#5: Pepsi Max Is Turned Into A Weapon

Capturing the #5 spot in the USA Today Super Bowl poll is the second of the Pepsi Max Spots, Love Is In The Air.

In this ad, Pepsi Max offers a rather in-your-face view of a wife encouraging her man to eat right. It starts with her kicking him under the restaurant table, encouraging him to order a fruit cup. As he's getting ready to dig into a cream pie, she walks by and thrusts his face right smack into the cream. Caught red-handed sneaking some junk food while hiding out in the bathtub, she replaces his gooey burger (which is already in his mouth) with a bar of soap.

In the last scene, he is sitting on a park bench opening a can of Pepsi Max when his wife sidles up alongside him. Instead of taking it from him - as she has with all the other food he's tried to eat - she cracks open her own can of Pepsi Max, smiles, and takes a deep swallow. As he sits there in disbelief, she says, "Pepsi Max. Zero Calories."

Just then, an attractive young lady jogs up and sits down on the bench right next to theirs. She gives the husband a quick once-over, offering him a cute wave and a coy little smile. He unabashedly stares back at her with appreciation. Taking in the scene, his wife throws the can of Pepsi Max at his head, only to have him duck, squarely hitting the jogger in the head. She crumbles to the ground, clearly hurt by the can.

They grab each other's hands and run from the scene of the crime.

Sue's Grade: B-

I thought this was a mildly amusing ad; however, I must admit that the violence did not sit well with me. While the point of Pepsi Max being a dieter's dream - no calories, no sacrifice - came through loudly, I kept wincing as the wife so resoundingly abused her husband time after time. 

Plus, I must ask the obvious: is it smart for Pepsi to turn the Pepsi Max can into a weapon?

#6: CareerBuilder Monkeys Around

Capturing the #6 spot in the USA Today Super Bowl poll is CareerBuilder's mischievous chimp spot.

If you were a fan of the CareerBuilder monkeys during the 2005 and 2006 Super Bowls, you are in for a treat as the monkeys come back to reek havoc on the poor "human" office worker. This time, they pin him into his car by parking uncomfortably close, proving that he works with a bunch of monkeys.

Interestingly, CareerBuilder did not seek the assistance of Cramer-Krasselt, who was the agency that created the original monkey ads. Rather, they created these ads inhouse, using the same look, feel, and  actor that C-K used when the initial spot debuted. That ploy earned a 'raised eyebrow' from this planner.

In conjunction with this campaign, CareerBuilder is also resurrecting Monk-e-mail, which previously racked up 160 million viral messages, earning the status of being one of the most buzzed campaigns of all time.

I'm sure Cramer-Krasselt has some satisfaction in knowing that the monkeys were a good idea all along. After being forced to switch gears and air a different ad - Wild Jungle - during the 2007 Super Bowl, CareerBuilder and Cramer-Krasselt parted ways when the ad fell short of the USA Today Top 10 Super Bowl list.

While I was amused with this spot, immediately drawing the parallel back to earlier advertising, I discovered something interesting in the advertising class I teach at Marquette University. Only 2 of the 50 students recalled the original spots. So, not suprisingly, this ad left them a little mystified as to what was going on. 

College students are an important emerging target for CareerBuilder. My concern is that if they are not linking the ad to the original concept of "feeling like you're working with a bunch of monkeys," then the ad doesn't deliver its message.

Instead, it's just a bunch of cute, mischievous monkeys clowning around in a parking lot.

Sue's Grade: B-

Does The USA Today Ad Meter Work?

This coming Sunday, the most important football game of the year will be played when the Green Bay Packers take on the Pittsburgh Steelers in Super Bowl XLV.

But, that's not all that's happening on Sunday.

In between masterful passes, catches, sacks, tackles, interceptions, and fumbles we will remain glued to the TV set. Why? To watch the advertising, of course. We will be treated to $3 million-for-30-seconds-of-fame ads that will bring tears to our eyes, make us chortle with laughter, and occasionally disappoint or even perplex us.

Interestingly, the ads that air during the Super Bowl have become as much a superstar on game day as the athletes on the field. People will watch - and later rewatch online - the best ads, the worse ads, even the ads that were banned and never made it to the big screen.

Super Bowl ads have become big business in the United States. In fact, according to a study conducted by Grand Rapids advertising and branding agency, Hanon McKendry, 54% of people watch the big game for the advertising rather than the football. 

After the Lombardi trophy has found its way to a new home, leaving some fans elated and others totally dejected, we will turn to USA Today on Monday morning to find out which ads made the Top Ten list based on their annual Ad Meter survey; a survey that has become a legend unto itself.

So, just how does USA Today's Ad Meter work?

Each year, USA Today prerecruits 300 Americans who are representative of the U.S. population to participate in their survey. They provide each with a hand-held device that they are asked to use while watching commercials during the Super Bowl game. The device has a dial on it, which is initially set in a neutral position.  When viewers watch an ad, they are asked to turn the dial to the right during parts of each ad they like and to the left during parts they don't like. The farther they turn the dial, the more intense their feelings.

Once the game is completed, the average scores for each ad are tabulated; then the ads are ranked. The result is USA Today's Top 10 ranked Super Bowl ads.

But, the $3 million question is this: Does this score positively correlate to sales? In other words, are the most-liked ads more likely to increase sales?

Well, according to Philip Herr's commentary in Advertising Age on 1/28/11, the simple answer is no.

Millward Brown, a behemoth global research company, was commissioned by the NFL to explore the correlation between the USA Today Ad Meter results and in-market sales. The results were quite intriguing:

1. A spot on the Super Bowl is equal to, on average, 250 spots on regular TV
2. The more established the brand, the better the extended ROI from a Super Bowl ad
3. A spot on the Super Bowl has a positive halo effect on related, but unadvertised, brands
4. The quarter of the game in which a brand advertises is irrelevant
5. There is a lot more to success then the likability of an ad

It is point 5 that brings us back to the USA Today Ad Meter.  The Millward Brown study clearly showed that while likability is necessary to be a top-rated ad, it is not enough - in and of itself - to generate sales.

So, the bottom line?

The Ad Meter is fun to look at and to comment on, but it doesn't ensure that the brand will ring up more sales.

--------------------------

Note: Starting Monday, February 7, I will critique the #10 ad on the USA Today list. Each day, I will comment on a new ad, wrapping up with the #1 highest rated ad on Wednesday, February 16.

Ashley Martin: Banned or PR Stunt?

It's all over the news today - Fox has rejected Ashley Madison's Super Bowl spot.

Over the years, we've come to expect that a handful of ads will be censored by the networks. In Super Bowl 2010, PETA, KGB, and Go Daddy all had ads that never saw the light of day on Super Bowl Sunday. 

In many ways, we enjoy watching these ads just as much (or in some cases, even more) than those that are aired on Super Bowl Sunday. For instance, look at the number of YouTube views for three of last year's banned commercials:

PETA            160,783
KBG             332,713
Go Daddy     930,714         

While viewership may not be in the millions, remember that each of these views came at no cost to the company.

People wonder why or how these ads flew through the approval process in their companies without raising a few eye brows. Well, the plain and simple truth is this ... they didn't. Many, if not all of these companies, never expected the networks to approve their ads for the Super Bowl.

Think about it, does a company like Ashley Martin really want to spend $3 million for 30 seconds of fame? Or would they rather pay the production costs to create the ad and then wallow in all the free publicity?

My money is on the latter. 

P.S. By the way, I just helped them achieve their goal by writing this blog.