This year’s Super Bowl ads seemed to disappoint viewers (although that seems to happen every year). Amidst controversy of banned ads and soaring costs (about $3 million for a 30-second spot), we still managed to see the same tired commercials (wow, look, some Go Daddy girl is ripping her shirt off while Danica Patrick gawks at her for the umpteenth time) and familiar brands (Coke, Budweiser, et al). With the increasing popularity of social media and viral marketing, I wonder if major brands will start moving away from the exorbitant costs and scrutiny that comes with Super Bowl advertising and take their campaigns online.
Pepsi’s already made the shift — a few months ago they announced that, for the first time in 23 years, they were not going to advertise during the Super Bowl, electing instead to focus on social media marketing. I think it’s a smart move — $3 million is going to go much farther online than in a one-time 30 second ad, especially in the age of DVRs and streaming video. With social media marketing, Pepsi can tweak its messaging to cater to different markets and demographics instead of trying to come up with a single ad that can appeal to the masses.
Also thanks to social media, you don’t have to air a commercial during the Super Bowl in order to reach millions of viewers. I saw this Old Spice commercial on TV and thought it was really funny:
The next day I checked Reddit and saw that the commercial was one of the most voted up stories of the day:
The comments were littered with remarks from users about how much they loved the ad and that they’re going to give Old Spice a try. This commercial cost a fraction of a Super Bowl commercial and already seems much more effective, as it’s getting laughs, views (nearly 200,000 views on YouTube already) and being shared.
So what does this mean for Super Bowl advertising? Well, I don’t think they’ll be going away any time soon; even though people have DVRs and can buffer the big game, a lot of folks still tune in to catch the commercials since it’s as much a part of the Game Day tradition as beer, chips and shouting expletives at the television. However, I think big brands need to start rethinking their advertising strategy:
- Don’t just think about the Super Bowl audience, think about its viral spread potential. The Old Spice commercial is a perfect example — it had the humor element that tons of Super Bowl ads try and go for, but it was so absurdly amusing that it really resonated with the younger Internet demographic and is being spread around a lot. Think about ads that are so memorable, people will want to share them with their friends. The same goes for Google’s ad — it wasn’t the stereotypical funny/vaguely sexist angle that you usually see on Game Day. They went with a sweet little ad that stuck out among the others and is getting tons of buzz via blogs and social networks.
- Speaking of sharing… What about flashing a Twitter or Facebook account or a microsite URL at the end of the ad for a wider branding spread? I don’t remember seeing any mention of social networking account profiles in the ads. The Internet is becoming such a huge part of marketing that I feel it’s important to cross-brand as often as possible. Heck, an ad could have even made fun of Twitter or Facebook and incorporated their profile into the spot. I could easily see Budweiser setting up an ad where someone “gifts” his friend a Bud Lite on Facebook and the idiot friend smashes his hand through his monitor trying to grab it.
- Work backwards. Google’s ad had already been airing via its Search Stories channel on YouTube, and the response had been so positive that they decided to air the ad during the Super Bowl. Instead of trying to create a successful ad for the Super Bowl, why not test out some commercials online and air the most successful one?
- Think about your ROI. Maybe other big brands need to pull a Pepsi and think about where their dollars are best spent. It’s not like we’re going to forget about Pepsi if they don’t spend $3 mil to remind us they exist once a year. Other brands should follow suit and shake things up a bit — invest a little more in social media and viral marketing to see if it benefits them more than a commercial spot. Not only can it yield positive results for them, it’ll open up the Super Bowl spots to other brands and diversify the commercials for once.
What do you guys think? Should Super Bowl advertising get a bit of a shake up in light of the possibilities social media marketing presents? I’d love to see creative online marketing attempts from bigger brands, and I think that’s where they need to start focusing your efforts. Your thoughts?
19 Comments
Anyone talking about Pepsi this week? (no) Sales increase? (who knows). All I know is the picked a lousy superbowl to avoid – the most watched TV show/event ever.
Eh, who's really talking about Coke though? Their ads were pretty lackluster and forgettable, so I don't think it really hurt Pepsi that much to opt out this year.
Wow, I pretty much disagree with everything you said. First, there were a lot of great/funny commercials this year. Yup, some missed the mark (which has always been the case, even 10 years ago), but there were some gems too.
Second, now more than ever companies get bigger bang for the buck because of resyndication of commercials on youtube. Not only does a funny commercial draw attention at the superbowl, but also for several days afterward because of youtube and social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook. I can't remember anything about Pepsi — that brand happens to be completely out of my mind. Doritos and Bud Light, however, are fresh in my mind.
You cite Old Spice as an example of a success story because it has "nearly 200,000 views." True, but it's exteremly rare for things to work out as well as they did for Old Spice. On the other hand, Audi's super bowl commercial has almost 500,000 views in 3 days, which is middle of the road among other super bowl commercials.
Please post a retraction immediately.
(just kidding)
Cool that you disagree — I was just posting some food for thought. I can think of a lot of great marketing opportunities with $3 million than just spending money on one ad. Yeah, the Super Bowl ads do get a lot of repeat viewings online, but you're still spending a ton of money for a single advertisement vs. spending way less on a commercial that will have similar spread (as Old Spice did), or you could save the money to spend on different advertising opportunities, as Pepsi has elected to do.
true… $3mil is a lot of money, no doubt.
Not to veer off course, but one thing you mentioned was facebook and microsites. Have you noticed the recent trend of companies register a URL and simply pointing it to their facebook page – basically just giving Facebook their hard earned links?
I've noticed some movies doing this (e.g., myspace.com/nameofmovie or becoming a fan of the movie on Facebook) but not so much with companies specifically registering a URL to redirect to their fan page. I more see companies advertising to "become a fan of [brand] on Facebook" in addition to their standard company URL.
An intern at the creative agency I work for actually wrote about Pepsi trying to create a new wave of advertising by avoiding the Super Bowl air time, check it out. http://bit.ly/bQDDNH?s=ds
Pepsi absolutely made a right decision on moving to the social media. I admit that Super Bowl is very popular, however, the rise of social media cannot be denied and advertising on internet is much more cost effective most of the time.
[...] 10e20 url='http://www.kiener.me/2010/02/10/frischer-wind-fur-alten-duft/';username='rkiener'; « [...]
To my mind super bowl ads are as actual as they were before, because they are widely used in the sphere of advertising.
The only Super Bowl ad that I ever remember seeing was the Google one in which the fellow starts out by using the search engine to find out about where to go on his vacation.
As the commercial proceeds, he decides on Paris, then finds something else in a long chain of web searches until he meets a French girl online, falls in love, and the commercial ends with the cry of a baby.
The ad was pretty powerful. It sold me.
The only thing though is that, for some reason, I am always working or studying on Super Sunday, so I've missed the past eight or so Super Bowls. I catch the commercials on You Tube way after the fact.
So, bottom line, you may be right about all the other Super Bowl commercials. The Google ad though lived up to the occasion when it was shown for the first time. It was Super.
Beth
Rebecca did you happen to see after the game a commercial by Miller draft saying how the 'let the little business take their ad spot" or something like that? What is that and do they really think people believe that motive of altruism?? haha
I didn't catch that — were they saying that they didn't take out ad spots this year and instead elected to let a "little business" use their slot?
This article reminds me about ideograohic writing, which was really popular and spread centures ago:)
I think it's a very wise move on pepsi's part. That three million they could have spent on the 30 second ad will go much further when put together with some decent social marketing.
Maybe they just couldn't afford it because of the conversion ratio so opted to use that as an excuse. Most TV ads aren't profitable but are made for branding an image. The price of a superbowl ad would be equivalent to multiple television advertisements at an offpeak time.
[...] full post on 10e20 Enjoyed this article?WebsiteWordPress [...]
To my mind this prospective technique of advertising should not be just undeservingly forgotten – in cooperation with social media promotion this kind of advertising can be really effective.