This year’s Super Bowl game couldn’t have been better, with the outcome in doubt until the final seconds. The same can’t be said for the big game’s ads. With few exceptions, this year’s spots were disappointing, generating fewer laughs than usual and playing things much safer than in past years. Even Anheuser-Busch’s notoriously rowdy Bud Light ads seemed subdued. This may reflect the downbeat mood of the country as its economic woes grow. Advertisers were likely scared to indulge in the usual party atmosphere, lest they be accused of acting frivolous during times of serious hurt for many across the country. That led to some disappointed viewers, however, and the scores on many of the day-after Super Bowl ad polls reflected that. The ninth annual Adbowl, sponsored by Albuquerque, N.M.-based agency McKee Wallwork Cleveland, saw lots of its judges, those who logged on during and after the game to rate the ads, giving lower-than-average scores. Bart Cleveland, partner and creative director at McKee Wallwork Cleveland, talks to Media Life about the Super Bowl’s standouts, the disappointments, and why chimps should be banned.

 
Overall, how would you rate this year's crop of commercials in terms of creativity and audience enjoyment, compared to past years?
 
Unfortunately it was a year of disappointment. There were not any surprises.

In many cases, I scratched my head as to why someone would spend $6 million to run a 60-second commercial that was so bland. AdBowl.com’s results show that the usual champ, Anheuser-Busch, essentially took the year off.

Perhaps advertisers were taking less chances with the creative because of the economy. Perhaps we ad makers are more impressed with ourselves than we should be. Whatever the reason, no advertiser did anything that will be remembered.
 

So just how much did we see the poor state of the economy reflected in this year's ads?
 
I think the overall quality of thinking was a reflection of a more conservative, risk-averse year. People aren’t really optimistic about the coming year. This applies to advertisers, too.

I think the ads of this year’s Super Bowl are a reflection of the mindset of the country. Everyone kept it pretty conservative.

What was the biggest difference, theme-wise, between this year and last year's ads?
 
There was a significant difference theme-wise. I’d say that there is an attempt such as Sobe’s to co-op with other marketers.

Unfortunately, the potential there wasn’t realized, but I think we could see another effort like theirs in the future.
 
Using the internet as a vehicle to begin the consumer engagement and extend it after the Super Bowl will also continue to happen. Success will depend on how well the idea is conceived and executed with true consumer behavior in mind.
 

What are the qualities that make for a good Super Bowl ad? Does that change year to year?
 
The Super Bowl is an event that resembles a holiday. It has become a day that people come together to enjoy the spectacle that surrounds a championship game. It’s an escape from the problems we face for a few hours. That means a good Super Bowl ad fulfills that objective. It must supply entertainment first and sell a product second.
 
This is the opposite of most traditional advertising techniques. Super Bowl ads have evolved into spectacles of technique rather than ideas.

The amount of production dollars spent is amazing. The irony is that all the technique in the world doesn’t replace a great idea. Unfortunately, we ad makers forget that lesson too often.

What were the night's standout ads?
 
AdBowl’s winner was Bridgestone. The tire company nabbed first and second place with “Taters,” a spot that featured Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head, and “Hot Item,” where astronauts get their Bridgestones stolen from their moon crawler.
 
In my opinion, there were no standouts. A standout would be something that people are talking about the next day. Every person I’ve talked to has not said anything remotely similar to “Did you see that spot where ... ?”
 

By contrast, which ads simply did not deliver?
 
AdBowl’s voting is rated on a scale of 0-5. There were a lot of “1’s”, which is not what advertisers are going for.
 
The reasons so many failed are varied. Lack of originality is the foremost reason. If you don’t surprise and delight me, you're wasting my time.

One example was the Monster.com ad with the mounted moose head. It was obvious what was going to happen and so the payoff was not worth the time invested.

I thought E*Trade [with its talking baby spots] has totally run its course. I think they tried to make it work with a message that the concept was designed to deliver. I expected a lot because they had delivered well in the past.
 

Were there any ads with a lot of pregame buzz that didn't quite live up to expectations?
 
The Sobe 90-second 3D commercial was not as entertaining as the hype. Too much production and not enough of an idea.
 

As you alluded to, perennial favorite Anheuser-Busch had only two ads in your top 10 and generally did not fare well in other polls. What happened?
 
One of two things: The client became conservative (perhaps because of the economy), or those who created the commercials are not being critical enough of their work.

What about the Bridgestone and Doritos ads really resonated with people?
 
I think Bridgestone’s “Taters” spot was charming and so it appealed to the broadest range of people.

Doritos is hyped as consumer-produced and so it probably is given a little more compassion from voters. The idea of a consumer winning a million dollars makes people want to help.
 

Why did we see so many critters in this year's Super Bowl ads?
 
Because advertisers pay attention to statistics to a fault. Research shows that people like commercials using animals or “critter characters.”

I think they are used as a crutch. Critter commercials are seen as less risky because of the statistics. But if the idea is lame, no critter is going to save it.

If I see one more spot with a chimpanzee I think I’ll scream.