Why Aren't Super Bowl Ads Getting Buzz This Year?
A conundrum for a mixed-up world…there’s buzz this year about the lack of buzz around the Super Bowl.
The other day I saw a link that said, “Watch the TV commercials today you will be talking about on Super Bowl Sunday.” I tweeted that quote that and added ….so starts the annual Digibabble Bowl.”
The truth is that, in the past few years, the ad industry couldn’t get enough of hyping the so-called pre-release of ads online, creating a false frenzy of lust for thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of likes. And it started a GMOOT (give me one of those) reaction among advertisers.
But, as I like to say, digital is everything, but not everything is digital.
I’m still trying to understand what a pre-release means. Frankly, if you believe in the convergence of channels, then you haven’t pre-released it, you’ve begun your campaign. Duh. And if you’ve begun your campaign, that’s fine, but then what is your point and what is its culmination?
The truth is that watching ads online or offline before the Super Bowl has taken the romance out of seeing the same ads during the game. Why unveil the jewel of your campaign before the event? After all, isn’t the whole point supposed to be discovery?
And, even more, isn’t part of the specialness of seeing Super Bowl ads the very human experience of seeing them for the first time together, with family and friends?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that any pre-game activity is worthless. To the contrary. For example, teasers are great. A classic example: In the 1970s, fans were primed with teasers for a full month to watch Joe Namath get shaved by Farrah Fawcett in a Noxema spot. It still makes top ten lists for memorable Super Bowl spots.
So, for example, not only are teasers are fun and even better, they are effective. Just like trailers. They build suspense. They create anticipation and excitement, and deliver an audience. But they have a purpose and lead to a goal. Which has everything to do with human behavior and nothing, nada, zero, to do with digital cleverness.
The smartest marketers will create an experience that understands that the Super Bowl is both an on- and offline event. People will have parties, watch the game and the spots and they’ll tweet about all of it, post about all of it, like and share all of it.
But, make no mistake, some of the best traction will come from old-fashioned word of mouth that is alive and well in living rooms, in bars and pubs, and at the workplace Monday morning…the exponential effect of which will also be shared on social media.
Suggesting that the Super Bowl is a “digital” event is completely misunderstanding what an event is, what human nature is and what the point of putting ads on the Super Bowl is all about. The idea is to build the brand and lead to sales, not compete for the largest number of likes.
Let’s see who wins on Sunday. N.V. I’m not calling the Patriots or the Seahawks — the Digibabblers or great work?
My money is on great work.
C???????????? Ex??????? A???s?? / F??????????/ E??????? : N????s?????? ?? C???????????? / B?????????? ... Since 2000
9 年Interesting mention! The answer is: distraction, I may explain: advertising seem to derail often when it comes to (in-time & in-lieu) understanding the environment of moment and consumers mind set of the moment makes a huge difference in winning ad campaigns. In the case of the super bowl, football baseball fans don’t go to the super bowl to watch ads... second when emotion runs high the rational brain is out to lunch. When testing super bowl ads, 97% of the time, ads are ignored. Hence, highly skeptical Gen X (dominating spectators) do lend attention to anything disrupting their objectives, being glued to the game. Ads to them are like a lost dog a lost proposition in polarity, volume and favorability. It is important to understand the attention economy to make advertising econometrics viable. ‘’ The earned media generated around Super Bowl has never been quantified into any meaningful outcomes that advertisers care about.’’ Adage This paper explains consumer’s attention DNA: ? https://bit.ly/1pwyThv
Strategist/Creative Director at Cody Rose LLC
10 年If you spend millions on airtime and production, you generally test the ads to death for fear of failure. When you create by committee, it's generally not very edgy or interesting. Steve Jobs never tested anything and didn't believe in focus groups. Hmmmm...
Newbook - Senior?Implementation?Consultant
10 年Based on rating numbers, it wasn't a matter of not enough viewers. NBC no doubt had millions tuned in. I think the commercial disappointment comes with the NFLs negative reputation alate... Domestic abuse, scandals, and poor politics within the organization.
CEO - Native Advertising Agency
10 年I thought ads lack entertainment value. The SuperBowl is a sporting event first but sponsors rule sports. It should not be the tail wagging the dog. Commercials should take opportunity to make global social impact in 30 seconds. Coke has never recaptured the magic of I'd Like To Teach The World to Sing and Apple never topped its 1984 breakthrough. Social media is important and commercial communication must do more than just sell toilet paper.
Marketing Director at Intertek Alchemy
10 年IMO...it's because Super Bowl ads have been terribly lame in recent years. All creative budget is spent on HUGE production value. But the concept & content are terrible. Other than VW's kid Darth Vader, what in last 4 years has been remotely decent? It's all over-the-top production value. And for those saying it's all the bad press of NFL & whatnot, wow, that's silly. No advertiser has remotely shied away from every other game this year. Businesses care about numbers. The numbers are there every other week so they clamor to advertise. And there is not a single ad spot that went un-bought. It's just that public is less interested because ads have sucked last few years.