Super Bowl Ads: What Worked, What Didn't, and Why

While the Super Bowl ads are still fresh in everyone’s minds, I’m going to offer some constructive commentary about them.?I’m not here to talk smack about any brand or agency, but rather point out what worked and what didn’t as far as this viewer was concerned.

Overall, most of the ads were over-produced and their message unclear.??I can understand how that happens, with all the pressure of the Super Bowl, where agencies try too hard, and cram too much in. However, less is usually more, and it’s easy to overload the viewer.?Many of the first-half were so busy that I couldn’t follow what was happening or why, or even remember the brand involved.

That said, the entertainment value of the commercials was the best in several years.?Some were clever (Booking.com).?Some were cute (Meta Quest).?Some were fun (BMW).?The problem is that I couldn’t identify the brands as I wrote this article.?I had to look them up.?Entertainment value is great, but if I can’t remember the brand, I’m not sure it’s money well-spent.?After all, I don't associate BMW with Arnold or Zeus or comedy.??

There were a few that scored solid emotional points, yet sub-optimal slogans undermined them.?Toyota’s moving and inspirational ad regarding the McKeever Paralympian brothers was outstanding in its message, yet Toyota itself is still struggling to find its identity.?“Start Your Impossible” is a great Nike-esque slogan, yet that’s not how consumers view Toyota, nor has Toyota set forth an image that suggests one can conquer the impossible in a Toyota.

Many ads also withheld the brand until the end, a trend that I believe undercuts brands and their advertising.?That can be effective, but the ad better deliver a knockout punch in the same way that a great joke does.?That is,?the punchline is both surprising and inevitable

The FTX ad delivered that effectively, but I don’t know how many people between the coasts know Larry David.?Arguably it doesn’t matter, as he can represent the older out-of-touch guy who’s always been on the wrong side of history.?Yet I wonder if identifying him as “Doubting Thomas” up front might have provided a more archetypal reference point.

Withholding the brand name can also work against the brand.?Bud Light’s NEXT was certainly engaging with its music, and reminiscent of “West Side Story” with its color scheme.?Yet I had no idea what the commercial was about.?Halfway through, I even thought it might be about Meta.?It’s a problem if I’m trying to guess the brand in the first place, and then I’m wrong.?

The tag line was also, in my estimation, highly problematic.?“Zero in the way of possibility” is one of those too-clever-by-half phrases that confuses viewers.?The first thing that hit me was that Bud Light has zero possibility, because I interpreted the modifier “in the way of” to mean “having none”.?Why would a brand say that about itself??Alas, the modifier’s intended meaning was “to block”.??Ad slogans cannot risk being misinterpreted lest the brand promise be lost.

As for the aforementioned trend of withholding the brand, I think it’s time agencies woke up to the old Vaudeville rule:?“Tell the audience what you’re going to do.?Do it.?Tell them you’ve done it”.

That takes us to the Michelob ULTRA’s first ad.

The first part effectively delivers on Vaudeville’s maxim while also effectively delivering the brand’s message.??Yes, it was great homage to “The Big Lebowski” but more importantly, it featured the brand throughout the commercial.? We see the Michelob Ultra neon sign two seconds in. That's the cover image to this article. Entering is a mystery man, establishing a question as to who he is, intiating suspense. In this context, we expect a famous face but we don't know who it will be.

Ten seconds into the ad, we see the Michelob icon in striking and bright red and white neon, drawing our attention right to it.?In case we miss it, there’s a pink neon arrow directing our eye from screen right.?

The only movement in the shot is Steve Buscemi putting shoes on the counter right next to the Michelob bottle, further drawing attention to what this ad is about.

We extend the little mystery as to who enters the alley, raising suspense, which is usually a good thing.?

The brand’s importance is immediately reinforced as a bottle of Ultra and a set of shoes is pushed towards camera (i.e. towards US), further raising the question of who we are about to see, and that he is obviously important enough to warrant both shoes AND a Michelob.??

Then we get the payoff of Peyton Manning, holding the beer as he exits frame.?He raises the bottle twice to other famous faces, we see it again sitting atop the ball return, and once more in Alex Morgan’s hand.

In the ensuring thirty seconds, we never see a Michelob bottle.?However, nearly every shot gives us a visual correlative that reminds us what the brand is.?It’s the red neon lighting, and red hue that infuses every frame.?

We get another glimpse of the bottle in Buscemi’s hand following Serena Williams’ entrance, and then the payoff line and final image.

That, my friends, is a brand properly on display.??

My advice to brands for next year? Keep it simple.