Collection of Random Thoughts

If you thought the Super Bowl ads, as a whole, were beyond terrible, you’re not alone.

Considering the recent piece for Norman Einstein’s, the chatter regarding the slate of advertisements during Super Bowl XLV has been entertaining to say the least.

Super Sunday has created this expectation that these spots exist for entertainment purposes only. Many companies that participate in the fun follow this line of thinking because they can actually afford to. Coca-Cola and Pepsi aren’t mom-and-pop shops looking to get exposure. Some do it for the sake of doing so, despite beating that drum one too many times (GoDaddy has managed to overuse the premise that sex sells). Yet, the main problem with Super Bowl spots is that they miss out in the basic principle of advertising; tell potential consumers why you matter.

It’s as if companies get hypnotized, then speared by Terry Tate year after year after year.

Remember him?

The Terry Tate ads were hysterical; a linebacker laying out office employees with vicious tackles and talking smack afterwards (surely an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty in today’s NFL). They were the rage of water coolers, Chipotles and college classrooms in 2003.

And you probably couldn’t remember which company was advertised (it was Reebok). As great as those ads were, they failed miserably when it came to what’s called brand recall. Brand recall is where observers of an advertisement are asked to try to provide the maker of the product or service. According to Interactive Advertising Group (now Nielsen IAG), which measures advertising effectiveness, at the time they stated that Terry Tate rated rather poorly in the metric.

Why does this matter to you? The truth is that Super Bowl ads, while great for exposure, are rarely effective in convincing you to purchase an offering. What makes this worse is that companies are so desperate for ‘buzz’ that their ad copy (essentially, scripts) and casting reflect more about entertainment and less about relating to the consumer they want to entice.

Consider that for Super Bowl XLVI (46).

• Speaking of the Super Bowl, Congratulations to the Green Bay Packers, their fans and owners of any WWE replica championship belt & Aaron Rodgers jersey. You’re all winners. Even better than this is that someone else believes what I posted two years ago about the Quarterback Heavyweight Champion I call GB Punk.
  
  
• College basketball aficionados: you may be aware that I don’t follow the NCAA hardwood as much as I used to. However, you know obnoxious folks like me exist: I want to know who should I pay attention to in terms of potential players in the NBA?
  
  
• Some suggested reading: there may not be a whole lot of fans based on ratings, but if you’re looking for insights on the underrated FX program, Lights Out, take a look at “There’s No ‘I’ in Blog” where Friend of Scribe, Patrick Truby has done episodic reviews since the show began last month. I think it’s a solid show, but even in the DVR era, the biggest issue for its future is the time slot. It's pretty competitive on Tuesdays at 10PM.
  
  
• If you’re still wondering, “C’Mon Man” will never be lived down. That’s perfectly fine with this Scribe since one of his favorite writers, Yahoo! Sports’ Michael Silver recently discovered who that “Dude from Study Hall” was. Nothing but win, as the kids say.
  
  
• Finally, as with many of you, life happens. It doesn’t get in the way of work so much as it has a way of prioritizing it. Sincerest apologies, but your support of this hustle is surely appreciated. Spread the word on Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr.

Norman Einstein's Newness: Beer & Pigskin

You know the ads.



They're telling you to drink their frothy alcoholic beverages with a bit of humor.



Sure, once in a while, they might be tug at the heart strings and similtaneuously placate PETA.



Yet, at their absolute core, they just want you to consider buying their brand over the competitor.



So through the latest contribution to Norman Einstein's Magazine, take a look at how and why Budweiser does battle with MillerCoors using America's Passion.

Now, you're probably asking yourself what is a known teetotaler doing talking about beer? Well, read on, friends.

Sadly, an ad like this would never make the Super Bowl.

And make sure that you observe the excellent words and images from my teammates, Graydon Gordian, Brian Blickenstaff, Stephanie Lim and Cian O'Day.

Controversial Ads Using Super Bowl Platform... Badly

There have been some rather interesting conversations in the last week about Super Bowl advertisements.

Previously in this space, you saw a link in regards to an Advertising Age article regarding the Focus on the Family ad that will feature mother Pam and son Tim Tebow. Yet, it’s not the only ad in which attention has been given as a gay dating site, Mancrunch, believes that CBS’s decision to not approve of its ad is discriminatory.

You’ve heard this story before, haven’t you?

Every year, some company pushes a commercial that is deemed offensive in some manner. They generate buzz because people want to know why the ad is so controversial. These days with the internet, people can actually watch the ‘leaked’ ad to see for themselves in advance of the game, providing enough eyeballs to achieve their goals before the game or in case it’s not even approved.

With all due respect to the league’s advertising sponsors and the agencies it works with, why it invites such controversies for its grandest stage has become unconscionable.

It’s very easy to say “it’s all about the money”. You won’t get an argument against that since the rates for 30-second spots have skyrocketed from $600,000 in 1987 to nearly $3 million for Super Bowl XLIV. However, if the ad is more focused on being funny than building awareness, a lot of money was just wasted.

---

Hey, You Didn’t Mention This: A friendly member of Scribe’s Twitteratti posted a link about the Focus ad; though Pam Tebow wants to share her reasons for risking her health to have Tim, someone left out that part of the reason that she did was because abortion is unilaterally illegal in the Philippines.

From Alas! A Blog:

“Well,” you say, “this is different. I mean, her life was in jeopardy, so obviously, that was legal.” Au contraire. The Philippine criminal code makes no exception for life or health of the mother. Had Pam Tebow had an abortion, she could have been jailed, as could her physician and anyone else who assisted her.

Now, that doesn’t mean Pam Tebow is lying. There are about 470,000 abortions performed annually in the Philippines, and about 80,000 women hospitalized for complications of abortion. 12 percent of all maternal deaths in 2000 were due to unsafe abortons, of course, because abortion is illegal — but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. As anyone with a rudimentary understanding of abortion policy knows, outlawing abortion doesn’t stop abortion. It just makes it much less safe.

But this is an important part of the story that Pam and Tim Tebow are ignoring. Because the organization they’re supporting — Focus on the Family — is virulently anti-abortion, and supports making it illegal. But by Pam Tebow’s own admission, outlawing abortion didn’t stop her Filipino physician from recommending it. She had a choice — but one that was more dangerous than it had to be, one that could have had legal repercussions for her and her family.

Now, as A) a male and B) someone who abstains from political discussions as much as possible, I won’t go into the merits for or against abortion legislation. Plus, you don’t read Scribe for that unless there’s a connection to sports. However, what I will say is I’m against showing this ad for an entirely different, more practical reason. I think it’s more important to have a focused audience in another forum – say news media – rather than going for the shotgun approach with THE BIGGEST SINGLE DAY EVENT ON THE PLANET!

As this brilliant SBNation post sums up, sensible people aren’t thinking about the hot button topics when they’re “watching Peyton Manning yell at the offensive line some more.” In fact, there’s a very good chance that the actual fans in the living room will be taking bathroom breaks or head diving into guacamole along with their chips.

And the rest of the fans? Well, the moment they try to start talking about the ad, Jonathan Vilma will interrupt the conversation with a vicious tackle after the commercial break.

And that’s the problem. As much as former colleagues at Madison Avenue want to believe that the Super Bowl is the proper platform for some of these advertisements, the truth is that it can be the absolute worst.

This ad belongs on news television because the content of the ad is actually discussed and debated regularly. It’s a bit timelier to see the Focus ad during Bill O’Reilly or Glenn Beck’s programs (because airing during Rachel Maddow’s show might incite a riot in itself). Even on the nightly news programs on broadcast TV, the Focus ad might have a little more poignance.

In fact, why did Focus use an ad to get the message across in the first place? It would have been cheaper and far more effective to make the national talk circuit, right? What Focus and other agencies of its ilk (pro-choice or anti-abortion) might need are more conversational outlets as opposed to what will amount to a $3 million throwaway at the end of the week.

Speaking of throwaway, tossing the Mancrunch ad in the trash heap wouldn’t be a bad idea for a somewhat similar reason.

---

You’re Not Even Funny!: Plenty of people have equally, if not stronger opinions about homosexuality. Again, this isn’t the place to actually speak on what’s become a political issue that should just stay personal.

With that said, Mancrunch hasn’t done itself favors with this commercial. It’s not so much about two men kissing – personally, I couldn’t care less – so much as the suggestive dialogue and the attempted comedic feel just makes it an absolutely awful waste of $3 million.

Now that suggestive dialogue might work for a sitcom or even Grey’s Anatomy. It would have been better off on some late-night program on E! or Comedy Central. However, the braintrust at this company said that it’s going to make a big statement at the Super Bowl, where the amount of men watching at one time is astronomical compared to any other program during the year.

That’s not the best strategy to employ here.

Maybe there would have been less of an issue if Mancrunch didn’t go the obnoxious route or if they even showed this at another time where it would be best suited. Better yet, if the site was fashioned as the gay alternative to Match or eHarmony, then there might actually have more sentiment in its favor.

Mancrunch might get a good buzz around their battle with CBS, yet, if they want to be heard of after what’s considered a stunt, it’s time for them to get a long-term strategy together.

Preferably one that doesn’t involve trying to shock the world.

Shilling

Is there anything else to say about tomorrow's Super Bowl?

Actually, there is.

If you read the profile, you may be aware that sports media is one-half of my professional life. The other happens to be in a (at least to me) equally fascinating world of advertising. Now, because of where I work (hello, fellow colleagues), there's is supposed to be a move vested interest in the extravaganza because of the commercials produced and purchased for some clients. While I cannot reveal (nor would I) who they are, I will say that they will be some of the most talked-about and Googled offerings during and after the affair on Monday morning.

However, with no disrepect to my company nor the industry at-large, don't expect me to jump in.

I may seem like a football elitist to anyone who has read that statement and that really doesn't bother me. As discussed in the past, this NFL championship game is the culmination of five months of hard work from the players, coaches, executives (most of them) and the good football media along with the passion of fans. The Super Bowl is the most watched event in the American sports calendar because from early September until now, we spent six days a week from in anticipation for a few hours on Sundays. While the sway of advertisers is nothing new to football (as it has helped the league grow from nearly-outlawed status to pop culture phenomenon), it's a little frustrating to know that most of the onlookers are only going to turn to NBC tomorrow for a few poorly-written ads that in an absurd way, determines if they enjoyed the game itself or not.

Hey, I can't say that I won't watch the commercials (I'll pass on halftime for reasons stated in a link below), but on Monday, be prepared to discuss what happened on the field before discussing which company's ad came on the third pod during the second quarter.

However, I do ask that if you are part of the extras who haven't watched a game all year (and there are millions of you), read this before taking part in the unoffical national holiday festivities.

Meanwhile, here are a few articles for your perusal. Most are thoughts related to tomorrow's game, but a few are related to other happenings in the sports world that you should key in on throughout the week.

• Your Class of 2009 for the Pro Football Hall of Fame - Baseball has their great two-man class and this is certainly one of the best in the history of the game. There's another HOF that you will hear about in a few weeks, one that is relatively low-key compared to the others... until this year when one player will officially become eligible.
• An excellent piece from Yahoo! Sports' Charles Robinson about Arizona's Darnell Dockett.
• Sticking with Yahoo! Sports, MJD at Shutdown Corner tells the truth here: why no one will ever enjoy the halftime show.
• Your last minute pre-game rundown of your advertisers from Ad Age.
• WIRED Magazine gives you the online aspect of the game's biggest advertisers.
• BusinessWeek's Burt Helm says that the ad world hopes for the best in what will be a SB with a few less eyeballs.
• Straying from the pros for a bit, my blogging buddy over at Mixed Race America goes on a tangent from her usual subject matter: imagine your favorite Division I (or whatever it's called now) college football team having a bake sale to stay afloat... just imagine because it's highly unlikely, but read on.
• Finally, because you need a laugh.

Please, oh PLEASE: if you head out for a SB gathering and throw down a few drinks, just leave your keys at home or make nice with the designated driver. DUIs/DWIs are far too commonplace (one is too damn much) and because our wallets are a bit more strectched these days, no one can or should bail you out for being stupid.

Staggering

New poll: this one’s focuses on the first über-hyped game of the college football season, but it’ll be up until next Thursday.

Meanwhile, we’re just in Week One of the NFL season and there’s already significant Super Bowl news.

NBC will take its turn on the broadcasting wheel this year for the NFL’s championship game in Tampa, Florida. Earlier today, the Peacock proudly announced that not only have they already sold 80% of their advertising inventory for the game, but they have “a dozen or so advertisers” who purchased 30-second spots for $3 million.

Three. Million. Dollars.

$100,000 per second.

That’s about a month’s rent in Beacon Hill or Daly City, right?

In all seriousness, it’s an absolutely staggering figure that hopefully receives its own in-depth analysis within the advertising and marketing trade media. The asking price has grown each year for a milieu of reasons, yet there is no denying how $3 million became the latest threshold.

Last year, the writer’s strike put broadcast networks at a standstill. Reruns and reality television were not desired avenues for companies to promote their goods and services. Though viewers gravitated towards cable programming in droves, those paid channels do not command the audiences that broadcast networks can offer.

Just as real estate in your nearby up-and-coming neighborhood, there were few prime spots in a weakened economy. Those few bastions of advertising potential turned out to be live sports. Live sports are considered DVR-proof as viewers are less likely to fast-forward through ads or record games for later viewing. In the States, the television events with the biggest audiences are typically sporting events; notably baseball and basketball games featuring the highest-profiled teams, players and/or markets and NFL games because of a short season with dedicated days for action.

The Super Bowl XLII broadcaster, FOX, knew that any event with a huge national audience had to make up for the lack of scripted fare. The network decided to increase the price of a 30-second ad to upwards of $2.7 million, a 15% increase from the year before.

If you know a competitor was able to pry $2.7 million from a vendor for essentially the same service, wouldn’t you consider boosting the price?

Though this is less about the pigskin – after all, no one has even played two regular season games in September yet – you wonder if the reason behind NBC’s eagerness to boast about its Super Bowl buys has to do with their success in broadcasting the Beijing Olympics a couple of weeks ago.

Smile

Been an interesting first post-Super Bowl week, hasn't it?

The writers and producers are finally working something out (thank goodness! Please send those desperation 'reality TV' ideas back to the trash heap).

Super Tuesday has managed to bring up more questions than answers (and create a wider pool of undecided and apathetic voters than anyone cares to acknowledge).

Athletes denying steroid use to Congress and Congress spending tax dollars to investigate such use (recession be damned).

Athletes denying being involved with cockfighting in the Dominican Republic (where it is legal, no matter how much many disapprove).

Giants 'fans' believing in Eli Manning and Patriots 'fans' calling the 2007 season a complete failure.

Hey, look! Mercury Morris found a camera. Wonderful.

This may seem like just another week in the world and you might be right. Instead of getting down in the doldrums, smile at what were (in Scribe's opinion, of course) the best commercials from Sunday's Super Bowl.

Oh, sure. Everyone and their godmother has an opinion on what were the best commercials. However, considering the other profession I have and my purist nature regarding the NFL title game, these two ads exemplified what those $3 million spots were supposed to do; cleverly sell a product and/or serve as a reminder of a brand.

Since YouTube is being a little funny with the custom player, enjoy these gems.



Say What?!?!: Coming to a new baseball stadium near you (or me): Martinis. Martinis?!?! At least let there be more offerings than hot dogs.