Posts for 'Super Bowl'

continue reading

continue reading

The great Super Bowl game last night was once again not matched by the quality of the ads, at least when viewed for how well they leveraged online video. For several years now, I've been arguing that the $2.5-3 million that advertisers spend on their 30 second Super Bowl spots could yield a far higher ROI if they figured out how to extend their experiences through online video. So once again this year I've reviewed all of the Super Bowl ads - not for how funny, creative or gross they were - but for how well they took advantage of the benefits online video offers.

First, some basic stats: of the 58 ads that ran during the game last night (which I viewed this morning at CBSSports.com), 38 of them were tagged with a URL and 20 were not. On a percentage basis that's about equal to last year, when 37 of the 56 ads carried a URL. Of the 38 ads with a URL, only 4 of them explicitly urged the viewer to see more or watch more at their web sites:

• Focus On the Family - The controversial Tim Tebow advocacy ad invites viewers to visit the Focus web site to see the full Tebow story. The site has a long interview with Tebow's parents along with lots of other video. Regardless of your politics, the ad works well as a friendly teaser for viewers to learn more about the organization.
  
• Boost Mobile - Jim McMahon and the hilarious rapping NFL players take it to a new level by actually ending their rap with the line "Go online to find the rest of our jam," then exposing the URL. Further videos at the site continue the fun.
  
• GoDaddy - The web site hosting company was back with its ads featuring Danica Patrick and teasing viewers to "See more now at GoDaddy.com." The scantily-clad GoDaddy girls concept is a little stale now, but for the male-dominated game audience, there's no doubting its appeal.
  
• HomeAway.com - My personal favorite, this vacation home rental company bought back Chevy Chase and Beverly D'Angelo as The Griswolds for "Hotel Hell," a spoof of the famous "Vacation" movie series. The ad is totally focused on getting viewers to see the film at HomeAway.com. Chase is a classic and the videos are very clever.

For more behind the scenes, Dove's new Men Care line features an interview with MVP Drew Brees, who's also shown lathering up in the shower (a blatant pitch to women as well as men). E-Trade was back with its talking babies, but this year with a twist, allowing site visitors to send their own "Baby Mail" emails. The new Honda Accord Crosstour features a well-produced video of the car, though no mention of the video is made in its game ad. And how about the futuristic Vizio ad trumpeting its Internet-connected TVs? It's surely a sign of many more connected device ads to come in future years.

Lastly, a few real misses. First up, what's the deal with Budweiser? It ran 9 ads and not one of them carried a URL. These folks are mistaken in thinking that viewers wouldn't be interested in more about the Clydesdales on the web. Beyond the horses, it would have been cool to learn more about how Bud made the human bridge ad, or did the voice effects in the T-Pain spot. Ditto for Denny's which was promoting its Grand Slam breakfast hard, but didn't do any web tie-ins. The movie ads make me nuts too. They roll the credits so fast at the end of the ad and the text is so small that it's nearly impossible to find a URL to learn more about the movie, even if you wanted to.

The Super Bowl is the biggest event on the sports and advertising calendars, yet as evidenced by this year's performance, most brands and agency creative types still don't fully understand the power of online video. Sure, the post-game galleries drive millions of additional views, but I continue to contend they could be so much more. Oh well, onto Super Bowl XLV.

What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).

It's Super Bowl time again, which means it's time for me to write my annual post wondering whether this will be the year that Super Bowl advertisers really embrace online video and social networking opportunities. Four years ago, I speculated that at some point a Super Bowl ad could go for $10 million apiece, because the online video extensions could drive the ROI so much higher than what a traditional 30 second ad alone delivers. Nonetheless, advertisers and their agencies have been painfully slow to get with the online video program, and I've been ranting about the missed opportunities (see here and here) year after year.

As this NY Times piece describes though, this could finally be a breakthrough year. I like the way that Kathy O'Brien, VP for personal care at Unilever put it, "The Super Bowl is an element of a complete, 360-degree campaign." That's smart thinking. On Monday I'll tally up the score to see how this year's Super Bowl advertisers did with their online video and social networking extensions.

What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).

Below is the 5th edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for Feb. 6, 2009. Once again, Daisy Whitney and I are talking about posts we've made recently. This week Daisy discusses her post about Facebook and Ashton Kutcher linking up to launch "Katalyst HQ." I provide some additional background on the Super Bowl ads which had a broadband video component based on data I shared in this post: "Super Bowl Ads are a Broadband Fumble Again."

Click here for previous podcasts

The Super Bowl ads are continuing to generate all kinds of buzz and continued chatter. In the spirit of "everything's been said, but not by everyone," here are a few additional broadband-related thoughts.

Doritos user-generated contest is a big winner - Doritos snagged 2 of the top 5 placements in the USA Today Ad Meter popularity rankings, displacing Anheuser-Busch for the first time. The fact that the Herbert brothers of Indiana could have created an ad more popular than all of those by the pros is impressive enough. More interesting though to me is Doritos is steadily morphing its brand into one which its customers control. This was the 3rd time Doritos handed over its Super Bowl advertising to fans to both submit ads and also vote on them. I've written about other brands' UGV contests, but Doritos is clearly the furthest along in embracing this concept. It's a great differentiator for the brand and will only build further momentum in the future.

The ad development process usually starts with identifying key brand attributes (e.g. "convenient," "affordable," "wide variety," "hip," etc.). Did the Hulu marketing team start with attributes like "deceitful" or "creepy" or "offbeat?" Seemingly so. Although the spot was fun, it didn't do anything to articulate Hulu's great value proposition. Further, is Hulu now going to pursue this creepy positioning further? If they do, does that make sense for the brand? But if they don't, wasn't the ad a waste of effort, with little continued momentum? I'm not an ad expert, but I'm not clear on what Hulu was trying to do here, other than get some great yucks.

How about some more "behind-the-scenes" and "making-of" video - Ad executives don't seem to understand what filmmakers discovered with DVDs years ago - that the backstory around the final cut is often even more interesting to fans. Since DVDs offer the capacity to provide director's notes, explanations of special effects, outtakes, actor interviews, etc they often do. This stuff is fascinating. Same with broadband; it offers brands the ability to provide a lot more video than just the ads themselves on their web sites, which some did indeed do.

But many others who could have done so, did not. Two that come right to mind: Coke, whose fascinating ad with insects stealing a sleeping man's bottle had some of the best special effects ever. How about some interviews with the computer animation team that did them? That would be fascinating. The other: E-Trade's talking babies. How'd they do that? Would love to know.

Should ads be rated or filtered? Ok, here's something controversial to think about - should Super Bowl ads be rated or filtered somehow? This is supposed to be family entertainment after all, isn't it? Does the woman getting stripped in the Doritos "Bus" ad or the suggestive GoDaddy girls belong in prime-time? I wonder. Or maybe the online galleries should rate the ads somehow? Maybe the racier ones deserve a parental warning? Just a thought.

Ok, that's it for the '09 Super Bowl, on to other topics...

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Once again it was an incredibly exciting Super Bowl. And once again, the ads were a broadband fumble. I've been saying for three years now that broadband has introduced a whole new opportunity for Super Bowl advertisers to derive more value and drive engagement, making the ridiculous $3 million per ad that they pay far more worthwhile. Regrettably, the brains behind most of the Super Bowl's ads seem hopelessly oblivious to this notion.

I've watched all 56 ads this morning to see which ones had a broadband or online component. Here's what I found:

• 37 of the ads (66%) were tagged with the advertiser's URL (though some of them went by so fast it would have been nearly impossible to remember or write them down). Akamai has reported traffic spikes for many of these sites. For the online sites like Priceline, Overstock, Monster and CareerBuilders, tagging works very well to reinforce the brand.
• 19 of the ads (34%) were not tagged with the advertiser's URL. Oddly, this includes all of the Budweiser ads. From the people that brought us Bud.tv one would think they'd have a little more appreciation for the role of the web.
• Of the 37 ads with a URL shown, only 6 contained an explicit call to action to visit the web site (GoDaddy "Continues at GoDaddy.com," Disney-Pixar "Up" movie, "To see a special first look go to Disney.com," Universal Heroes, "Visit site for a free 7 day ticket," Monster.com, "Never been a better time to go to Monster.com,", Frosted Flakes, "Help decide where at FrostedFlakes.com," and Vizio, "Visit us at Vizio.com to check out 55 inch million dollar event."). These show solid attempts at engaging the audience beyond the on-air ad itself.
• Upon visiting the web sites of the 37 advertisers who tagged their ads with their URLs, 29 of them contained some video. But of these only 13 offered some video beyond just a replay of the ad. That means that of the total 56 ads, just 23% leveraged broadband video in some meaningful way.

What are a few examples? GoDaddy was surely a hands-down video winner again, by urging viewers to visit their web site, presumably for even more titillating video of the GoDaddy girls and Danica Patrick. Bridgestone Tires offered behind the scenes of how their Potato Head ad was created. Three films, "Year One, " "Up" and "Monsters vs. Aliens" all provided some first look or behind the scenes video. Gatorade introduced the "MissionG" reality series that the brand is sponsoring. NFL.com which showed the winner of its "Super Ad Contest" (Usama Young) also has the full gallery of all the players' ads. In addition, Discovery told me that Toyota has a very cool "Making of" video for its Killer Heat ad for its Tundra playing on HowStuffWorks.com. Unfortunately, there was no promotion of it during the ad itself, or even on Toyota.com.

Three years ago I thought for sure this would happen, and as a result I was speculating that Super Bowl ads could eventually fetch $10 million. But with each passing year I'm getting a little more skeptical that big brand advertisers and their agencies actually understand what's happening with broadband video and how it opens up new horizons for them. Maybe 2010 will be different...

What do you think? Post a comment now.

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that NBC will announce next week that the starting price for a 30 second ad during the 2009 Super Bowl will cost $3 million, a 10% increase over 2008. For sure one thing this means to me: broadband video's role must grow in order to earn Super Bowl advertisers a return on these outsized rates.

As some of you know I've been writing about this topic for the last few years, even preceding the launch of VideoNuze. In Jan '06, in "The $10 Million Super Bowl Ad?" I argued that Super Bowl ad prices were heading nowhere but up given the historic opportunity to fuse the best of brand advertising with the best of online advertising.

I thought the linchpin would be brands recognizing that broadband video elements (e.g. larger campaign narratives, user contests, etc.) should precede and/or follow the game ad, creating a far larger engagement and ROI scenario. With more potential benefits, Super Bowl ad buying would be far less risky and therefore more advertisers would be compelled to buy, thus driving prices up.

While prices have risen, it's been more because audiences have continued fragmenting, making the Super Bowl truly a once-a-year advertising opportunity. NBC's willingness to raise prices by 10% over '08, in the face of a difficult U.S. economy is further testament to the big game's luster.

Back in '06 I forecasted that creative lightbulbs would be going off on Madison Avenue for how to capitalize on broadband's potential to add value. Sadly in the last 2 years this hasn't materialized. In Jan '08, in "My Rant About Super Bowl Ads" I lamented the fact that of the 52 game ads, only 5 (later revised to 6) ads had a broadband component. While the ads themselves were viewed for weeks after in online galleries, the stark reality was that tens of millions of dollars of client ad spending was being dramatically sub-optimized by not incorporating any broadband video elements.

It may be unfair of me to say, but I place the disproportionate share of the blame for this on the agencies behind the Super Bowl ads. They seem oblivious to how their clients' ad strategies must change to reflect broadband and online's importance.

So here's my message to brands considering a Super Bowl '09 ad buy: with 8 full months until game day, if your agency is not presenting you now with at least a half dozen compelling ideas for how to incorporate broadband elements into your Super Bowl ads, switch agencies now. I mean it. They are under-serving you. Find an agency that gets it, not one that is stuck in a time warp. The brands that will really score in the '09 game will have ads that reflect today's broadband realities.

OK, today no rant, just one more little insight to offer from Super Bowl ads.

Yesterday I highlighted the 5 ads (out of the total 52) which had a broadband component. They were:

GoDaddy - promoting Danica Patrick's "Exposure" banned ad and other videos

TideToGo - promoting "MyTalkingStain.com" a fun microsite

SoBe LifeWater - promoting "Thrillicious.com" a microsite where 2 more spots with the dancing lizards can be seen

Sunsilk - promoting "LifeCantWait.com", a microsite with a UGC contest which is not yet active

Pepsi - promoting "PepsiStuff.com", where users can download videos and music

I'm able to track click-throughs to each link I share in these emails. I thought you might be interested to see a graph of these clicks from yesterday. Note they're shown as an index, not actual numbers, with a starting index value of 100 for Sunsilk.

As you can see, VideoNuze email recipients expressed a pretty strong interest in the GoDaddy.com Danica Patrick ad. I'm sure many of you are not surprised since it has a pretty overt potential payoff for visitors.

The point is this: I think SoBe LifeWater missed a huge opportunity to keep viewers engaged, which would have both improved the ROI on their Super Bowl ad spend, and also deepened viewers' engagement with the brand. While the Campbell spot was hugely entertaining, it did little to power ongoing engagement. Contrast this with GoDaddy, which no doubt had people pouring into its web site since the spot ran, with ongoing chatter and brand-building taking place.

I love the Super Bowl ads as much as anyone. I never stop being amazed by the creativity and humor on display during each year's big game. This year was no exception: screeching squirrels, a strutting heart, shrunken heads, talking babies, the list goes on. For what Super Bowls ads are and always have been, they're terrific. My problem is that I believe broadband video allows Super Bowl ads to be much more than what they are and always have been. But the agency world does not seem to be getting this message.

Two years ago I wrote "The Ten Million Dollar Super Bowl Ad?", where I outlined a scenario under which a 30 second spot could someday go for ten million bucks. How? By combining the best of brand advertising (the big emotional play) with the best of online advertising (the big measurable, performance-oriented play).

I wrote in that post: "What I envision is that the 30-second spot during the game will become the viewer's introduction or re-introduction to the brand or product. Numerous online, broadband-centric tactics will follow, with video being the center of the action. In football terms, the 30-second spot will morph from throwing a long pass (which is accompanied by high drama, but low probability of an actual score) to executing a more consistent ground game (accompanied by lower drama, but a much higher probability of an actual score). With this added measurability and a direct feedback loop, marketers will have much less anxiety about whether to ante up for the big game (and therefore the price will spiral upward).

I thought agencies and marketers would see this light and rush toward it. Boy was I over-optimistic. After watching all 52 Super Bowl ads this morning (thanks AOL), I am completely dismayed to report that, by my count, only 5 ads had any broadband video component:

GoDaddy - promoting Danica Patrick's "Exposure" banned ad and other videos

TideToGo - promoting "MyTalkingStain.com" a fun microsite

Life Water - promoting "Thrillicious.com" a microsite with a 2nd spot with the dancing iguanas 

Sunsilk - promoting "LifeCantWait.com", a microsite with a UGC contest which is not yet active

Pepsi - promoting "PepsiStuff.com", with Amazon (ok, more focused on music than video)

All of the other 47 ads, representing tens of millions of dollars of clients' money, followed the same game plan from Super Bowls' past: go for either the clever, the funny or the gross, in an attempt to create buzz and fond memories for fans.

For me, this hidebound behavior showcases agencies at their most disappointing: unable to break out of the box, recognize new consumer engagement opportunities for their clients or embrace new technologies. Their inability or unwillingness to be more progressive is at the heart of why the whole advertising industry is in such chaos, with an increasing share of total spending shifting to online each year.