Kellogg Super Bowl Advertising Review: 2013 Results

It is clear that advertisers know everyone is watching the Super Bowl. Super Bowl XLVII featured ads that were broadly appealing, safe, and focused on delivering a brand message. The tradeoff, of course, is that it is hard to be distinctive and safe at the same time. This year we saw a lot of ads that worked well but won’t be remembered years from now.

There were two notable trends this year. First, advertisers ran long spots. Many developed sixty-second spots and Jeep, Dodge and Samsung ran spots lasting two minutes. Marketers are recognizing the power of stories to engage people and build brands. It takes time to tell an engaging story.

Second, social media reached a new level. Most Super Bowl advertisers had elaborate campaigns before the game and several were active during the game itself. Oreo, Tide and other brands tweeted about the blackout, demonstrating an ability to react quickly to developments in the world. One of our favorite tweets was from SodaStream, which signed off after the game with this comment:  “Hope you all enjoyed the game! We’re signing off before we have to see that Go Daddy commercial again.”

A group of almost sixty Kellogg students watched the Super Bowl in Evanston and evaluated all the spots. Here are some of the grades and highlights.

The Best

 

Tide (A)

Tide topped the list this year with a very engaging spot about a Joe Montana stain. Going into the game, we weren’t sure the spot would do well since the branding is late; Tide shows up just at the end of the commercial. But the ad had tremendous breakthrough. In addition, since the ad focused on a stain people quickly connected it to Tide, the clear category leader. This sort of ad wouldn’t work for a smaller brand but for Tide it is a huge win.

---

 

M&Ms (A)

M&Ms almost won the review for the second year in a row with a spot that had very strong branding and breakthrough. From the first second it was clear this was a spot for M&Ms. The ad was clever and engaging; it quickly got people’s attention and kept it.

---

 

Best Buy (A)

Best Buy has run Super Bowl ads for several years. This was its best year; Best Buy’s ad featuring Amy Pohler was one of the top spots in the Kellogg Super Bowl Advertising Review.

The spot had strong branding; it was very clear this was an ad for Best Buy. The ad also communicated a benefit: great service. It got attention and was very distinctive.

---

 

Jeep (A)

Chrysler’s Jeep ad was one of the most emotional and somber spots on the game. The ad ran during halftime, right after the Beyonce’s half-time extravaganza. The rather jarring contrast attracted attention, reminding people that even as they enjoy the game there are service men and women all over the world serving our country.

The spot worked for Jeep; it touched the brand’s historical roots and gave the brand meaning and importance.

The joint Jeep – USO branding was curious. This reduced the chance Jeep would be accused of opportunism but might have diluted the branding to some degree.

---

 

Wonderful Pistachios (A)

Wonderful Pistachios ran a terrific spot featuring Psy and his Gangnam style dancing. The ad was distinctive and very well branded. The line “Get Crackin’ Gangnam Style” was a triumph.

Wonderful Pistachios focused on the category of pistachios more than the merits of Wonderful Pistachios over other competitors. The strategic clarity kept the spot simple and focused.

---

 

Axe (A)

Unilever’s Axe brand ran an insightful spot about men, women and astronauts. The brand found a way to build on its historical equity and keep things interesting and fresh.

Strong Performers

 

Samsung (B)

Samsung made an interesting choice with its spot on the Super Bowl; the brand decided to run fresh creative, not its highly successful ads attacking Apple and Blackberry.

The ad worked; it was distinctive and communicated clearly that Samsung was indeed the next big thing.

An interesting side note: Kellogg student Sam Sung approved the use of his name in the spot.

---

 

E Trade (B)

The E Trade baby returned this year with another solid Super Bowl spot. The message this year was clear: keep retirement account fees low with E Trade. Branding was solid; using the baby means people immediately know who the ad is for. The ad didn’t have quite the magic of some E Trade’s earlier spots but it still finished near the top of our rankings.

---

 

Audi (B)

Audi had a distinctive spot with a clear benefit: driving an Audi makes you confident and brave. Audi relied on consumer input to select the ad’s finish. We are curious why none of the options showed the girl traveling with the brave fellow in the Audi.

---

 

Taco Bell (B)

A solid spot for Taco Bell featured old folks acting young. The insightful ad dramatized youth as a mindset. Taco Bell embraced an emotional benefit; the ad didn’t talk at all about specific menu offerings or food quality.

---

 

Mercedes (B)

An interesting move by Mercedes: highlighting the brand’s surprisingly low price. The point came across. We wonder if this is where Mercedes should focus.

---

 

Speed Stick (B)

Speed Stick’s spot on the Super Bowl worked well; it was distinctive and got the point across in a humorous fashion.

The Low Scoring Spots

 

BlackBerry (D)

BlackBerry received the lowest score from the Kellogg panel this year. This is unfortunate because BlackBerry really needed a strong performance to reverse the brand’s negative trends.

There were two big problems in the BlackBerry spot. First, branding was weak; it wasn’t clear who was advertising. Second, there wasn’t a benefit; the spot talked a lot about what the product didn’t do but little about what the device could do. Why should we use a BlackBerry? We wish they had given us a reason.

---

 

Lincoln (D)

Lincoln also needed a big year on the Super Bowl but fell flat. The brand showed an attractive car. Unfortunately, the Super Bowl is full of ads featuring attractive cars.

---

 

Go Daddy (D)

One of the factors the Kellogg panel considers is amplification. The question: what will people remember from the spot? Is this positive or negative?

Go Daddy had a distinctive spot but negative amplification; people found the kiss to be disconcerting. The extended play version posted on-line was even more disturbing for those who went to see it.

---

 

Subway (D)

Subway ran some fine spots on the Super Bowl; the branding was clear and the message distinctive. Most days, this would be fine. On the Super Bowl, however, standards are higher and the Subway ads just didn’t measure up so suffered in terms of getting attention and being distinctive.

---

 

Calvin Klein (D)

In 2012 we saw the male form displayed by H&M. This year we saw it showcased by Calvin Klein. The spot was distinctive but didn’t resonate with the Kellogg panel.

Other Notable Spots

 

Budweiser (C)

One of the top ads on the Super Bowl was Budweiser’s Clydesdale ad. What a remarkable piece of film; in just sixty-second, Budweiser told a very complicated story but everyone could follow it. We showed the ad to a seven-year old girl one time and she then immediately played back the entire story in great detail, both what happened and the emotions involved.

The Kellogg panel scored the Clydesdale spot as one of the very best on the game this year. Unfortunately, the other spots for Bud and Bud Light were not as effective; this brought the score for the Budweiser brand to a C.

---

 

Dodge (C)

The ad we’d most like to see again is the spot from Dodge featuring Paul Harvey talking about farmers. The spot is deep and emotional.

The power of the Dodge ad is that it gives the brand soul; it really connects Dodge to rural America and traditional values. This is strategically brilliant. Chrysler has clearly defined the Chrysler brand as an urban brand and the Dodge brand as a rural brand.

The spot fell in the middle of the pack with the Kellogg panel; it wasn’t clear that people connected the creative to the brand and there were some concerns as to whether the brand took too much time to share its message.

---

 

Mio (C)

Kraft’s Mio took aim at Gatorade in its Super Bowl ad. The spot showed how to use the product and set a clear frame of reference. The ad would have scored better with a stronger benefit: why use this product, again?

---

 

Cars.com (C)

Cars.com has been a consistent Super Bowl advertisers; the brand has run solid spots over the years. This one worked well but didn’t break into the top of the rankings. Still, with the brand’s aggressive integrated marketing effort supporting the ad we suspect the overall impact might be very positive.

Final Thoughts

Super Bowl advertising is only getting to be more important; it has a unique role in the marketing calendar. Social media will play a big role again next year.

The challenge for marketers is to be safe but not too safe. The spots that live with us forever as blockbusters in the Super Bowl advertising hall of fame are those combine exceptional strategy and creative brilliance.

Tim and Derek

Super Bowl 2013 Pre-Game

The 2013 Super Bowl is just days away. Many people are looking forward to the football game. We suspect more people are excited about the advertising.

Just as sports analysts are speculating about the upcoming bout between the San Francisco 49ers and the Baltimore Ravens, advertising enthusiasts are scanning the list of this year participants in anticipation of marketing’s big day.

Here are a few things to watch for in this year’s Super Bowl Advertising extravaganza.

• This year there are a host of new advertisers hoping to reach advertising glory. The ”rookie” entrants are always fun to watch to see how they handle the pressure of performing in the spotlight. On Sunday we will see rookies including Gildan Activewear, Blackberry and Soda Stream. The raw number of eyeballs the Super Bowl will fetch for these newcomers makes the desirability of the venue obvious. Of greater interest is whether or not these brands can bring both the creative panache and the strategic sensibility to have breakout debuts.

 

• Veteran advertisers are returning as well. Anheuser-Busch InBev will return with plays in mind for both its Budweiser and Bud Light brands. There has already been buzz in the media about the classic Budweiser Clydesdales, who appear to be ready to introduce the consumer to a newly minted foal. With their veteran experience in the bowl, anything less than a strong showing by Anheuser-Busch InBev will be a shock. Doritos will be back with their crowdsourcing technique, putting into play its best consumer-generated spots.

 

• Last year the Kellogg Super Bowl Ad Review rated M&Ms (Mars) the winner. The brand returns to defend its title with another spot. Keep an eye out for this execution to judge for yourself whether the brand is worthy of another title. Win or lose, it’s an almost certain that M&Ms (Mars) will make a strong play for the title.

 

We expect this to be an exciting year for Super Bowl Advertising. We will post results from the Kellogg Super Bowl Advertising Review right after the game.

Derek & Tim

Coke’s Super Bowl Problem

Coca-Cola has a problem.

The iconic brand’s Super Bowl campaign is coming under fire from people who claim it reflects negative stereotypes of Arabs. The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, for example, is calling on Coke to change course.

Coke has to be concerned; you never want your brand to be accused of discrimination.

Back when I was at Kraft Foods I worked on a spectacular commercial for Miracle Whip that featured an Indiana Jones type character making his way through a traditional Moroccan market. I can’t recall the plot but at some point he ended up with an empty jar of Miracle Whip and this caused much concern, as you might imagine.

We put the spot on network television and immediately received word that some groups (including, I believe, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee) found it offensive because it promoted stereotypes. We quickly took the spot off the air and ran another one instead.

It isn’t quite so easy for Coke; companies don’t have lots of Super Bowl spots sitting around.

So what are the options?

- Drop the entire campaign and run something else. This is not an appealing proposition.

- Run it despite the criticism. This is also an unattractive option.

- Edit the spot to reduce the offensive images. This is not a good option, either; changes might impact the quality of the spot and fail to address the criticism.

I understand why some marketers choose to avoid all the Super Bowl scrutiny.

Two Brands Needing a Super Bowl Bounce

The Super Bowl is always important for marketers; people scrutinize every spot. If all goes well, senior executives will shower the brand manager with praise, hand out a big bonus and offer up a promotion. If things go poorly, however, he will be criticized and, in some cases, fired.

For two brands this year, however, the Super Bowl is particularly important. In some ways, the Super Bowl will either spark a revival or mark the beginning of the end. If things go poorly, it isn’t likely they will be back next year; this is it.

 

Lincoln

Ford’s Lincoln is counting on a strong Super Bowl performance. The brand has struggled for years with slumping sales and an undefined brand image. Lincoln really can’t compete with luxury brands such as BMW, Mercedes and Lexus. Ford has been quick to drop brands that don’t fit the portfolio such as Jaguar and Land Rover but Lincoln remains.

Late in 2012 Ford rolled out a turn-around plan for Lincoln. The goal is to revitalize the brand. The Super Bowl plays a big part in this effort; it is Lincoln’s opportunity to present its case.

If the Super Bowl effort works, it will jump-start Lincoln sales and advance the brand revitalization. If the effort fails, however, Lincoln will have missed its big moment and the brand may well fail.

 

Blackberry

RIM’s Blackberry needs a Super Bowl bounce perhaps more than any other brand. The struggling smart phone maker is losing steam as its market share slips away and people abandon the devices. The company is rolling out a new platform this week, Blackberry 10, and two new devices. The Super Bowl is its moment to explain why people should use a Blackberry instead of a device from Samsung and Apple.

If Blackberry fails to make a strong case on the Super Bowl, there is little reason to have much hope for the firm. In the fast-moving world of technology, a brand can quickly be left behind. This is Blackberry’s opportunity to gain some ground.

Audi Engages

Super Bowl advertisers want to engage consumers; getting people to watch a sixty-second commercial during the Super Bowl is good, but getting them to visit a site and interact with a brand is better.

The challenge is doing so in an effective manner. Turning over total creative control isn’t a good idea; this is why few advertisers rely on consumer generated ads any more. Best case, a brand lets consumers have an impact while keeping the campaign on message.

This year Audi is running an innovative program to drive engagement: people can vote to choose the ending of Audi’s Super Bowl ad. Audi posted three videos on You Tube, each with a different ending. Voting runs for just 24 hours.

You can vote here, but only today:

http://www.youtube.com/audiusa

This is an example of good marketing. Audi risks giving away creative surprise but in return the brand guarantees that people who vote will watch the ad three times (or more). This is a pretty good tradeoff.

CareerBuilder Takes a Pass

One of the advertisers I’ll miss seeing on the Super Bowl this year is CareerBuilder.

CareerBuilder first advertised on the game back in 2005. The brand was quite new at the time; Monster.com dominated the space and CareerBuilder was a much smaller challenger. CareerBuilder ran a charming commercial featuring the now iconic chimps. The Kellogg Super Bowl Advertising Review panel gave it a B, a good grade (the average grade is a C). The chimps did even better for CareerBuilder in 2006; the Kellogg panel gave that spot one of the top scores of the year, an A.

CareerBuilder moved away from the chimps in 2007, running an ad that compared office life to surviving in a jungle. Perhaps the brand’s lowest moment came in 2008 when its Super Bowl ad featured a heart graphically emerging from a lady’s chest. The Kellogg panel gave CareerBuilder a D that year.

CareerBuilder rebounded in 2009 and 2010, receiving an A and a B. The 2010 spot featured people with no pants. Then, at long last, Career Builder brought back the chimps in 2011 and 2012.

During this time, CareerBuilder grew to become a category leader, eventually overtaking Monster.com. The Super Bowl clearly played an important part in this growth.

So why is CareerBuilder taking a pass in 2013?

The company isn’t offering much of an explanation; the official line is that CareerBuilder is spending on other things, which I’m certain is true.

I suspect there are several reasons.

One problem is simple; the chimps are an issue. Over the years, animal rights groups criticized CareerBuilder for using chimps in its spot. The criticism reached a new peak in 2012.

Without the chimps, CareerBuilder would have to develop a new campaign. This is costly and complicated and, as the team at CareerBuilder has learned, not easy to do when you have established equity in an iconic image like the chimps.

It wasn’t clear how much the Super Bowl was doing for Career Builder, either. After eight years, how much more growth is there? What is the return on investment, anyway? The only way to really know is to skip a year and see what happens. This is a real life test market.

I suspect the marketers at CareerBuilder will again be watching this year’s Super Bowl with great interest. This year, however, they won’t be watching to see how well their ad does; they will be watching to see what happens when they sit out.

I predict we will see them back on the Super Bowl in 2014

Gildan Bets on the Super Bowl

The Super Bowl is a great place to launch a new brand; the event’s huge viewership provides a platform for introducing a new product to a significant portion of people in the United States. Brands like Monster, CareerBuilder and Go Daddy used the Super Bowl effectively during their launch.

One of this year’s new brands, and one of the most interesting Super Bowl stories, is Gildan.

Gildan is a huge apparel company with almost $2 billion in annual revenues. Gildan produces millions of shirts and sweatshirts. When you buy one of those shirts saying “My friends went to Cleveland and all I got was this stupid shirt” you are probably buying a Gildan product.

The Gildan brand is largely unknown; most people don’t know or care about it. This is a problem, of course, because branding is critical for differentiation in the apparel world. It is difficult to command an enormous price premium based on fabric or cut. Without differentiation, the focus shifts to price and fighting based on low price is hard.

Gildan is now trying to build its brand. The goal is clear: grow awareness of the Gildan brand and build customer advantage. If all goes well, people will eventually seek out Gildan and pay a premium for it.

This makes very good strategic sense. Differentiation drives profitability.

The problem is that this will not be easy. Building a brand in this cluttered world takes money and time, especially in a somewhat low-interest category like t-shirts.

The Super Bowl is a logical choice for Gildan; it is a strong platform to launch the brand.

Will it work?

To be successful, Gildan will have to do what all Super Bowl advertisers have to do: get breakthrough, deliver a benefit and communicate the brand.

Gildan’s first spot isn’t all that encouraging. You can watch it here.

http://permalink.fliqz.com/aspx/permalink.aspx?at=f9bf390abfde4e63a5bc77640bea4096&a=7575d9fb737a4193a5ef6df3c0b4744b

The ad has fairly good breakthrough. But there isn’t a clear benefit (why Gildan?) and the branding is weak. Hopefully the Super Bowl spot will be better.