Among advertisers, there is a commonly-held belief that so long as a commercial is memorable, it is successful. Some of this year's Super Bowl ads put this theory to the test. In typical Super Bowl fashion, advertisers pulled out all the stops. Now I will assess the effectiveness of 4 of this year's ads. If you have not seen the particular commercial, please click on the corresponding link.
I will start with E-trade. There has been much discussion and concern over E-trade's use of babies in their recent advertisements. Cute babies alone will not drive people to use your product. In reality, investors can use any product to diversy their portfolios. In this commercial, E-trade failed to distinguish their product from the competition and their message was significantly diluted by the sexual innuendos. On a positive note, at least viewers could easily determine and remember the subject of the ad.
I will start with E-trade. There has been much discussion and concern over E-trade's use of babies in their recent advertisements. Cute babies alone will not drive people to use your product. In reality, investors can use any product to diversy their portfolios. In this commercial, E-trade failed to distinguish their product from the competition and their message was significantly diluted by the sexual innuendos. On a positive note, at least viewers could easily determine and remember the subject of the ad.
The same, however, can not be said about Audi. It is only within the last 10 seconds or so that the subject of the commercial is finally revealed. Until that point, it is a seemingly random series of everyday people being caught committing environmental offenses. Given the extent to which people are opting for eco-friendly alternatives, ridiculing them and their beliefs seems counterintuitive and unlikely to generate sales or elicit goodwill. At most, from this commercial, people will remember Steve Martin's brief appearance and how Audi made light of the importance of the environment by mocking environmentalists and those who seek to identify and implement environmentally sustainable solutions.
The Tebow's Focus on Family ad unintentionally and unexpectedly elicited signifant ill-will. The first time I saw the ad, the only message I got was that of a proud mother sharing her story. I had no idea of the circumstances surrounding the Tebow family until I did some research afterwards. I discovered that Pam Tebow was in the Phillipines when she went into labour. Complications arose which lead local medical experts to suggest abortion. She declined and believes her decision was later validated when she delivered a healthy son who grew up to become future Heismann trophy winner Tim Tebow. If not for all the attention this commercial received as being "pro-life", it would hardly be worth mentioning and not nearly as memorable. It would be as forgetable and as any other commerical with a celebrity (like Sarah Jessica Parker on the Garnier ads, or Luke Wilson appearing in the AT&T ads).
Perhaps the best example of a commercial without context is that of CareerBuilder. Upon analysis, it would appear that the lead character in this commercial was uncomfortable with the corporate culture at his current place of employment and in need of assistance in finding another job. Although people remember the ad vividly, when asked, they could not recall the company, the product or any details other than the fact there were office workers walking around in their underwear.
According to CBS, the cost of a 30-second commercial during the Super Bowl was $2.6 million USD! I admit I am no finance major, but does it not seem wasteful to spend all that money (let a lone the cost of hiring actors, producers, etc.) on a commercial that is so completely ineffective? Exactly how do these advertisers justify their respective decisions? These ads may be memorable but they are certainly not successful.
No comments:
Post a Comment