On Sunday night, Super Bowl advertisers spent $5.6 million for 30 seconds to make people go “ha!” or “aww”—only to have their costly TV commercials forgotten a moment later. The Cranky Creative explores what went wrong—and surprisingly, who’s doing it right.
I watched it happen in real time: big brands setting fire to unimaginable sums of money on national TV.
Immediately after Amazon ran its Super Bowl ad for Alexa, a creative director I follow on Twitter remarked how “Google got me again, this time with humor.” He’d gotten “teh feelz” from an earlier ad showing how Google helped an old man remember his dead wife, and he was impressed that the company had produced a second, more lighthearted ad.
Only problem was, the second ad wasn’t from Google.
Alexa is from Amazon.
Oops.
I saw it happen among my family and friends here at home, too.
“I liked that ad with the guy who had his head up his ass.”
“Oh yeah, what was that for again?”
“. . . “
(It was for Reese’s Take 5 candy bar.)
This is what happens when an ad’s big idea is not closely related to the product or the prospect, when it isn’t unique enough that it couldn’t be used for any other brand.
But brands weren’t done reveling in ways to waste money. This year’s Super Bowl ads were so full of obscure in-jokes and pop-culture references, I’ll bet most viewers didn’t understand half of them.
Take the Squarespace ad featuring Winona Ryder. (Did you recognize Winona? I was one of the few in my group who did.) Anyway, Winona is lying on her back in the snow outside a Minnesota town named Winona. (In one of the night’s far-too-many references to Hollywood films, this setup was meant to evoke the opening scenes of the movie “Fargo.”)
A highway patrol officer stops and asks what she’s doing.
“I’m building a website,” she says.
Huh?
Part of the joke is that Winona was born in, and named after, a Minnesota town named Winona. Super funny, right? Except the ad doesn’t say this and who gives a crap anyway. Most of the people in my party were confused, and absolutely no one was interested enough to want an explanation.
Then there was the “Smaht Pahk” ad for the Hyundai Sonata. Featuring four celebrities who all have ties to Boston, the ad’s big laugh was the characters’ incessant repetition of “smaht pahk” in a thick Boston accent. (For the record, I recognized only two of the celebrities, and had no clue that any of them had connections to Boston.) At least the ad showed off the car’s automated parking feature, which is more product demonstration than other ads did.
Finally, did you recognize “Game of Thrones” actress Maisie Williams, or the Disney movie song she sang behind the wheel in a car ad for . . . Jeez, what company was it? (Audi. I had to look it up.) Did you know Maisie is an environmental advocate and that’s why Audi chose her to promote its first all-electric car?
Me neither.
Time and again, advertising people forget that consumers aren’t nearly as interested in ads as they are. We’re not breathlessly anticipating their next communication, hanging on every word. The average person isn’t going to notice or understand all these clever (and often very expensive) little gags.
It’s almost as if today’s advertising is made for other ad people, or to sell the ad agency’s creativity to prospective new clients, rather than to sell the products of the current client who’s paying the bill.
Surprise! The best Super Bowl ad wasn’t a TV commercial
You’ve heard of Ryan Reynolds? Actor and entrepreneur, part owner of Aviation Gin and, more recently, cell service provider Mint Mobile?
Last week, Reynolds purchased a full-page ad in The New York Times.
“Everyone’s buying ads so I bought one too,” he said in a tweet. “Not on TV. In the @nytimes. Because… #classy,” Reynolds wrote.
Everyone’s buying ads so I bought one too. Not on TV. In the @nytimes. #classy https://t.co/LGeai4oxI6 pic.twitter.com/xuBdfIvFuI
— Ryan Reynolds (@VancityReynolds) January 29, 2020
The ad copy reads:
On Sunday, some companies will spend over $5 million dollars to advertise in a game so expensive I can’t even mention its name lest we summon its army of lawyers.
5 MILLION DOLLARS?
As the new owner of Mint Mobile, that’s a HARD no. Mint offers premium wireless service for just $15 dollars a month, so we could literally give away over 300,000 months of free service and still save money.
And that’s exactly what we’re going to do.
Sign up for Mint Mobile after kickoff and before the final whistle, and get 3 months of Mint Mobile service free.
Vist: MintMobile.com/FREE for details.
How’s that for smaht—uh, smart?
As you may recall, Reynolds also shook up the ad world in December when he hired the actress from the much-maligned Peloton holiday ad to appear in a spot for Aviation Gin.
When social media erupted with charges that the Peloton ad was sexist and it’s main character (Monica Ruiz) appeared to be a hostage to her body-shaming husband, Reynolds cast the actress as a traumatized-looking woman sitting at a bar between two concerned friends.
“This gin is really smooth,” she says as the alcohol soothes her nerves.
“You’re safe here,” one friend says, and Ruiz raises a glass to “new beginnings.”
The kicker comes when the camera moves to a closeup of the Aviation Gin bottle and one of the friends is heard telling Ruiz, “You look great, by the way!”
The ad was a stroke of genius and an instant hit on social media.
Exercise bike not included. #AviationGin pic.twitter.com/jYHW74h81l
— Ryan Reynolds (@VancityReynolds) December 7, 2019
Now compare Reynolds’s work to this astoundingly stupid Super Bowl ad for Turbo Tax:
To paraphrase a tweet I read from someone commenting on the Mint Mobile ad, “How is it that the smartest creative director in the business doesn’t even work in advertising?”
How, indeed.
The reigning kings and queens of today’s ad world could learn a lot from Reynolds. Until they do, the industry’s head will continue to be planted firmly up its ass.
See all Cranky ad reviews | Back to blog home page.
Greetings from the grumpy old man department. Watched very few ads and very little of the game (Pack not in it, and the days of eternal pre-game hype/nonsense drained me of any remaining interest).
I was vaguely interested in the Weathertech ad with the shout-out to my alma mater, UW. Yet I’d be more impressed with a company that extols real difference makers (e.g., medical staff at UW Children’s Hospital) than those who fix a dog. But that’s just a silly and absurd musing on my part….
The Winona ad was bizarre and smug. I’d hoped it would highlight Winona’s assets; e.g., the bluffs, the river, the Mankato Bar–but no such luck.
Hi, Joe. You didn’t miss much. The cringe was strong from the very first ads. My original intention with this blog post was to do a mini-review and rating for every single Super Bowl ad. But after watching the first two commercials, I knew I didn’t have the stomach.
That said, I like the WeatherTech ad for a couple of reasons.
First is its heart-warming story. Scout, the unofficial mascot of WeatherTech, appeared in an ad during last year’s Super Bowl. Then he developed a tumor on his heart. With only a 1-percent chance of survival, Scout received treatment from the University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine. Now, he is nearly cancer-free.
Scout’s owner, WeatherTech CEO David MacNeil, was so moved that he wanted to celebrate Scout and the UW’s veterinary work in a Super Bowl ad this year.
As an idea for an ad, it sure beats people dancing like morons for tax software.
Which is why the ad went viral. Even if it doesn’t do much for WeatherTech, the ad has generated thousands of dollars in much-needed donations to the School of Veterinary Medicine. That’s good news for animals and the people who love them.
SO much better than dumb ads hawking candy bars and sugar water.
Thanks for writing, and great to hear from you!