« Guest blogger: JEFF GOODBY | Main | Guest blogger: JIM FERGUSON »

Guest blogger: SETH GODIN • Seth Godin is an author and entrepreneur. Visit Seth’s Blog. SCROLL DOWN FOR THE NEWEST CONTENT Sunday, Feb. 4, 2007 — 11:37 a.m.    It’s hard to remember back 23 years ago, but back then, when dinosaurs walked the earth, a few things were true:    1. Commercials were commercials—they sold stuff.    2. Content was content—it wasn’t filled with commercials (check out this tennis tournament via Patricia: not a billboard in sight).    The Apple ad changed everything. It was now commercial as content, commercial as event. The Apple ad was seen by more people after the game via free media than saw it during the game itself.    So, as you waste an evening watching television, understand that the media game you’re watching (as opposed to the football game) is not about selling anything per se. Instead, it’s about creating a short little movie that spreads. Yes, it’s permission marketing. Permission marketing because viewers are asking for the ads, they want the ads, they look forward to them. BUT, we’re not watching them because we want to buy or even to learn (the way, say, Google ads work). We’re watching because we want to be in on the joke, to have something to share. It’s big enough that there are entire web pages about the commercials. I’ll be contributing to this one at Adweek, at least until I get too bored with the game...    The commercial aspect of this is fascinating as well. Who wins? Probably not the shareholders. Someone at Frito Lay told me that they can prove that enough people buy chips during halftime (they leave their house and race out to the store) that the ads pay for themselves. But insurance?    The winners, I think, are the agencies and the pundits and those that would like advertising to be more than it actually is. 6:37 p.m.    So, the Ford commercial that started off the game is exactly what I’m talking about.    It cost a lot of money. It won’t sell any cars.    Why, exactly, did they run this other than ego, box seats and the triumph of the aggressive ad agency?    Sheesh. 7:31 p.m.    And the beer commercials! There’s such parity, no parody and as far as I can tell, not a particularly high bar to cross. 9 p.m.    I quit.    After watching GM run a 2 million dollar commercial that consists of a robot getting fired, walking the streets and then committing suicide, I’m so confused, so clueless and yes, so ashamed to be even peripherally involved in this line of work, I have no choice but to quit. If your company was breaking records (in losing money) and was so adversely affecting the lives of thousands, why on earth would you run this ad?    I give up.

February 4, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

Mike Hughes at Martin said one way they can track response is by the number of calls made to Geico after spots run and Save 15%/phone number is mentioned.

Posted by: makethelogobigger | Feb 4, 2007 4:06:24 PM

What about godaddy.com? No one had heard of them before their Super Bowl ads. Yes, their ads are tacky, but the business blew up as a result of Super Bowl advertising.

Posted by: Will Waugh | Feb 4, 2007 5:49:00 PM

GoDaddy's business also blew up as a result of their above-and-beyond customer service that strongly supported the jump in awareness from those Super Bowl spots. Follow-up has to be a key part of the Super Bowl strategy or those big bucks will be wasted. However, according to a research study I did last year, the spots are (not surprisingly) hugely polarizing. Women 18-34 were most likely to select the bottom two boxes in our survey, with a significant segment citing 'sleazy, anti-female' GoDaddy advertising as the reason for the cold shoulder. Guess GoDaddy decided the trade-off was worth it. This year?

Posted by: Sarah Bee | Feb 4, 2007 6:41:24 PM

Ford ad won't sell any cars...Bingo!!! that was an example of a company not in touch with the audience...okay, how many of us are NOT drinking right now, or involved in a household of additional people and, thus distracted? pretty much everyone. that Ford ad was far too complex and boring to hold attention and/or sell me on anything.

Posted by: Michael Wozniak | Feb 4, 2007 6:43:28 PM

I agree. No Bold Moves from Ford there for sure. A :30 sales brochure at best. But hey, the cgi was awesome!

;-p

Posted by: makethelogobigger | Feb 4, 2007 6:45:40 PM

Great use of Sheesh ... FedEx commercial just made me want to ship something...to the moon, alice.

Posted by: Andy | Feb 4, 2007 6:52:58 PM

I'm going to be laughing about Sierra Mist's Beard Combover for awhile

Posted by: Scott Townsend | Feb 4, 2007 6:56:27 PM

So far, at 7:15pm, commercials have been weak....

Glad that the game has some excitement. Can't wait to see Prince Singing in the Rain...

-- Chris

Posted by: Christopher Ryan | Feb 4, 2007 7:15:22 PM

Okay, just saw the GoDaddy spot. I think they pulled it off. The psychographic that dissed the 'anti-female' tone of the previous Super Bowl spots will likely love the tongue in cheek tone of this one. As I am a serious fan of their customer service strategy, I for one am happy with their hybrid solution.

Posted by: Sarah Bee | Feb 4, 2007 7:20:55 PM

I know that's why I'm in marketing.

Posted by: Scott | Feb 4, 2007 7:21:20 PM

These ads are Bad! And getting worse!!!

Posted by: Bryant Keefe | Feb 4, 2007 8:13:43 PM

I hope the half time show commercials are not as culturally biased as the ones we have seen leading up to it.

Posted by: Bertrand Sosa | Feb 4, 2007 8:17:20 PM

What is Bud Light thinking?

Posted by: Bryant Keefe | Feb 4, 2007 8:17:23 PM

i'm with you seth...i quit as well. this year's ads are so disappointing i'm on the verge of momentary depression.

there has not been one ad that i would qualify as memorable and when i personally believe the best ad of the evening has been the amateur ad for doritos (spicy/cheesey/bold...) then i know there's a problem with the tv medium.

blah.

Posted by: Michael Wozniak | Feb 4, 2007 9:20:03 PM

Tomorrow's Headline:

(Someplace)
Super Bowl Commercials a washout...

(Alternative)
Career Builder to benefit from new openings at national Advertising Agencies.

Note:
Career Builder should have stuck to the Monkeys...

Posted by: Christopher Ryan | Feb 4, 2007 9:34:17 PM

On the other hand, could the GM ad have more accurately reflected the absolutely pathetic state of that brand?

Posted by: pk | Feb 4, 2007 9:42:44 PM

Seth, if you don't understand the strategy behind GM wanting to battle quality perceptions, you must've "blinked" when the professor explained that in a 101-level course.

Posted by: Mike | Feb 4, 2007 9:48:52 PM

An agency friend of mine called the GM ad the "saddest, most depressing moment of the night."

And she hasn't even seen GM's balance sheet.

Posted by: Chris Baskind | Feb 5, 2007 2:41:56 AM

Couldn't agree more on the GM spot. Massively depressing. And seems to suggest suicide for those laid off more than it battles any quality perceptions. Crazy this idea made it out the door...

Posted by: okay. | Feb 5, 2007 9:21:04 AM

To submit a comment, please click here.