day after it ran its “terrible” ad:
http://bit.ly/VBGdlZ
So I guess “attention” and shock-value do work…