Responses by Shawn Wilkie, Partner and Chief Operating Officer, High10 Digital
According to research conducted by the University of Southern California, the average American is exposed to more than 5,000 ads per day. Our conscious mind isn’t really capable of recalling the majority of those. So when an event like the Super Bowl happens with the cultural relevance and exposure it provides—not to mention the attention the audience is gladly willing to pay to the ads due to the expectations that have been set—those brands with the means to do so want to take advantage of the opportunity. The smartest of those marketers understand that it’s not just about the visibility that a spot during the game itself affords, but finding ways to extend that investment through early “teaser” releases, synchronous social media campaigns, and continued exposure afterward.
But ultimately, the impact of any Super Bowl spot is driven primarily by the creativity of the advertisers and the connection it makes with the audience.
So, which advertisers invested their $8-10 million for a Super Bowl LX spot wisely, and which would have been better off doing something else?
The Good
Levi’s “Backstory” successfully reminded us all why we buy jeans in the first place: because of the way they make us look. The brand made the right choice to eschew the early releases and teasers that 95% of the other advertisers employed; seeing the spot for the first time during the actual game hearkened back to the surprise that used to be the case for all Super Bowl ads, making viewing it a more fun discovery for the viewer.
I love how a 150-year-old brand managed to parade its products in a way that feels modern, even as it highlighted recognizable celebrity posteriors from the past and intermixed them with regular rumps that still pay off the concept. Using James Brown’s “Get Up Offa That Thing” as the soundtrack—with the screeching intro to grab your attention at the beginning of the spot—was perfection.
Levi’s managed to convey “sexy” in a way that felt entirely comfortable viewing in a roomful of mixed company, while showing that storytelling is more than simply telling a story.
The Bad
Coinbase wasted :60 with its “Everybody” karaoke spot.
The most interesting thing is that the spot was so visually arresting that it immediately grabbed everyone’s attention. But there was audible anger from the audience at the conclusion of the commercial when Coinbase was revealed as the advertiser, to absolutely no payoff whatsoever. (Financial pun definitely not intended).
The commercial lacked any apparent linkage to the brand and said nothing to the audience about why they should care. It failed to make any emotional connection with the viewer and feels entirely inexplicable. At a time when many people feel like cryptocurrency is still too complex to understand, it seems like a massive missed opportunity to execute a commercial concept that just makes everyone scratch their heads.
The Questionable
Pepsi Zero Sugar’s “The Choice” gives me pause. Based on the reactions I witnessed, I suspect Pepsi has missed the mark.
Lots of consumers were skeptical of the results of the Pepsi Challenge when it originally ran as a campaign in the 70’s and 80’s, and I have a hard time believing that the more cynical consumer of today is any more likely to believe the results of this “blind” taste test…particularly since it was performed by an animated polar bear. Worse, several people watching the game with me missed the first few seconds of the spot entirely, so they never really got what was going on. They just saw—and talked about—the Coca-Cola polar bear.
Don’t get me wrong, I love almost everything Taika Waititi has ever done. I would love for his direction (and cameo) of this to be successful. But it’s dangerous to try co-opting such a recognizable icon, and in this particular case, I think Pepsi tried to be too clever and ended up spending millions of dollars to remind consumers of their rival brand.