Super Bowl XLIII (that's 43) is less than a month away, and the advertising hoopla and teasers are beginning to surface. So far, 80% of the ad inventory has been snapped up, mostly in 30-second slots fetching close to $2.7 million each. Viewers will most likely see a return of the Clydesdale horses, as well as some goofy CareerBuilder and E-Trade spots. Hyundai announced that their ad will incorporate the music of master cellist, Yo-Yo Ma (yawn). And GoDaddy has confirmed it will return to the game for a fifth, but less provocative, appearance (damn). FedEx has announced that it will punt for the first time in twelve years, saying that "times have changed." Indeed.
But the big Super Bowl ad news this year belongs to the collaboration between DreamWorks Animation, Pepsi's SoBe, Intel, and NBC to bring viewers an ad break entirely in 3-D. DreamWorks chief executive Jeffrey Katzenberg tells the Associated Press it's "perhaps the biggest media-advertising event in history" and "involves tens of millions of dollars." About 150 million Intel produced 3D glasses will be distributed free by PepsiCo though SoBe Lifewater retail displays at 28,000 locations including grocery, drug and electronics stores and big-box retailers. Consumers can also call 800-646-2904 to obtain a pair (I called. They told me to call back in a week).
Katzenberg says the glasses will use Intel InTru 3D and ColorCode 3D, which updates the old red-blue Anaglyph system (oh . . . is that what it was called?). The technology will also allow people without the glasses to see an almost ordinary image on the TV screen (whatever that means). The eye-popping ad break will include a 90-second trailer for the upcoming DreamWorks film "Monsters vs. Aliens," a 60-second ad for SoBe Life Water that features their popular lizards, and a preview of the NBC show "Chuck." In addition, viewers will be told to hold on to their 3D glasses (Don't chuck your glasses . . . get it?) so they can use them to watch a 3-D episode of "Chuck" set to air the next day.
I can't wait to hear what the ad pundits have to say about this unique idea, especially the folks at The Kellogg School Super Bowl Advertising Review which is "the only review that utilizes academic criteria to rank the ads. Unlike other reviews that judge ads by their popularity, it evaluates an advertisement on key factors that can help drive sales and favorably impact the company’s bottom line and brand awareness." Yeah, right.
Here's my two cents: DreamWorks scrambled and threw deep for a touchdown, but Pepsi played it safe and eked out a few yards on the ground. NBC and Intel? They simply went along for the branding ride (talk about mixing metaphors). First, DreamWorks score. The Super Bowl is a huge (90 million plus viewers) family affair. Can you think of a better venue to provide an engaging sampling of your family-oriented product, which is scheduled to be available for family consumption during the dreary and boring month of March? I can't. And then to ensure audience sampling, you orchestrate a deal with Intel and Pepsi to create a monster promotional stunt. Brilliant!
Now for Pepsi's bad call. Instead of giving away the glasses at branded retail displays, Pepsi should have figured out a way to include the 3D glasses in a case of specialty crafted Super Bowl Tropicana punch (with a spiked punch recipe inside) or in bags of Super Bowl Fritos with football images burned into them. Anything that would stimulate purchase, sampling, participation and conversation. Every person hosting a party, or even simply watching the game with family and friends, would be compelled to buy (or bring) a case (or bag).
The days of branding via mere exposure and loose associations are quickly coming to an end. Companies need people to buy their stuff. And the best way to get people to buy your stuff is:
I like #2 way better.
Posted January 6, 2009
Email this post
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c684b53ef010536b6bf75970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference So(be) very, very close:
The comments to this entry are closed.
(Rest assured, we will never provide your email address to anyone. Period.)
RSS feed
Tom on Twitter
@tomasacker
Tom is timely, thought provoking and all about the new brand vision packaged as a Seinfeld stand up. I went to school on his ideas.
Jeff Taylor, Founder, Monster.com and CEO, Eons.
When Tom Asacker writes, I read. Opportunity Screams is the right message for the right time.
Tom Peters
Tom, I think you're right on target with your analysis...the companies involved all got into the gig for their own purposes, most of which still amount to achieving 'awareness' or exposure to those zillions of eyeballs that'll be glued to TV screens.
The big disconnect is also the tragic flaw in the entire shebang, and you state it eloquently in your "try/buy" conclusion. "Awareness" isn't enough, and I worry that even the most immersive and compelling "sample" of entertainment content may not survive a few months until it's supposed to influence (let alone trigger) purchase intent.
Why couldn't EVERY participant in the promotional event have defined a behavioral, or transactional component?
- Dreamworks could have offered some unique content or other cue that drove viewers to register on a social media tool, and thus begun some ongoing communications that yielded a super discount to the movie when it comes out later in the year
- Pepsi could have coordinated with a special product package or other event-creating campaign (as you rightly riffed); how about encouraging viewers to DVR/Tivo the spot because of some embedded content that prompted a follow-on activity?
- Instead of just going along for the ride, Intel could have linked to the movie trailers or other content-related value-adds...or perhaps announced some promo event for the week the movie opens
- NBC could have built some carry-forward life for the special 3D glasses...perhaps suggested keeping them for other programs or events?
All of this is just a reminder that the bottleneck for delivering successful brands isn't technological or channel-specific, but rather ideological. Brand as image and awareness is an inert proposition. If we redefine the content, it changes how we use any and all media.
Again, great post.
Posted by: Jonathan Salem Baskin | January 07, 2009 at 07:12 AM