If you're looking for any really deep thoughts, then you've come to the wrong place. However, if you're looking for simple opinions on ordinary, mundane things, then you've come to the right place.
I have no real use for televised sporting events, so excuse me if I didn't really watch the Super Bowl (okay, Denver won, but I was only watching because my parents were busy and wanted to know the final score). I did, however, pay attention to the commercials that funded the television broadcast. Hey, $1.6 million for 30 seconds of air time? That's big bucks! Or was it for 60 seconds? That's still big bucks!
This year I don't think I saw anything with extensive staying power. Sure, we might see ad campaigns based on commercials launched during the Super Bowl, but they probably won't last until next year. There was always something missing. Something that would appeal to those controlling the funds and that would remain in their minds.
One thing that would virtually ensure consumer interest is the "cuteness factor". You know, how visually and aesthetically appealing the commercial is? Now, take the Coca-Cola advertising campaign. The Coca-Cola polar bears first appeared on air several years ago, and I think I remember it starting with only one grown bear. Then two cubs were added, and with such antics as struggling to bring a Christmas tree home involved Coca-Cola probably hooked any viewer that can remember being young and trying to do something beyond his or her capabilities. Now they have a commercial with a bottle of Coca-Cola being the enticement to lure a young polar bear into the cold water and another with a seal (who, by the way, are often the prey of polar bears) who helps a cub and receives a bottle of Coca-Cola in return. There's never any voice that comes out and says "Drink Coke", yet the commercials must be working because Coca-Cola keeps making new ones that are still as enjoyable to watch as they first were.
Another successful advertising campaign is the M&Ms one. I suppose it is the "personification factor" that's at work here. I can remember the "melts in your mouth, not in your hand" campaign, but I find this new one much more memorable. Watching Red Chocolate and Yellow Peanut getting into one situation after another is really captivating. Then, there's also Blue Almond and the Green female Chocolate (or is she supposed to be Peanut Butter?) to watch. The introduction of the M&M Minis added another variable to this already amazing family of M&Ms, and now they're adding the Beige Crispy one, too! The celebrities guests in many of the commercials is an added plus which certainly draws its fare share of consumers. And do you remember the Christmas commercial where Red and Yellow encounter no less than Santa Claus? Stupendous! And I don't think the Mars Corporation needs to worry about coming up with new products every year to keep drawing new consumers in. Just put the M&Ms into new amusing situations!
Then, there's also the "brevity factor". If you were to watch a commercial about some new life insurance policy, how likely is it that you'd remember everything that happened from the beginning of the commercial to the end when they give you the phone number to call? Not likely, I'd imagine. But, if the entire commercial consisted of nothing more than three syllables repeated at regular intervals, would you remember that? "Bud." "Weis." "Er." I would, and I have. Those frogs have been croaking for at least several years now, and I'm sure they'll continue croaking for a while longer. I'm not an advocate for drinking, but you have to admit that those frogs are memorable. One of the Budweiser commercials also used the cuteness factor...sort of. Remember the one where the frogs ride in on the crocodillian (I'm not sure if it was a crocodile or an alligator) and leave with a jaunty step with the cooler on their ride's back? That was sort of cute, wasn't it? Unfortunately, I think Budweiser made a mistake trying to introduce the chameleons. The chameleons added dialogue to the commercial which seemed more or less irrelevant and drew attention away from the frogs and hence, the product. Now, I don't know if Budweiser has a light beer--or any other special brew--or not, but if they do, then maybe they could have used the chameleon to add "Light" after the frogs did their thing. Well, maybe next time.
In case you haven't noticed, all the advertising campaigns involve food (or drink) of some sort. That's probably because more people are going to think about buying food (or drink) than finding new jobs, worrying about life insurance policies, buying encyclopedias, or subscribing to a new long-distance plan, especially if they already have those things and are happy with them. But food (and drink) is a necessity for life, so of course they're going to pay more attention to commercials about food, especially if those commercials involve products that will facilitate meal preparation (think Campbell's soup commercials) or occupy and satisfy children's tastes (think Kellogg's, Post's, General Mills' breakfast foods, Nestle Quik, Reese's Peanut Butter Cups, etc.).
I did see one commercial during the Super Bowl that might endure. That was the one with the two Dalmatians, the fire truck, and the Clydesdale-drawn Budweiser cart. It was cute and, incidentally, well-timed since Disney is rereleasing the animated 101 Dalmatians. It was sort of long, however, and took a while to get to the point of the story. If Budweiser can find a way to shorten the commercial but not lose any of its charm, then they have a winner! And while I don't advocate drinking alcohol, I'm all for animals. Gee, maybe that's why I liked the Coca-Cola bears and the Budweiser frogs...
I don't know if this has prompted any deep or interesting thoughts in you, but if you have any questions or comments, don't hesitate to send me an e-mail. I'm generally up for any debate and maybe--just maybe--we can start some sort of regular exchange of thoughts.
Comments? Suggestions? E-mail me with your words of wisdom. I'm up for a hearty e-mail debate if you are!