Which Super Bowl
ads worked, and why
A look at the commercials that conveyed a truth
By Diego Vasquez
Feb 8, 2011
Humor was the big victor in this year's Super Bowl ads faceoff. Seven of the top 10 finishers in this year's AdBowl, the Super Bowl commercial rankings site from ad agency McKee Wallwork Cleveland, were funny ones. The top ad, Volkswagen Passat's "Imperial March," used a kid with a Darth Vader costume to generate gentle laughs, while Doritos, which placed three ads in the top 10, employed more adult humor, including a gross-out gag of one man licking the leftover Doritos cheese from another man's fingers. Another popular theme for the top 10 was animals, with Doritos, Volkswagen and Bridgestone all employing furry creatures in their spots. Still, there were some sentimental commercials that made the top 10. Eminem's heartfelt tribute to his hometown of Detroit in a Chrysler ad ranked No. 9 and managed to cut through the clutter of multiple carmakers' ads. What did not fare well this year: movie trailers and Bud Light ads, none of which cracked the top 10. Emily Griebel, integration architect at McKee Wallwork Cleveland, which runs AdBowl, talks to Media Life about which ads worked, which didn't, and why Chrysler's was such a surprise.
What ad themes seemed to resonate most with viewers this year?
The ads that seemed to resonate most with viewers were those that were able to connect a truth about the brand to a human truth. In other words, the ads that were able to strike a chord with the audience were the most well-received.
For example, anyone that has ever been around kids could completely relate to Volkswagen’s “The Imperial March” ad, where the young Darth Vader is able to start the car with his “powers.” According to AdBowl, our real-time Super Bowl ad rating system, this commercial received the highest score – a 4.36 on a 5-point scale.
Other ads that did well in our AdBowl poll were Bridgestone “Carma,” Doritos “House Sitting,” and NFL “Sitcoms.” Each one of these ads triggered an emotional reaction from viewers – maybe delight or laughter or a nostalgic feeling.
Which ads were the biggest misses and why?
The ads at the bottom of our AdBowl poll were for movie trailers, Hyundai, SalesForce/Chatter.com, Groupon, GoDaddy and Sketchers.
In my opinion, these ads either lacked substance, were too confusing, or were simply not well-told stories.
Advertising is like story-telling – you must have strong characters and a well-developed plotline. And since you only have 30 or 60 seconds to do so, that can be a very challenging task.
Which ads were most surprising to you, in terms of creative and whether people liked or did not like them?
The ad that was most surprising, pleasantly, was Chrysler’s “The Motor City,” featuring Eminem. Historically, American car manufacturers’ branding and advertising has been weak because they refused to take a strong position. This Chrysler ad was an anomaly in that it made a statement that people could believe in.
Maybe not all that surprising was Coca-Cola. The “Border Crossing” ad, in terms of creative, did a great job of expressing the brand’s “happiness” positioning with a very unique story.
Did any of the movie ads stand out? Why did we see such a big movie presence this year?
None of the movie ads really stood out and they all fell fairly low in the AdBowl ratings.
I think there were so many movie trailers because that industry is getting more and more competitive, so the studios need to reach as many people as possible to promote their movies. And of course, the Super Bowl is the perfect place to do that.
This year beavers and dogs seemed to make good impressions on viewers. Why are animals, especially anthropomorphic ones, so endearing?
People love animals and people think animals doing “people-like” things are funny and entertaining. Since animals can’t talk, we’re always wondering what they're thinking. So when you attribute human qualities to an animal, it gives people insight into what that animal might say if it could talk or do if it were human.
Pizza Hut sliced its Super Bowl ad at the last minute, but its sponsorship was evident in the pregame. Why did it choose to nix the ad in the game? Was the pregame simply enough?
Maybe Pizza Hut felt that it would get lost in the clutter of the game and could make more of an impact during the pregame. And possibly they thought they could drive more pizza sales before the game than during the game.
There were a lot of car ads in this year's game. Do you think the cluttered environment for that category hurt or helped the brands? Or neither? Which car ads really stood out?
Frankly, I experienced a little brand confusion with all the different car ads. It was nice to see a Super Bowl comeback for that industry but I do think there were too many players this year.
Also, I think some of the stories in the ads were too complicated. The stories may have been a little too intricate for a 30- or 60-second time period.
Overall, I think the cluttered environment probably hurt the brands. But as stated before, I believe Chrysler’s Detroit ad stood out by taking a stand.
It seems Bud Light has had a couple of rather lackluster years in Super Bowl advertising. Would you call this year a return to form?
Definitely not. Bud Light didn’t make an appearance in the AdBowl top 10 rankings this year or last year. The last time they made the AdBowl top 10 was 2009.
Their ads just seemed to fall flat and didn’t have the “edge” that they have in the past.
|
|
|
