Vanderbilt Marketing Professor Steve Posavac says the 2013 Super Bowl offered some interesting ads — lots of very good ones, and more than a handful of very bad ones.
Here are Steve’s winners:
Go Daddy. Working in tandem, Go Daddy’s two ads accomplished three things for their brand: (a) The Bar Rafeli ad in the first quarter succeeded at associating Go Daddy with both sexy and smart. (b) The second ad in the second quarter was clever, and establishes a motivation to act now and register one’s idea for a web name before someone else does. (c) Danica Patrick was again effective as a celebrity spokesperson, and helps to differentiate and position the Go Daddy brand. Bottom line – I think Go Daddy’s investment will pay off both in web traffic as well as sales.
Oreo. The ad was truly creative, and the idea of a massive brawl in a library conducted while whispering is genius. The ad succeeds at reminding consumers just how good Oreos are – because of both the cookie and the cream.
And the losers:
Gildan. This t-shirt maker’s effort was awful, especially because they created a teaser as well as an ad. First, people don’t buy t-shirts because of the maker. Second, there is no reason given for why Gildan would be someone’s favorite t-shirt. Third, the teaser and ad together makes no sense from a narrative perspective (what’s up with the cat?). Gildan should have saved their money.
Mercedes-Benz. Mercedes created two trailers, and followed them up with an ad that consumers were eagerly anticipating. The ad succeeded at creating one new brand association with Mercedes – that it’s cheap. This seems like branding lunacy. The story is great, and the ad itself was well done from a story telling perspective. It just delivered the wrong message.